[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11794-S11795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WILD HERITAGE ACT

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Northern California 
Coastal Wild Heritage Act has been included in the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 620. I, along with my colleague from California, Senator 
Feinstein, are the sponsors of the Senate companion measure, S. 738. I 
would like to thank Senator Domenici, the Chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, and Senator Bingaman, the Ranking 
Democratic Member, for working with us to achieve passage of this very 
important legislation. I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
Senators Feinstein, Domenici and Bingaman to clarify our intent behind 
some of the wilderness management provisions in the bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The first issue I would like to address concerns 
horsepacking into wilderness. I want to make sure horsepackers can keep 
using these wilderness areas. I recognize that the wilderness areas 
created by this act are currently enjoyed by hikers, people on 
horseback, hunters and anglers. In addition, many visitors are serviced 
by commercial outfitters using horses as pack animals. I believe 
horsepacking is an important use of wilderness, and I know it is a use 
that was well established in wilderness prior to the passage of the 
Wilderness Act in 1964. Unlike some other units of the National 
Wilderness Preservation System, the areas designated by this act are 
not heavily used by horses at this time. While fully recognizing the 
responsibilities of the land managers to monitor visitor use and 
respond appropriately to any resource damage that may result from 
overuse, I believe that current levels of horsepacking use in these 
areas are consistent with wilderness designation. Do my colleagues 
agree?
  Mrs. BOXER. I fully concur, and I thank my colleague for raising this 
issue. I would like to ask the chairman and ranking Democratic member 
whether they share our view that the designation of these areas as 
wilderness does not preclude their continued use by horsepackers, 
subject to the agency's management discretion to protect area 
resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator from California.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I likewise agree.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are all in agreement on this issue.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In working through the bill, the Forest Service 
stressed a need to develop a plan to restore the late successional 
reserve LSR forest of the Sanhedrin wilderness area. We agreed that 
wilderness designation could be fully compatible with such restoration 
treatments.
  I agree with the Forest Service observation that this area has been 
altered by human influences, including the suppression of natural 
burning. As the Forest Service develops its plan in accordance with 
this act and with the goal of LSR restoration, I believe the old growth 
characteristics of the LSR are a primary value of the wilderness. I 
also believe that the Forest Service can achieve its goal of LSR 
restoration in accordance with this act and the Forest Service manual 
direction on wilderness. The relevant portion of the manual, FSM 
2323.35a states:

       Manipulation of Wildlife Habitat. The objective of all 
     projects must be to perpetuate the wilderness resource; 
     projects must be necessary to sustain a primary value of a 
     given wilderness or to perpetuate a federally listed 
     threatened or endangered species. To qualify for approval by 
     the Chief, habitat manipulation projects must satisfy the 
     following criteria:
       The condition needing change is a result of abnormal human 
     influence.
       The project can be accomplished with assurance that there 
     will be no serious or lasting damage to wilderness values.
       There is reasonable assurances that the project will 
     accomplish the desired objectives.

  Do my colleagues share my views that treatments to promote old growth 
in the Sanhedrin LSR are fully consistent with this act?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the senior Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I agree as well.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I, too, share this understanding of the bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Some people have voiced concerns about hunting and 
fishing in wilderness areas. I want to make perfectly clear that 
nothing in this bill alters the fact that the State of California 
retains jurisdiction of wildlife management in these wilderness areas 
which includes the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses.
  Mrs. BOXER. I fully concur.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I likewise agree.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We all seem to be in agreement on this issue as well.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to raise one other issue. Since the 
enactment of the King Range Act in 1970, property owners Linda Smith 
Franklin and Mary Smith Etter have been granted access to their land by 
the Bureau of Land Management via the Smith-Etter Road. This 
legislation has designated the Smith-Etter Road as providing access to 
private property owners and their invitees. It is my understanding that 
nothing in this act should in any way alter the access currently 
granted to Franklin and Etter under existing policies. I believe that 
Franklin and Etter should continue to receive the access that they 
currently enjoy.
  On the subject of fire suppression in this same area, I note that 
this act provides the land management agencies with the necessary 
flexibility to conduct fire suppression activities to protect human 
life and property. For example, in the King Range Honeydew fire in 
2003, which resulted in 14,000 acres of fire damage in the King Range 
Conservation Area, the Bureau of Land Management authorized a fire 
truck and a 3-member crew to be stationed at the bottom of Telegraph 
Ridge, within a four mile range of the Franklin property in order to 
allow easy, quick access to the Franklin property in the event that 
fire suppression activities were warranted. As a result, firefighters 
were able to fend off the fire and prevent damage to the Franklin 
property. It is my understanding that nothing in this Act would prevent 
BLM from continuing this practice when so warranted by fire danger.
  Do my colleagues share my understanding of these access and fire 
suppression issues in the King Range?

[[Page S11795]]

  Mrs. BOXER. I do, and I thank my colleague from California for her 
work on this issue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I likewise share this understanding of how the bill 
should be implemented.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I agree as well.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleagues.

                          ____________________