[House Report 105-378]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-378
_______________________________________________________________________
RIVER CRAFT IN HELLS CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
_______________________________________________________________________
November 4, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 838]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 838) to require adoption of a management plan for the
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area that allows appropriate
use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft in the recreation
area, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 838 is to require adoption of a
management plan for the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
that allows appropriate use of motorized and nonmotorized river
craft in the recreation area, and for other purposes.
Background amd Need for Legislation
H.R. 838 would require adoption of a management plan for
the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area that allows
appropriate use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft in
the recreation area.
The use of jet boats in Hells Canyon has long been
controversial. In 1987 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Supervisor Robert Richmond initiated a review and revision of
the river management portion of the comprehensive management
plan for the forest which surrounds the canyon. The outcome of
the review was a provision to close the heart of Hells Canyon
to motorized river craft for three days a week in July and
August, the peak of the recreation season.
In 1995, the Regional Forester overturned the proposal to
exclude jet boats from Hells Canyon after the Forest Service
received many appeals, thus postponing implementation of the
provision to limit motorized craft in the canyon.
The history of the Hells Canyon portion of the Snake River
is different than most rivers included in the Wild and Scenic
River System. This is a high volume river with a long history
of motorized river craft. The first paying passengers in a
motorized river craft date back to 1865. The use of jet boats
in Hells Canyon has continued since 1865, with over 80 percent
of all recreationists in the Hells Canyon segment of the Snake
River accessing the river by way of jet boats today.
The amended Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the
establishment of a carrying capacity for each river segment in
the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and most agree that this is
important to maintaining an enjoyable experience for all users.
Most feel that this issue will not be resolved until
legislation is enacted. H.R. 838 clarifies Congressional intent
in a manner that avoids any future misunderstanding with regard
to the use of jet boats in the Hells Canyon National Recreation
Area.
Committee Action
H.R. 838 was introduced on February 26, 1997, by
Congressman Helen Chenoweth (R-ID). The bill was referred to
the Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. On March 20, 1997,
the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 838, where the
Administration testified in opposition to H.R. 838. On June 17,
1997, the Subcommittee met to mark up H.R. 838. No amendments
were offered and the bill was then ordered favorably reported
to the Full Committee by voice vote. On July 16, 1997, the Full
Resources Committee met to consider H.R. 838. No amendments
were offered and the bill was then ordered favorably reported
to the House of Representatives by a rollcall vote of 21-20, as
follows:
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule
XI of the Rule of the House of Representatives, and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority
to enact H.R. 838.
Cost of the Legislation
Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 838. However, clause 7(d) of that Rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Compliance with House Rule XI
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R.
838 does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
enactment of H.R. 838 could affect offsetting receipts in 1998,
but the bill would have no significant impact on the federal
budget.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 838.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 838
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 24, 1997.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 838, a bill to
require adoption of a management plan for the Hells Canyon
National Recreation Area that allows appropriate use of
motorized and nonmotorized river craft in the recreation area,
and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Victoria V.
Heid.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 838--A bill to require adoption of a management plan for the Hells
Canyon National Recreation Area that allows appropriate use of
motorized and nonmotorized river craft in the recreation area,
and for other purposes
CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. Because H.R. 838
could affect offsetting receipts in 1998, pay-as-you-go
procedures would apply; however, CBO estimates that any such
effects would be neglibile. H.R. 838 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and wou8ld impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
Enacting H.R. 838 would require the Secretary of
Agriculture to adopt rules and regulations for managing the
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area that recognize the use of
motorized and nonmotorized river craft as a valid and
appropriate use of the Snake River within the recreation area
and that permit such river craft access to, and use of, the
entire river within the recreation area throughout the year.
The U.S. Forest Service is currently planning to adopt a river
management plan for the area that would revise certain
restrictions on the use of river craft and place new
restrictions on the use of motorized river craft. Enacting H.R.
838 would prohibit the Forest Service from implementing some of
the planned restrictions. Because outfitters pay recreation use
fees to the federal government based on a percentage of their
gross revenue and their revenues might decrease if the Forest
Service implemented operational limitations, enacting the bill
could result in greater receipts to the federal government.
However, CBO estimates that any such effects on federal
offsetting receipts would be negligible.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Victoria V.
Heid. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
H.R. 838 contains no unfunded mandates.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
SECTION 10 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 31, 1975
AN ACT To establish the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in the
States of Oregon and Idaho, and for other purposes
Sec. 10. [The Secretary] (a) Rules and Regulations.--The
Secretary shall promulgate, and may amend, such rules and
regulations as he deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of
this Act. Such rules and regulations shall include, but are not
limited to--
[(a)] (1) standards for the use and development of
privately owned property within the recreation area,
which rules or regulations the Secretary may, to the
extent he deems advisable, implement with the
authorities delegated to him in section 9 of this Act,
and which may differ among the various parcels of land
within the recreation area;
[(b)] (2) standards and guidelines to insure the full
protection and preservation of the historic,
archeological, and paleontological resources in the
recreation area;
[(c)] (3) provision for the control of the use of
motorized and mechanical equipment for transportation
over, or alteration of, the surface of any Federal land
within the recreation area;
[(d) provision for the control of the use and number
of motorized and nonmotorized river craft: Provided,
That the use of such craft is hereby recognized as a
valid use of the Snake River within the recreation
area; and]
(4) subject to subsection (b), provision for control
of the use and number of motorized and nonmotorized
river craft as necessary, but only to the extent
necessary to ensure that such uses are compatible with
this Act; and
[(e)] (5) standards for such management, utilization,
and disposal of natural resources on federally owned
lands, including but not limited to, timber harvesting
by selective cutting, mining, and grazing and the
continuation of such existing uses and developments as
are compatible with the provisions of this Act.
(b) Use of Motorized and Nonmotorized River Craft.--For the
purposes of subsection (a)(4)--
(1) the use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft
is recognized as a valid and appropriate use of the
Snake River within the recreation area;
(2) motorized and nonmotorized river craft shall be
permitted access to, and use of, the entire river
within the recreation area at all times during the
year;
(3) concurrent use of the river within the recreation
area by motorized and nonmotorized river craft shall
not be considered to be a conflict;
(4) use of commercial and private motorized and
nonmotorized river craft shall be allowed to continue
on the entire Snake River within the recreation area
throughout each year at levels that optimize the
opportunity of the American people to utilize the
recreation area within the reasonable capacity of the
resources to sustain that use, recognizing as
acceptable established daily and seasonal use patterns
and considering the economic well-being of surrounding
communities; and
(5) use of motorized or nonmotorized river craft on
the Snake River within the recreation area by owners of
private property for the purpose of traveling to or
from their property in their usual and accustomed
manner shall not be restricted.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We join with the administration and others in opposing H.R.
838. Contrary to the express language of H.R. 838, we cannot
legislate that motorized and nonmotorized use shall not be
considered a conflict. There is a long history that these uses
have been in conflict and the Forest Service has taken steps to
address that conflict. These steps include developing a river
management plan with public participation, doing an
environmental impact statement on the plan, and addressing
appeals to the plan.
For nearly 20 years, nonmotorized use of the river has been
regulated, while at the same time there has been no regulation
of motorized use of the river. The Forest Service plan that
this bill seeks to overturn addresses that disparity. While
providing some regulation of commercial motorized use, it
places no limits on private, noncommercial motorized use. After
numerous delays it is time the Forest Service plan to be
implemented.
In addition to the conflict on motorized and nonmotorized
use, there is another inherent contradiction in H.R. 838. On
one hand the bill says the Forest Service may regulate use of
the river within the reasonable capacity of the resources to
sustain that use. At the same time the bill undercuts any
regulation of use by placing numerous caveats on such
regulation, including the requirement that ``river craft shall
be permitted access to, and use of, the entire river in the
recreation area at all times during the year.''
We don't believe it is appropriate to send the Forest
Service back to the drawing board, especially in a manner that
ties their hands on river management.
Rather than settle any issues, H.R. 838 is only likely to
inflame the controversies associated with motorized and
nonmotorized use of the river. We oppose the bill and urge our
colleagues to do likewise.
George Miller.
Maurice D. Hinchey.
Peter DeFazio.
Bruce F. Vento.