[Senate Hearing 108-714]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-714
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND
FOREST BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 738 S. 1614
S. 2221 S. 2253
S. 2334 S. 2408
S. 2622
__________
JULY 21, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
97-298 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.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
Judith K. Pensabene, 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 R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon RON WYDEN, Oregon
JON KYL, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina
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
Scott Miller, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Acevado-Vila, Anibal, Resident Commissioner, Puerto Rico......... 47
Amador, Don, Western Representative, BlueRibbon Coalition,
Oakley, CA..................................................... 36
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 2
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California................ 5
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 4
Calvert, Chad, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 17
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 27
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from New York......... 46
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho....................... 1
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 45
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 3
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...................... 10
Pope, Art, Director, Northwest Youth Corps, Eugene, OR........... 30
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 26
Thompson, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Representative from California......... 6
Woolley, John, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, District 3,
Eureka, CA..................................................... 34
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 49
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 55
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND FOREST BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. The subcommittee will come to order.
Senator Boxer, Congressman Mike Thompson, please be seated
if you would.
Good afternoon everyone. I want to thank each and all of
you for coming to the hearing today. I am happy to see so many
of our colleagues and hope that others will join us. I also
want to thank Senator Bingaman, our Energy and Natural
Resources Committee ranking member, for coming to the hearing
today on these issues. We have quite a list to cover.
I know many of you have statements that you will want to
make. We would hope you can keep them brief. We will enter them
into the record.
Likewise, I would like to welcome the three witnesses who
have traveled to Washington, D.C. to testify.
Finally, I want to welcome our witnesses from the
administration to testify on these seven bills.
Today we will be hearing testimony on seven bills,
including: S. 738, Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein's bill
to designate certain public lands in the Humboldt, Del Norte,
Mendocino, Lake, Napa, and Yolo Counties in the State of
California as wilderness and to designate certain segments of
the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California as wild
and scenic;
S. 1614, Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray's bill to
designate a portion of the White Salmon River as a component of
the National Wild and Scenic River System;
S. 2221, Senator Smith and Senator Wyden's bill to
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell and/or exchange
certain national forest lands in the State of Oregon and to
correct a wilderness boundary that cutoff access to 12 miles of
forest system roads in the Umpqua National Forest;
S. 2253, Senator Feinstein and Senator Domenici's bill to
permit young adults to perform projects to prevent fire and
suppress fires and provide disaster relief on public lands
through a Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps;
S. 2334, Senator Clinton and Senator Schumer's bill to
designate certain National Forest System lands in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National
Wilderness Preservation System;
S. 2408, Senator Burns' bill to adjust the boundaries of
the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in
the State of Montana; and S. 2622, Senator Bingaman and Senator
Domenici's bill to provide for a land exchange to benefit the
Pecos National Historic Park in New Mexico.
Due to the large number of bills today, I would ask all of
the committee members to make their statements as short as
possible. I will be making an effort to enforce the 5-minute
rule on the clock in relation to oral statements so that if
there are any questions, we can move to them. I would want to
comment about some of the bills to be heard today.
Once again, we will be asked to address the question of
authorizing wilderness areas that are in some instances
substantially eroded. I want each of you to understand that my
interest in this issue is centered around what to do with the
bridges and drainage structures to be abandoned and how fire
protection will be impacted if and when these roads are
abandoned or obliterated and removed. I think we do future
generations a great disservice if we do not put into place
mechanisms for dealing with these roads, bridges, and culvert
failures that could occur. It is not a question of whether
these bridges or culverts will fail. It is a question of what
we will do about them when they fail under the right
circumstances. Will we have a mechanism in place to immediately
go in and clean up the mess or will we let them cause resource
damage in the streams and rivers and further endanger or put at
risk salmon populations that depend on these rivers?
Senator Wyden is not here, so let me start with my
colleague, Senator Bingaman. Do you have any opening comments
you would like to make?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, very briefly. I thank you
for holding this hearing. You have done a good job of
summarizing all of the various bills being considered.
S. 2622, which Senator Domenici and I have introduced,
related to the Pecos National Historic Park and the exchange of
land there, is of particular interest to me. I also have a few
questions about some of the others.
Thank you again for having the hearing.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Just a couple of statements, Mr.
Chairman, because I know Senator Boxer and Congressman Thompson
will give the majority of the testimony.
But I would just like to submit to the committee some
pictures of the area that this involves.
I would like you to know that we have done our due
diligence on this bill. I have very strong private property
rights. We consulted on inholders, tried to reach every
inholder we could. We talked with the boards of supervisors in
the area. We have reviewed any potential impact of the
wilderness designation with various local people.
I think there is one point I want to mention and that, of
course, is hazardous fuels reduction. We all know that forest
fires are on the way up. I think it is like from 1.9 million
acres burned in America last year to something like 4.5 million
this year. So it is a 400 percent increase already this year.
The limits on forest reduction projects in wilderness areas are
legally unclear, and I think a wilderness bill should take care
to avoid preventing needed and feasible hazardous fuel
reduction projects, particularly those near communities.
Now, we have reviewed all of the areas with the Forest
Service, the Bureau, staff from Mike Thompson's and Senator
Boxer's office, and the Campaign for America's Wilderness. At
the end of this review, it was agreed to exclude the 4,000-acre
Orleans area so the Forest Service can treat hazardous fuels in
an area next to the town. We are in continuing discussions with
the Hupa about whether any boundary adjustments are needed in
the wilderness area next to their reservation. But the Hupas
have expressed no specific concerns about the bill.
Bottom line, I think it is a very good bill. I am very
happy to support it. I think if there are any inholder or other
problems that come up, we can work them out.
Let me say one other thing about the Youth Corps bill, if I
might.
Senator Craig. Please do.
Senator Feinstein. You and I and Senator Bingaman as well
worked on Healthy Families.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. Healthy Forests Initiative.
Senator Craig. Well, we do know that healthy forests make
healthy families. There you have got it.
Senator Feinstein. Right. The thrust of this bill is
something that I started over 20 years ago, which was the first
urban conservation corps in America, and that is to take young
people, aged 16 to 23, enable them to do some of the prevention
work. The bill language says fire suppression, and I know the
Forest Service has some concern with them doing fire
suppression. I think we should delete that, but certainly
cleaning out areas under supervision, learning some of these
trades could well be not only job-productive for these
youngsters, but also very helpful as we move aggressively to
clean up some of these areas.
Senator Craig. Well, I appreciate your sensitivity to that.
I think potentially in a non-adult status, younger than 18
years of age, we obviously run into the liability question that
we would have to be sensitive to.
Senator Burns, any opening comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. I do, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing. I will just comment on S. 2408 which is on the
calendar today.
This bill adjusts the boundaries of Helena, Lolo, and
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in my home State of
Montana. For Helena and the Lolo National Forests, these
adjustments are necessary to continue the community-based
Blackfoot community project. They call it the Blackfoot
Challenge. This community-driven project is a collaborative
effort supported by local residents, the elected officials,
State and Federal agencies, and others who care about the
future of the Blackfoot Valley.
By the way, this is the area of the book and the movie, A
River Runs Through It, up in that part of the world.
This is a home-grown effort on the grazers, the ranchers,
the people of Plum Creek Lumber who want these acres set aside,
and they are selling some of it to the ranchers and some of it
to the Forest Service, extending boundaries and blocking up
some land. So it has taken a couple of years to get this done
to get it to this point.
It will finally result in the Federal ownership and
management of 88,000 acres of land. So it was a fairly good
project. And that Blackfoot River watershed. The project will
protect lifestyles of the large, intact landscape. That
supports agriculture. It supports timber harvesting,
recreation, and natural resources that are important both
locally and nationally.
The project will provide a model for forest management in
the West by creating a private/public partnership to manage the
portion of the Blackfoot watershed as a community forest for
sustainable timber products, other natural resource benefits,
but particularly in the watershed.
The local community has requested the Forest Service to
acquire lands outside the existing national forest boundary to
ensure continued public uses of these lands, including public
access for recreation, hunting, livestock grazing, and
watershed protection.
The end result of this boundary adjustment will be
consolidated ownership and improved forest management. The
boundary adjustment on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
reflects the changes in the forest that result in a watershed
conservation project completed in 2003. About 11,000 acres of
watershed property that is currently adjacent to the forest
will be more accurately classified as existing within the
forest boundary.
The Forest Service purchased the property in partnership
with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The county
commissioners, local public conservation and sportsmen groups
all have supported this project.
Mr. Chairman, I also welcome Mark Rey here today and we
will be talking more about this. But this is a home-grown
solution to an area that is very, very sensitive.
I thank you for holding this hearing.
Senator Craig. Senator Burns, thank you very much.
Now let us turn to our colleagues both in the Senate and
the House, and I will turn to you first, Senator Boxer. Welcome
before the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
try to speak fast and spare you a lot of words because I think
the photos will speak better than I could ever speak.
I want to thank you so much. I want to thank Senator
Feinstein for all her hard work in making this bill a really
great bill. Of course, you are going to meet shortly a
wonderful Congressman, Congressman Mike Thompson, who has
worked so many hours on this bill.
I know that you know because you come from such a beautiful
State, Mr. Chairman, that California is blessed with varied
landscapes of magnificent beauty, and we all want to ensure
that our children and our grandchildren get to see it the way
God gave it to us. I think that this bill is a small but
important step in protecting some of these areas.
Our bill will designate nearly 300,000 acres of the most
magnificent lands in northwestern California as wilderness. We
are going to show you some photos here. I know Senator
Feinstein has done it in small pictures. But some of the areas
protected by the bill include Mount Lassic, which offers
breathtaking views of the coastal range in Humboldt County,
King Range, which has the longest, undeveloped stretch of beach
and coastal bluffs in the United States outside of Alaska; Snow
Mountain in Lake County, which has 10 miles of scenic canyon,
beautiful oak groves and ancient pine forests. We are moving
fast here. The beautiful Yuki Wilderness in Mendocino and Lake
Counties. This is just a small sample of what I could have
brought to you.
The bill would also designate 21 miles of the Black Butte
River as wild and scenic. The Black Butte River provides some
of the best habitat for endangered salmon and endangered trout.
Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Feinstein alluded to her work
in trying to make sure that everyone in this area knew about
the bill and had a chance to tell us if they supported it, if
they objected to it. As local people raised concerns to me and
to her and to Congressman Thompson, we changed our bill to make
the accommodations.
Mr. Chairman, you specifically talked about roads, and I
think when the Congressman speaks to you, he will talk to you
about the number of roads that we actually had in the bill and
then we took them out of the bill because of your concern. I
think you will find we have responded to your concern.
I want to point out that the bill before you has enormous
support, and I would ask unanimous consent to place in the
record just thousands of names on these 8\1/2\ 11
pieces of paper of elected officials in and outside the
congressional district, business community in and outside,
community groups, homeowners. Everybody came together around
this bill, Republicans, Democrats, everybody.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The names have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Craig. Without objection.
Senator Boxer. Again, to stress the negotiation with
Senator Feinstein, as you know, she is diligent. When she gets
involved in something like this, she is going to find out are
there problems with it. She found a few. She talked about one
where the Forest Service was concerned with wildfire management
near the community of Orleans, and we removed 4,000 acres from
the bill. Also again, I will let Congressman Thompson talk
about removal of roads.
So once again, I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, this has
been a long road in putting this together. We hope that this is
one of the final steps. We think that you will support us
because we think we have met your very high bar. And we are
very excited about this bill and hope that we can get it done
before this session is out.
Thank you very much.
Senator Craig. Barbara, thank you very much.
Congressman, we understand that a major portion of this, if
not all of it, is inside your district. So we are pleased you
are over here this afternoon to defend this work product. Mike,
welcome before the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL THOMPSON,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here. I would like unanimous consent to put my full
statement into the record.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.
I have always enjoyed working with you. I think the last time
it was with the salmon habitat bill that we attempted to bring
into law.
I want to thank Senator Boxer for her tremendous leadership
on the issue of wilderness areas throughout California and
Senator Feinstein not only for all of her past work in this
area but for the tremendous amount of help that she has given
us on this particular bill.
You are correct, Mr. Chairman. All of the land in this bill
is in my congressional district. It is all federally owned
property. We are not trying to put any additional property in.
We are just trying to enhance the level of protection that this
land currently enjoys.
I want to make sure that you know that this is more than
just land in my district. I have hiked, hunted, fished, and
toured just about every square inch of this land that is
encompassed in the bill.
We have had public hearings. We have been working 4 years
on putting this together. They have been exhaustive hearings.
We have included every imaginable community of interest,
timber, hunting and fishing interests, conservationists,
government, off-road vehicles, mountain bikes, businesses, and
agriculture. We have been very inclusive in all of our efforts.
Senator Boxer is correct. When we found problems, we have
addressed them. She talked a lot about the roads. Most recently
we found that we had a road that was not an open, legal road
that we gave wilderness protection to, and we found out that
the land managers had opened this. About 3\1/2\ miles of this
road, they reopened it, and it was being used again. This
happened just recently. So we have taken steps to take that out
of the bill. We want to make sure that there are no legal roads
that are closed in this bill.
During the town hall meetings that I had, the first
probably 37 questions that were asked in each place was am I
still going to be able to get into my favorite hunting or my
favorite fishing place, and the answer is yes. We are not
closing any legal roads. We have really gone the distance in
making sure that that takes place.
The photographs that you saw I think are very telling. The
area is absolutely beautiful. It is breathtaking. It needs to
be protected.
But there is also another side to this. This enhanced
protection is going to do more than protect beautiful areas and
ensure that we have pretty pictures. This measure is going to
address the very real economic concerns that face us with
threatened and endangered species. It is not only going to add
protection there to help bring these species back, but it is
also going to protect their habitat. As you know, Mr. Chairman,
this is what we tried to do in our salmon bill.
Senator Feinstein talked about the fire suppression
concerns that folks raised, and that was probably the second
biggest concern that I heard throughout my district. She is
correct. We took added measures. We not only took out the area
around Orleans, we addressed some boundary setback provisions
that provided enhanced fire protection in areas, and we made
sure that there would be nothing in this wilderness bill that
would preclude Interior from being stopped from being able to
do preventive work in regard to fire suppression. So I think
that is an important one to mention.
I also want to talk about the value of this enhanced
protection for water quality. California is known for its water
wars, and there is hardly a thing that happens in California
that does not spill over--no pun intended--to water. This is
one of them. By enhancing the protection in this area, we are
going to make sure that the waters that run through these
properties in the first congressional district of California
will continue to produce good, healthy fisheries. You know, Mr.
Chairman, that these areas were once probably the top producing
salmon waters in the entire United States, and we have seen
this diminish over the years. We have not had a commercial
salmon season in, I think, 13 years on the north coast of
California. We have gone from a regional industry that was
worth about $1.25 billion to an industry now that has lost
7,000 family wage jobs. This bill is important to ensure not
only the health of the rivers that are so important to the
fish, but also to protect other businesses and other industries
that are threatened because of these threatened or endangered
species.
I look forward to working with the committee. I think both
Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein were on point when they
said that we have worked so closely with the communities in
addressing problems. If other problems come about or if other
issues come about, we certainly want to hear about those. We
certainly want to work with them, and we want to make sure that
we enhance this area and also enhance the opportunity for
millions of Americans to enjoy this beautiful area for
generations to come.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Thompson,
U.S. Representative From California, on S. 738
Chairman Craig and Members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on S. 738, the Northern California
Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. I appreciate the Subcommittee's
continuing leadership on public lands issues and look forward to
working with you on this legislation.
I want to specifically thank Senators Boxer and Feinstein for their
leadership and good work on this bill. They carefully helped craft this
bill to address concerns of the communities within California's 1st
Congressional District. I would also like to thank the witnesses who
have taken the time and effort to testify on this measure, many of whom
traveled thousands of miles to be with us today. In particular, I would
like to thank John Woolley, 3rd District Supervisor for Humboldt
County. Supervisor Woolley's ``on the ground'' expertise of Humboldt
County was critically important while crafting this legislation.
CRAFTING OF THE BILL
I have personally invested many hours in the formation of this
bill. I have hiked, fished, hunted and taken aerial tours of the areas
in this legislation. I have also held public hearings with stakeholders
representing timber, hunting and fishing, conservation, government,
off-road vehicle, mountain bike, business and farming. The process has
taken over 4 years, was exhaustive and inclusive.
This legislation would expand wilderness protection on public lands
by approximately 300,000 acres entirely within California's 1st
Congressional District. The legislation is not only important for the
protection of some of my district's most treasured lands, it also
protects the federally threatened and endangered salmon and trout and
helps ensure a source of clean, reliable water for California's future.
ACCESS
With respect to this wilderness legislation, the two most
contentious issues for the constituents of California's 1st
Congressional District were our ability to fight and prevent forest
fires and the continued access to the proposed wilderness areas.
Protecting the rural communities in my district from future
catastrophic fires is incredibly important to me. Senators Boxer and
Feinstein and I took extra precautions to ensure the land managers
would still have the same tools to fight fire and maintain their
ability to apply pre-suppression measures to combat catastrophic fire
in S. 738. I understand Senator Feinstein will go into great detail
about the fire fighting measure we took in this bill, so at this time I
will address access.
I am an avid hunter and angler and have been all my life. Having an
understanding of the land through the eyes of a hunter and angler has
allowed me to be especially cognizant to sportsmen's concerns in this
wilderness proposal.
One of the first questions raised in town hall meetings by
sportsmen while we were crafting this legislation was whether any legal
roads were going to be closed in this proposal. The answer is no. There
will be no legal roads closed by this wilderness legislation.
In cases where once closed roads have been repaired and re-opened
to the public by the land managing agency, we have made changes to the
bill to ensure that these roads will continue to be open. For example,
when we crafted this bill, the Telegraph Ridge Road, just off of Smith-
Etter Road in the King Range, had been closed to the public due to
landslides. It had been closed since 1998. However, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) recently completed repairing Telegraph Ridge road and
opened 3.2 miles to the public on a seasonal basis. After learning
about this, we adjusted the boundaries so the public could continue to
use this road.
We will continue to work with the land managers to make certain
that no other roads would be affected by this proposal. As a sportsman,
I understand how important it is to access these pristine areas and
will continue to make sure that no legal roads will be closed as this
bill moves through your committee and the House of Representatives.
WATER
Water rarely enters into the debate of wilderness protection, but
in California's 1st Congressional District, it is very important.
In California's 1st Congressional District, protecting our
watersheds is immensely important for salmon, steelhead and the
livelihood of our coastal communities. The State or Federal government
has listed most of the salmon and steelhead in Northern California as
either threatened or endangered. These listings have dramatic impacts
on logging, development, fishing, local businesses and our natural
resources.
The fishing communities of Northern California once represented
some of our country's most productive salmon rivers, generating more
than $1.25 billion to the regional economy. But declining fish numbers
and poor water conditions along many of these rivers has forced the
Federal government to all but shut down commercial fishing along
California's North Coast for the last 13 years. This closure has cost
Northern California coastal communities nearly 80% of the region's job
base and over 7,000 family wage jobs.
This bill would protect 10 important headwaters along California's
North Coast. Any disruption of these important headwater areas could
lead to increased sedimentation and decreased shade, which results in
higher stream temperatures and lower summer flows.
Lack of cold-water refuge areas leads to increased stress and risk
of disease to salmon and steelhead.
Protecting these 10 headwaters will help protect these watersheds
and the endangered species. The wilderness protection in this bill
creates important refuges for migrating salmon and steelhead in
California's North Coast and is a vital tool for their recovery.
LOGGING AND JOB CONSIDERATIONS TO THE BILL
Impacts on the once strong logging industry in Northern California
were also taken into consideration in this bill and there are no timber
sales under consideration for any of the public lands in this
legislation. Nowhere could this issue be more important than in Del
Norte County, the northern most county in this proposal, where logging
has been all but shut down.
S. 738 would add approximately 33,750 acres of wilderness to the
existing Siskiyou Wilderness in the Six Rivers National Forest in Del
Norte County. These areas were carefully chosen. Logging has been
prohibited on the proposed Del Norte County wilderness lands since 1991
because they are managed as a National Recreation Area. Because of this
important distinction, and the fact that this area is home to species
like the northern Spotted Owl, fisher, mink, bald eagle and Roosevelt
elk, wilderness was the best choice for protecting this land.
Requests from the environmental community to add 60,000 acres of
wilderness to this bill along the North Fork Smith River roadless area
in Del Norte County were turned down. Over 27 percent of the area they
proposed for wilderness protection is eligible for timber harvest and
wilderness designation would have significantly reduced our ability to
harvest these lands.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important
legislation to protect Northern California's important public lands. I
think the committee will agree that we have carefully crafted this bill
to take all industries and constituencies into account. I look forward
to working with you and the committee as this bill moves forward.
______
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2004.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: Thank you for holding a hearing on the
wilderness bill Senators Feinstein, Boxer and I have introduced (S.
738/H.R. 1501). As you heard from our testimony, this legislation is
important for the economy of Northern California, takes extra
precautions to protect communities from fire and protects California's
listed threatened and endangered species.
I share your concerns about whether there are any existing
culverts, bridges or other obstacles within the proposed wilderness
boundaries of S. 738. Many of these structures inadvertently block
important habitat for trout and salmon. I want to make certain that
either none of these obstacles are within the proposed wilderness areas
or that the land managing agencies have the ability to remove or repair
these barriers.
I also welcome the opportunity to work with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior staff in Washington, DC. We
have been in constant consultation with the local land managers and I
want to make certain the Washington staff is also comfortable with this
proposal.
Again, thank you for your time and careful consideration of this
wilderness legislation. I look forward to working with you. If you or
your staff have any questions or concerns, please contact me anytime.
Sincerely,
Mike Thompson,
Member of Congress,
1st District, California.
Senator Craig. Well, Congressman, thank you. Senator, thank
you. I appreciate it. My first glance at it would indicate that
there has been a lot of due diligence done here. I do not think
there is any question about that, and that is greatly
appreciated because I believe that when we take that extra step
of protecting, we do need to recognize that these are lands
that are unique in their character and deserve this kind of
protection and that we are not just trying to block people out,
but we are working to accommodate human interests while
preserving quality area. It appears that you have made every
effort to do that. We thank you for that.
I do not believe I have any questions of you. Do any of my
colleagues?
Well, thank you very much for being here. We do appreciate
it.
Now let me invite our first panel to come forward: the
Honorable Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture; and Chad Calvert,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals, Department of
the Interior.
Secretary Rey, we will let you lead off please.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FOREST SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will summarize my
written statement and provide that in its entirety for the
record.
Senator Craig. Please do. Of course, your total statements
will become a part of the record.
Mr. Rey. Let me move through these bills as quickly as I
can.
With regard to S. 738, the Northern California Coastal Wild
Heritage Wilderness Act, I will limit my remarks to the
provisions of the bill affecting the Forest Service and I will
go through the bill section by section.
With regard to the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area additions,
the Department is not opposed to the designation of the Bear
Creek and the Deafy Glade units as additions to the Snow
Mountain Wilderness. The Skelton Glade unit has several roads
running through it, which compromise wilderness attributes and
hinder manageability. In addition, designation would complicate
and hinder habitat improvement work for the Tule elk and
hazardous fuel management in order to protect the adjacent
refuge late successional reserve.
The Department does not support the designation as proposed
of the Sanhedrin Wilderness Area as the proposed designation
would complicate and hinder habitat and risk management of the
Sanhedrin late successional reserve.
The Department is not opposed to the designation of the
Yuki Wilderness Area as proposed.
The Department is not opposed to the designation of the
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness if boundary adjustments to
the proposed area additions could be made to avoid the road
cherry-stemming, as described in my testimony.
The Department does not support the designation of the Mad
River Buttes Wilderness Area as proposed. The area is very
small. It is bordered on three sides by private land, and the
opportunity for solitude and primitive recreation is low due to
the small size of the area.
The Department is not opposed to the designation of
Siskiyou Wilderness Area additions if the modifications to the
boundaries are adjusted to better follow land features to
enhance manageability.
The Department does not support the designation of the
Mount Lassic Wilderness Area. This area is bisected by three
major roads with moderate, dispersed motorized recreation
presently occurring. A statewide designated California back
country motorized route traverses the area. This is a State of
California back country motorized route designation.
The Department would not support the designation of the
Orleans Mountain portion as an addition to the Trinity Alps
Wilderness. The Department is not opposed to the Horse Linto,
East Fork, and Red Cap additions if boundary adjustments would
be made to facilitate the removal of hazard trees where roads
border the proposed wilderness.
The Department does not support the designation as proposed
of the Underwood Wilderness Area. The area is located adjacent
to the 1.5 mile threat zone for a community at risk for
catastrophic wildfire.
The Department is not opposed to the designation as
proposed of the Black Butte River Wild and Scenic River
designation.
The Department would like the opportunity to work with the
bill sponsors and the committee and the Department of the
Interior on the submission of amendments dealing with fire
management activities and fire use, as the Forest Service
already has developed protocols for delegating responses during
a fire emergency. So with these changes, I think the bill could
be made one that the administration would not oppose.
The Department supports S. 2334, the Caribbean National
Forest Act of 2004.
The Department supports enactment of S. 1614, the Upper
White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The Department supports passage of S. 2408, the Montana
National Forests Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004.
The Department supports with a few technical amendments S.
2221, the Umpqua National Forest Land Management Act of 2004.
The Department supports the passage of S. 2622, the Pecos
National Historic Park Land Exchange with a few technical
amendments.
The Department is supportive of the concepts embodied in S.
2253, the Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps Act of 2004,
particularly the recognition of the importance of the work
conducted by State departments of natural resources,
departments of agriculture, and forestry departments. We do
have some concerns with the bill that we would like further
consideration by the committee to address. As you are well
aware, firefighting is an arduous and dangerous job that
requires a certain amount of maturity, decision-making
capability, and perspective in order to perform safely. Federal
firefighting agencies recognize that this level of maturity
cannot be expected of 16 and 17 year olds, and through policy
and regulation will not place these individuals in hazardous
roles. Therefore, we have significant concerns, as Senator
Feinstein previously indicated, with the inclusion of people of
this age in the firefighting positions.
That concludes my summary testimony on each of the measures
before the committee. I would be happy to respond to any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources,
National Forest System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture,
on S. 738, S. 2334, S. 1614, S. 2408, S. 2221, S. 2622, S. 2253
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to provide the Department's views on: S. 738 to designate certain
public lands in the State of California as wilderness; S. 2334 to
designate certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness Preservation
System; S. 1614 to designate portions of the Upper White Salmon River
in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area as either a wild or a
scenic river; S. 2221 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell
or exchange certain National Forest System lands in the State of
Oregon; S. 2408 to adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo and
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana, and S.
2253 to permit young adults to perform projects to prevent and suppress
fires, and provide disaster relief on public land through a Healthy
Forest Youth Conservation Corps.
s. 738--northern california coastal wild heritage wilderness act
I will limit my remarks to the provisions of the bill related to
lands managed by the US Forest Service and will defer to the Department
of Interior on provisions relating to the Bureau of Land Management
managed lands.
S. 738 would designate certain public lands in Humboldt, Del Norte,
Mendocino, Lake, Napa, and Yolo Counties in the State of California as
wilderness and to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River
in Mendocino County,
California as a wild and scenic river. In furtherance of the
purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), this bill
would designate as wilderness, 109,670 acres in the Mendocino National
Forest and 85,040 acres in the Six Rivers National Forest in the State
of California, as components of the National Wilderness Preservation
System (NWPS) or as additions to existing components of the NWPS. S.
738 would also designate 3 sections (21 miles) of the Black Butte River
in California as part of the Wild and Scenic River system.
The following briefly describes each of the proposed wilderness
designations:
Snow Mountain Wilderness (SNW) Area Addition (Mendocino
NF)--20,960 acres of National Forest System lands would be
designated as wilderness. As proposed, the Bear Creek and Deafy
Glade Units would make good additions to the existing SNWA
given their remoteness and opportunity for solitude. However,
as proposed, the Skelton Glade Unit has several roads running
through it which compromise wilderness attributes and hinder
manageability. In addition designation would complicate and
hinder habitat improvement for Tule Elk and hazardous fuel
management in order to protect adjacent Refuge Late
Successional Reserve. The Department is not opposed to the
designation of the Bear Creek and Deafy Glade Units as
additions to the SNW.
Sanhedrin Wilderness Area-Proposed (Mendocino NF)--10,196
acres of National Forest System lands would be designated as
wilderness. As proposed designation would complicate and hinder
habitat and risk management of the Sanhedrin Late Succesional
Reserve. The Department does not support the designation as
proposed.
Yuki Wilderness Area-Proposed (Mendocino NF)--approximately
35,000 acres of National Forest System lands would be
designated as wilderness. The current Mendocino Forest Plan
direction assigned management area prescriptions of Back
Country and wilderness to this area. The Department is not
opposed to the designation of the Yuki Wilderness Area as
proposed.
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness (YBMEW) Area Additions
(Mendocino NF)--25,980 acres on National Forest System lands
would be designated as wilderness. The Smokehouse Unit portion
of the YBMEW addition contains important late successional
habitat for connectivity from the Buttermilk Late Successional
Reserve and the existing Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness. In
addition, the Smokehouse Unit has high scenic quality. The Eel
River Unit portion of the YBMEW is proposed with extensive
``cherry stemming'' of roads on the west side of the Middle
Fork Eel River which compromise wilderness attributes and
manageability in the center of the unit. The area west of road
24N21 has high scenic quality and the current Mendocino Forest
Plan direction assigned a management area prescription of Back
Country Area to a portion of the area. The Department is not
opposed to the designation if boundary adjustments to the
proposed YBMEW Area
Additions could be made to avoid the road ``cherry stemming'' as
described above.
Mad River Buttes Wilderness Area-Proposed (Six-Rivers NF)--
5,740 acres of National Forest System lands would be designated
as wilderness. The Six River Forest Plan management area
prescription for the area is Late Successional Reserve and
Adaptive Management. The area is bordered on 3 sides by private
land which hinders manageability. The opportunity for solitude
and primitive recreation is low due to the small size of the
area. Most existing trails are on ridges which have little
vegetative screening and allow view of adjacent cutover non-
federal land. The Department does not support designation as
proposed.
Siskiyou Wilderness Area Additions-Proposed (Six Rivers
NF)--42,190 acres of National Forest System lands would be
designated as wilderness. The Six Rivers Forest Plan management
area prescription for the area is Late Successional Reserve and
Matrix in the southern portion. The northern portion is within
the Smith River National Recreation Upper South Fork management
Area, where emphasis is on wild river and roadless back-country
recreation. The terrain is very steep and rugged with numerous
important cultural sites found in the area. The naturalness of
the area has been modified very little. The Department is not
opposed to the designation if modifications of boundaries to
better follow land features could be made to enhance
manageability.
Mt. Lassic Wilderness Area-Proposed (Six Rivers NF)--7,100
acres of National Forest System lands would be designated as
wilderness. The Six Rivers Forest Plan management area
prescription for the area is Late Successional Reserve. The
Forest Fire Plan identified this as a Resource Priority Fuel
Treatment Area that showed high to very high susceptibility to
stand replacing fire. This area is bisected by three major
roads with moderate dispersed motorized recreation presently
occurring. A state wide designated California Back Country
motorized route traverses the area. The Department does not
support the designation as proposed.
Trinity Alps Wilderness Area Addition-Proposed (Six Rivers
NF)--26,510 acres of National Forest System land would be
designated as wilderness. The Six River Forest Plan management
area prescription for the area is Late Successional Reserve.
The natural integrity of the Horse Linto, East Fork and Red Cap
portions have all generally been maintained and offer an
opportunity for solitude and remoteness. These areas burned
during the Megram Fire. The Orleans Mountain portion of the
area is not contiguous to the Trinity Alps Wilderness Area and
is located approximately six miles southeast from the town of
Orleans (a Community at Risk). The area has been altered by
land management practices. The Department would not support the
designation of the Orleans Mountain portion as an addition to
the Trinity Alps Wilderness. The Department is not opposed to
the Horse Linto, East Fork and Red Cap additions if boundary
adjustment would be made to facilitate the removal of hazard
trees where roads border the proposed wilderness.
Underwood Wilderness Area-Proposed (Six Rivers NF)--3,500
acres of National Forest System Lands would be designated as
wilderness. The Six Rivers Forest Plan management area
prescription for the area is Adaptive Management Area and is
located adjacent to the 1.5 mile threat zone for a Community at
Risk. Approximately one-third of the western portion of the
area is currently managed under a wild river designation
(Trinity River). The Department does not support the
designation as proposed.
The Black Butte River Wild and Scenic River Designation
(Mendocino NF)--16.0 miles of the Black Butte River and 1.5
miles of its tributary Cold Creek would be designated as a wild
river. 3.5 miles of the Black Butte River would be designated
as a scenic river. The 1995 Mendocino Forest Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement found the Black Butte River
eligible for designation and recommended 21.6 miles as wild and
scenic river due to its outstanding cultural and fisheries
habitat resources. The Department is not opposed to the
designation as proposed.
In addition, the Department would also like the opportunity to work
with the bill sponsors, the committee, and the Department of the
Interior on the submission of amendments dealing with fire management
activities and fire use as the Forest Service already has developed
protocols for delegating responses during a fire emergency.
Sections 102(o) and 210(d) would require the Secretary, upon
request of an Indian tribe or Indian religious community, to
temporarily close to the general public the use of portions of areas
designated by the bill to protect the privacy of traditional cultural
and religious activities in the area by members of the Indian Tribe or
Indian religious community. We have several concerns with this
provision. The provision removes the discretion of the Secretary to
determine whether the requested closure is appropriate. The lack of
discretion is inconsistent with the approach used in existing statutory
authorizing temporary closure to certain federal lands, such as the
Jemez National Recreation Area on the Santa Fe National Forest for
exclusive use by Indian Tribes for traditional and cultural purposes.
We believe a more effective approach will be included in forthcoming
tribal authorities legislation that is proposed in the President's FY
2005 Budget. We will be sending this proposed legislation in the near
future. In addition, we understand the Department of Justice would like
to consult with the committee and bill sponsors regarding
constitutional issues related to sections 102(o) and 210(d). We also
would like to work with the committee, bill sponsors and the Department
of Interior on amendments that address additional concerns we have with
the above mentioned sections.
Finally, the Department would also like the opportunity to work
with the sponsors and the committee on the submission of amendments
pertaining to Titles II and III in the bill which would require a fire
management plan and report on the cultural and historical resources
within the Black Butte River segments designated in the bill to insure
these provisions are aligned with current policies and laws and are not
duplicative.
S. 2334--CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST ACT OF 2004
S. 2334 would designate approximately 10,000 acres of land in the
Caribbean National Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as the El Toro Wilderness and as a
component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The
Department supports S. 2334.
The bill would provide that designation of the Wilderness shall not
preclude within the area's boundaries: installation and maintenance of
hydrologic, meteorological, climatological, or atmospheric data
collection and transmission facilities when they are essential to the
scientific research purposes of the Luquillo Experimental Forest.
The Caribbean National Forest encompasses over 28,000 acres of
land, making it the largest block of public land on the Island of
Puerto Rico. The Forest, locally known as El Yunque, is one of the most
popular recreation sites in Puerto Rico and the National Forest System.
Almost a million tourists, from Puerto Rico, the U.S. mainland, and
abroad experience this tropical rain forest environment each year.
It is the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest System
and the most accessible in the world. It is also home to the Puerto
Rican parrot, one of the 10 most endangered birds in the world, and
nearly 240 species of trees and 120 terrestrial animals--four of which
are also listed as endangered species.
The 1997 revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Caribbean National Forest/Luquillo Experimental Forest recommended
wilderness designation for the 10,000-acre El Toro area. We believe the
designation of the El Toro Wilderness would enhance the areas solitude,
scenery and pristine qualities of the area. The El Toro Wilderness
would become the only tropical forest in the National Forest Wilderness
System and the only wilderness area in Puerto Rico.
S. 1614--UPPER WHITE SALMON WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
This bill would amend section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) to designate portions of the Upper White Salmon
River in the State of Washington as a component of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System. The four segments that the bill would
designate are located on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and
include 6.7 miles in the Mt. Adams Wilderness, classified as wild and
13.3 miles classified as scenic for a total of 20 miles. The Department
supports S. 1614.
The Forest Service conducted a study of the Upper White Salmon
River and its tributary, Cascade Creek, as directed by the Columbia
River Gorge National Scenic Act (16 U.S.C. 544 et seq.) and determined
their eligibility for designation as a component of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System. The ``Upper White Salmon River Wild and
Scenic River Study Report and Final Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement'' (July 1997) recommended the entire 38.4 miles of the Upper
White Salmon (including Cascade Creek) be added to the System. The
recommended segments of the Upper White Salmon River possess
outstanding wildlife, scenery, geology and hydrology, and are highly
qualified for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Although the bill does not designate the 18.4 mile segment of river
from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest boundary to the confluence
with Gilmer Creek, which is bounded by non-federal lands, section 4
does not limit the suitability of this segment for future designation.
S. 2408--MONTANA NATIONAL FORESTS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2004
S. 2408 would extend the forest boundary of the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest to include a recent acquisition contiguous to
the forest boundary that occurred over a 3-year period from 2001
through 2003. S. 2408 also would extend the forest boundary of both the
Lolo and Helena National Forests to provide for future land
acquisitions in the Blackfoot River Valley. The Department supports S.
2334.
The bill would realize an estimated net increase of 6,193 acres
within the Helena National Forest, 16,121 acres within the Lolo
National Forest, and 11,727 acres within the Deerlodge National Forest.
Inclusion of these lands within the boundaries of these three
national forests will clarify management of the lands acquired,
simplify boundary management, and allow for the use of the Land and
Water Conservation fund, outside the existing boundaries, for future
acquisitions if land is offered for sale to the United States and if
Congress should choose to fund any such purchase. There is substantial
local community and county support for these boundary changes.
The Department would like to work with the Committee to make a
minor technical change to the name of the map referenced in section
2(2)(C). Although the map is entitled ``Blackfoot Community Project
Acquisition Proposal Adjustments, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
. . .'', the proposed boundary adjustment on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest is not associated with the proposed Blackfoot Community
Project acquisition. Consequently, the name of the map should be
entitled ``Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Boundary Adjustment.''
S. 2221--THE UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2004
S. 2221 would authorize the Secretary to sell or exchange certain
National Forest System land in the State of Oregon. Specifically, this
bill authorizes for sale or exchange administrative sites, including
the Roseburg Service Center (approximately 2.92 acres), the Roseburg
Powder House (approximately 1.34 acres) and the Brown Residences
(approximately 2.35 acres). All of these sites are currently in use by
the Forest Service but are no longer efficient for current agency
needs. The Department supports S. 2221.
As S. 2221 illustrates, the Department has a number of facilities
and appurtenant administrative land excess to agency needs. The FY 2005
Budget contains a proposal for the establishment of a Facilities
Acquisition and Enhancement Fund that would enable the Secretary to
sell such units excess to need and to utilize proceeds from those sales
for the acquisition or development of land and improvements for
administrative consolidations while improving efficiencies through the
reconstruction of functionally obsolete facilities or construction of
new facilities. To this end, the Department will submit legislation
concerning this Fund in the near future. In this context, then the
Department supports S. 2221.
In section 3(i) Disposition of Proceeds, would allow the agency to
retain proceeds from a sale or exchange and use them towards ``the
acquisition or rehabilitation of existing facilities or construction of
new facilities in Umpqua National Forest in the State''. We would
recommend changing ``in Umpqua National Forest in the State'' to ``for
the Umpqua National Forest in the State'' in order to facilitate the
office collocation with the Bureau of Land Management office in
Roseburg. Additional administrative facilities would be developed for
the collocated offices and warehouses at the existing BLM site.
S. 2221 would also correct an unanticipated problem generated when
the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness was initially designated. The
original legal description, prepared in accordance with the map of
record at the time of designation, inadvertently resulted in a short
segment of Forest Service Road No. 2947-300 being within the Rogue
Umpqua Divide Wilderness by approximately 20 feet. This has resulted in
the closure of the road which is necessary to access National Forest
System land beyond the area where the road is within the wilderness
area. The small portion of land cut off by the road, which is
designated as wilderness, clearly has no wilderness character. When the
road is opened for short-term local emergencies (wildland fire
suppression) there is an automatic conflict with wilderness management.
S. 2221 would make a technical correction to the wilderness
boundary by slightly modifying the boundary so that (1) the road is
outside the wilderness by removing approximately 1.3 acres from the
wilderness, and (2) by adding approximately 1.3 acres of land with
wilderness character to the wilderness to offset the removal.
S. 2622--PECOS NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK LAND EXCHANGE
The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
approximately 160 acres located in the Santa Fe National Forest in New
Mexico to private landowners in exchange for 154 acres owned by the
landowners within the Pecos National Historic Park that would be
conveyed to the Secretary of the Interior.
The 160 acres of National Forest System land to be conveyed are
located on top of Glorieta Mesa and have been identified in the Forest
Plan as base for exchange; however, this land was recommended for
exchange to facilitate the acquisition of other desirable property for
National Forest purposes within the Santa Fe National Forest. The
federal parcel is undeveloped and has relatively gentle topography.
The Department would not oppose the bill if amended to clarify
several points. We have concerns regarding potential complications that
could arise as this transaction proceeds and would like to understand
the committee's intent as to how these should be resolved. We would
like the opportunity to work with the committee, bill sponsors and the
National Park Service on amendments to clarify expectations relative to
the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act and other
applicable laws.
Although not specifically stated, the exchange would be subject to
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The National
Forest System lands have not been surveyed for cultural resources. If,
after survey, resources are found, the exchange would be subject to
Sec. 110(b) of NHPA, which would require that data recovery precede
conveyance. The legislation should identify who would be responsible
for the data recovery costs in the event resources are found.
Appraisals would be submitted only to the Secretary of Interior for
approval. We recommend an amendment to the legislation that requires
joint approval by both the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture.
If there is mutual valuation approval, we recommend the USDA and USDOI
jointly and mutually secure a title policy, select an appraiser
agreeable to both agencies, jointly develop appraisal instructions and
jointly review and approve the appraisal.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee, the sponsors, and
the National Park Service on amendments to this bill to ensure that the
final bill language reflects the needs and interests of all parties to
the exchange.
S. 2253--HEALTHY FOREST YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS ACT OF 2004
S. 2253 would establish a Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps
and would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with
existing state, local, non-profit conservation corps, or Indian Tribe
or state natural resources, agriculture, or forestry departments, to
carry out projects to prevent fire and suppress fires, rehabilitate
public land affected or altered by fires, and provide disaster relief.
The bill directs the Secretaries to give priority to certain projects,
including those that will: (1) reduce hazardous fuels on public lands;
(2) restore public land affected or imminently threatened by disease or
insect infestation; (3) rehabilitate public land affected or altered by
fires; (4) assess public land at a high risk of reburn; and (5) address
public land located near a municipal watershed and water supply.
The Department is supportive of concepts embodied in S. 2253,
particularly the recognition of the importance of the work conducted by
state natural resources, agriculture, and forestry departments, and we
recognize the values associated with providing opportunities for youth
corps to be more proactive in healthy forest work. We would however,
like to bring to the Committee some issues the Department has
identified with S. 2253 that may require further consideration by the
Committee.
In many respects, with the exception of including youth aged 16 and
17, the goals of S. 2253 are consistent with existing authorities that
the Department has supported, including the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act (HFRA) [P.L. 108-208], Public Land Corps Act of 1993, P.L. 103-82
Title II, and the Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970, P.L. 91-378.
The Administration has concerns about the Committees expectation
regarding the authorization of specific appropriations contained in the
bill given current and future constraints.
As you are well aware, firefighting is an arduous and dangerous job
that requires a certain amount of maturity, decision-making capability,
and perspective in order to perform safely. Federal fire agencies
recognize that this level of maturity cannot be expected of 16- and 17-
year-old individuals and, through policy and regulation, will not place
these individuals in hazardous roles.
We have significant concerns, with the inclusion of youth aged 16
and 17. Wildland fire suppression or forest and watershed restoration
work authorized under S. 2253 pose threats to their safety that cannot
be mitigated.
The Forest Service and Department of the Interior agencies agree
that while some states allow individuals under the age of 18 to perform
hazardous fire suppression duties on the fire line, this practice is
not allowed by federal fire agency policy. In August 2003, the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior each established the policy
that persons under the age of 18 years old will not perform hazardous
or arduous duties during wildland fire management operations on federal
jurisdictions, even if the minors are supervised by states or other
entities. While legal minors are not to be employed in hazardous fire-
line positions, the policy does allow them to perform fire prevention,
support, logistical, or other duties away from the fire-line--
activities which, if performed under agreements with existing state,
local, and non-profit youth conservation corps, are consistent with S.
2253.
Similarly, hazardous fuels reduction treatments or restoration
activities require operating power equipment such as chainsaws,
brushsaws, or using prescribed fire. This is extremely hazardous work,
frequently on steep terrain in dense forest environments. We would be
remiss in supporting an authorization for 16 and 17 year olds to use
chainsaws or other power equipment in such hazardous situations.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Craig. Mark, thank you very much.
Now let us turn to Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Lands and Minerals, Department of the Interior.
Chad, welcome before the committee.
STATEMENT OF CHAD CALVERT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, LANDS AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member. I am
here testifying on behalf of the Department of the Interior
specifically on three bills, S. 738, the Northern California
Coastal Heritage Act; S. 2253, the Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps Act; and S. 2622, the Pecos National
Historic Park land exchange, which is on behalf of the National
Park Service. I will begin with that one.
The Department supports the land exchange for the Pecos
National Historic Park. We would like to work with the
committee on a couple of specific issues, namely putting
together a better map for the committee's review.
With regard to S. 2253, the Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps Act, I would simply echo the comments of
Mark Rey. The Department of the Interior agrees with that
position.
With regard to S. 738, the Northern California Coastal
Heritage Act, the Department generally supports the
designations for wilderness for the Bureau of Land Management
lands contained in the act. I could walk through those specific
designations. We do have some minor concerns with a couple of
areas and we would like to work with the committee not only to
address more specific and detailed maps, but also to work with
you on one of the designations that we think creates some
practical management problems.
With regard to the King Range Wilderness, the bill would
designate 41,615 acres in the Chemise Mountain Wilderness Study
Area and the King Range Wilderness Study Area. This particular
provision really highlights why the BLM supports Congress and
local communities getting together to resolve the wilderness
study area logjams that we see that have been out there for 13-
14 years. And where the communities and Congress can work
together and agree on those and where the Department views
there is being significant wilderness values to protect, the
department is very supportive of resolving the WSA's. Namely,
the Department supports that provision.
With regard to Yuki Wilderness, 51,790 acres are proposed
for wilderness designation. 17,000 acres are BLM lands and we
support the designation of those acres, most of which are in
the Thatcher Ridge Wilderness Study Area.
On the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness, it would expand
the existing wilderness areas. Only 780 acres of that is BLM-
managed land, but we do support the designation of it as part a
larger wilderness designation.
Cache Creek Wilderness would designate 38,970 acres of BLM
lands as wilderness. We support the designation that falls
within the First District on that one.
With regard to Blue Ridge Wilderness, we actually oppose
designating the Blue Ridge Wilderness provision in this bill
because it only addresses a 760-acre parcel that is BLM-
managed, and generally the Department feels that is too small
of an area to manage as wilderness. It simply just does not
provide the same character of wilderness that the other areas
do.
Cedar Roughs Wilderness Area would be 5,880 acres of BLM
lands, and we support this designation. It is currently in an
area of critical environmental concern, specifically for its
wilderness values.
The South Fork Eel Wilderness is 14,000 acres to be
designated. It is almost entirely encompassed by the Red
Mountain Wilderness Study area, and we support that
designation.
Finally, the Elkhorn Ridge potential wilderness area. The
Department is not opposed to designating this. It is not
currently managed as a wilderness study area, but it contains
significant wilderness values and we believe that the sponsors
of the bill and the local communities have worked very closely
together to identify the appropriate boundaries of that.
With that, I will close and answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land
and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, on S. 738
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 738, the Northern
California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. I will confine my
remarks to those provisions of the bill which relate to lands managed
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and will defer to the Department
of Agriculture on provisions regarding lands managed by the Forest
Service. While we will propose a number of amendments to S. 738, if
those amendments are made, the Department of the Interior will support
this legislation as it relates to BLM-managed lands.
This Administration strongly supports the efforts of members of
Congress to work together with their local constituents to find
solutions to the lingering Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Only Congress
can determine the final status of WSAs--whether to designate as
wilderness or release lands from WSA status. The WSA issue is one that
should be resolved and we always stand ready to work with Members of
Congress toward solutions.
S. 738 proposes to designate as wilderness nearly 120,000 acres of
BLM-managed lands in California's 1st Congressional District. Because
wilderness boundaries do not follow Congressional District boundaries,
this has resulted in a few awkward provisions in the legislation that
we will point out. Overall, we support the designations, but recommend
some changes to the management language which we hope the committee
will consider.
The areas proposed for designation include stunning landscapes,
dramatic coastlines, and unique habitats. Taken together, these
proposed wilderness areas include pristine Pacific Coast, steep inland
canyons, rushing whitewater and mountainous terrain. The array of
wildlife is incredibly diverse. Large mammals such as elk, sea lions,
and black bear populate these areas. Various raptors including the
endangered northern spotted owl, peregrine falcons and eagles nest
here. Additionally, the areas provide significant habitat for
steelhead, coho, and Chinook salmon, all listed endangered species.
Recreational use is varied and scattered throughout the area including
rafting, fishing, hiking, camping, and hunting, all of which will
continue after designation.
A brief description of each proposed wilderness designation is in
order:
King Range Wilderness--41,614 acres encompassing both the
Chemise Mountain WSA and the King Range WSA would be designated
wilderness. This area truly would be a crown jewel of the
wilderness system. Its 26 miles of pristine and undeveloped
coastline is the longest in the continental United States.
Referred to as California's ``Lost Coast,'' this dramatic
wilderness area is within the King Range National Conservation
Area (NCA) established by Congress in 1970.
Yuki Wilderness--51,790 acres are proposed for wilderness
designation including approximately 17,200 acres of BLM-managed
lands which include a steep, rugged river corridor. The larger
acreage, approximately 35,000 acres, is managed by the Forest
Service. We support the designation of the BLM acres (which
encompass most of the Thatcher Ridge WSA) as a portion of the
overall Yuki Wilderness.
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness additions--expands the
existing 153,000-acre Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness Area by
approximately 26,760 acres (the existing area includes over
7,000 acres of BLM-managed lands). However, only 780 acres of
the wilderness addition is BLM-managed land. We support the
designation of these 780 acres as a part of the much larger
Forest Service addition.
Cache Creek Wilderness--the legislation cites 38,970 acres
of BLM-managed lands for wilderness. However, if the bill's
intention is only to designate lands within Congressional
District 1, this designation may be reduced to approximately
31,000 acres. Waters rushing through this area's steep canyons
provide popular whitewater rafting venues while the surrounding
oak woodlands are home to several herds of tule elk. We support
this designation that falls within the Congressional District.
Blue Ridge Wilderness--a small 760-acre area is proposed for
designation by the bill. While it is our understanding that a
larger 10,000-acre wilderness is envisioned in this area, only
760 acres of it is within Congressional District 1. We oppose
designating such a small area as wilderness because it is too
small to manage properly for wilderness values unless land in
the adjacent district is included in the wilderness
designation.
Cedar Roughs Wilderness--5,880 acres of BLM WSA is
designated as wilderness. We support this designation. The BLM
has administratively designated this land as an Area of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in recognition of its
significant Sargent cypress stand and important black bear
population.
South Fork Eel Wilderness--14,000 acres to be designated
encompassing the Red Mountain WSA. The area is home to a number
of endangered species including the northern' spotted owl and
several salmon species as well as some unique and rare
geological features. The designation is supported by the BLM.
Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness Area--8,000 acres of BLM-
managed lands are proposed for a ``potential wilderness area.''
Under the terms of the legislation, the area would become
wilderness within 5 years, or earlier, if determined by the
Secretary of the Interior that appropriate ecological
restoration had taken place. This area contains a portion of
the Eel River headwaters and provides significant endangered
species habitat. While such a designation is unique for the
BLM, the National Park Service has experience with such
designations and we think it is reasonable.
For those areas in the bill not identified as WSAs, and for the
areas in the bill that were determined by the BLM to be non-suitable
for wilderness, we note that Congress has plenary authority over the
disposition of public lands. Except as otherwise specified, if Congress
ultimately approves the bill, we do not see any additional management
impediments to their inclusion.
We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the
Committee to perfect boundaries in a few cases, and release from WSA
status those areas, primarily small bits and pieces of WSAs (our
current estimate is around 2,200 acres), that are not designated
wilderness by S. 738. Leaving those pieces unaddressed creates
potential management problems.
We would also like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and
the Committee on the management language in the bill. Specifically, we
recommend adding standard language on the management of newly-acquired
lands within the wilderness area and a full withdrawal of the lands
designated as wilderness. The Department strongly recommends the
legislation be amended to clarify that the wilderness designation not
constitute or be construed to constitute either an express or implied
reservation of any water rights. Additional technical matters on maps
should also be addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the sections of S. 738
which apply to BLM-managed lands. The resolution of these longstanding
WSA questions is a priority for the Department and we welcome the
opportunity to move this debate forward.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Chad Calvert, Assistant Secretary for Lands and
Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, on S. 2622
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to present the position of the
Department of the Interior on S. 2622, a bill to provide for a land
exchange at Pecos National Historical Park in New Mexico.
The Department supports this legislation with an amendment. A
hearing on a similar bill, S. 2848 was held during the 106th Congress.
At that time we supported the bill with several amendments. S. 2622 has
taken into consideration those amendments as proposed. We do recommend
minor changes to clarify financial responsibilities for the appraisals
and completion of compliance documents. By making these changes, and
clarifying the map, we believe the exchange could be easily
accomplished. However, we defer to the U.S. Forest Service with respect
to a determination that the lands they would convey are excess to their
needs and available to be used as part of the proposed land exchange.
S. 2622 proposes an exchange among the U.S. Forest Service,
National Park Service and a private landowner. The private landowner
would convey 154 acres of land to the National Park Service at Pecos
National Historical Park. The U.S. Forest Service would then convey 160
acres of federal land to the private landowner. Because the land
already is within the boundary of the park and identified for purchase
in the July 1993 Land Protection Plan, no boundary adjustment would be
needed. As part of the exchanges the private landowner would be given
an easement to allow access to two existing wells. The bill also allows
for the Secretaries to establish additional terms and conditions on the
exchange in order to protect the interest of the federal government.
We understand the U.S. Forest Service parcel proposed for the
exchange is undeveloped. There are no public utilities within one half
mile of the parcel and no environmental analysis has been completed on
this parcel.
We propose minor changes to the language to ensure that all parties
understand that the landowner will assume the cost of the appraisals
and associated environmental compliance. The legislation must be clear
that neither Secretary is responsible for those costs. The proposed
amendment is attached to this testimony.
S. 2622 would continue the expansion of the park that was begun
when lands were added to the boundary in 1990, and allow the National
Park Service to more adequately and completely serve park visitors and
protect park resources. This new bill also reflects the needs and
interests of all of the parties to the exchange and should allow
completion of the exchange in the most direct manner.
Pecos National Historical Park (NHP) was established in 1965 as
Pecos National Monument and was redesignated in 1990. The park includes
almost 7,000 acres in three units and tells the story of 12,000 years
of human history. This story includes that of the people of the Pecos
Pueblo who made their homes at a trading crossroads and the effects of
Spanish colonization from the south and the movement westward along the
Santa Fe Trail. In addition, Pecos NHP tells the story of one of the
most interesting baffles of the Civil War fought in the west, the
Battle of Glorieta Pass. It is also home to a 20th century ranch that
illustrates how important and critical this natural and cultural
crossroads is to the history of America.
Of foremost importance in Pecos NHP is the Pecos River, one of only
five in New Mexico that is free-flowing year-round. The mosaic of the
riparian environment, high elevation forest, grasslands, and meadows
sustains valuable and variable wildlife habitats and ecosystems that
are prominent features and vital to the park's cultural landscapes.
When the park was redesignated in 1990, new lands were added and
the scope and mission of the park were greatly expanded. The Glorieta
Unit, divided into two sub-units, each containing approximately three
hundred acres, preserves sites of the Civil War action at Glorieta
Pass. More than half of the land in these two units is privately owned,
making public access, preservation of resources, and protection of
property rights difficult. The lands proposed for exchange in S. 2622
are in the Canoncito subunit, the westernmost portion of the park.
That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Page 6, line 3, strike all after ``COSTS.--'' and insert ``Before
the completion of the exchange under this section, the Secretaries and
the landowner shall enter into an agreement that states that the
landowner shall pay the cost of the appraisals and associated
environmental compliance documents. Additional costs of the exchange
will be allocated in the agreement between the Secretaries and the
landowner.''.
Senator Craig. Chad, thank you again for your comments and
we look forward to your responses. So let me start the
questioning, Mark and Chad.
I know that both Senators and the Congressman have spoken
to their effort to take out as many roads as possible. Yet, it
is our observation that there is a fair inventory remaining of
roads and bridges and culverts and other drainage structures
that fall within the proposed wilderness boundaries and the
Wild and Scenic River proposals.
Would it be possible for you to provide an inventory of
those approximate number of miles and structures? I say that
because we make the general assumption that once these areas
become designated, certainly they become non-motorized, and any
ability to maintain or sustain those structures should,
responsibly under the Wilderness Act, go out. Are these
structures capable of withstanding the 500-year flood scenario,
and if not, are we making provisions, once failed, to be able
to go in and be able to take them out and to recoup the area?
So that would be my reaction. Your reaction to that, and would
you supply that for the committee?
Mr. Rey. We can provide you with that information. Our
Forest Service road inventories identify the major drainage
structures for National Forest System roads, such as bridges
and culverts. So we can provide you with such an inventory.
We designed those roads to withstand a 100-year flood
event. So I think it is fair to say whether we designate these
as wilderness or not, they are not likely going to withstand a
500-year flood event. But in the course of dealing with the
wilderness designation in the years afterward, we would
probably remove as many of these bridges and structures as
possible so that we do not have to risk the prospect of a
catastrophic failure in a 100-year or larger flood event.
Senator Craig. Chad.
Mr. Calvert. I commit the Department is working on
improving the maps that you have. I know there are some maps
that are floating around that have foot trails identified as
potential roads, and the BLM right now is surveying those
lands.
Senator Craig. I am not interested in foot trails. I am
obviously interested in roads that have received some level of
maintenance or some level of use and especially the structures
that encompass those.
Could you also include information about the likely cost of
removal of the structures, potential cost of mitigating
anticipated habitat damage, if there were structure failures?
Mr. Rey. We can certainly give you a cost of removal. The
cost of habitat damage would be highly speculative based on the
kind of failure that would occur, which particular structure
fails.
Mr. Calvert. For the areas under the BLM, I am only aware
of one where they may be in the position of removing roads.
They are right now looking at that. It is in the potential
wilderness area where there are several private inholdings and
access roads to those. It is my understanding that they are in
the process of naturalizing themselves. So the cost may be
minimal. It has been estimated to me to be less than $1
million. But I will certainly ask the BLM to look at that.
Senator Craig. Thinking about the northern California
wilderness proposal, it seems that many of these areas receive
both heavy rains and have the potential for substantially large
and intense wild fires. I know both the Senator from California
and I and everybody on this committee have struggled with that
issue substantially over the last couple of years. We also know
the scenario out there suggests it is going to get worse before
it gets better.
To the extent these areas are roaded, what will be the
likely increased cost of firefighting if these roads are closed
to access. Is there any way to evaluate that? Because we do
change significantly the capability of firefighting or fire
load reduction in those areas.
Mr. Rey. Let me answer that under two separate scenarios,
because I think the bill has some provisions to try to provide
firefighting within these areas. So it is conceivable that with
the provisions in the bill, as long as the roads are still
passable, we could use motorized equipment upon order of the
appropriate Forest Service officer. So that probably will not
have a material effect if we decide, based on the language of
the bill, to allow continued equipment access.
As time passes, however, since we are not going to maintain
these roads and we are going to be presented with circumstances
where we will have to remove bridges and culverts, access will
begin to diminish, and the use of motorized equipment and
engine crews will cease to be a practical possibility,
notwithstanding what sorts of administrative procedures that we
have developed. Once that occurs, then we will see some
increased firefighting costs and loss of efficiencies because
hand crews are not as quick or as effective as engine crews. So
that is when the impact will begin to be felt irrespective of
the administrative decisions we make prior to that time
regarding when and under what circumstances we would allow
motorized equipment access into the wilderness for firefighting
purposes.
Senator Craig. Areas that are currently designated
wilderness, when fire starts in them, motorized equipment is
not allowed. Is that not correct?
Mr. Rey. It is not allowed by statute and regulation, but
it is also not a practical possibility because most of the
wildernesses we have now lack roads. If we applied the same
statutory and regulatory standards to the areas affected by
this legislation, where there are roads, then motorized access
would not be allowed. As I read at least one of the provisions
of the bill, there is some attempt to moderate that and to
allow motorized access for firefighting purposes under certain
circumstances, as outlined in the bill. That would provide some
continued access until the point when that road ceases to be
passable because of the passage of time without maintenance.
Senator Craig. Well, I have gone beyond my time.
Senator Bingaman, questions?
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Let me ask about S. 2253, the Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps Act. In 1970, Congress passed and the
President signed the legislation establishing the Youth
Conservation Corps. In 1993 we passed and the President signed
the legislation establishing the Public Land Corps. I am having
difficulty understanding what this Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps adds to the existing authority. It seems to
me that the various Federal agencies already have very
substantial authority to contract with and use young people
under the Youth Conservation Corps or the Public Land Corps
programs. The truth is, the National Park Service is the only
one that has really committed resources to doing this. As I
understand it, the Forest Service has not. The BLM has not.
Based on the testimony that each of you have given, it would
seem to me that you are saying, in as tactful a way as
possible, that we should not expect you to commit the resources
to it in the future, whether we pass this or not.
Is there a reason we should go ahead and pass this bill?
Does it add anything to the existing authority that the
agencies have? Is it likely to increase the probability that
there will actually be funds spent on this?
Mr. Rey. Well, it complements existing authorities in the
sense that we could put Public Land Corps and Youth
Conservation Corps crews into doing this kind of fuel reduction
work. Currently those crews, when they are employed on national
forest land, are employed in a wide variety projects, but there
is nothing in the enabling legislation creating the Public Land
Corps and the Youth Conservation Corps that precludes them from
doing this kind of work.
Generally when Congress passes a new piece of authorizing
legislation, we try within budget limits to respond to that. So
I think if you pass this bill and say this is something you
want to focus these conservation crews on, at least with regard
to fuel reduction work that is non-hazardous in nature, we
would try to respond by accommodating that. As I indicated
earlier, we have very little interest in using 16- and 17-year-
olds for firefighting purposes because we think that is too
hazardous.
Senator Bingaman. But I am still unclear as to whether you
are saying that the administration would be willing to commit
more funds to these types of activities generally, or are you
just saying that if we pass this bill, then you will take
funding that is currently being used for trail maintenance or
whatever by young people and shift it over to doing forest
thinning kinds of work? I know it has an authorization, but I
am asking for how much money the administration would actually
request each year and support because there are a lot of
authorizations on the books, which of course the administration
does not ask for any money for.
Mr. Rey. I think our experience, particularly in the fuels
treatment area, is with new authorizations we have tried to
match that with increased budgets. I obviously cannot talk
about the 2006 budget because it is in the very early stages of
preparation right now. But we would look at a piece of
authorizing legislation that Congress passed as something that
we would try to be responsive to.
Senator Bingaman. So you think there might actually be an
increase in funds if this legislation became law.
Mr. Rey. We would take a pretty good, hard look at it.
Sure.
Senator Bingaman. All right. That is encouraging. I think
these are very useful programs and I am not in any way opposed
to trying to go ahead. I would be concerned if we found that
the very limited funding that is available for this kind of
work by young people is shifted so that it is only available if
they are doing this precise kind of work, and some of the
existing programs have to essentially go away. I think that
would be a mistake.
Mr. Rey. Another option is to use more of our appropriated
dollars for these programs as opposed to commercial contracts.
That would be another thing we would look at, even within a
flat budget, if we have specific authorization and interest
from Congress to employ youth groups in this kind of work, one
option, if it is work that we are already paying for under a
commercial contract, is to shift it in that direction.
Senator Bingaman. There is really no limit on your ability
to do that now, as I understand it. To the extent that you
determine to go ahead and contract with these kinds of groups
to accomplish the work you need done; to the extent they are
available and to the extent you have appropriated funds, you
can do that. Am I right?
Mr. Rey. Generally speaking, unless it is work that needs
to be dealt with through a competitive contract, in which case
that might not work. But we can use different authorities to do
this work through noncompetitive contracts with groups like
this.
Senator Bingaman. I think that is useful testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Senator.
Now, let me turn to Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
On this point, just to respond to Senator Bingaman, the
reason we did this is because the groups that exist under
existing law really say that an authorization would help in
terms of making, as Mr. Rey just pointed out, a kind of
designated work effort and indicate I think to the Department
that there was support for this. Otherwise, there is really no
reason for them to extend a program that already is kind of
fiscally strapped.
I would hope we would be able to gain some appropriations
for the program. I think those of us that worked on Healthy
Forests really see the huge deficit that we have in terms of
underbrush and the need to prevent and clean out. So I think
that would work.
On the subject of the wilderness bill, I was trying to
follow what you said, Mr. Rey. I gather where you have sort of
non-support--and correct me if I am wrong--is Sanhedrin, Mad
River Butte, Mount Lassic, and Trinity Alps Wilderness, and
Underwood. If that is a correct assessment, I guess my question
to you is will you be willing to sit down and work with us and
see what we can work out on each of those?
Mr. Rey. Sure. We would definitely be willing to sit down
and work with you. But let me clarify. On Trinity Alps, we are
only opposed to the Orleans Mountain portion of that. We would
not oppose the Horse Linto, East Fork, and Red Cap additions.
Senator Feinstein. Well, did we not take of the Orleans
Mountain part?
Mr. Rey. This testimony was written on the bill as
introduced. I probably should have said at the outset, based on
some of your opening comments that you have already resolved
some of the issues that we have raised here.
Senator Feinstein. Well, then we need to go over where we
have made some changes.
Senator Craig. I would trust that certainly the Department
and you all can get together and clarify any of these
differences that exist.
Senator Feinstein. Fine.
Just quickly now, when I left this morning, I heard of this
big fire beginning in southern California and approaching I
guess they said dead trees. Can you give us any kind of an up-
to-date report? As you may know, some of your people are saying
that more money will be needed.
Mr. Rey. For firefighting purposes?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Mr. Rey. I think you are in the process of taking care of
that in the Department of Defense budget, appropriations bill.
Senator Feinstein. That is what I understand. An additional
$30 million?
Mr. Rey. That additional $30 million is for fuels
reduction. As I understand it, there is an additional $30
million for fuels reduction in southern California that was
included in the DOD appropriations bill at Congressman Lewis'
and your request.
Senator Feinstein. Exactly.
Mr. Rey. So that will continue the work on as we move
forward. As I understand, there is also some additional money
for firefighting which will make sure that we do not have any
problems there.
Senator Craig. Approximately $500 million in DOD if we move
that this week, for fire suppression purposes I believe.
Senator Feinstein. Can you give us any kind of an update on
what is happening right now in southern California?
Mr. Rey. Right now we have six large incident fires active
in southern California. Most of those are 80 percent or more
contained. Probably the one that you are hearing about this
morning is the Crown Fire, which is located southeast of Acton,
California. We are seeing extreme fire behavior there with
State Highway 14 from Antelope Valley to the LA Basin being
closed. We have ordered a type 1 incident command team which is
en route to the fire at present. So we will be directing all
available resources to that or at least all the resources that
the type 1 commander asks for.
Senator Feinstein. Is that near bark beetle?
Mr. Rey. I do not think so. I think this would be yet down
slope from bark beetle infected areas. It is burning in heavy
brush right now. So it would be at a lower elevation with the
possibility, if we are unable to contain it, that it could
compromise some of the bark beetle infected areas if it burns
into them, but at least right now it is not that far.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rey. I could also tell you that so far there are no
unmet orders for assets on any of the fires in southern
California or elsewhere. So we are keeping abreast of all of
our incident commanders' order requests.
Senator Feinstein. That is great. Thank you very much.
Senator Craig. We have been joined by Senator Smith from
Oregon, and Senator, you have a bill also. So we would
appreciate any opening comment you want to make in relation
specifically to that legislation or any questions you might ask
of Mark or Chad as to the other legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very brief
opening statement I will share with you and ask if they have
any response to it.
I appreciate you scheduling today's hearing and want to
thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, your ranking
member on this subcommittee, for joining as a cosponsor of the
legislation.
It is S. 2221 and it addresses a couple of basic needs for
the Umpqua National Forest in Douglas County, Oregon. Between
1984 and 2003, timber harvest levels on the Umpqua dropped 99
percent, as did manufacturing jobs in that county. It is with
this backdrop in mind that I am trying to give the Umpqua
National Forest and Douglas County a little help and some good
government.
S. 2221 is rather simple. First, it authorizes the Umpqua
National Forest to sell at a fair market value three surplus
parcels of land totaling 6.6 acres. In turn, the Umpqua is
authorized to keep the revenues locally for improvements on the
forests, including capital improvements.
The bill also adjusts the wilderness area boundary to
remove a road currently within the boundary of the Rogue-Umpqua
Wilderness Area. This legislation removes 1.3 acres of
wilderness and adds 1.3 acres of wilderness. So there is not a
net loss of wilderness area.
This legislation I believe will help the Forest Service
better manage their forest resources and simplify management of
this property. It will also spur the economic development in
Roseburg and Glide, Oregon, which have been hit hard by the
decline in timber harvest on Federal lands.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Rey has any
comment on it one way or the other, I would love to hear it.
Mr. Rey. I have already indicated the administration's
support for the legislation.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
Senator Craig. The light is green. Senator, thank you very
much.
Now let me turn to our colleague from the State of
Washington, Senator Cantwell. You have legislation before us
today in the White Salmon River Wild and Scenic designation.
You can make an opening comment on that and/or ask questions of
our colleagues here.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing. I would, if I could, submit a
statement for the record on the S. 1614.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator From
Washington, on S. 1614
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing
today and considering Senate Bill 1614, which is very important to
residents of southwest Washington.
The bill before us would designate some 20 miles of the main stem
of the upper White Salmon River and of the Cascade Creek, all within
the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, as components of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System. By designating this upper third of the White
Salmon, we can permanently protect this special river as a premiere
recreational destination, a Southwest Washington economic resource, and
an important wildlife and salmon habitat.
The White Salmon River's remarkable beauty and pristine condition
are not in question. In fact, the lower eight miles of the river
received protection when Congress granted that stretch of the river
``Wild and Scenic'' status in 1986. As we saw then, its protected
status hasn't prevented residents and visitors from taking advantage of
the unique recreational opportunities the White Salmon River offers.
Extending ``Wild and Scenic'' protection to the river's upper reaches
today is an important step forward in protecting even more of its wild
character for fishing, boating, and other recreational activities.
My bill, which will complement legislation offered by Congressman
Baird in the House, will grant ``Wild and Scenic'' status to the upper
reaches of the White Salmon and one of its tributaries, Cascade Creek.
As one of the best whitewater rivers in the Pacific Northwest, the
White Salmon already supports a number of whitewater rafting companies.
About 12,000 whitewater boaters visit the river each year. So I see
this designation as not just protecting a pristine river, but also its
beneficial impact on the local economy downstream.
Last August when I announced my intention to introduce this
legislation, I asked local resident Mark Zoller to join me. Mark heads
Zoller Outdoor Odysseys, a whitewater rafting company, and is the third
generation of his family to guide whitewater trips on the river.
That's exactly why I believe we need to protect the White Salmon
River--to ensure that future generations of Zollers can take people
down the river and future generations of Washingtonians have the same
opportunities to enjoy its wild beauty, its opportunities for
recreation, and its economic benefits.
Whitewater sports are booming and last year were the second-fastest
growing sport in the country. Nearly a quarter of all Americans 16 and
older participated in a paddling sport at least once, and almost ten
million people went seven or more times.
Protecting the White Salmon River will help increase opportunities
for other outdoor sports, too. This is an important sector of our
state's economy. According to the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, fish and wildlife related recreation pumps nearly $2.2
billion per year into our economy. And we rank first in the Northwest
and eighth in the nation in spending by sport fishers.
Safeguarding the White Salmon through this designation will also be
an important step toward restoring wildlife habitat. Once the Condit
Dam is removed from the lower reach of the river in 2006, the White
Salmon will again become a major salmon and steelhead spawning habitat.
As I'm sure you can attest, Mr. Chairman, getting bills through
Congress can sometimes make rafting Class V rapids look easy. But
thanks to the tireless efforts of local residents, ranchers, farmers,
the timber industry, environmentalists, and county commissioners, I am
proud to be able to confirm that this legislation has strong support
from all the key stakeholders.
In fact, I'd like to submit for the record a letter of support I
received from 102 local citizens, including 30 individuals representing
businesses.* I'd like to read a quote from that letter which I believe
sums up the importance of this legislation: ``This is a magnificent gem
of a river, with waters that plunge through rugged canyons and provide
many benefits for small towns on the way--organic herb and dairy farms;
river rafting; kayaking; bed and breakfast enterprises; tourism;
hiking; fishing; camping; wildflower viewing; sales of gas and food.
These are only a few of the businesses and recreational activities that
provide livelihoods for residents of our rural region.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The letter can be found in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, I would also like to submit for the record a letter
from Gifford Pinchot Forest Supervisor Claire Lavendel that confirms
the Upper White Salmon River is eligible for the National Wild and
Scenic River System. To quote Ms. Lavendel ``Thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to speak to one of the true treasures of the Gifford
Pinchot National Forest. The Upper White Salmon River and Cascade Creek
as they flow through the Forest near Mt. Adams are beautiful and
special places.''
This broad range of support reflects that this is truly a win-win
proposal for local interests.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and our Senate
Colleagues to ensure that the Upper White Salmon River gets the special
recognition and protection it deserves.
Senator Cantwell. And if I could also, Mr. Chairman, submit
for the record a letter from the forest supervisor for the
Gifford Pinchot Forest in support of S. 1614 and letters from
various property owners, businesses, and residents from the
area.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have read some of the statement that Mr. Rey gave this
morning, so I will just ask a question. Obviously in the
history of the designation of the White Salmon as a Wild and
Scenic area, there had been first an original designation and
then the continuation study of whether various parts of the
river should also be added to the original scenic designation.
It is my understanding that the Forest Service then came back,
completed that study, and recommended the addition of the upper
third of the river. So I am reading your testimony as
supporting S. 1614. Is that correct?
Mr. Rey. That is correct.
Senator Cantwell. And the rest of the study and analysis as
to other parts of the river is inconclusive or----
Mr. Rey. We actually, in July 1997, recommended the entire
38.4 mile length of the upper White Salmon to be added to the
system. So our recommendation was a little more extensive than
what is envisioned in the legislation, but the legislation does
not preclude a subsequent designation. So we are fine to
support the legislation as introduced.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I
have.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you very much. We appreciate
your attendance.
A couple of questions and I will submit more for the
record, again specific to the northern California wilderness
proposal. There are some new concepts in this that have not
been embodied, to my knowledge, in past language for wilderness
designation. S. 738 includes language to provide a 600-foot
buffer strip to be managed around each parcel of private
property within a wilderness proposal. I am going to follow
that up with some questions about how we would propose to
manage those strips because I am assuming concern about fuel
loading and those kinds of things and how you will gain access
to them. Is that a realistic proposal? I understand what our
colleagues are attempting to do here and I appreciate that
concern. I think the question remains, how do you do it? Is
that a practical approach toward this kind of designation?
Also, we are going to hear testimony in a few moments from
Mr. Amador in which he talks about ROS's, or the recreational
opportunity spectrum, as it relates to how the Forest Service
views it and I think that as it relates to wilderness
recreational experiences, an individual must be at least 3
miles from the nearest road or trail where motorized vehicles
are used. The ROS systems were developed by the Forest Service
and used by your field folks. I am going to have some questions
there that I wish you all would look at.
I do not mind new concepts entering wilderness proposals. I
think if we march in lock step to a 1963 law and demonstrate no
flexibility, where certain areas and certain resources deserve
additional protection, they are going to get denied in the end,
and I think certainly the Senators from California and the
Congressman have attempted to demonstrate some flexibility
here. So I will have a series of questions for us to look at
before we make a final decision on the legislation, and that
will be for both of you.
Thank you very much. I have no further questions of you and
I appreciate your time and your testimony this afternoon.
Mr. Rey. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Now we will ask our second panel to come
forward: Art Pope, Don Amador, and the Honorable John Woolley.
Art Pope is the executive director for the Northwest Youth
Corps of Eugene, Oregon. The Honorable John Woolley is with the
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, District 3, Eureka,
California, and Don Amador is the Western representative for
the BlueRibbon Coalition of Oakley, California.
We do appreciate you gentlemen being with us today and
traveling the distances you have and taking the time that you
have on this issue. So, Art, we will start with you. Please
pull the microphone as close as possible and proceed.
STATEMENT OF ART POPE, DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST YOUTH CORPS, EUGENE,
OR
Mr. Pope. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I am honored to be here today to testify in support
of S. 2253, the Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps Act of
2004. I want to thank Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein
for their leadership. I also want to thank my home State
Senators, Senator Wyden and Senator Smith.
As you noted, I am director of the Northwest Youth Corps,
and though our offices are located in Eugene, Oregon, our youth
corps works on projects throughout the State as well as in
Washington, central Idaho, and northern California. I am also
testifying on behalf of the National Association of Service and
Conservation Corps, NASCC, which represents more than 100 corps
programs and 23 corps members in 32 States and the District of
Columbia. I have attached detailed descriptions of the
Northwest Youth Corps and NASCC for the record.
As folks have noted earlier, there are a lot of fires
burning in the Western States. As of July 8, five Western
States--Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington--
all reported large, active fires. As of that time, 40,470 fires
had consumed 2.9 million acres since the start of the year.
Right now large, highly active fires are burning in Alaska and
California. And in the West, fire danger remains high and
continued drought conditions are expected to extend the fire
season again this year.
The National Fire News notes that once firefighters control
a wildland fire, another group of quiet heroes move in to start
the healing. After a fire, extensive work is often needed to
control erosion and protect water quality. Land management
professionals often turn to corps programs for the resources
they need to start the stabilization and reforestation process.
For example, in 2003, corps members in our programs built
or maintained 367 miles of trail, pruned 257 acres of conifers,
completed fuel reduction work on 147 acres, removed noxious
weeds from 1,000 acres, planted 8,230 trees and covered 45
acres collecting native seeds needed for habitat restoration
work.
In 2001, the Southwest Youth Corps in Durango, Colorado
thinned or cleared 175 acres, created defensible space around
20 structures, removed 33 truckloads of wood and created a
serious of fire breaks 1 to 4 miles long and 40 to 400 feet
wide.
In 2003, the Youth Corps of Southern Arizona partnered with
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, the Coronado National
Forest, and the Chiricahua National Monument to cut and pile
excess fuels in order to reduce the potential for a
catastrophic fire.
The nearly 90,000 alumni of the California Conservation
Corps have dedicated more than 50 million hours to protecting
and enhancing the environment and another 6 million hours to
responding to emergencies like fires, floods, and earthquakes.
Corps programs offer Federal, State, and local land
management agencies a flexible, experienced work force able to
respond to emergencies and disasters on short notice. In 2001,
16 corps programs engaged more than 1,400 corps members who
provided 500,000 hours of service on our national forests.
During this period, the Forest Service invested $4.2 million in
these partnerships, while corps programs contributed an
additional $2.4 million in matching dollars.
Today's corps programs are direct descendants of the
Civilian Conservation Corps of the Depression era. Like the
legendary CCC, corps are a proven strategy for giving young
people the chance to change their communities and their lives.
Corps give young people the chance to step up a challenge, a
chance to make a difference, and sometimes just a vitally
needed second chance.
Working under the leadership of adults who serve as mentors
and role models, corps participants discover pride in their
abilities, learn the importance of team work, and experience
the recognition that comes from making a positive investment in
their communities.
Nationally approximately 60 percent corps members are young
people of color, 50 percent without a high school diploma or
GED, and 55 percent come from homes where the annual income is
less than $15,000.
S. 2253 provides the additional resources needed to prevent
and fight forest fires, protect rural communities, and restore
fire-damaged land. It will help corps programs to meet the
needs of our youth and help today's young people become
productive members of society.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on this important piece of
legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pope follows:]
Prepared Statement of Art Pope, Director, Northwest Youth Corps,
on S. 2253
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to be
here today to testify in support of S. 2253, the Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps Act of 2004. I want to thank Senator Domenici and
Senator Feinstein for their leadership. I also want to acknowledge the
leadership of Senators Wyden and Smith from my home state of Oregon.
I am the Director of the Northwest Youth Corps (NYC). The NYC is
headquartered in Oregon but also does work in Idaho, Washington State,
and California. I am also testifying on behalf of the National
Association of Service and Conservation Corps (NASCC) which represents
the corps movement in Washington and consists of more than 100 corps,
enrolling 23,000 corpsmembers in 32 states and the District of
Columbia. I have attached detailed descriptions of the NYC and NASCC
for the record.
Based on our work in Oregon and reports from my colleagues around
the country, I am convinced that corps have an important role to play
in preventing forest fires and other natural disasters that endanger
our forests, providing appropriate assistance to communities threatened
by fires, and helping communities recover from the devastation caused
by fires.
As of July 8, five states--Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
and Washington--were reporting large, active fires and almost 300 large
fires had been contained since January 1, 2004. In addition to these
large fires, the National Interagency Fire Center reported that there
had been 40,470 fires consuming 2.9 million acres since the start of
the year. According to press reports, the extreme drought is expected
to extend the West's fire season and drier than normal logs and trees
are expected to fuel further fires as the heat wave conditions
continue.
According to the National Fire News ``as firefighters control
wildland fires, another group of quiet heroes move into the area to
start the healing. After a wildland fire, the land may need
stabilization to prevent loss of topsoil through erosion and prevent
the movement of dirt into rivers and streams. Land management
specialists and volunteers jump start the renewal of plant life through
seeding and planting with annuals, trees, and native species that help
retain soils and fight invasive weeds. It's a long term process that
comes alive as the wildland fires die down.''
This is exactly the kind of work at which corps excel. In fact, we
are already doing this work. Legislation such as S. 2253 will provide
the federal government with the resources necessary to continue to
utilize corps and cost-effectively fight wildfires. At the same time,
this bill targets disadvantaged youth and encourages them to help
themselves by helping their communities. For example:
In 2003, NYC Corpsmembers built or maintained 367 miles of trail,
pruned 257 acres of conifers, performed fuel reduction on 147 acres,
removed noxious weeds from 1,000 acres, planted 8,230 trees, and
collected seeds on 45 acres.
Between April and October, 2001 the Southwest Youth Corps in
Durango, Colorado thinned or cleared 175.5 acres, created defensible
space around 20 structures, removed 33 truckloads of wood, and created
a series of fire breaks that extended between one and four miles and
were between 40 and 400 feet wide.
In the past year the Utah Conservation Corps did thinning in a
wildland fire-urban interface zone outside of Park City that was a
partnership between a homeowner's association and Utah Department of
Forestry. In the past, it has carried out ``soil stabilization''
projects in the Bridger-Teton National Forest that included the
rehabilitation and re-routing of trail in bum areas and building
drainage structures.
In 2003, the Youth Corps of Southern Arizona have partnered with
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, the Coronado National Forest, and
Chiricahua National Monument. Corpsmembers cut and piled excess fuels
in preparation for a burn as part of a hazardous fuel reduction
project. They also thinned and removed trees for habitat improvement on
the Apache-Sitgreaves. The YCOSA worked with Ramsay Canyon, a facility
of The Nature Conservancy in southern Arizona to remove hazardous,
flammable material from buildings. Work to create defensible space was
conducted several weeks prior to a fire and the Corps has received
credit for saving the buildings. In the past, three camp crews were
sent to fires on BLM and USFS areas (once in Wyoming and twice in
Arizona).
The Coconino Rural Environment Corps located in Flagstaff, Arizona
thins hundreds of acres of federal, state, county, city, and private
lands every year. The Corps has created multiple partnerships in local
communities to mitigate the hazards of catastrophic wild fires. Summit
Fire Fuels Reduction Partnership has thinned land around more that 30
homes in its local community. The Partnership also provided the local
Native American Reservations with more than 400 cords of fire wood.
Partnering with County and City Waste Management the partnership found
a way to transport fire wood to community members in need with little
to no cost to the project. The partnerships have also increased
community awareness to the dangers of wildfire and the risks that may
be associated with living in one of the most fire prone forests in the
world, thus creating a more fire wise community.
The CREC thins more than 500 acres a year and returns more than
4000 acres to native grasslands. Forest restoration has also been a
large portion of the forestry work CREC has done over the last several
years.
The Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC) has done access and
egress in urban interface in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park housing area to insure safe passage for emergency response
workers. Corpsmembers have been trained in firescaping around new
suburban neighborhoods as cities spread into rural areas to provide
both visually aesthetic and fire resistant landscape around structures
of value and along the avenues of emergency response. In 2003, The
Minnesota Conservation Corps responded to 45 wildfires that totaled
30,656 acres. It completed 920 home and property assessments (fire
wise) relating to wildfire danger and defensible space and made
recommendations to the home owners on how to make their property safer
in the event of a wildfire.
Corpsmembers also provided about 8,720 hours in indirect fire
suppression activities including 5 miles of fire break construction,
400 acres of timber stand improvement, and 5,560 acres of prescribed
burns.
In any given year MCC plants 150,000 plus trees in areas that may
or may not have been impacted by previous fires. MCC also completes 150
Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) plots each year for the Minnesota
Department of natural resources Division of Forestry. These plots are
then used in a variety of Forestry models including a wildfire model.
The California Conservation Corps (CCC) is the nation's oldest,
largest and longest-running youth conservation corps. Nearly 90,000
young men and women have worked more than 50 million hours to protect
and enhance California's environment and communities and have provided
six million hours of assistance with emergencies like fires, floods and
earthquakes.
This June the CCC laid plastic and sandbags on Delta levees to
prevent flooding; fought fires in Santa Barbara and Madera counties and
surveyed for the glassy-winged sharpshooter (a major agricultural pest
that cause Pierce's disease in grapevines and other diseases in other
plants and has caused the loss of millions of dollars to wine grape
growers) in Solano County. At the request of the San Joaquin County
Office of Emergency Services and the state Department of Water
Resources, 200 corpsmembers and staff were dispatched. The 15 crews
placed heavy plastic sheeting and sandbags to protect 13.5 miles of
interior levees not designed to hold flood waters. Corps headquarters
or satellites sending crews included Chico, Delta, Fresno, Los Angeles,
Monterey Bay, Norwalk, Placer, Pomona, Redding, San Luis Obispo,
Siskiyou and Tahoe.
At the same time the CCC responded to the Delta levees, three crews
were dispatched to the Gaviota Fire in Santa Barbara County.
Corpsmembers from the Los Padres and Pomona centers assisted the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection with logistical
support.
As crews finished up with the Gaviota Fire this month, the CCC was
called upon to respond to the Source Fire in the Sierra National
Forest, under the direction of the U.S. Forest Service. Fresno and
Pomona corpsmembers provided assistance at the fire camp. As I have
indicated, corps have experience working with federal, state, and local
land management agencies. In 2001, 16 NASCC Corps engaged more than
1,400 corpsmembers in projects in national forests and corpsmembers
provided more than 500,000 hours of service. Indeed, the Forest Service
invested $4.2 million in partnerships with Corps and leveraged an
additional $2.4 million in match.
Corps do fee-for-service work and meet the test of the marketplace
everyday. If we don't meet or exceed expectations our partners go
elsewhere. Enactment of S. 2253 and corresponding funding will enable
us to do more.
Corps are the direct descendents of the Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) of the Depression era. Like the legendary CCC, today's Corps are
a proven strategy for giving young men and women the chance to change
their communities, themselves, and their families. By providing
opportunity to young people who need a second chance, corps turn
potential problems into valuable resources.
Approximately 60% of NASCC corpsmembers are young people of color,
50% enroll without a high school diploma or GED and 55% come from homes
where the annual income is less than $15,000. A rigorous, random
assignment evaluation conducted by Abt Associates/Brandeis University
reports positive outcomes for young people who join a corps. The Abt
Associates/Brandeis University study also found that:
significant employment and earnings gains accrue to young
people who join a corps;
arrest rates drop by one third among all corpsmembers;
out-of-wedlock pregnancy rates drop among female
corpsmembers; and
corps generate $1.60 in immediate benefits for every dollar
invested.
Corps engage primarily young people ages 16-25 in service, training
and educational activities. The corps model places young people under
the leadership of adult leaders who serve as mentors and role models.
In return for their efforts to restore and strengthen communities,
corpsmembers receive: 1) a stipend; 2) classroom education to improve
basic competencies and secure credentials; 3) technical skills
training; 4) supportive services; and 5) a post-service educational
award. Young men and women learn to value their personal contribution,
learn the importance of teamwork and experience the recognition that
comes from making a positive investment in their community.
Corps are established pathways to re-integrate vulnerable young
people into society. The supportive environment, the power of providing
service to their own neighborhoods and the value of paid work to self-
esteem combine to strengthen the ties between a young person and his or
her community.
S. 2253 provides needed additional resources to meet the challenges
posed by forest fires. Funding corps to thin forests generate community
volunteers, and restore land after a fire occurs is a cost-effective
way to reduce the danger of fires and their aftermath.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify on
this important piece of legislation.
Senator Craig. Art, thank you for that testimony. Those are
valuable and important figures that we add to the record.
Now we turn to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors,
John Woolley. John, welcome before the committee.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WOOLLEY, SUPERVISOR,
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA
Mr. Woolley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
be here today. I am a Humboldt County Third District
Supervisor, and I want to thank you for the opportunity for
this hearing and to testify on behalf of the Northern
California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.
I would also like to recognize colleagues of mine behind me
who are here today to help support the bill for California's
First Congressional District. We have Mike Rippey, Napa County
Supervisor; Peter Windrom, a horseman and hunter from Lake
County; and Karen Oslund, the mayor of the town of Willits
which is in Mendocino County, the county just south of mine.
Senator Craig. Welcome to the committee, folks. We
appreciate you attending today. Thank you.
Mr. Woolley. I want to thank our representatives starting,
of course, with Congressman Mike Thompson, and then of course,
our Senators Feinstein and Boxer. It is truly great to see
their hard work on this bill and I will be speaking to that in
my testimony.
So all of us are here to lend our support on this bill
because of its benefits to what we believe is our quality of
life throughout the congressional district. We believe this
bill will protect our spectacular scenery and unmatched outdoor
recreation opportunities. It protects our clean air and water
and passes our natural heritage on unspoiled for future
generations to enjoy. At the same time, it ensures continued
motorized access by not closing any areas legally and
physically open to standard passenger vehicles. We believe it
can help increase tourism to the region while benefiting rare
wildlife and plant communities, and last, greatly protect our
300 miles of important fish habitat. The bill provides local
government with a critical piece of the puzzle for saving our
imperiled salmon.
I should say as a sidebar, I am part of the five-county
team that works on salmon restoration efforts and we believe
what you have identified here are the headwaters areas that
will really help with our salmon efforts.
The great degree of local support for S. 738 is largely due
to the extraordinarily inclusive process through which Senators
Boxer and Feinstein and Representative Thompson crafted in
their legislation. We witnessed their development of this bill
from the ground up. During the 4 years they spent listening to
local citizens and elected officials throughout the First
Congressional District, they sought out and received input from
a wide range of local stakeholders. As a result, the bill is
now a mosaic of fine-tuned adjustments designed to address
these local concerns. These stakeholders include equestrians,
local fire officials, Native Americans, mining interests, the
timber industry, anglers, hunters, ranchers, private
landowners, local mountain bikers, and many others, including
our elected officials.
So we are pleased with the discussion around what has
happened so far.
We are very grateful of your attention to the fire issue
because we too suffer, as you know, with the fire threats up
there. In fact, we have been using fire planning funds to help
address the very important issues around the Orleans
communities, as was mentioned by Senator Feinstein.
The owners of the Short Ranch supported the bill after a
boundary line was adjusted behind a fork of Boise Creek near
their land. Another example with adjustments was when the BLM
shared their fire management strategy in the King Range, the
proposal boundaries were adjusted to accommodate their plans.
Down in Lake County, when the Clear Lake Horsemans Association
was concerned about continuing to be able to cut firewood in a
particular area, the wilderness boundaries were adjusted to
meet their needs, and there are many more examples of this that
brought about the changes such that from the original plan
21,000 acres were then dropped.
So this is the true level of cooperation and--I cannot
emphasize this more--an attentiveness to local interests that
county supervisors like Mike Rippey and myself truly appreciate
from the Federal Government. I should say that we have, as has
probably been mentioned, a list of hundreds of local folks
throughout a whole community that both want wilderness
protection but also the access that it provides. I think this
bill really clearly demonstrates the flexibility that you spoke
to earlier that is needed.
So aside from this inclusive process undertaken in crafting
it, this bill is truly a gift to our region. We want to be able
to make sure that we help support the tourism that continues we
believe these designations will. These benefits have drawn the
support of a broad and diverse range of citizens in the First
Congressional District. I will support with my written
testimony, if I could, this list of over local supporters of
the bill, including many letters from individuals throughout
the First District.
We thank you very much for your attention on this matter. I
will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolley follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Woolley, Supervisor, Humboldt County, CA,
on S. 738
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank
you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Northern
California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.
My name is John Woolley. I'm a supervisor representing the people
of northwestern Humboldt County.
I would like to also recognize some other visitors from
California's First Congressional District who are here today. We have
Mike Rippey, Napa County Supervisor, Peter Windrom, a horseman and
Hunter from Lake County, and Karen Oslund, the Mayor of the town of
Willits in Mendocino County.
We are here to lend our support to this bill because of its
benefits to our quality of life in the North Coast.
It will protect our spectacular scenery and our unmatched outdoor
recreation opportunities. It protects our clean air and water-and
passes our natural heritage on unspoiled for future generations to
enjoy. It ensures continued motorized access by not closing any areas
legally and physically open to standard passenger vehicles. It can help
increase tourism to the region while benefiting rare wildlife and plant
communities. Lastly, by protecting over 300 miles of important fish
habitat, the bill provides local government with a critical piece of
the puzzle for saving our imperiled salmon.
But these benefits only partly explain the popularity of this bill.
The great degree of local support for S. 738 is largely due to the
extraordinarily inclusive process through which Senators Boxer and
Feinstein and Representative Thompson crafted their legislation. They
painstakingly built the bill from the ground up. During the four years
that they spent listening to local citizens and elected officials
throughout the First Congressional District, they sought out and
received input from a wide range of local stakeholders. As a result,
the bill is now a mosaic of fine-tuned adjustments designed to address
these local concerns. These stakeholders included equestrians, local
fire officials, Native Americans, mining interests, the timber
industry, anglers, hunters, ranchers, elected officials, private land
owners, local mountain bikers, and many others.
For example, in my home of Humboldt County, when fire officials in
Orleans expressed concerns about the proposed boundaries, the bill's
sponsors removed the portion closest to the town. The owners of the
Short Ranch supported the bill after a boundary line was set back
behind a fork of Boise Creek near their land. When the BLM shared their
fire management strategy in the King Range, the wilderness proposal
boundaries were adjusted to accommodate their plans. Down in Lake
County, when the Clear Lake Horsemans Association was concerned about
continuing to be able to cut firewood in a particular area, the
wilderness boundaries were adjusted to meet their needs.
In all, 18 major adjustments and literally dozens of minor ones
were made to the wilderness proposals as a result of these
collaborative discussions. These efforts resulted in dropping nearly
21,000 acres from the original plan.
This is the level of cooperation and attentiveness to local
interests that County Supervisors like myself truly appreciate from the
federal government.
But of course; aside from the process undertaken in crafting it,
this bill is truly a gift to our region. The scenic federal lands that
this bill would protect are essential to our quality of life in
Humboldt County. Tourism is a growing part of our economy along with
timber, fishing, retail, and government. The areas proposed for
protection are considered poor candidates for logging but are well
suited to draw visitors in off the highway to come and hike, raft or
kayak, hunt, fish, birdwatch, or just see our beautiful wildflowers in
spring. They will eat at our restaurants and shop at our stores, and
perhaps some of them will decide to make their home on the North Coast.
While of course Wilderness is not the entire answer to our region's
economic problems, it could make an important contribution.
These benefits have drawn the support of a broad and diverse range
of citizens in the 1st Congressional district. I will submit as part of
my written testimony this list of over 200 local supporters of the bill
and this set of nearly 100 individual endorsement letters from elected
officials, tribes, religious groups, inholders, citizen organizations
and small businesses including ranch and mill owners.
We hope you will join with Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein in
supporting the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness
Act.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak here today.
Senator Craig. Supervisor Woolley, thank you very much for
that testimony.
Now let me turn to Don Amador, Western representative of
BlueRibbon Coalition from Oakley, California. Don, it is
pleasing to have you before the committee. I have had a great
working relationship with BlueRibbon Coalition and I appreciate
your advocacy for off-road vehicle use, responsible off-road
vehicle use and recreational values. Thank you and please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF DON AMADOR, WESTERN REPRESENTATIVE, BLUERIBBON
COALITION, INC., OAKLEY, CA
Mr. Amador. Mr. Chairman Craig, I appreciate being asked to
testify on S. 738. My name is Don Amador. I am the Western
representative for the BlueRibbon Coalition. I am also a native
of Humboldt County and grew up there hunting and fishing and
otherwise enjoying the use of public lands in that area.
BRC supports the intent of the original Wilderness Act of
1964 as quoted on Senator Barbara Boxer's web site, and in
quotes, ``an area where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not
remain, an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its
primeval character and influence, without permanent
improvements or human habitation, which is protected and
managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.''
Mr. Chairman, we all remember the land use battle
surrounding the wilderness designations in the mid-1980's. Many
of us felt the strict 1964 Wilderness Act guidelines were bent
or manipulated by wilderness advocates for political reasons.
As you know, many of those lands contained historic mechanized
roads and trails that were used by multiple use recreation and
resource interests.
Today it appears that those same wilderness advocates are
not just bending the rules, but throwing them out the window.
Mr. Chairman, at the core of this issue, as you pointed out
earlier, is roads and access. This bill's advocates have said
that no current legal roads will be closed if the wilderness
act is approved. However, BRC has found that many maintained
public roads will be closed to motorized and mechanized uses,
including portions of the Smith-Etter Road that go out to the
Kinsey and Spanish Ridge trail heads in the King Range. BRC's
review of on-line maps available to the public of these
proposed wilderness areas found they used general purpose, low
detail forest maps instead of the more accurate 7\1/2\ minute
topo's. As you may know, general forest maps only contain about
50 to 80 percent of the legal and maintained road network.
Mr. Chairman, many legal and maintained logging spur roads
are penned out in this proposal. As you know, these roads are
important dispersed recreation sites or hunter camps used by
outdoorsmen. Many of these would be closed to RV's and SUV's
and these rigs would be forced to park along very narrow Forest
Service roads creating both traffic problems, potential for
theft, and visual impacts.
Another issue is that much of the promised hunting and
outdoor access in S. 738 for motorized users is based on the
cherry stem concept. While this idea sounds reasonable, it
often fails to live up to its access promise. It must be
remembered that motorized and mechanized use via the cherry
stem concept is only an allowed use and not a prescribed use.
Several Forest Service resource specialists have told me
privately that cherry stem routes will not work long-term
because it causes management problems or conflicts for the
agency.
BRC believes this legislation is purposely deviating from
the original intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964 by lowering
the standards for Federally designated wilderness so that non-
wilderness lands can be withdrawn from certain public use and
management prescriptions.
BRC's review of this legislation shows that this 21st
century modern type of wilderness can include radio and cell
phone towers. It can include electrical transmission lines. It
can border a county landfill site with views of people dumping
their garbage from a proposed wilderness trail head. And as you
pointed out before, it can contain well-maintained roads with
culverts. And you may even find private inholders blocking
access to public land with no trespassing signs such as greeted
me on a recent attempt to survey the Elkhorn Wilderness
addition.
Mr. Chairman, BRC feels that S. 738 fails to live up to its
promise for access, recreation, and resource protection. At a
time when the public is demanding more managed recreational use
of Federal lands, BRC feels that Congress should work to
provide more vehicle and mechanized opportunities and the
resources to better care for our timber stands and grasslands.
Should Congress feel that any part of S. 738 needs additional
protection, BRC strongly suggests that it consider our back
country designation.
Last, BRC and AMA did meet with Senator Boxer's senior
staff in 2000, offering to look at lands that truly met the
wilderness criteria. We just feel that this new modern type of
wilderness where you are hiking and you maybe pass by a lineman
driving a Dodge power wagon just does not fit the wilderness
criteria.
I will be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Amador follows:]
Prepared Statement of Don Amador, Western Representative,
BlueRibbon Coalition, Inc., on S. 738
Mr. Chairman and honorable committee members, I am Don Amador, the
Western Representative for the BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC), based in
Pocatello, Idaho. The BlueRibbon Coalition is a national recreation
group that champions responsible use of public and private lands, and
encourages individual environmental stewardship. It represents over
10,000 individual members and 1,100 organization and business members,
for a combined total of over 600,000 recreationists nationwide. I am a
native of Humboldt County and grew up in the Eureka area hunting,
fishing in the ocean and streams, hiking in state parks, and riding my
off-highway vehicle on public lands. In fact, the black bear I bagged
in the late 1970s was the first bear taken off of Underwood Mountain (a
proposed Wilderness area) according to the USDA Forest Service (FS)
officer who validated my tag.
Between 1994-2000, I was a commissioner and chairman for the Off-
Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHMVR) Commission at California State
Parks. I currently serve on the OHMVR community stakeholders group. I
helped develop the current Memorandum of Understanding between BRC and
the Washington Office of the USDA Forest Service. Recently on behalf of
BRC, I partnered with the Mendocino National Forest on a joint grant
request to Tread Lightly! and their HUMMER HELPS program to fund the
restoration of the North Fork Campground that was destroyed in the 2002
Trough Fire. I have been invited to speak on public land access issues
by the Society of Environmental Journalists, Outdoor Writers
Association of America, and the Western Outdoor Writers.
BRC members work hard to promote a responsible land-use ethic and
donate literally thousands of hours to maintain our existing trail and
recreational facilities on lands managed by the FS and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). BRC also supports the intent of the original
Wilderness Act of 1964 as, ``an area where the earth and its community
of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does
not remain . . . an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its
primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or
human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural conditions . . .''
In general, the public supports protection of these lands. The
primary argument is not a conflict between protection and exploitation
but a disagreement on the specific actions that are necessary to
provide appropriate protection to these areas. In 1972, the Forest
Service began the first review of FS Roadless Areas. This study was
known as the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) process. The
intent within the agency, at that time, was to identify areas that met
the criteria and then make a determination of which areas qualified for
inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System. One of the criteria in
this 1972 process, for inclusion of an area in the roadless inventory,
was that primitive roads would be ignored unless they were constructed
or maintained with mechanical equipment.
Disagreements over what areas were suitable for Wilderness created
significant controversy. In an attempt to reduce the controversy and
conflict, the FS undertook a second review (RARE II). This second
review resulted in the 58.5 million acres in the current inventory. As
part of this review, the FS again made Wilderness suitability
determinations. In the several decades since this last review, Congress
has designated some of the areas as Wilderness and not acted on some
others. Instead of reducing the controversy surrounding Wilderness
recommendations, this second review only served to expand the area
under disagreement. Wilderness advocates, using the perception that all
of these areas--and some BLM properties--are pristine have now pushed
forward with their efforts to include all areas as designated
Wilderness.
BRC appreciates that Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Mike
Thompson want to protect our natural resources and provide for a
variety of recreational activities. However, BRC has reviewed this
proposal and finds that it has many programmatic and technical
deficiencies that could result in the loss of those values that we all
seek to enjoy.
Even though Thompson legislative aide Jonathan Birdsong stated
(Press Democrat, April 1, 2003), ``. . . no current legal roads--for
example some of those in the King Range--will be closed if the
wilderness act is approved.''--BRC finds that according to proposed
Wilderness maps available on Senator Boxer's website many existing
roads including about 12 miles of local roads including the Smith-Etter
Road in the proposed King Range Wilderness Area will be closed to the
general public or mountain bikers traveling to interior staging areas.
Many other legal and existing motorized roads used by hunters and other
dispersed recreation interests will be closed as well.
BRC is concerned that road closures in S. 738 closely mirror other
roads that are being closed elsewhere in the state by this
legislation's parent bill, S. 1555--The California Wild Heritage Act of
2003. While this bill's supporters make similar claims that no roads
are being closed, BRC found that many recreational access roads
including 9N10, 10N14, and 10N14B would be closed in the new Caples
Creek Wilderness Area.
Rather than this being a so-called citizen's Wilderness proposal,
the advocates for this legislation simply appear to have used a marking
pen and traced many of their proposed Wilderness areas from the Forest
Service's March 2, 2000 Map of Inventoried Roadless Areas on National
Forest System Lands. BRC's review of online maps available to the
public of these proposed Wilderness areas found they used general
purpose low detail Forest Maps instead of the more accurate 7.5 Minute
Series Topographic Maps. As you may know, general Forest Maps only show
50-80 percent of their legal and maintained road network.
Often because of large scale maps, the marking pen (representing up
to \1/4\ mile in width) obliterates adjacent or boundary roads and
makes it unclear if S. 738 intends to close the road or leave it open.
Also, many legal and maintained ``logging spur'' roads that are usually
between 100 yards to \1/4\ mile in length are ``penned out.'' These
roads are important dispersed recreation sites or ``hunter camps'' used
by outdoorsmen. Many of these would be closed to RVs and SUVs and these
rigs would be forced to park along very narrow FS roads creating both
traffic flow problems, potential for theft, and visual impacts.
Much of the hunting and outdoor access for motorized users is based
on the ``cherry stem'' concept. While this idea sounds reasonable, it
often fails to live up to its access promise. It must be remembered
that motorized/mechanized use via the cherry-stemmed concept is only an
``allowed'' use, not a prescribed use. The Gasquet-Orleans road in the
Six Rivers National Forest was originally cherry-stemmed in the
California Wilderness Act of 1984, yet in the early 90s it was closed
to motorized and off-highway vehicle (OHV) access because that use was
not compatible with ``Wilderness values.'' Four-wheel drive use on the
BLM's Black Sands Beach in Northern California was recently banned
because the agency said, ``OHV use [i.e. motorized] is not compatible
with Wilderness values.''
The passage of the California Desert Protection Act had as one of
its ``access foundations'' the cherry-stemmed route to get buy-off from
access groups and multiple-use legislators. Yet, when the final version
of the bill was released or went into conference committee, many of
those routes were erased from the legislation.
Even the Glamis Sand Dunes in Imperial County was a ``cherry-
stemmed'' recreation area that the OHV community was promised as a
bone, yet today the very groups that pushed the original Act have
targeted that area for closure as well.
Because S. 738 uses many existing and legally maintained OHV and
mechanized roads as new Wilderness ``boundary markers,'' it has created
a new and somewhat problematic management dilemma for the FS and BLM.
These roads could be called ``quasi-cherry stems'' and appear to be in
conflict with the ``3-mile'' setback rule. According to the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), in order to have a wilderness recreation
experience, an individual must be at least 3 miles from the nearest
road or trail where motorized vehicles are in use.
A Forest Service resource specialist once told me that another
reason the cherry-stemmed route does not work long-term is because it
causes ``management problems or conflicts'' for the agency. Again this
dilemma for the agency derives from the fact that cherry-stemmed or
quasi-cherry-stemmed OHV and mountain-bike (MTB) use is only an.
allowed activity that does not mesh well with the very strict
management or non-management directives for federally designated
Wilderness.
BRC believes this legislation is intentionally deviating from the
original intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the ROS 3-mile
setback rule by ``lowering the standards'' for federally designated
Wilderness so that non-Wilderness lands can be withdrawn from certain
public uses and management prescriptions. BRC's review of this
legislation shows that this 21st Century ``modern-type of Wilderness''
can include radio and cell phone towers, electrical transmission lines,
bordering a county land-fill site with views of people dumping their
garbage from the proposed Wilderness trail-head, and well maintained
roads with culverts. According to apparent promises made to local water
districts, utilities, and forest health interests a hiker in this
modern Wilderness can expect to see garbage trucks emptying their
loads, loggers running chainsaws to address overgrown habitats,
bulldozers maintaining existing roads or building a fire line, backhoe
operators repairing a culvert so radio technicians can reach a tower,
and linemen or linewomen in Dodge Powerwagons, Jeeps, or all-terrain
vehicles (ATVs) traveling on roads and trails to repair telephone poles
or transformers. You may even find private inholders blocking access to
public lands with NO TRESSPASSING signs.
Using the available proposed Wilderness maps posted on Senator
Boxer's website and based on my recent tour of some of the proposed
Wilderness areas, I will endeavor to accurately portray what BRC
believes the effect will be to the recreation community if the
legislation is passed.
Snow Mountain Wilderness Additions--This 20,960 acre proposal would
increase the size of the existing Snow Mountain Wilderness by
approximately 60%. The affected National Forest System lands
surrounding the current Snow Mountain Wilderness Area are important
recreation lands used by MTBs, OHVs, hunters, fishermen, equestrians,
houndsmen, and people driving for pleasure. It contains or is adjacent
to many dispersed and developed recreation site. The proposal would
close a number of mountain bike trails and apparently some legal
motorized routes that do not show up on the low detail general forest
maps used by the advocates for this legislation. As stated before, the
sometimes indiscriminate use of a black marker pen on these large scale
maps appear to effect a number of routes currently open to legal
motorized access interests. The routes closed to mountain bikes include
the Cold Creek Trail, Marble Cabin Trail, Bloody Rock Trail, and 9W45.
Existing and legal forest roads that are cherry-stemmed or quasi-
cherry-stemmed include, but are not limited to; M3, M6, M10, 17N02,
17N29, 17N33, 17N87, 18N02, 18N04, and 19N12. Also at risk of closure
to motorized access are many dispersed hunter campsites that exist at
the end of short logging spur roads. Since this area is at risk for
catastrophic wildfire, BRC feels this Wilderness addition would
complicate efforts to manage federal lands for forest health and fire
protection and would place the local community including the nearby
Fouts Springs Youth Facility in serious jeopardy. BRC does not believe
this area qualifies for federal Wilderness under the guidelines of the
Wilderness Act of 1964.
Sanhedrin Mountain Wilderness Addition--This 10,160 acre proposal
appears to close a number of OHV and mountain bike opportunities. These
include, but are not limited to, road near Pen Creek, and road south of
L. Signal Peak. 9N16 appears to be cherry-stemmed or quasi-cherry-
stemmed on the proposed Wilderness map. A Wilderness designation would
impact the agency's ability to actively manage the area for wildfire.
BRC believes this area does not qualify for federal Wilderness.
Yuki Wilderness Addition--This 51,790 acre proposal appears to
close a number of existing and legal OHV and mountain bike routes.
These include, but are not limited to, 10W27, 10W32, 21N19, 4 unnamed
roads/trails in the NW section, and a 4WD trail near Thatcher Creek.
Roads that are cherry-stemmed or quasi-cherry-stemmed include, but are
not limited to, M1, 20N14, 21N08, 21N11, and 21N18. Too many existing
recreation facilities would be closed or otherwise impacted by this
proposal. It would also functionally limit the agency's ability to
actively manage said lands for forest health and wildfire protection.
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness Additions--This proposal would
add 26,760 acres to the existing 153,841 acre Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel
Wilderness area. These additions would close all or portions of many
existing and legal mountain bike trails and/or motorized routes. These
impacts include, but are not limited to, 10W12, 10W13, 10W36, 10W36,
10W47, National Recreational Trail, 24N21, and the Leech Lake Mountain
Road. The routes that are cherry-stemmed or quasi-cherry-stemmed
include, but are not limited to, M1, M2, M21, 9W36, 23N34, 24N21,
25N11, 25N16E, 25N18, 25N34, 28N23, Forest Road 35, and Forest Road 45.
This proposal would negatively impact existing multiple-use recreation
facilities that compliment the existing Wilderness area. BRC believes
this plan would affect the agency's ability to actively manage the area
for forest health and fire prevention.
Mad River Buttes Wilderness Addition--This 5,740 acre proposal
would close one of the only legal semi-primitive OHV trails in the Six
Rivers National Forest. 4E26 is also known as the Bug Creek Trail and
is one of my personal favorites on the Six Rivers National Forest. It
is being successfully managed for both OHVs and mountain bikes under
existing statutes, codes, and regulations including direction from the
1995 Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
Roads cherry-stemmed or quasi-cherry-stemmed include, but are not
limited to, Route 1, 3N05, and 4N38. BRC does not believe it is in the
public's best interest for Congress to withdraw this area from
multiple-use recreation and resource management. BRC does not believe
this area qualifies for federal Wilderness.
Siskiyou Wilderness Area Additions--This proposal consists of
33,750 acres in Del Norte County and 8,440 acres in Humboldt County.
The access disaster story of the Gasquet-Orleans Road (G-O Road) is one
of the best examples of why cherry-stemmed roads can be eventually
closed. The G-O road was cherry-stemmed in the California Wilderness
Act of 1984 because it provided an important access route for trade,
commerce, and Forest Service administrative activities between the
coast and the inland valleys. However, because cherry-stemmed routes
often cause management problems or impact ``Wilderness values'' this
road was closed to motorized and mechanized use in the early 1990s
despite promises--similar to the buffer exclusion clauses in this
bill--in the 1984 Act. The segments of the following mountain bike
trails that appear to be impacted include, but are not limited to,
3E01, 4E09, 5E06, S. Kelsey Trail, and the trail near Norcross
Campground. Short logging spur roads may be impacted by this bill as
well. Roads cherry-stemmed or quasi-cherry-stemmed include, but are not
limited to, G-O Road, 12N11, 13N01, 13N02, 13N34, 13N44, 13N44D, 14N01,
14N02, 14N06, 14N39, 15N01, 15N17, 15N17Y, 15N19, 15N27, 15N34, 15N35,
15N36, 16N02, 16N28, 17N11, 17N32, and 18N07. BRC believes these
additions do not meet the guidelines for federal Wilderness.
Mount Lassic Wilderness Addition--This proposal would add an
additional 7,100 acres of Wilderness to the Six Rivers National Forest.
This area already has special protection afforded it by virtue of its
designation as a botanical area. BRC is concerned that an important
segment of 1S07 also known as the California Backcountry Motorized
Trail will be quasi-cherry-stemmed and placed at risk for future
closure. 2S08C appears to be quasi-cherry-stemmed as well. Several
hunting spur roads also appear to be at risk for closure. BRC feels
this area should remain in its current status as a botanical area.
Trinity Alps Wilderness Additions--This proposal would add an
additional 26,510 acres of Wilderness to the Six Rivers National
Forest. It appears this plan would close segments of the following
mountain bike opportunities, Horse Ridge Trail, 6E14, 6E15, 6E18, and
6E31 in the Six Rivers National Forest or adjacent Forests. Numerous
legal logging spur roads would be closed to motorized hunting access.
The cherry-stemmed or quasi-cherry-stemmed routes include, but are not
limited to, 5N04, 5N05, 5N15, 5N18, 5N33, 7N09, 7N15, 7N26, 7N53, 9N03,
9N26, 9N31, 10N01, 10N02, 1ON01C, 10N03, 1ON03B, and the Lubbs Trail.
BRC feels the areas proposed are in conflict with the original intent
of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Underwood Wilderness Addition--This proposal would add an
additional 3,500 acres to the Wilderness System. I recently toured this
area with Scott Sinclair, a former OHV recreation manager for the Six
Rivers National Forest. BRC found numerous spur roads that would be
closed as well as 5N27D. An important mountain bike trail--5E23--would
be closed to cyclists. We also found a number of ongoing forest health
projects including the construction of ``truck roads'' to address
active timber and wildfire management in the ``Wilderness'' portion of
this proposal. Roads cherry-stemmed or quasi-cherry-stemmed includes,
but are not limited to, 4N09, 4N29, 4N34, 5N08, 5N27, and 5N40. Too
many important hunting and dispersed recreational opportunities would
be closed by this plan. Also, much needed and apparently ongoing active
management programs would be halted. BRC believes this unit should
remain open for responsible multiple-use activities.
Cache Creek Wilderness Area--This proposal would add an additional
38,960 acres of Wilderness to the Ukiah Field Office of the BLM. This
area is constantly at risk for catastrophic wildfire. It is close to
the San Francisco Bay area and is used by mountain bikers, equestrians,
hikers, and outdoorsmen. Numerous MTB trails would be closed by this
plan. They include the Judge Davis Trail, Redbud Trail, and the Perkins
Creek Trail.
Also, the western boundary is adjacent to the county landfill. This
proposal would install a Wilderness trailhead that overlooks people
dumping garbage at the county site. Also, this area contains a vast
network of private and government roads that should disqualify it from
Wilderness designation. A Wilderness designation would prohibit the
active fire management that this unit so desperately needs. Its close
proximity to the residents of the Clear Lake area is another strike
against this proposal. BRC suggests Congress leave this unit in its
current status.
Blue Ridge Wilderness Area--This proposal would add 760 acres to
the Ukiah Field Office of the BLM. This area contains at least one
mountain bike trail. It is also too small to be considered for
Wilderness and should remain in its current land management status.
Cedar Roughs Proposed Wilderness Area--This proposal would add
5,880 acres to the Ukiah Field Office of the BLM. This plan would
remove the agency's option for active management to reduce the prospect
of a catastrophic wildfire and its potential impacts to adjacent
landowners in the Lake Berryessa area. This unit is also in relatively
close proximity to the Los Posadas State Forest and Pacific Union
College.
King Range Wilderness Area--This proposal would add 41,614 acres to
the Arcata Field Office of the BLM. Contrary to statement made by
Congressman Thompson's staff, this proposal as mapped on Senator
Boxer's website would close significant portions of the Smith-Etter
Road and other access roads to various trail heads on the front range.
It would also close over 20 miles of the Lost Coast Trail to mountain
bikes. Other mountain bike trails would be closed as well. A recent
fire in the King Range illustrated that this unit requires more active
resource management, not less. The 1865 Official Township Map of
Humboldt County shows that the Lost Coast Trail was indeed an important
north-south coastal ``highway'' at the time because of steep inland
terrain. BRC has long contended that the BLM is already managing this
area as de facto Wilderness based on the agency's ongoing road and
trail closure program. Designating this area as federal Wilderness
would be redundant and is unnecessary because it is already a National
Conservation Area. It would also prohibit the active fire management
prescriptions that are needed to protect private inholding within and
adjacent to the King Range.
South Fork Eel Wilderness Area--These additions would add 14,000
acres to the Arcata Field Office of the BLM. Rather than designating
these areas as Wilderness, Congress should look at the lack of public
access to these federal lands. In fact, as I was preparing to do a
field review of the Elkhorn segment of the proposal, I was rudely
greeted with a NO TRESSPASSING sign placed near the only access point
off of State Highway 271. As a native of this region, I was surprised
the BLM even had this land in their jurisdiction. It appears these
lands are purposefully land-locked and are the playground for private
interests. BRC does not understand how a Wilderness designation will
enhance public access to these units when they are currently closed and
apparently jealously guarded by non-governmental parties. Also, these
lands need intensive active fire and forest health management
prescriptions. Ripping roads in the Elkhorn segment and prohibiting
forest management unit-wide is unwise and could threaten nearby
residents in Cummings and Legget. The Cahto Unit near Laytonville has
numerous roads, trails, and various radio or cell tower installations.
Although important to the communication needs of the local community,
the visual impact of these manmade structures makes this area
unsuitable for federal Wilderness. Also, the access needs for radio and
telecommunication professionals would be affected by this plan. BRC
recommends this unit remain in the current management strategy.
Black Butte Wild and Scenic River Designation--This would add 21
miles of Wild and Scenic River to the Mendocino National Forest. BRC
could not find a map of this proposal on Senator Boxer's website.
However, BRC endeavored to review this proposal using existing Forest
Maps and have determined that some or all of the following roads could
be closed to motorized use and they include but are not limited to,
21N41, 22N29, 22N31, 22N32, 22N36, and 22N38. BRC recommends that most
if not all of this proposal remain in current management strategy.
In conclusion, BRC feels that S. 738 fails to provide the public
with adequately detailed maps upon which to make a judgment on the
worthiness of the legislation. Based on the available information and
field reviews, BRC suggests that most, if not all, of said lands remain
in current management prescriptions. In fact, BRC suggests that active
forest health and fire management treatments be accelerated. Over 90%
of forest recreation and access is vehicle based with driving for
pleasure being listed as the number one recreational activity. Most
forest recreation occurs within 1/4 mile of a vehicle. It is said that
only 3% or less of forest recreation is Wilderness based. At a time
when the public is demanding more managed recreational use of federal
lands, BRC feels that Congress should work to provide more vehicle or
mechanized opportunities and the resources to better care for our
timber stands and grasslands.
Should Congress feel that any part of S. 738 needs additional
protection, BRC strongly suggests that it review our Backcountry
Designation. Congress should consider establishing a new land
designation that provides the protection the public demands for these
lands while at the same time providing the managing agencies the
necessary management flexibility to respond to recreational demands and
address critical concerns of forest health, fire prevention and
wildlife habitat enhancement.
These lands provide a very valuable resource for recreational
activities that allow people to experience and enjoy natural appearing
landscapes. They provide opportunities for people to escape from the
pressures of the everyday world. This can include a wide range of
recreational activities including hunting, fishing, snowmobiling,
hiking, off-highway motorcycling, horseback riding, ATV use, bicycling
or use of 4-wheel drive vehicles. At the same time, many of these lands
are threatened by insect and disease epidemics and by catastrophic
wildfires that could destroy the very values that the public wants to
see preserved. Therefore, it is essential that this land designation
also allow the managing agencies the ability to apply a minimum level
of management to deal with these threats.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much for that
testimony.
Art, I do very much appreciate your testimony. There are a
number of people who believe this legislation is not needed. I
think you heard Senator Bingaman question how it righted
itself, if you will, with other corps concepts because I think
they are concerned that the Healthy Forest Corps is either
redundant or might consume all of the funding currently
proposed for the Public Land Corps and Youth Conservation
Corps. Could you spend just a minute or so to help us
understand why this bill, S. 2253, is different from the
existing authorizations and why it might be needed?
Mr. Pope. I would be happy to try and respond to that
question. It is not an area I have got a lot of expertise in at
this point and I might need to request the opportunity to
provide clarification to you later.
But in the corps world, we are always as a nonprofit trying
to find ways to piece together funding sources. This is another
opportunity that allows us to partner with Federal agencies and
bring our resources to bear for some of the projects that they
are trying to complete. There are a number of ways that this
would provide us the opportunity to continue to work with those
agencies and expand the services we can provide.
In terms of the exact differences in the legislation, I
would like to be able to get back to you on that.
Senator Craig. Okay. Thank you very much, Art. I do
appreciate that. I think it is important. Sometimes we do get
redundant around here and sometimes we maybe ought to adjust
what we have to make it work better if it is not functioning
properly. I think all of us share the example and the values
you gave as it relates to the corps and corps activities and
the kind of work that can be effectively done on public lands
with the use of this talent. So I do thank you for it.
John, let me again thank you. I know that you have heard
all of the testimony here today given on S. 738 and the other
bills, and I know that you and many others in northern
California have worked hard to get this legislation to where it
is. How would you portray the involvement of the mountain bike
community when it comes to this bill, and were they involved
and are they supporters?
Mr. Woolley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could speak to
this, I would like to lend my support as well, if I could take
the liberty, for the conservation efforts. I just finished last
week voting on an effort we pushed through to blend the
Conservation Corps with fire suppression activities through our
work force investment programs as we did not have the funds.
But we were able to find through fire suppression moneys
through H.R. 2389 funds for helping with the Conservation Corps
and they were right on the spot. I want to tell you without our
corps, we would be lost in Humboldt County.
But as to your question, I think that what I observed is
both the work in the community for the 4 years that the
advocates for the bill brought forward, and I also had
testimony, if you will, brought to me individually by both
mountain bike individuals as well as individuals that own bike
stores in our area who are really well aware of the proposal
sites and see that those are gems, something that they believe
is something worth protecting. We believe that that is the case
and that the mountain bike community is not all one voice, but
we do recognize there is some more concern and we are willing
to work with that, but right at this point I believe our
community understands that these are the sites, the wilderness
sites, that need protection.
Senator Craig. I see that many of the supporters of the
King Range Wilderness make the point that this is the largest
undeveloped section of the coast on the west coast outside of
Alaska. I also see that it is roaded and that it is managed by
the BLM. So I am a bit confused. If they are managing most of
the area as a de facto wilderness, why does it need this
designated protection?
Mr. Woolley. Well, I think it has been kind of a football
as far as wondering who is going to control what, and I think
that the key to aspects to wilderness is it is a legacy
program. I think by designating that land base--41,000 acres,
as you know, is quite large for a rural area, and the coastal
grounds that it is in is very steep and rugged. I think it just
makes sense for us to legislatively protect that for the legacy
purposes. The concerns that we have brought to the table I
think have been addressed.
And I want to thank the administration for being on board
with recognizing those purposes as well.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
My last question of you, John. What about the private
properties that currently have road access and have
historically had road access? Do you have specific language
that you would recommend to ensure these private landowners can
continue to gain access to their lands?
Mr. Woolley. Personally I do not have language, but I
believe it is the case where inholding lands, in particular,
private roads that are in place now, will be protected by this
bill.
Senator Craig. Well, I think that is the intent, and we are
certainly going to look at that very closely because obviously
we do not want private landowners denied that right of access.
Mr. Woolley. We agree.
Senator Craig. Don, again, thank you for being with us.
Having read your testimony concerning recreational opportunity
spectrum, I am wondering if it is your contention that no
wilderness should come within 3 miles of a road.
Mr. Amador. Well, that is just a general recommendation. I
think sometimes, depending on topographic contours, you might
even go down to 1 mile. I know some people talk about a 1 to 3
mile buffer, and that is something we would be willing to look
at.
But if you look at this new legislation, you will see that
existing mechanized and motorized roads are being used as
boundaries for most of these proposals. As you know, in the
West particularly during hunting season, these roads and
dispersed camp sites, logging roads are still being maintained
by the Forest Service. It is literally a parking lot at the
opening of hunting season. I just do not want to see that sort
of access go by the wayside, and I do not think Supervisor
Woolley does either.
Senator Craig. Given your testimony on a number of
California examples where roads have been cherry-stemmed out of
wildernesses, only to have the land management agencies
subsequently close the road because the road use was not
compatible with wilderness values, we have always thought that
that was a way around particular problems. We are finding out
not necessarily so.
I am wondering if your organization could provide us with
some detail where this has happened in western States, once
cherry-stemmed, then closed.
Mr. Amador. Yes, I would be glad to provide the committee
with that information.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
I guess my last question of you, Don, would be if we
cherry-stemmed these roads out of the wilderness and include
express language that agencies must maintain access to these
roads, are there any of these proposed areas that you would
support?
Mr. Amador. Again, I would have to go back and look at
these proposals because, again, many of them have legal and
maintained roads and trails in them, and I think we would just
have to review those. I would be glad to supply the committee
with that information.
Senator Craig. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much for
your time with us today. I do appreciate it. I know that my
colleagues from California have worked hard to try to resolve
this issue and we will see what we can do to make it happen
where it fits.
I want to remind everyone that we will hold the hearing
record open for 10 days, so anyone who wants to submit
additional testimony may do that.
Additionally, I have a number of opening statements from
Senators Domenici, Clinton, and Puerto Rico's Residential
Commissioner Acevedo-Vila that we will enter into the record.
[The prepared statements of Senator Domenici, Senator
Clinton, and Mr. Acevedo-Vila follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senator From New Mexico
I want to thank Senator Craig for holding this hearing on the seven
bills listed in the hearing notice and ask that my statement be
included in the record of this hearing.
I am a cosponsor on two of the bills to be considered today. I want
to take just a moment to speak to each of them, and to thank Senators
Bingaman and Feinstein for introducing these two bills.
First, I want to speak to S. 2253--The Healthy Forest Public Land
Corps Act of 2004 which I am honored to co-sponsor with Senator Diane
Feinstein.
As many of you know this legislation was included in the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act of 2003 that was passed by the Senate last year.
However, along with many of the provisions in the latter sections of
H.R. 1904, it was stripped in conference.
I know that some believe that the Healthy Forest Public Land Corps
may be redundant and not needed, but I believe that the Healthy Forest
Public Land Corps called for in S. 2253 encourages more effort by
young, economically disadvantaged youth, rather than replacing the good
works that the existing Public Land Corps provides.
Both the Bush Administration and a number of Democrats in addition
to my co-sponsor, Senator Feinstein, support a healthy forest public
land corps. The Bush Administration supported the provisions in the
Senate passed H.R. 1904. Senators Kerry and Edwards have called for an
expanded Public Land Corps to work on the healthy forest situation.
Given this bi-partisan support, I have to believe that S. 2253 will
enjoy overwhelming political support.
I would hope that all members of this Committee would work with
Senator Feinstein and me to improve this bill. It will provide
meaningful work for disadvantaged youth while improving our federal
forests.
The second bill is one introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman that I
am also honored to co-sponsor. This bill is one that we marked up in
the 106th Congress. S. 2622, the Pecos National Historic Park Land
Exchange, would authorize a land exchange between a private landowner,
the Pecos Historic Park, and the Forest Service.
The Glorieta Unit of the Park, where this exchange is focused,
protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of
Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended Confederate attempts to
expand the war into the west.
More than half of the land in the unit is privately owned, making
public access, preservation of resources, and cooperation with private
property owners very difficult.
Again, I hope that all Committee members will work with Senator
Bingaman and me to get this important legislation signed into law.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses in support of
these two bills.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senator From New York
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you holding this hearing today, and
for the opportunity to testify regarding the Caribbean National Forest
Act of 2004, a bill I introduced earlier this year along with Senator
Schumer.
The Caribbean National Forest Act designates approximately 10,000
acres of the Caribbean National Forest as the ``El Toro Wilderness.''
The El Toro Wilderness would be the only tropical forest wilderness in
the U.S. National Forest system.
The Caribbean National Forest has long been recognized as a special
area, worthy of protection. The Spanish Crown proclaimed much of the
current Caribbean National Forest as a forest reserve in 1824. One
hundred years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt reasserted the
protection of the Caribbean National Forest by designating the area as
a forest reserve.
Located 25 miles east of San Juan, the Caribbean National Forest is
a biologically diverse area. Although it is the smallest forest in the
national forest system, the Caribbean National Forest ranks number one
in the number of species of native trees with 240. It contains 50
varieties of orchids and over 150 species of ferns. It is also home to
over 100 species of vertebrates, including the endangered Puerto Rican
parrot. This is the only native parrot in Puerto Rico. Although they
numbered nearly one million at the time that Columbus set sail for the
New World. Today there are fewer than 35 of these parrots. The Forest
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Puerto Rico's
Department of Natural Resources and the Environment have initiated a
recovery program for the Puerto Rican Parrot. Wilderness designation
will ensure that the forest home to the parrot will remain protected
and the ongoing recovery efforts, consistent with the Wilderness Act,
will continue.
The Caribbean National Forest also provides valuable water to the
people of Puerto Rico. Its major watersheds in provide water to over
800,000 Puerto Ricans. In addition, the forest provides a variety of
recreational opportunities to over 700,000 Puerto Ricans and tourists
each year. Families, friends and school groups come to the forest to
hike, bird watch, picnic, swim and enjoy the scenic vistas.
Wilderness designation of the El Toro would protect approximately
one third of the forest. A companion House bill, H.R. 1723, has been
introduced by Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner, Anibel Acevedo-Vila.
The bill is supported by the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, National
Wildlife Federation, and the National Hispanic Coalition Council.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I urge the
committee to move this important legislation when the Senate returns to
session in September.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
Resident Commissioner, Puerto Rico
I would like to thank Chairman Pete Domenici, ranking member Jeff
Bingaman, Chairman Larry Craig, ranking member Ron Wyden, and members
of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. I greatly appreciate
you holding this hearing on the Caribbean National Forest Wilderness
Act of 2003, S. 2334, which will designate the El Toro Wilderness Area
in the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Rico. As you know, I
introduced a companion measure in the House last year, H.R. 1723. I
would also like to thank Senator Hillary Clinton for her strong
leadership in introducing this measure in the Senate, and for Senator
Charles Schumer for cosponsoring this measure.
I would also like to recognize the U.S. Forest Service who is
testifying today. I have enjoyed working with the Forest Service on
this and other issues, and I especially appreciate the agency's strong
endorsement of the companion bill during a hearing on this legislation
nearly a year ago, on July 23, 2003, in a House Forests and Forest
Health Subcommittee hearing.
The legislation introduced by Senators Clinton and Schumer, and
myself would designate approximately 10,000 acres of the Caribbean
National Forest as the El Toro Wilderness Area, named for El Toro peak,
the highest peak in El Yunque. The House bill has broad support,
including 25 cosponsors, and was actually passed by the other body
during the 107th Congress, though the Senate did not take it up at that
time.
As some of you may know, the Caribbean National Forest, the only
tropical rainforest in the national forest system, celebrated its 100th
anniversary last year. In 1876, twenty-seven years before its 1903-
federal designation by President Theodore Roosevelt, Spain's King
Alfonso XII proclaimed this forest a Crown Reserve, making this forest,
know locally as El Yunque, one of the first forest reserves in the
western hemisphere.
Due to the topography of El Yunque, unsuitable forest composition
for timber, and conservation by the Forest Service, El Yunque, and to a
greater degree the lands to be designated as wilderness in this bill,
maintains the characteristics it had over 100 years ago. El Yunque
contains virtually all of the primary forest remaining in Puerto Rico,
and as such represents a unique cultural and natural heritage for
Puerto Ricans. The Wilderness Act was passed to protect just these
types of lands--where the forest has been affected primarily by the
forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable. Therefore, I believe that wilderness protection is
appropriate and in line with the history of these lands and the value
they contribute to Puerto Rico.
However, these beliefs are not solely mine. As the population
density in Puerto Rico is among the highest in the nation, large,
undeveloped tracts of land are increasingly rare, while their value to
the public has grown significantly. When the Forest Service revised the
management plan for El Yunque beginning in 1995, the public widely
supported wilderness designations on the forest. Many public comments
were received in support of expanding the wilderness study area that
was in the previous land and resource management plan, and in support
of wilderness designation for this study area.
Public support for wilderness led the forest plan to nearly double
the wilderness recommendation from 5,254 acres to what is included in
this bill, over 10,000 acres. However, I feel that it is important to
note that an alternative considered during revision of the management
plan would have provided for over 16,000 acres of wilderness, a
proposal 63 percent larger than that which is being considered today.
What this legislation proposes to designate as wilderness is identical
to that recommendation in the Caribbean National Forest's revised land
and resource management plan, and would create the first wilderness
area in El Yunque. It should also be noted that there are no competing
interests, such as timber harvests, road construction, or water
development, in the lands to be designated as wilderness. This
legislation also has the support of the Commonwealth's Governor, Sila
M. Calderon, as well as numerous environmental organizations.
The El Toro Wilderness Area to be designated through this bill is
also essential habitat for the Puerto Rican parrot. One of the ten-most
endangered birds in the world and a federally listed endangered
species, the parrot requires large, undeveloped tracts of land for its
survival. It is for this reason that the only remaining wild population
of this bird, currently about 36 birds, is confined to El Yunque.
Activities necessary for the conservation and recovery of this species
would not be hindered by wilderness designation. In addition to the
Puerto Rican parrot, no fewer than eight other threatened and
endangered species call El Yunque home. Many other species are endemic
only to El Yunque, and the forest also provides respite to dozens of
migratory bird species. Protecting the El Toro area as wilderness will
ensure that the habitat of these species remains undeveloped and well
suited for their survival.
Additionally, El Yunque, though one of the smallest forest system
components, contains a striking array of plant biodiversity. The forest
contains over 240 species of native trees, including some trees that
are only found in the Forest, and also includes 50 species of native
orchids and over 150 species of ferns.
Water conservation is another important value of El Yunque. The
forest is comprised of 8 major watersheds that provide water for nearly
800,000 Puerto Ricans. Weather events in El Yunque often lead to
mudslides, impacting water quality. Through wilderness protection, much
of this forest will be protected from road development that could
accelerate this type of erosion and water impairment. Further,
recognizing the need for development outside the wilderness and to
avoid user conflicts, the map of this wilderness area is drawn to
exclude municipal water impoundments and is set back from a road right-
of-way.
The El Toro area currently has a network of trails that permit an
array of recreational opportunities that will continue under wilderness
designation. Almost one million tourists a year currently visit and use
El Yunque. Local residents and tourists alike hike, swim, climb El Toro
peak, bird watch and otherwise take advantage of the wild nature of the
proposed wilderness area.
I believe that the characteristics and values of the proposed El
Toro Wilderness Area are very much in concert with the intent and
purpose of the Wilderness Act. Solitude, the absence of the imprint of
man, and nationally unique ecological and biological features comprise
El Yunque and the proposed wilderness area. On the 40th anniversary of
the Wilderness Act, I believe it would be fitting that the first
tropical forest in the wilderness preservation system, and the first
wilderness designation in El Yunque be the El Toro Wilderness Area, as
it encompasses the natural qualities of this forest, and should be
protected in that nature for perpetuity.
Again, I very much appreciate the Chairman's scheduling of this
hearing. I appreciate the support for this bill that my colleagues in
both the House and Senate have provided, and I encourage the support of
this subcommittee, and the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
in considering and approving this bill.
Senator Craig. And finally, we will enter into the record
the letters and statements we have received from Oregon State
Senator Penny Lind and the Off-road Business Association,
American Rivers, and the Sierra Club.
Again, thank you all very much for attending.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2004.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau of
Land Management to questions submitted following the July 21, 2004,
hearing on S. 738, the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage
Wilderness Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Larry Craig
S. 738--NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WILD HERITAGE WILDERNESS ACT
Question 1. I am concerned about the bridges and culverts and other
drainage structures that will be abandoned within the proposed
Wilderness areas.
Could you provide this Subcommittee with a detailed inventory of
the bridges, culverts and other drainage structures that fall within
all of the wilderness, and wild and scenic river proposals being made
today?
Answer. The following is a list (area by area) of known roads and
associated structures that would be closed to the public under the
legislation (although any private access to inholdings would be
continued).
Proposed Yolla-Bolly Middle-Eel Wilderness
Big Butte Road, 0.6 miles long, no culverts or other drainage
structures. This road provides access to private inholdings within the
existing Yolla-Bolly Middle-Eel Wilderness through lease authorizations
and could continue to provide access to the private inholdings after
wilderness designation.
Proposed King Range Wilderness
Smith-Etter Road, 4 miles long, 6 culverts. This road is currently
closed to the public. The road provides access to private inholdings
and would continue to provide access to private inholdings after
wilderness designation.
Proposed Cache Creek Wilderness
New Cacheville Road, 1.5 miles long, no culverts or other drainage
structures. This road provides access to undeveloped private land with
frontage on Cache Creek and could continue to provide access to the
private inholdings after wilderness designation. Road is passable by
four-wheel drive vehicle.
Question 2. Please provide estimates of the cost of removal of each
structure.
Answer. The BLM does not anticipate removal of any of the access
routes or associated structures.
Question 3. S. 738 includes language to provide a 600 foot buffer
strip to be managed around each parcel of private property within the
wilderness proposals.
Could you supply this Committee with maps of the non-federal lands
within the proposed wildernesses, and an assessment of the cost of
providing the 600 feet of buffer strips on the adjoining federal land?
Answer. A map that responds to this request is being prepared and
will be forwarded to the Committee as soon as it is available.
Section 102(d)(4) of S. 738 directs that the boundaries of three of
the wilderness areas in the bill be adjusted or set back by 600 feet to
allow and encourage mechanical fire suppression activities. These areas
are: Snow Mountain Wilderness (managed by the Forest Service), Yolla
Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness (managed by the Forest Service), and Cache
Creek Wilderness (managed by the BLM).
The BLM adjusted the external boundary of the Cache Creek
Wilderness on the maps we are providing under question #11 to exclude
the 600-foot setback from the wilderness. The boundaries on the maps
will show that the 600-foot setback, which may need extensive fuels
treatment, will be located outside the wilderness. Thus, the fuels
treatments can occur in the future without any wilderness-related
restrictions. Accordingly, the language in section 102(d)(4) for Cache
Creek is no longer necessary.
Question 4. Please also provide the approximate annual cost of
maintaining these fire breaks once they have been cleared? And a
description of your assessment of whether or not power tools would be
allowed in the buffer area under the Wilderness Act?
Answer. The BLM has not completed such an evaluation and does not
have an estimate on cost. However, the designation of wilderness should
have no impact on future decisions about fuels treatments or on the
cost of any such treatments. Because this area is outside the
wilderness, the Wilderness Act would not be a consideration in whether
or not power tools would be allowed on these lands.
Question 5. S. 738 includes a number of specific authorizations to
ear-mark funding for economic development, fire fighting, and
recreation improvements within these wildernesses. Do you believe we
should be authorizing such ear-marks? What impact will they have on
your agency's ability to manage other Wilderness areas?
Answer. We note that there are a number of authorizations within
the bill. It would be difficult to estimate the effect of these
authorizations on the BLM's ability to manage wilderness until Congress
makes a determination as to appropriation levels for each of these
authorizations. However, we support funding as proposed in the
President's Budget. The Department does not support the addition of
funds for other programs or projects that would result in program goals
not being achieved.
Question 6. Can you give us some insight on utilizing roads as the
boundaries of wilderness areas? Does using roads as wilderness boundary
lead to inevitable conflicts that result in those roads being closed at
a later time?
Answer. Many BLM wilderness boundaries are along roads. In many
cases roads are ideal boundaries for wilderness because they are semi-
permanent physical features that are easy to locate on the ground. The
BLM's wilderness policy recommends wilderness boundaries be set back
300 feet from high standard roads such as paved roads, 100 feet from
high standard logging roads, and 30 feet from jeep roads or low
standard logging roads.
Question 7. Mr. Amador testified today that a number of roads that
have been cherry-stemmed out of wilderness have later been closed
because local land managers have concluded that the recreation use is
not compatible with the surrounding wilderness area. What is the.
agencies policy on this?
Answer. The BLM does not have a specific written policy on this
topic. However, the BLM recognizes that only Congress has the authority
to designate wilderness and determine wilderness boundaries. The BLM
has no authority to change the boundary of a wilderness. There have
been very limited occasions where a wilderness boundary road or cherry-
stemmed road has been closed after wilderness designation. In these
limited cases, the closure is not due to the wilderness designation,
but for other resource reasons, such as natural disasters. We are not
aware of any wilderness boundary roads that have been closed on BLM-
managed lands in order to protect the wilderness resource.
Question 8. Please provide the Committee with a detailed list of
roads that have been closed in areas that were cherry-stemmed out of
wilderness by Congress. The list should include the name of the
wilderness and the BLM District that the road and wilderness are
located in. We would like a national inventory of this situation.
Answer. The BLM manages 161 wilderness areas with 6.5 million acres
in 10 states. In response to our inquiry to each state office in which
BLM manages wilderness, we were able to find a total of 21 closures of
cherry-stemmed roads. The reasons for road closures include: closure by
private landowners, closure prior to wilderness designation, seasonal
closures, management plan closures, closures through natural
reclamation including landslides and storms. Below is a state by state
list.
ARIZONA
Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, Vermilion Cliffs National
Monument and Kanab Field Office. Numerous segments of boundary routes
are not closed, but are in the process of natural reclamation, due to
infrequent use.
Paiute Wilderness, Arizona Strip Field Office. The corridor road
through the wilderness is closed from about December 1 to April 1
annually to reduce damage to the roadbed during winter/spring wet
conditions. From April 1 to December 1, the road is open to all uses.
Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness, Grand Canyon-Parashant National
Monument. The north to south primitive road through the wilderness was
designated to be used by the livestock grazing permittee and closed to
the public since enactment of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984.
Kanab Creek Wilderness, Arizona Strip Field Office. The main access
road to the Hack Canyon trailhead is closed intermittently by large
storms. Access is encumbered or blocked following these natural events,
sometimes for months.
Mt. Logan Wilderness, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument.
Several small segments of boundary routes are not closed, but have
already been naturally reclaimed due to infrequent use. Over time,
vegetation has grown in along the route, blocking it. The open corridor
road through the wilderness is closed intermittently by large storms
and infrequent maintenance.
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness, Arizona Strip Field Office. In the
past few years, the road corridor Congress provided through the
wilderness has been blocked by chain link fencing with gates locked by
the mining claimant/landowner. His claims and land straddle the
corridor and public use of the road has been effectively blocked. In
more recent years, the gates have variously been open, locked, and torn
down.
North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Phoenix Field Office.
Approximately \1/2\ mile of East Margie's Cove Road and \3/4\ mile of
West Margie's Cove Road were closed through a Management Plan decision
to establish a trailhead in a manageable location in order to provide a
staging area for cars, hikers and equestrians, and camping at a
location away from an important water source for wildlife in the
desert. Moving these developments away from this water source
eliminates the conflict between intensive recreation use and the needs
of wildlife. The closed portions of the routes are available for
Arizona Game and Fish Department use for wildlife water maintenance.
Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness, Safford Field Office. There are
locked gates on private land in Little Doubtful Canyon. Cochise County
did not claim the road as a county road, which allowed the private land
owner to lock the gate and prevent access to the cherry-stemmed road in
Little Doubtful Canyon.
North Santa Teresa Wilderness, Safford Field Office. The Black Rock
Road defines the wilderness boundary for approximately one mile on the
north side of the wilderness. At the end of that one-mile stretch, a
locked gate on private land prevents travel across both the private
land and the adjacent public land.
Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness, Safford Field Office. The Mascot
Canyon and Sheep Canyon roads, which are wilderness boundary roads on
the southwest and southeast portions of the wilderness, respectively,
are blocked by locked gates on private land (Klump property). Each
stretch of closed boundary road is about 2 miles in length.
Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness, Lake Havasu Field Office. Through
land use plan decisions established prior to the Arizona Desert
Wilderness Act of 1990, portions of two boundary roads have designated
use limitations. The northeast boundary road has a seasonal closure
(January 1-June 31) within the Bighorn Sheep Lambing Grounds. Also, a
utility access route, known as the Jump-Off, is limited to
administrative and authorized users only.
East Cactus Plain Wilderness, Lake Havasu Field Office. Through the
East Cactus Plain Wilderness Management Plan, the Central Arizona
Project Aqueduct right-of-way was closed to the public. This portion of
the right-of-way was outside of the Aqueduct fencing and bounded the
Wilderness area. There was a faint two track road in this area at the
time of the plan. The closure eliminated damage to soil and vegetation,
protected the Central Arizona Project facility from unauthorized
activities, and prevented vehicle intrusion along the wilderness
boundary.
COLORADO
Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, Grand Junction Field Office. A
cherry stem is closed seasonally for several months in the winter and
early spring due to a combination of snow, mud, and wildlife issues.
The route was closed by a management plan decision for the entire Ruby
Canyon area several years before the wilderness was designated. The
closure remains in effect.
CALIFORNIA
Mecca Hills Wilderness/Orocopia Mountains Wilderness, California
Desert District, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office. Approximately
3.8 miles of the 7.2-mile Meccacopia Trail between these wilderness
areas is seasonally closed from June 1 through September 30. This
allows desert bighorn sheep unimpeded access to critical water sources
during the summer. Desert bighorn sheep are a BLM California Sensitive
Species, a State Fully Protected Species, and a State Game Species.
NEVADA
Muddy Mountains Wilderness, Las Vegas Field Office. A \1/4\ mile
long cherry stem was administratively closed in May 1998 when the Muddy
Mountains was a Wilderness Study Area (WSA). Closure occurred through
the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan to protect an area of
prehistoric habitation and rock art. In addition, the closed segment is
in a narrow gulch with inadequate passing space for opposing vehicles
or for parking. In November, 2002, the Muddy Mountains Wilderness was
designated. The Wilderness boundary followed the former WSA boundary
and the cherry stem was carried over to the Wilderness. The route
remains closed.
North Jackson Mountains Wilderness, Black Rock Desert High Rock
Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA. The first 2 miles of the 2.85 mile Deer
Creek cherry stem is passable by four wheel drive vehicles. Beyond that
point, the road is washed out and impassable; it has not been driven
for over 10 years and is now indiscernible.
North Jackson Mountains Wilderness, Black Rock Desert High Rock
Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA. The North Fork Jackson Creek cherry stem is
impassable and has not been used by vehicles for 10-15 years. Large
sagebrush, cottonwoods and mountain mahogany grow in the former road
bed.
North Jackson Mountains Wilderness, Black Rock Desert High Rock
Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA. The New Years Canyon cherry stem has not
been used for several years and has naturally reclaimed itself to the
point that it is virtually indistinguishable.
North Jackson Mountains Wilderness, Black Rock Desert High Rock
Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA. The Happy Creek Canyon cherry stem has no
public access. Private lands around the cherry stem have been closed to
the public by the landowner.
OREGON
Table Rock Wilderness, Salem District, Cascade Field Office. 1.25
miles of the northern dead-end boundary road was closed by a massive
land slide several years ago. Opening the road would cost $100,000 and
would also require moving the road 0.25 miles into the existing Table
Rock Wilderness. The road has been left closed.
Steens Mountain Wilderness, Burns District, Andrews Field Office.
About 16.5 miles of the Steens Loop boundary road is closed seasonally
due to heavy snowfall. This seasonal closure predates wilderness
designation. This seasonal closure also closes the following cherry-
stem roads that connect to the Steens Loop Road: Cold Springs Road,
12.9 miles; Fish Creek Road, 4.5 miles; Newton Cabin Road, .59 mile;
Kiger Overlook Road, .26 mile; Grove Creek Road, 1.09 miles.
Question 9. Also if there are instances of efforts to re-open roads
that have been closed by land slides or sluffing of cut-banks that were
cherry-stemmed out of the Wilderness please provide a forest by forest
listing of those roads.
Answer. As noted in the response to Question 8, the main access
road to the Hack Canyon trailhead in Kanab Creek Wilderness, is
periodically closed due to weather and re-opened as conditions permit.
Question 10. If efforts have been made to re-open cherry-stemmed
roads and have been opposed and delayed or stopped by appeal or
litigation please provide a forest by forest list of those roads.
Answer. BLM is not aware of this situation occurring in BLM-managed
wilderness areas.
Question 11. We need a set of maps for all wilderness proposals in
S. 738 that fall within lands managed by the BLM.
For each wilderness proposed in S. 738 that includes BLM lands
please provide a map that displays the following information:
A. The proposed wilderness (in the bill)
B. Any adjoining wilderness
C. Any Wilderness Study Areas that fall within the wildernesses
proposed in S. 738 that are within the BLM land base.
D. All inventoried roads (from the most recent transportation
analysis) including roads that have been or will be proposed to be
closed, obliterated, or stored for later use.
E. All non federal lands within the proposed wilderness (including
road or trail access to the property).
F. Those areas that you believe should be removed from the proposal
to meet the BLM's management needs.
Answer. Maps that respond to this request are being prepared and
will be provided separately as soon as they are available. Regarding
item F above, as stated in our testimony, we recommend that
approximately 2200 acres (primarily in the King Range) be released from
WSA status and the proposed Blue Ridge Wilderness not be designated as
wilderness due to its small size. The maps will reflect these
recommendations.
Question 12. Section 103 on the Elk Horn wilderness directs the BLM
to: eliminate non-native species, remove unused or decommissioned
roads, repair skid tracks and to restore the natural ecosystem to the
maximum extent practicable within five years after the date of
enactment and to allow the use of motorized equipment and mechanized
transport to accomplish the restoration. Can you give us any idea on
whether or not all of this is possible, and what it might cost to
accomplish?
Answer. Yes, this is possible. The BLM has been working on similar
types of restoration in the Headwaters Forest Reserve with great
success. In the proposed Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness most of the areas
have already been naturally reclaimed and little additional work is
needed. This provision would allow BLM to complete an assessment of any
additional restoration that is needed after designation. Because the
BLM has not completed this assessment, we are unable to give a precise
cost estimate at this time. However, a rough estimate appears to be
less than $500,000.
Question 13. Do you think it is reasonable to be expending this
kind of money undoing multiple-use management when your agencies have
the maintenance backlogs that they have?
Answer. As we have noted, there is a small amount of work needed to
reclaim the proposed Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness and the fiscal impact
will be minimal. The actions would be designed to repair damage to the
natural ecosystem, including recontouring slopes and removing abandoned
vehicle trails and scars.
Question 15. Mr. Amador mentioned that according to the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), in order to have a wilderness recreation
experience, an individual must be at least 3 miles from the nearest
road or trail where motorized vehicles are in use. The ROS system was
developed by the Forest Service and is used by your field folks.
How about the DOI and BLM. Do you have a system similar to the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)?
Answer. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum offers a conceptual
framework for the inventory, analysis, and management of recreation
opportunities. It classifies recreation opportunities or zones along a
continuum of development from the pristine (Gates of the Arctic) to the
urban (Central Park). For example, using concepts adapted from the ROS,
the BLM's Resource Management Plan for the King Range identifies
zones--backcountry, front country, and residential--of recreational
opportunities.
Question 16. Do you have conflicts with roads being the boundaries
of a wilderness?
Answer. No. As noted in the response to question 6, many BLM
wilderness boundaries are along roads. In many cases roads are ideal
boundaries for wilderness because they are semi-permanent physical
features that are easy to locate on the ground. The BLM's wilderness
policy recommends wilderness boundaries be set back 300 feet from high
standard roads such as paved roads, 100 feet from high standard logging
roads, and 30 feet from jeep roads or low standard logging roads.
Question 17. Have you closed, or limited use on roads that were
cherry-stemmed out of wilderness areas?
Answer. There have been very limited occasions when a cherry-
stemmed road has been closed after wilderness designation. Examples of
closures along wilderness boundary roads and cherry stems are listed in
the response to question 8 above.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service,
Vancouver, WA, July 6, 2004.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Upper White Salmon River
Dear Senator Cantwell: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
speak to one of the true treasures of the Gifford Pinchot National
Forest. The Upper White Salmon River and Cascade Creek as they flow
through the Forest near Mt. Adams are beautiful and special places.
Recognizing its uniqueness, our Forest Land Use Plan (1990)
identifies the Upper White Salmon River as eligible for the National
Wild and Scenic River System. The Plan classifies approximately 6.7
miles of the Upper White Salmon and its tributary, Cascade Creek, from
their headwaters on Mt. Adams to the Mt. Adams Wilderness boundary as
potentially ``wild.'' The next approximately 11.3 miles of the White
Salmon to the Forest boundary, and 1.5 miles of Cascade Creek from the
Wilderness boundary to its confluence with the White Salmon River are
identified as having potential to be classified as ``scenic'' (FEIS
Appendix E 130). The 1997 Legislative EIS for the Upper White Salmon
River recommended the same classifications.
The ``outstandingly remarkable'' values to determine eligibility
are scenic and geologic. The upper segment of the White Salmon River,
according to the Forest Plan, contains areas of old-growth Douglas fir,
long and narrow gorges, and a glacier on Mt. Adams that is considered
regionally significant because of large avalanches and lahars that have
occurred as recently as 1921. The section within the Mt. Adams
Wilderness is accessible by trail and is ``totally without road
development.''
The Record of Decision for the Forest Plan recommends this river be
protected for further study. We are currently managing this portion of
the Upper White Salmon to maintain the outstandingly remarkable values
and potential classifications for wild and scenic.
Thank you again for this opportunity. If I can be of further
assistance, please call.
Sincerely,
Claire Lavendel,
Forest Supervisor,
Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
______
July 1, 2004.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: We are local landowners, area residents, and
individuals representing business interests. We would like you to know
that your Upper White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (S. 1614) is
important in so many ways for those of us living in this rural region.
When the legislation has been passed, our community will enjoy the
fruits of a long period of cooperative efforts that has occurred to
give our river the prominence and protection it deserves.
This is a magnificent gem of a river, with waters that plunge
through rugged canyons and provide many benefits for small towns on the
way--organic herb and dairy farms; river rafting, kayaking, B and B
enterprises; tourism; hiking, fishing, camping, wildflower viewing;
sales of gas and food. These are only a few of the businesses and
recreational activities that provide livelihoods for residents of our
rural region.
The economic needs and the beauty to be enjoyed have brought
together residents of our area to support the Scenic River proposal. We
realized a long time ago that our interests in providing sustainable
livings and maintaining a clean, attractive river were joined.
Therefore, in 1986, through local lobbying efforts, the lower eight
miles of the White Salmon was designated a Scenic River within the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area legislation. At the same
time, Congress mandated the Upper White Salmon to be studied for
similar status. A task force, representing a wide range of interests
concerning the future of the river, determined that it qualified for
such designation and agreed by consensus to recommend this. The public
also was much involved in the final decision. It wasn't until 1997,
however, that the Secretary of Agriculture introduced it to Congress;
and it took seven years longer, during which there was additional
negotiation, for us to arrive at this opportune point.
One B and B owner in Trout Lake has estimated that his business
will increase by 20% when Wild and Scenic designation becomes a
reality. Other business owners have said they expect the Wild and
Scenic imprimatur to generate increased income for the entire region.
Whitewater rafting guides tout not only the world class experience to
be had on the White Salmon, but also the excellent water quality, and
they lecture their rafters to protect it from degradation. All of the
small communities along the river will benefit significantly both
economically and environmentally by having pulled together to make this
20-mile stretch Wild and Scenic. It has broad public support in our
area and beyond.
This 20 miles of river is on public land, all within the Gifford
Pinchot National Forest. The Forest Service recommended it for
inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system because of its free-
flowing condition and its outstandingly remarkable scenic, hydrologic,
geologic and wildlife values.
We believe that no river is more deserving of the designation Wild
and Scenic than the Upper White Salmon. We are most hopeful that the
Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will
agree to recommend this to the entire Senate body for speedy passage.
NOTE: Signatories' pages containing approximately 102 signatures
have been retained in subcommittee files.
______
Off-Road Business Association, Inc.,
Santee, CA, July 20, 2004.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Craig: The purpose of this letter is to express our
strong opposition to S. 738, the Northern Coastal Wild Heritage
Wilderness Act sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). While we
share Senator Boxer's goal of preserving these areas for future
generations this legislation represents nothing more than a further
attempt by extreme environmentalists to ban the public from using
``public'' land. We believe further generations should be able to enjoy
these areas and not be excluded from them due to their designation as
wilderness.
As you know, this legislation would declare 300,000 acres in
Northern California as wilderness, thereby closing it off to motorized
vehicles and mountain bikes. Currently, California has a higher
percentage of wilderness than any other of the lower 48 states. Nearly
a decade ago 7 million acres of the Southern California desert were
declared wilderness impacting thousands of Off Highway Vehicle (OHV)
users. Enough is enough! We believe the time has come for balance--and
this legislation does not help us achieve that balance. Instead it
continues down a path of closing down the rest of the Western United
States to OHV users. Many of the members who support this bill also
support Congressman Shay's bill to designate millions of acres in
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming as wilderness. As you
can see we all have something at stake with this designation.
Lost in the debate about this area under consideration for
wilderness is the fact that is does not meet the definition of the 1964
Wilderness Act because it is not ``untrammeled by man. We simply do not
believe Congress should pick and choose when it follows the law. The
proponents of this bill are using the fear of logging to steal land
away from the public. By declaring the area wilderness Congress
prevents the vast majority of the public from being able to enjoy the
beauty and splendor of the land--we find this unacceptable!
ORBA is a national non-profit trade association of off-road related
business owners who have united to preserve the sport of off-road
recreation and to resist the efforts to eliminate off-road recreation
under the pretense of protecting the environment. Our membership cares
about the outdoors and about stewardship. Over the past few years, we
have worked with interested parties to ensure that OHV users work to
protect the environment. The economic impact of closures of public
lands to vehicle access is having a significant affect on the Off-Road
Recreation Industry.
Please give serious consideration to the impact that this bill
would have on a multi-billion dollar (and growing rapidly) industry in
this country.
With best regards,
Roy Denner,
President & CEO.
______
Glorieta Battlefield Coalition,
July 21, 2004.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: S. 2622, Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2004
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing in support of S. 2622, the Pecos
National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2004. We appreciate your
long-standing commitment to preserving important elements of Glorieta
Battlefield and your continuing efforts to facilitate acquisition of
lands within the boundaries of both the Pigeon's Ranch and Canoncito
subunits.
The private tract of land that would be acquired under S. 2622 is
critical for providing public access to the Canoncito unit and to the
Park Service's interpretive planning efforts. The tract includes the
mesa front down which Union troops descended into Canoncito on March of
1862 in their attack on the. Confederate supply train, thereby forcing
the Confederate Army to withdraw from the field of battle and,
ultimately, from New Mexico Territory, preserving the Southwest for the
Union.
The bill will allow for the acquisition of nearly half of the
acreage within the authorized boundary of the Canoncito subunit. An
added benefit of this legislation is that no federal funds will be
required for either the land acquisition or necessary compliance
actions to effect the exchange, as we understand that any such costs
would be borne by the private landowner, who is a willing seller.
We strongly support S. 2622 and encourage its swift passage in the
Senate.
Sincerely,
Randall Rasmussen.
______
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Boulder, CO, July 22, 2004.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Craig and Ranking Member Wyden: On behalf of the
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), I write to offer
comments on S. 738, the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage
Wilderness Act. As you know, Wilderness designation prohibits
bicycling. For this reason, bicyclists seek modifications of Wilderness
proposals that will protect the land while continuing to allow this
quiet, low-impact, muscle-powered recreation on significant trails.
The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) was founded
in 1988 and leads the national and worldwide mountain bicycling
communities through a network of 32,000 individual members and more
than 500 affiliated clubs. More than 43 million Americans participated
in singletrack bicycling and 7 million were `enthusiasts' of single-
track bicycling in 2002, according to the Outdoor Industry Association.
IMBA teaches sustainable trailbuilding techniques and has become a
leader in trail design, construction, and maintenance; and encourages
responsible riding, volunteer trailwork, and cooperation among trail
user groups and land managers. IMBA members and affiliated clubs
conduct close to 1,000,000 hours of trailwork annually and are some of
the best assistants to federal, state, and local land managers.
At stake in S. 738 are fabulous riding routes such as the Kings
Crest and Lost Coast-Chemise Mountain trails in the King Range National
Conservation Area and the Red Bud and Judge Davis trails in Cache Creek
in Napa and Lake counties. In addition, IMBA has analyzed the bill and
found that three-quarters of the areas under consideration do not
conflict with bicycling. For the one-quarter that would eliminate
bicycling opportunities, IMBA recommends other forms of land
preservation designations, Non-Wilderness Trail Corridors, or boundary
adjustments. We are including a list of all trail opportunities that
will be lost to bicycling due to S. 738/H.R. 1501. This list includes
139 miles of currently open routes, 32 miles that are uncertain or
problematic, plus an unknown mileage of unofficial but legal bicycling
routes.
IMBA supports protecting all of the lands in the proposal from
development, some as Wilderness, and some using other, diverse
designations such as National Conservation Areas and Protection Areas.
Please find attached an example of the type of legislative language we
think would ensure bicycle access and afford substantially the same
protection as a Wilderness designation.* IMBA will continue to work
with the sponsors of S. 738 and companion legislation in the House of
Representatives to accommodate areas and trails of particular concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the elimination of bicycling access would exacerbate a
situation where much of California's public land is already closed to
bicycling. Congress has designated almost 14 million acres of
Wilderness in California, more than any other state. Many trails in
state and local parks are also closed to bicycling.
IMBA believes that bicycle access is a legitimate, primitive form
of recreation that should be allowed in certain Wilderness areas
subject to ongoing administrative discretion of federal land managers.
Wilderness as the exclusive tool for preservation is increasingly
problematic. The current interpretation of the Wilderness Act prohibits
mountain bicycling by treating it differently than other forms of
muscle-powered recreation, such as hiking, horseback riding, skiing,
and climbing. IMBA believes that the original wording of the Wilderness
Act in 1964 was ambiguous about the use of bicycles. The actual
prohibition of bicycles didn't happen until 20 years later. In the
1980's land managers became concerned about the growing popularity of
bicycles on trails but chose an excessive solution--banning bikes. Now
there is significant scientific evidence and a full generation of
actual experience showing that the impacts of mountain bikes are
comparable to other muscle-powered recreation allowed in Wilderness.
The blanket prohibition no longer makes sense.
In these days when the Centers for Disease Control is sounding an
alarm that America's population is increasingly obese, we hope that
Congress will endorse bicycling, both on roads and trails, as an
excellent solution to that problem. Closing more trails to bicycling
does not further that goal.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this important
legislation. We look forward to working with you and the sponsors of S.
738, as the committee continues its work.
Sincerely,
Tim Blumenthal,
Executive Director.
______
Civil War Preservation Trust,
Washington, DC, July 28, 2004.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the national Civil War Preservation
Trust (CWPT), I am writing to express the organization's strong support
for S. 2622, the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of
2004,'' co-sponsored by yourself and Senator Jeff Bingaman.
The 60,000 members of CWPT appreciate your long-standing commitment
to preserving important elements of the Glorieta Battlefield, and your
continuing efforts to facilitate acquisition of lands within the
boundaries of both the Pigeon's Ranch and Canoncito subunits of the
Battlefield.
The 1993 congressionally authorized Civil War Sites Advisory
Commission (CWSAC) Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields listed
Glorieta Battlefield as a ``Priority 1, Class A'' site. This means that
the site is one of the major battlefields of the Civil War with its
landscape basically still intact and not yet developed for housing or
commercial purposes. The battleground is also one with less than 20
percent of its core area protected and with a critical need for
coordinated preservation action.
CWPT considers S. 2622 to be fully consistent with the CWSAC's
conclusions and recommendations regarding the Glorieta Battlefield.
The bill authorizes the acquisition of private land that is
essential for providing public access to the battlefield's Canoncito
unit and to the National Park Service's interpretive efforts. These
approximately 160 acres are key areas of the battlefield, comprising
the mesa front down which Union troops descended into Canoncito in
March 1862 in their successful attack on a Confederate supply train.
The attack forced the invading Confederate Army to withdraw from the
field of battle and, ultimately, from the New Mexico Territory,
preserving the Southwest for the Union.
S. 2622 will allow for the acquisition of nearly half of the
acreage within the authorized boundary of the Canoncito subunit. The
bill also features both a willing seller and a land exchange requiring
no subsequent Federal Government appropriations to carry out.
Consequently, CWPT strongly supports S. 2622, deeply appreciates
your work on its behalf, and urges the bill's swift passage in the
Senate. If you have questions or comments about our position on S.
2622, please have your staff get in touch with me at 202-367-1861
extension 210.
Sincerely,
James Lighthizer,
President.
______
Northwest Youth Corps,
Eugene, OR, July 30, 2004.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Craig: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
Wednesday, July 21 in support of S. 2253, the Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps Act of 2004. During the hearing, you asked me
whether the authorities in previously enacted legislation and S. 2253
were similar enough that enactment of S. 2253 would be redundant.
You also asked that I submit for the record a letter that
identified the major differences between the Public Lands Corps
authorized in the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993
(P.L. 103-82), the Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (as amended)
and the Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps that would be
authorized by S. 2253. In response to your requests, I am submitting
this letter on behalf of the Northwest Youth Corps and the National
Association of Service and Conservation Corps (NASCC).
Because of the discussion of the Youth Conservation Corps Act
(YCC), I want to highlight some of the major differences between it and
the Public Lands Corps and S. 2253 for you:
the YCC can be no more than a three month program, whereas
S. 2253 does not stipulate a time limit on projects;
participation in the YCC is limited to youth at least 15 but
less than 19, whereas participants under S. 2253 can range in
age from 16 to 25;
the YCC does not focus on disadvantaged youth, whereas S.
2253 does; and,
the YCC does not contain a priority for fire-related
activities, whereas this is the primary focus of S. 2253.
Other important differences are that the PLC does not have an
authorization for funding, while S. 2253 would authorize $25 million a
year for the next 5 years for youth corps programs.
What follows is a detailed analysis of the differences among the
enacted legislation and the proposed bill.
FUNDING
S. 2253 authorizes $25 million for each of fiscal years 2005-2009
and ``allows service and conservation corps to contract directly with
public land management agencies'' to perform projects.
P.L. 103-82 establishes Public Lands Corps (PLC) in the Interior
and Agriculture Departments, but contains no authorization for funding.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act establishes a permanent
authorization of $60 million a year.
MATCHING REQUIREMENTS
P.L. 103-82 requires the Secretaries ``to pay not more than 75
percent of the costs of any appropriate conservation project . . . .
The remaining 25 percent of the costs . . . may be provided from
nonfederal sources in the form of funds, services, facilities,
materials, equipment, or any combination of the foregoing. No cost
sharing shall be required in the case of any . . . project carried out
on Indian lands or Hawaiian home lands under this title.''
S. 2253 has no matching requirements.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act states that ``no grant for any
project may exceed 80 per centum of the cost (as determined by the
Secretaries) of such project.
LIVING ALLOWANCE
P.L. 103-82 limits the living allowance paid to members of the
Corps to the maximum level provided to AmeriCorps members.
S. 2253 includes no such limitation.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act states that ``the Secretary of
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall--(3) determine the
rates of pay, hours, and other conditions of employment in the Corps .
. . .''
PARTICIPANTS
S. 2253 provides that a purpose of the bill is to ``(2) offer young
adults, ages 16 through 25, particularly those who are at-risk or
economically disadvantaged, the opportunity to gain productive
employment.'' However, Section 4(b) Participants--states that the Corps
``shall consist of low income young adults who are enrolled as members
of a service and conservation corps.''
P.L. 103-82 states that ``the Secretaries may establish a
preference for the enrollment in the Corps of individuals who are
economically, physically, or educationally disadvantaged.''
The Youth Conservation Corps ``shall consist of young men and women
. . . who have attained age fifteen but have not attained age
nineteen.'' Further, ``the Corps [shall] be open to all youth from all
parts of the country of both sexes and youth of all social, economic,
and racial classifications . . . with no person being employed as a
member of the Corps for a term in excess of ninety days during any
single year.''
TYPES OF PROJECTS
S. 2253 authorizes ``projects to prevent fire and suppress fires,
and provide disaster relief, on public land,'' ``perform rehabilitation
and enhancement projects to prevent fire, rehabilitate public land
affected or altered by fires, and suppress fires, and provide disaster
relief.''
P.L. 103-82 authorizes the PLC ``to carry out appropriate
conservation projects which such Secretary is authorized to carry out
under other authority of law on public lands.'' ``The Secretaries may
also authorize appropriate projects to be carried out on Federal,
State, local, or private lands as part of disaster prevention or relief
efforts in response to an emergency or major disaster declared by the
President.''
Both S. 2253 and the Public Land Corps include language stating a
preference for projects that will 1) provide long-term benefits to the
public; 2) instill in the enrollees a work ethic and a sense of public
service; 3) be labor intensive; 4) be planned and initiated promptly;
and 5) provide academic, experiential, or environmental education
opportunities.
The Youth Conservation Corps authorizes the Secretaries to ``(3)
determine with other Federal agencies the areas under the
administrative jurisdiction of those agencies which are appropriate for
carrying out programs using members of the Corps, and determine and
select appropriate work and education projects for participation by
members of the Corps.''
ASSISTANCE IN DISASTER PREVENTION AND RELIEF
P.L. 103-82 provides that the Secretaries may also authorize
appropriate projects . . . as part of disaster prevention or relief
efforts in response to an emergency declared by the President under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
S. 2253 does not require Presidential designation of an emergency
or disaster.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act does not mention disaster
prevention and relief.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARIES
P.L. 103-82 authorizes the Secretaries to ``provide such quarters,
board, medical care, transportation, and other services, facilities,
supplies and equipment as such Secretary deems necessary . . . and to
establish and use conservation centers owned and operated by such
Secretary for purposes of the Corps and such projects.''
S. 2253 authorizes each Secretary to ``provide such services as the
Secretary considers necessary to carry out this Act.''
The Youth Conservation Corps Act authorizes the Secretaries to
determine ``(a) Programs and projects; conditions of employment;
regulations; [and] use of facilities by educational institutions.''
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
S. 2253 authorizes the Secretaries to ``provide technical
assistance, oversight, monitoring, and evaluation to, or for, state
departments of natural resources, corps, Indian tribes, Alaska native
corporations, or the applicable state agency in Hawaii with
responsibility for Hawaiian home lands.''
P.L. 103-82 is silent on this issue.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act is silent on this issue.
NONCOMPETITIVE HIRING STATUS
S. 2253 provides that ``each Secretary may grant credit for time
served toward future federal hiring . . . for former members of the
Corps.''
P.L. 103-82 includes no such provision.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act is silent on this issue.
RESOURCE ASSISTANTS
P.L. 103-82 authorizes the Secretaries to provide individual
placements called ``Resource Assistants'' with any Federal land
managing agency.
S. 2253 does not contain similar provisions.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act does not include similar
provisions.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
P.L. 103-82 authorizes the Secretaries to ``make arrangements with
the Secretary of Defense to have logistical support provided by the
Armed Forces to the Corps . . . where feasible. Logistical support may
include the provision of temporary tent shelters where needed,
transportation, and residential supervision.''
S. 2253 includes no such provisions.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act provides that ``existing but
unoccupied Federal facilities and surplus or unused equipment (or
both), of all types including military facilities and equipment, shall
be utilized for the purposes of the Corps, where appropriate and with
the approval of the Federal agency involved.''
GRANTS TO STATES
P.L. 103-82 does not authorize grants to states. S. 2253 does not
authorize grants to states.
The Youth Conservation Corps Act provides that ``Thirty per centum
of the funds appropriated under . . . this title for any fiscal year
shall be made available for grants under this section for such fiscal
year.''
I believe this analysis demonstrates that while the three proposals
share the goal of creating opportunities for young people, there are
significant differences among the proposals and that enactment of the
S. 2253 would not be redundant.
If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to call
Sally Prouty, President of the National Association of Service and
Conservation Corps at 202-737-6272 or email her at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Art Pope,
Executive Director.
______
Kelseyville, CA, August 12, 2004.
Hon. Mike Thompson,
Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Thompson: I am a horsepacker and hunter from Lake
County, California, who is supportive of your wilderness legislation,
the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act, H.R.
1501/S. 738. I attended the hearing for this legislation in the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month and wanted to comment
specifically on concerns raised by Undersecretary Mark Rey with regards
to an area I know, the Skeleton Glade Unit addition to the Snow
Mountain Wilderness.
Mr. Rey stated the Skeleton Glade Unit ``has several roads running
through it which compromise wilderness attributes and hinder
manageability.'' I know the area and I am not certain what ``roads''
Mr. Rey is referring to. There are abandoned remnants of primitive
dozer trails that go through the Unit, but they are neither designated
nor maintained as roads, nor do they detract from the wilderness
quality of the area in any respect. They are used for hiking and
horseback riding into the area. In contrast, there are important roads
beside the proposed Unit as well as a few short ``cherry-stemmed''
roads.
There is a major road (M3) running between the existing Snow
Mountain Wilderness and the proposed Skeleton Glade Unit. Under your
legislation, this road will continue to stay open. In fact, you may
recall this was brought up as an issue at one of your local hearings
when crafting this legislation. I, along with many other people, wanted
assurances this road would stay open so we could continue to frequent
both the proposed wilderness additions to the North and the existing
wilderness on the South side of the road. Without M3, this would be
impossible.
In addition, there are several short roads ``cherry-stemmed'' roads
that branch south off of M3, and are surrounded on either side by
proposed wilderness that would extend the northern border of the
existing Snow Mountain Wilderness up to the southern edge of M3.
These cherry stems serve an important purpose. Without them, there
are several existing trailheads I would be unable to reach when
bringing my horses in to explore these areas. This was another issue
brought up during your local hearing. These cherry stems are important
for access for horsepackers such as myself, but it is equally important
that the lands surrounding them are protected. Without the full
protection of the Wilderness Act, there is no guarantee that these
scenic wild lands will remain in their wild state for future
generations to enjoy.
The Skeleton Glade Unit will be a valuable addition to our
wilderness system. I strongly advocate for keeping it in the bill in
order to ensure wilderness protection for the marvelous lands within
its boundaries. Please continue to advocate for its inclusion.
Thank you for your sponsorship of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Peter F. Windrem.
______
Statement of Jack Hannon, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program Coordinator,
American Rivers, Inc., and Phyllis Clausen, River Steward, Friends of
the White Salmon River, on S. 1614
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this statement is
submitted for the record of the hearing on S. 1614, the Upper White
Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, by Jack Hannon, the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Program Coordinator for American Rivers, and Phyllis Clausen,
River Steward for the Friends of the White Salmon River. Since its
founding in 1973, American Rivers has worked with our grassroots
partners to protect rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and has
actively assisted federal agencies, states and local groups with river
conservation efforts. Friends of the White Salmon River is a local
organization that has worked to conserve the White Salmon River since
1976.
We would like to thank Senator Cantwell for introducing and Senator
Murray for co-sponsoring S. 1614, which would designate some twenty
miles of the main stem upper White Salmon River and Cascade Creek, all
within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, as components of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The lower eight miles of the
White Salmon River were designated a Scenic River within the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area legislation back in November, 1986. At the same time
Congress mandated the study of the upper White Salmon for possible
inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System.
That study, expanded somewhat by the U.S. Forest Service as a
result of many comments received, was essentially completed by June
1990, with a positive recommendation for designation of the river, but
it took an additional seven years for this to be reported out to the
President and Congress (July 1997). It has taken an additional seven
years to move forward only with the portion of the upper White Salmon
that lies squarely within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest,
resulting in the bill before you today. Some of the segments would be
classified as a ``Wild'' river, and others as a ``Scenic'' river.
American Rivers and Friends of the White Salmon River strongly endorse
passage of this bill.
The U.S. Forest Service has recommended these segments for
inclusion in the National System in recognition of the river's free-
flowing character and its outstandingly remarkable scenic, hydrologic,
geologic and wildlife values. The Forest Service determined that the
pastoral scenery along these segments of the river make it one of the
most scenic river areas in the region. The hydrology of the river is
unique because of its consistently reliable flows; the upper White
Salmon is a glacially fed stream, with a slow melting seasonal snow and
even slower-melting glaciers, which extend the run-off season to an
almost year-round basis. The areas near the river also provide
regionally significant habitat for such species as spotted owls,
pileated woodpeckers, and pine martens. And the river and its drainages
provide important wintering areas for black-tailed deer.
The river areas to be encompassed in the wild and scenic river
designation are forested through the entire segment and are used for a
wide variety of recreational activities, including camping, picnicking,
fishing, hunting, nature study hiking, horseback riding, skiing,
climbing and backpacking. Access to the river is largely limited to
bridge crossings and trails. Gradients are steep, with an average drop
of 150 feet per mile. Within the Mt. Adams Wilderness Area and along
the canyon below the confluence with Cascade Creek, the upper White
Salmon River has a rugged, primeval character.
The White Salmon has strong historic values as well. Native
American populations have inhabited the river valley for as much as
7,000 years, and relied on the river for food gathering, fishing,
hunting, and establishing villages. Traditional Native American
activities continuing to the present day in this area include
collecting roots and berries, collecting materials for basket weaving,
hunting, and fishing. The Lewis and Clark expedition passed the mouth
of the White Salmon River and referred to it as the ``canoe'' river.
In 2003, American Rivers released two reports by researchers at
North Carolina State University amply demonstrating that properly
conserving a river will generate significant economic activity in the
form of recreational spending. The rivers studied were the Farmington
in Connecticut and the Chattooga in North and South Carolina and
Georgia. (Further details are available on our website,
www.americanrivers.org.) More particularly, Friends of the Upper White
Salmon River has heard from those in the lodging industry, from
outfitters and from other local businesses that designation of the
upper White Salmon River as a wild and scenic river would have a
similar effect, thereby contributing to the region's economy.
American Rivers has worked on many dozens of proposals for
designating rivers as wild and scenic rivers. We believe the
characteristics of the upper White Salmon River as described above meet
the statutory requirements and amply support inclusion of the river in
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Our organizations thus
support passage of this bill.
Thank you for considering this statement in the record of the
hearing on S. 1614.
______
Statement of Penny Lind, Executive Director, Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.,
Roseburg, OR
CONSIDERATIONS TO INCLUDE IN CHANGES TO THE ROGUE/UMPQUA DIVIDE
WILDERNESS BOUNDARY, ETC.
1. The Umpqua portion of the Rogue/Umpqua Divide Wilderness is
26,350 acres, any proposed change in boundary, no matter how minor, can
not result in a loss of designated wilderness.
The Rogue/Umpqua Divide Wilderness was originally proposed with
logical landscape boundaries (those boundaries where altered in the
final wilderness designation). The area where the road in question
occurs ended up being drawn very mechanical rather than ecological.
Senator Smith's proposed May 2003 change also uses the same engineered
boundary outcome. The attached map shows a much more logical landscape
boundary for the area. The opportunity to draw the road out of the
wilderness also gives an opportunity to incorporate wilderness benefits
in a more natural outcome for the rogue/Umpqua Divide. The proposed
small roadless addition is 11 acres. Map attached. Please take this
opportunity to add back some of the original wilderness designation
area with this bill.
2. In addition--The Forest Service maps and specialists have
identified fish blocking culverts on the road in question that need
dollars to upgrade for fish passage. If people are to gain greater
access, please make it possible for fish to have greater habitat
benefits also. In addition there are several stem roads in the access
reach that contribute to stream and habitat problems. Road
decommissioning as recommended by the Forest's specialists would
contribute to restoration of these public lands for fish wildlife and
people.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the sub committee on
this important Umpqua wilderness matter.
______
Statement of the Sierra Club, on S. 738
Representing nearly 750,000 members across the nation, including
168,000 Californians and over 6,000 constituents of the 1st
Congressional District in California, the Sierra Club strongly
advocates for the passage of S. 738, the Northern California Coastal
Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. This bill will ensure that many of our
national treasures, which provide the famous Northern California
backdrop of redwoods, salmon, and wine, can be enjoyed just as it is
today for all generations to come.
The Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act would
protect clean water, important fish and wildlife habitat, ancient
forests, world-class outdoor recreation opportunities and our unmatched
quality of life by designating 298,000 acres of wilderness and
protecting 21 miles of the Black Butte River in the 1st Congressional
District of California.
Some of Northern California's most spectacular wildlands are
included in this proposal, such as the King Range, the longest stretch
of undeveloped coastline in the lower 48, with towering peaks over
4,000 feet directly next to the great Pacific Ocean. Cache Creek, home
to California's second largest wintering bald eagle population, is also
protected in the proposal. The bill proposes additions to the Siskiyou
Wilderness, a critical area for California's remaining Chinook and coho
salmon and steelhead trout. The Black Butte River drains one of the
most undeveloped tributary watersheds to the Middle Eel River, is one
of the Eel's most important salmon and steelhead spawning tributaries,
and is rich in Native American cultural values.
The areas proposed for wilderness are considered to have low
potential for oil and gas and are generally uneconomical for logging
due to the steep and remote nature of the land. Wilderness designation
would help increase sustainable tourism-based income to local
communities as people continue to enjoy hunting, fishing, bird
watching, horseback riding, hiking, backpacking, camping, swimming,
rafting, kayaking, and more. Livestock grazing would also continue
under the bill.
The method used for drafting the legislation has won praise from a
vast array of different user groups and local interests. Congressman
Mike Thompson, Along with Senators Feinstein and Boxer, have crafted a
wild lands conservation bill using a thoroughly inclusive approach. In
the process, they sought out, met with and addressed concerns of
affected constituencies, including local land owners, businesses,
elected officials, members of the logging industry, scientists,
mountain bikers, Native Americans, hunters, anglers, winemakers,
federal agencies and members of other diverse user groups.
For example, the Clear Lake Horsemen's Association of Lake County
objected to the original boundaries for the proposed Snow Mountain
Wilderness additions because members like to cut firewood with
chainsaws 150 feet from a certain Forest Service road, while the
proposed additions began 100 feet from that road. As a result, the
setback was increased in the proposal to 300 feet from the road and the
equestrians subsequently offered their support of the measure.
Specifically, Congressman Thompson and Senators Boxer and Feinstein
addressed the fire management concerns raised by the Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, community leaders, and private property
owners. They reduced the scope of the wilderness designations by nearly
12,000 acres, changing boundaries, adding buffer zones, and allowing
for existing or proposed fuel breaks. Before Feinstein--a known leader
on fire issues on public lands--threw her support behind the
legislation, she gave the maps of the proposed wilderness to the Forest
Service and asked them to identify concerns. Adjustments were made
accordingly, and Feinstein joined original sponsor Senator Boxer as a
sponsor of the legislation in the Senate.
In addition, after discussions with local mountain bikers and
agencies, the sponsoring members removed 6,000 acres from the original
wilderness proposal so that popular mountain biking trails would not be
closed. Two Native American tribes have voiced their support for this
legislation because it will protect sacred sites and guarantee the
right to conduct traditional practices. The bill will protect
opportunities for vehicle-free recreation without closing any areas
currently maintained for off-road vehicle use. No roads that are both
physically and legally open to the driving public will be closed by
this bill, ensuring the current level of motorized access to the public
lands remains.
In all, the sponsors scaled back the initial wilderness proposal by
nearly 21,000 acres in order to address fire, mountain biking and
manageability concerns. The result of this meticulous effort is an
enormously popular wilderness bill with broad local and statewide
support that will conserve the North Coast's wilderness character while
also addressing the interests of local stakeholders.
With this thoughtful process addressing stakeholder concerns, the
proposal has gained the support of more than 40 elected officials from
both sides of the aisle in the 1st Congressional District. In true
bipartisanship, the Napa County Board of Supervisors unanimously
supported the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.
The Willits City Council recently passed a bipartisan resolution 4 to 0
in favor of the proposal, and the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
passed a bipartisan resolution for the bill last fall. The Ukiah City
Council also unanimously voiced its support for the wilderness
legislation last fall and has passed a bipartisan resolution of support
in the past.
Over 140 diverse businesses, outdoor groups, religious
organizations, and citizen groups throughout the 1st Congressional
District support the areas proposed for protection, including Harwood
Industries, a local timber mill from Branscomb; Woodworkers Local Lodge
W-469, a timber workers union from Fort Bragg; Six Rivers Paddling Club
from Eureka; Stony Hill Vineyard from St. Helena; and the Kelseyville
Presbyterian Church from Kelseyville--just to name a few.
After four years of contacting all stakeholders and making changes
to the wilderness proposal, the process has resulted in broad
bipartisan support among 1st Congressional District voters, and indeed
statewide. With this proposal, all Americans will be able to experience
and enjoy our coastal heritage for generations to come. It is time for
new wilderness in California and the Northern California Coastal Wild
Heritage Wilderness Act serves as a balanced example of protection and
compromise.
On behalf of our members, both within the affected Congressional
district and beyond who will reap the benefits of this bill, Sierra
Club calls for the swift passage of S. 738, to ensure that our national
wild heritage will be enjoyed for years to come.