[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.

                                
