[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11100-S11103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to mention another anti-
environment rider in the Interior appropriations bill. I have already 
discussed two of them. One is Glacier Bay and the other is Izembek. 
This will be the third.
  Mr. President, this amendment deletes the rider that limits the 
Forest Service's ability to close roads on National Forests that 
threaten public safety or the environment.
  Let me explain. The Forest Service has constructed over 370,000 miles 
of roads on National Forests across America--370,000 miles of roads. 
These roads, the ones that Forest Service has constructed, are called 
authorized roads; another name given to them is systems roads. Most of 
these are single-lane roads. They are relatively low quality, often 
built to harvest timber. They are just basic roads built to meet basic 
needs.
  Many of these roads, though, have outlived their intended purpose. 
They are no longer needed. That is, they are built essentially to 
harvest timber, a lot of them, or built for a specific purpose and that 
purpose is no longer in use. So the roads therefore are no longer 
needed.
  About 40 percent of the 370,000 miles of authorized roads are 
maintained to public safety and environmental standards. The remaining 
60 percent are in poor condition and in many cases are a threat--a real 
threat--to the public safety or a threat to water quality or often a 
threat to wildlife habitat.
  In addition to these authorized roads, the Forest Service estimates 
that there are at least 60,000 miles of additional roads. These 
unauthorized roads are sometimes referred to as ghost roads.
  This is a photograph, Mr. President, of typical ghost roads. These 
are created when somebody decides that he or she wants to drive a 
pickup, a car, or a four-wheeler to a stream, or whatnot. After a 
while, a few people drive back and forth and we end up with an 
unauthorized road or a ghost road.
  Another example is here. Here is a young fellow on a bicycle. It is 
close, perhaps, to a stream. It is hard to tell from this photograph, 
but basically after a bit more use it becomes kind of a road--a ghost 
road. There are about 60,000 miles of these kinds of ghost roads that 
the Forest Service thinks exist out in the National Forests--roads 
caused by people, not roads that the Forest Service has planned or 
built.
  Again, Mr. President, just to recapitulate, there are about 370,000 
miles of roads the Forest Service has planned on building. Most of 
these are deteriorating. Many of these roads were intended to be used 
as logging roads to harvest timber, and the timber harvest is gone; 
that is, the timber has been harvested so they are no longer in use.
  Then there are 60,000 miles of ghost roads not planned by the Forest 
Service and which are created by people who drive around in pickups or 
other off-road vehicles.
  Mr. President, the Forest Service cannot safely manage all of the 
authorized and the unauthorized, so-called ghost roads that cover our 
National Forests. It just cannot do it. There are too many roads. Too 
many miles of roads. As a result, many of these roads are safety 
hazards, and some cause significant environmental problems.
  Mr. President, let me show you these two photographs. These are 
photographs of authorized roads, of system roads, of roads the Forest 
Service planned--not the ghost roads. In this top photograph of this 
road, you can tell the road is washed out. It is just washed out.
  Here is another photograph of another authorized road, the kind the 
Forest Service plans on. What happened here? The bridge went out. Some 
poor unlucky fellow did not realize the bridge had gone out until he 
caused it to go out. The bridge just collapsed. This guy's pickup went 
down on the collapsed bridge on the authorized road. Obviously, the 
bridge has rotted out.
  In other cases, the authorized roads create environmental hazards. I 
might tell you what the top road is. This is a road on the Mount Baker/
Snoqualmie National Forest that has washed out. These types of washouts 
often clog streams, as you might guess. They kill fish. That is pretty 
obvious. And in the middle of the night, they can be one heck of a 
pothole.
  When roads such as these are unsafe, or cause environmental problems, 
we have two options. One is to fix the road; and the other is to 
decommission the road. Just a fancy way of saying closing it.
  In deciding which roads to upgrade or close, the Forest Service sets 
priorities, obviously, based on public safety, based on environmental 
concerns, on a forest-by-forest basis.
  Let's face it, road closures can be a big issue in some parts of the 
country. I know that is very much the case in my State of Montana; 
people have strongly held views as to which roads should be closed and 
which roads not.
  These are not easy decisions for the Forest Service to make. But the 
Forest Service personnel by-and-large do the very best they can. And 
they do so after talking with the public. And they make their decisions 
based on what they think the public wants and based upon safety and 
based upon environmental needs.
  Well, this is where the rider comes in. This rider prevents funds 
from being used to remove any authorized road until the regional 
forester certifies that all the ghost roads have been either upgraded 
to U.S. Forest Service standards or closed. That is, the Forest Service 
cannot look at any of the authorized roads in a region until it looks 
at all the ghost roads and either closes or upgrades each of them.
  What does that mean? That means the Forest Service could not close 
any authorized road no matter how great a safety hazard it is until the 
Forest Service can certify that every single mile of the ghost roads, 
that is these kinds of roads--the little pathways--who-knows-where-
they-are in the forest, have been either upgraded to either system 
standards or have been removed.
  For starters, this is virtually impossible. The Forest Service does 
not even know where many of these ghost roads are. More important, this 
rider does not take into account whether these roads pose the greatest 
immediate threat to public safety or the environment.
  In sum, this simplistic one-size-fits-all approach would wreak havoc 
on the ability of the Forest Service to sensibly manage roads in our 
National Forests.
  As I mentioned early, the Forest Service now sets priorities for 
closing

[[Page S11101]]

roads on a forest-by-forest basis, based on what the public wants, 
based on public safety, based on environmental protection and 
restoration needs. A whole host of considerations go into it on a 
forest-by-forest basis or perhaps a district-by-district basis, not a 
one-size-fits-all national standard imposed on a Washington, DC, basis 
that you can't do anything with your system of roads until you either 
upgrade or close the ghost roads.

  This rider would force the Forest Service to inventory thousands of 
miles of ghost roads and spend limited taxpayers' money upgrading or 
removing the roads, even if they are not causing safety or 
environmental problems.
  Here is an example. Assume that the Deer Lodge National Forest in my 
State of Montana has an authorized road built to harvest timber, a very 
common occurrence. The timber has been harvested and the road is no 
longer needed, also very typical. Soon, the road is sliding down the 
mountain and it is unsafe for travel because of slippage and erosion 
and the road is clogging a stream, choking the fish in that stream, 
which often happens, too.
  If this rider passed, the forest managers could not remove that road 
until it had inventoried the entire forest and found where each of the 
ghost roads were located and then either closed all those ghost roads 
or upgraded all to system standards. Let me repeat that. If this rider 
passed, the Forest Service could not remove the road I mentioned that 
is clogging up a stream until it has inventoried all ghost roads, and 
either upgraded the ghost roads--that is, the paths--to road standards, 
or closed them.
  Plain and simple, this rider does not make sense. It does not meet 
the ``common sense'' test. It prevents the Forest Service from closing 
roads that now pose a very significant threat to public safety and the 
environment. It would prevent the Forest Service from doing its job. I 
believe the Forest Service should be able to close roads based on 
public needs, not on an arbitrary distinction of whether the road is 
authorized or unauthorized.
  To protect public safety and the environment, I believe this rider on 
the Interior appropriations bill should be deleted.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Cole, a 
congressional fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the 
remainder of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. One last rider I will mention. This rider is section 343 
of the Interior appropriations bill which limits Federal and State 
actions to manage the Columbia/Snake River system.
  I note that the chairman of the subcommittee is the present occupant 
of the Chair. In dealing with this subject, I have the utmost respect 
for what he is doing, particularly the great job he did in the Interior 
appropriations bill, which has many, many good features in it. He has 
worked very, very hard. It is a very complex bill, with NEA, the Forest 
Service, and Indian lands. I compliment the Chair.
  With respect to this provision, we have a difference of opinion. I 
state that with all due respect.
  The Columbia/Snake River basin covers about 259,000 square miles, 
including large parts of the State of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 
Montana, and British Columbia. It is home to several endangered fish 
species, including several stocks of salmon. The number of salmon has 
fallen dramatically from an estimated 10 million fish in the historical 
runs to about 1 million today.
  For several years, we have been trying to bring salmon back, in part 
by improving the operations of the river system.
  We have improved fish screens; we have improved fish ladders. We have 
barged salmon around dams. We have modified water flows to help 
juvenile salmon migrate downstream and adult salmon migrate upstream.
  These modifications have been controversial because they sometimes 
restrict other uses of the river, such as power generation, irrigation, 
transportation, and recreation.
  Like many others in the Northwest delegation, I have not been 
particularly happy with every decision that has been made. In fact, I 
supported a cap on the amount of fish-related expenses that is passed 
along to BPA ratepayers. We had to have that cap or else I believe the 
Federal agency would have gone too far. I also oppose some of the 
drawdowns at the Libby dam and Hungry Horse dams in northwest Montana 
because of the effects on recreation and the adverse effects on the 
bull trout.
  I have maintained, however, that we should work within the framework 
of our environmental laws. There are a lot of competing considerations, 
and one is the framework of our environmental laws. The rider that I am 
referring to, section 343 of the Interior appropriations bill, would 
change that. It would override the Endangered Species Act, it would 
override the Clean Water Act, the Northwest Power Planning Act, and the 
Federal Power Act.
  To put the issue in perspective, let me briefly explain how the 
Columbia/Snake River system is managed now. In 1995, under the 
Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a 
biological opinion describing the actions that the Corps of Engineers, 
the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power Administration must 
take, consistent with their other obligations, to save the wild salmon 
from extinction. The biological opinion includes both short and long-
term measures.
  In the short-term, it requires several changes. For example, it 
requires increased flows during fish migration seasons, better use of 
spills, improved methods of barging fish, limits on ocean fishing, and 
the use of more effective fish screens and fish ladders.
  By 1999, it requires the Corps to assess the effect of a major 
drawdown of dams on the lower Snake River. This could include the 
breaching or removal of up to four dams. Those four dams are Ice 
Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite. They can be 
seen on this map of the Columbia Reserve Basin.
  What does this rider do? How would it affect current operations? It 
would have two main effects. The rider provides that the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, the Corps of Engineers and other agencies 
must receive specific congressional authorization before breaching or 
removing any federally operated or licensed dam on the Columbia/Snake 
system. In addition, the rider says that Federal and State agencies 
must get specific congressional authorization before taking any action 
that would ``diminish below present operational plans the 
Congressionally authorized uses of flood control, irrigation, 
navigation and * * * energy generating capacity of any such dam.''
  Let me address these effects one at a time. The first issue is 
breaching or removing dams. As I said earlier, the Corps is studying 
the breach or removal of four dams on the lower Snake River--Ice 
Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite.
  I understand the argument that over time, over the long term, 
breaching or removing the dam is the best way to protect and recover 
salmon. After all, if you return a river to its natural condition, you 
don't have to manage water levels to mimic the river's natural 
condition when fish migrate up or down stream.
  But we are not living in the abstract. In most cases, removing a dam 
is a big step with major consequences for power production, for 
irrigation, for transportation, and for recreation. For example, 
breaching or removing the lower Snake River dams would most likely 
eliminate Lewiston, ID, as a river port. Many farmers from Idaho, 
Montana and elsewhere ship grain by truck or rail to Lewiston and barge 
to Portland for export to Asia.
  I believe an action of this kind should definitely require 
congressional approval. But that is already the case. In testimony 
earlier this year, the Commander of the Corps' Northwest Division said,

       It is our opinion that the Corps cannot use its existing 
     legal authority to remove lower Snake projects . . . New 
     statutory authority would be required to undertake these 
     actions since the proposed actions would eliminate or 
     significantly affect specific project purposes provided for 
     in the authorizing legislation.

  That is the commander of the Corps' Northwest Division.
  So there is not an issue here with respect to removing or breaching 
dams.

[[Page S11102]]

 The rider is unnecessary in that respect. Congressional approval 
already is required.
  This takes us to the second part of the rider. It requires 
congressional approval before an agency can take any action that will 
``diminish below present operational plans'' the congressionally 
authorized uses of any dam on the Columbia/Snake system.
  As I read the amendment, there would have to be specific 
congressional approval before a Federal or State agency makes any 
operational or management change that would reduce power production, 
irrigation, flood control or recreation. I believe that goes too far 
for three main reasons.
  First, it is impractical. It would tie the management of the river 
system in knots. The management of the Columbia/Snake system is a very 
complex undertaking. It involves at least four Federal agencies: 
Bonneville Power, National Marine and Fisheries Service, Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. It also involves the Northwest 
Power Planning Council, the States of Montana, Idaho, Washington, 
Oregon, the government of Canada, many Indian tribes and scores of 
public and private utilities. There are hundreds of people involved.
  To coordinate operations, the Federal agencies develop at least three 
operational plans each year: A flood control plan, a hydropower plan 
and a water management plan. During the spring and summer, a technical 
management team meets each week in Portland to review operations and 
make any necessary changes.
  By locking everything in and providing that Congress must approve any 
action that diminishes other uses of the system below ``present 
operational plans,'' we would be micromanaging one of the largest and 
most complex river systems in the world.
  The second problem is the congressional management may put several 
endangered species at risk of extinction. If changes are necessary to 
protect a newly listed species or further protect a species already 
listed to prevent it from being wiped out, the change would require 
congressional approval. Even minimal changes to provide specie 
protection may require Congress to act.
  For example, new scientific evidence indicates that spills are more 
effective at protecting fish if they are conducted gradually over a 24-
hour period rather than only at night. This approach slightly reduces 
power-generating capacity. So under the rider the agencies would need 
to get congressional approval before they can make a change.
  The rider would not only threaten Federal efforts to protect the 
environment, but it would also threaten State efforts to protect the 
environment. Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, when a Federal 
dam is being licensed or relicensed, States can impose conditions on 
the license in order to protect water quality. Many States do. For 
example, several States in the West have imposed conditions necessary 
to prevent dams from generating elevated levels of dissolved oxygen 
which can harm fish.
  Utilities have questioned whether States have this authority, but the 
Supreme Court has held that they do.
  The Gorton amendment would change all that. As I read it, a State 
agency could not impose any license condition that diminished power 
generation, unless it received the approval of the licensee or 
Congress.
  That would, in effect, eliminate the section 401 authority that 
States have fought so hard to maintain.
  The directors of the Western Governors' Association and the Western 
States Water Council share this view. In a joint letter, they say that, 
although their organizations do not take a position about breaching or 
making operational changes at any dam, the rider ``appears to clearly 
have the potential of diminishing State prerogatives under section 401, 
with regard to the rivers and streams identified in the amendment.''
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also takes this view. In a 
letter, the FERC Chairman says that the rider ``would bar, absent 
specific congressional approval, State and Federal agencies from 
requiring or authorizing certain actions affecting the authorized uses 
of any Federal or federally-licensed dams on the Columbia or Snake 
rivers or their tributaries.''
  I ask unanimous consent that both letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Western Governors' Association,


                                 Western States Water Council,

                                               September 18, 1998.
     Hon. John H. Chafee,
     Committee on Environment and Public Works.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       Dear Senators: We have just learned that the Committee is 
     considering the question of whether a proposed amendment 
     would affect state Section 401 authority under the Clean 
     Water Act. This relates to amendment No. 3555 offered on 
     behalf of Senator Gorton. Given the time constraints, our 
     organizations are not able to collectively express themselves 
     with regard to this question. However, after consulting with 
     our lead states on this issue, we are writing to express our 
     view that the amendment appears to clearly have the potential 
     of diminishing state prerogatives under Section 401, with 
     regard to the rivers and streams identified in the proposed 
     amendment. In so doing, we do not express an opinion as to 
     the merits of any action to breach or remove any dam or to 
     alter operational plans relative to any dam. Rather, the 
     point of this letter is to advise the Committee of the 
     position of the western states with regard to Section 401 
     authority, and to convey our concerns that the proposed 
     amendment as written could diminish that authority.
       The Western States Water Council has been working with the 
     Western Governor's Association for some time to preserve 
     state prerogatives relative to protecting water quality 
     associated with proposed federally licensed projects. A 
     resolution by the Western Governors' Association relative to 
     this matter is enclosed for your reference. Since the Supreme 
     Court upheld Washington's position in the so-called Tacoma 
     case regarding the scope of state 401 authority, the 
     hydropower industry has sought to persuade Congress to 
     reverse or limit this decision. We have strongly opposed such 
     efforts.
       We hope that the Committee will consider these views as it 
     considers the potential effects of the proposed amendment. If 
     you have any questions regarding these matters, please let us 
     know.
           Best regards,
     D. Craig Bell,
       Executive Director, WSWC.
     Richard Bechtel,
       Director, WGA-D.C.
                                  ____



                         Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 1998.
     Hon. Dale Bumpers,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senator Bumpers: In response to your staff's request, 
     I am writing with respect to Section 343 of S. 2237 (the FY 
     1999 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior). 
     That section, if enacted, could have a potentially 
     significant effect on the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission's regulation of non-federal hydroelectric projects 
     in the Columbia and Snake River Basins.
       Section 343 of the bill would bar, absent specific 
     Congressional approval, state and federal agencies from 
     requiring or authorizing certain actions affecting the 
     authorized uses of any federal or FERC-licensed dams on the 
     Columbia or Snake Rivers or their tributaries. The proscribed 
     actions would include reducing the generating capacity of any 
     such dams; reducing their reservoirs below minimum operating 
     pools (except as necessary for flood control, navigation, and 
     safety); and requiring the release of stored water.
       Section 343 would constrain the Commission's flexibility to 
     act responsibly in its continuous oversight of licensed 
     projects in these river basins. Moreover, as existing 
     licenses expire, the provision would constrain the 
     Commission's flexibility to balance the multiple public 
     interest considerations involved, as required by the Federal 
     Power Act, upon relicensing these projects.
       Thank you for your interest in this matter. If you have 
     further questions concerning the implications of Section 343 
     for the Commission's regulatory activities, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James J. Hoecker,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Third, the amendment will have some unintended, and 
perhaps dangerous, effects.
  Not all changes to the operation of the Columbia/Snake river system 
are made for the purpose of protecting fish and wildlife. Often, there 
are other reasons.
  Recently, there were concerns about sabotage of the Grand Coulee dam. 
The water levels were lowered, so that emergency repairs could be made. 
This reduced power generating capacity, probably worth a few million 
dollars. Under the rider, the reduction in water levels would have had 
to be approved by Congress.
  Another example. In some situations, it may be appropriate to provide 
more

[[Page S11103]]

water for irrigation, at the expense of power production. Or vice 
versa.
  Or to set more space aside for flood control. Each year, the planning 
process starts by measuring the snowpack and predicting the runoff.
  In a particularly wet year, like 1997, operational changes may be 
needed to prevent downstream flooding, by setting aside more storage 
space in upstream reservoirs.
  In a particularly dry year, operational changes may need to be made 
to allocate scare water among competing uses.
  In many of these cases, under the rider, the agencies could only act 
if they received specific Congressional approval.
  Mr. President, we all know how hard it is to get anything passed 
around here. Any change that is at all controversial can be at least 
delayed, and maybe stopped completely.
  Do we really want decisions like this, that may need to be made 
quickly in response to constantly changing circumstances, to require 
specific Congressional approval?
  To sum it all up, this is no way to run one of the world's largest 
and most complex river systems. That's why we have expert federal and 
state agencies, like the Northwest Power Planning Council and BPA.
  Congress should set clear legal standards. When necessary, we must 
improve those standards. That's why I support S. 1180, a bill to 
improve the Endangered Species Act.
  Congress also should conduct careful oversight.
  But we should not require Congressional approval of the complex 
decisions that managers must make so that the river system functions 
smoothly.
  By requiring Congressional approval of any changes that diminish the 
use of the system below ``present operational plans,'' the rider goes 
too far.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________