[Senate Report 105-78]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 158
105th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 105-78
_______________________________________________________________________
HELLS CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
_______
September 11, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 360]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 360) to require adoption of a management
plan for the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area that allows
appropriate use of motorized and non-motorized river craft in
the recreation area, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Measure
The purpose of S. 360 is to amend the Hells Canyon National
Recreation Area Enabling Act to require that motorized and non-
motorized craft will be permitted access to, and use of, the
entire portion of the Snake River within the recreation area at
all times of the year.
Background and Need
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) was
established by Congress in 1975 and is located in the northeast
corner of Oregon and west central Idaho. The recreation area is
administered by the National Forest Service as part of the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The Recreation Area lies
within Baker and Wallowa Counties in Oregon, and Nez Perce,
Adams and Idaho Countries in Idaho. Principal nearby
communities include Lewiston and the Boise/Caldwell/Nampa area
in Idaho, Clarkson in Washington, and Baker City and La Grande
in Oregon.
The principal physical feature of the HCNRA is Hells
Canyon. Measuring 7,993 feet deep and 10 miles from rim to rim
at places, it forms the deepest river canyon in North America.
The HCNRA contains habitat for a wide variety of fish and
wildlife. Cultural resources include old homesteads, mining
sites, and prehistoric pictographs and petroglyphs. Historical
resources include sites associated with the history of the Nez
Perce Tribe. There are 652,488 acres within the HCNRA boundary,
including approximately 33,000 acres which are in private
ownership.
Approximately 71 miles of the Snake River in the HCNRA is
designated as a component of the Wild and Scenic River System:
a ``wild'' segment from Hells Canyon Dam north to Pittsburg
Landing (31.5 miles), and a ``scenic'' segment from Pittsburg
Landing north to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest's north
boundary (36 miles). The original 1975 enabling Act and later
amendments designated about 215,000 acres within the recreation
area as wilderness. The one half mile wide (average width)
Snake River corridor, however, was excluded from the wilderness
designation.
The Snake River segment of the HCNRA is a high volume
river, with class IV rapids (on a scale of I to VI) located in
the upper 16.3 miles of the river--the deepest part of Hells
Canyon.
Commercial power boats have navigated the Snake River
through what is now the HCNR since the age of steamboats in the
mid-nineteenth century. Commercial jet boats have been used on
the Snake River since the early 1960s. The jet boats used at
the HCRA vary from 18 to 42 feet, and have a cruising speed of
28 to 35 MPH and a top speed of 50 MPH. Since they have no
projecting propellers, they can run in relatively shallow
water.
Commercial non-motorized use at Hells Canyon began to be
popular when surplus rafts from World War II made river running
more available and inexpensive. Float outfitter permits and
launches have been regulated by the National Forest Service
since the 1970s. During the 1992 regulated season, 12,168
people floated on the HCNRA. During this same period, 23,220
people accessed the HCNRA by power boat.
The Forest Service completed a comprehensive management
plan (CMP) for Hells Canyon in 1982. This plan was appealed by
private citizens and business owners based on proposed
restrictions on power boating in the Wild and Scenic river
portions of the HCNRA. In 1983, the Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture settled the appeals by removing powerboating
limitations from the plan until 1985, at which point powerboat
use could be reassessed.
In October, 1994, the Forest Supervisor for the Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest issued a ``Recreation Management Plan
for the Wild and Scenic Snake River.'' This management plan
proposed limitations on power boat use at the HCNRA. The plan
proposed establishing eight three-day periods of non-motorized
use during the summer season. During these time periods, which
fall after July 4th weekend and before the Labor Day weekend,
motorized use would be prohibited from a 21-mile segment of the
Snake River. The plan was developed using data from a visitor
use study that was conducted by the University of Idaho for the
Forest Service in 1988-89. The plan was appealed to the
Regional Forester in July, 1995.
The Regional Forester upheld many of the decisions in the
plan, but requested further analysis on the economic impact of
the plan on commercial outfitters and access to private
inholdings. An environmental analysis specific to the Regional
Forester's concerns on private land access and on environmental
analysis specific to the Regional Forester's concerns on
private land access and on the economic effects of proposed use
allocations on commercial operators was undertaken in late
1996. According to the Forest Service, a decision on the
analysis of economic effects on commercial operators was
completed and incorporated into the 1997 use plan, implemented
this summer. The analysis on the effects of the plan on private
access is projected by the Forest Service to be complete by the
1998 summer use season. In the meantime, the Snake River
Management Plan is being implemented by the Forest Service,
without inclusion of the motorless boating provision, until the
private access analysis is completed. As revised, the plan
proposes a three-day non-motorized window to run from June
through Labor Day, roughly every other week, with no
restriction on motorized use over the July 4th week-ends.
Legislative History
S. 360 was introduced by Senator Craig on February 26, 1997
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic
Preservation and Recreation held a hearing on the bill on June
26, 1997.
At the business meeting on July 30, 1997, the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 360 favorably reported
without amendments.
Committee Recommendations and Tabulation of Votes
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on July 30, 1997, by a unanimous vote of a
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 360 without
amendment.
The rollcall vote on reporting the measure was 11 yeas, 9
nays, as follows:
YEAS NAYS
Mr. Murkowski Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Domenici \1\ Mr. Ford
Mr. Nickles Mr. Bingaman \1\
Mr. Craig Mr. Akaka \1\
Mr. Campbell \1\ Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Thomas \1\ Mr. Graham \1\
Mr. Kyl Mr. Wyden
Mr. Grams Mr. Johnson \1\
Mr. Smith Ms. Landrieu \1\
Mr. Gorton
Mr. Burns \1\
\1\ Indicates voted by proxy.
Summary of S. 360
Section 1 amends Section 10 of P.L. 94-199, the 1975
enabling Act for Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, by
adding a new paragraph (a)(4).
The new paragraph (4) amends the Act by providing for
control of the use and number of motorized and non-motorized
craft as necessary, but only to the extent necessary to ensure
that the uses are compatible with the Act.
The bill also adds a new subsection (b) to section 10, as
follows:
Subsection (b)(1) states that the use of motorized and non-
motorized river craft is recognized as a valid and appropriate
use of the Snake River within the recreation area.
Paragraph (b)(2) directs that motorized and non-motorized
craft be permitted access to, and use of, the entire river
within the recreation area at all times during the year.
Paragraph (b)(3) directs that the concurrent use of the
river within the recreation area by motorized and non-motorized
river craft not be considered a conflict.
Paragraph (b)(4) states that the use of commercial and
private motorized and non-motorized river craft be allowed at
levels that optimize recreational use, within the reasonable
capacity for the resources to sustain that level use; and while
recognizing established use patterns and the economic well-
being of the surrounding communities.
Paragraph (b)(5) provides that access to private property
by motorized or non-motorized river craft by property owners in
their usual and accustomed manner not be restricted.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
congressional budget office cost estimate
S. 360--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 S. 360 could
affect offsetting receipts in 1998, pay-as-you-go procedures
would apply; however, CBO estimates that any such effects would
be negligible. S. 360 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Enacting S. 360 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 S. 360 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.
Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 360. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals
and businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 360, as ordered reported.
Executive Communications
On July 30, 1997, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting
forth Executive agency recommendations on S. 360. These reports
had not been received at the time the report on S. 360 was
filed. When these reports become available, the Chairman will
request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for
the advice of the Senate. The testimony of the Department of
the Interior at the Subcommittee hearing follows:
Statement of Lyle Laverty, Director of Recreation, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to present the Administration's views on S.
360, a bill which would require the ``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.''
The Department of Agriculture opposes S. 360.
Our basis for this recommendation is that the legislation
would require changing the river management plan currently
being adopted after many years of development. The forest
planning process in place under the National Forest Management
Act, providing for substantial public participation, guides
management plan development. This process works well and also
provides the flexibility to make adjustments over time as
public demands and resource conditions change.
S. 360 would amend section 10 of the Hells Canyon National
Recreation Area Act by requiring the Forest Service to issue
regulations for the control of the use and number of motorized
and nonmotorized craft as necessary to ensure that such uses
are compatible with the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
(HCNRA). While the Forest Service is pleased the legislation
recognizes the need for managed use levels on the Snake River,
specific regulations for managing the Federal portion of the
HCNRA were issued in 1994.
These regulations specifically address standards for the
use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft. These standards
were the subject of extensive public comment, and the final
rule strikes a careful and reasoned balance between preserving
the unique natural resource values for which the HCNRA and
Snake River were designated, and the continued balanced use of
motorized and nonmotorized river craft.
The use levels established in the 1994 river management
plan provide for recreation experiences consistent with wild
and scenic river settings. Since 1975, increasing use levels
have changed the river canyon setting from the primitive or
semi-primitive experience normally associated with wild and
scenic river designations. This change is directly associated
with increased levels of both motorized and nonmotorized river
craft.
When Congress passed the HCNRA Act in 1975, the Act
required that a comprehensive management plan (CMP) be
developed. That plan was issued in 1984, and was incorporated
into the Wallowa--Whitman National Forest land and resource
management plan (forest plan) in 1990. The CMP then became
subject to the procedures for modifying management direction
found in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and
implementing regulations (36 CFR 219).
historical management of use levels
Recreation use restrictions on the Snake River began in the
1970's when commercial floatboat outfitters were placed under
special use permits in response to concerns about increasing
numbers of outfitters. Restrictions on private and commercial
floatboat launches were also started at this time on the wild
portion of the river during the primary (summer) use season.
The Forest Service proposed limitations on commercial and
private powerboats in 1982 in order to keep recreation use
levels within the carrying capacity of the river and to reduce
encounters between float and powerboat use. Powerboat use had
been unlimited under previous management plans. The decision to
limit powerboat use was reversed in 1983 by the Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture, thus unlimited use of powerboats
continued, while floatboat launches continued to be restricted.
In 1988, following the provisions of the Assistant
Secretary's 1983 appeal decision, the Forest Service conducted
an extensive survey of all river users. With the survey results
as a basis, the Forest Service contracted with the University
of Idaho to follow up with management recommendations. The
University convened a task force, which presented
recommendations for the management of the Snake River in 1991.
In 1992, the Forest Service began to involve the public in
developing an environmental impact statement (EIS), using the
1991 task force recommendations as a proposed action. In 1994,
the Forest Supervisor issued a record of decision for the EIS,
amending the forest plan with new management direction for the
Wild and Scenic Snake River.
Limitations on powerboat use were proposed in this new
Snake River plan. The decision on the plan was the subject of
31 separate appeals by individuals, organizations, and
commercial outfitters. Most appeals were by outfitters and
guides concerning limitations on the use of powerboats. The
Deputy Regional Forester upheld most components of the river
plan in resolving the appeals.
However, the Deputy Regional Forester also determined that
the potential effects of the proposed plan on the economic
viability of outfitter-guides had not been adequately analyzed
or disclosed. The Forest Supervisor was directed to conduct
additional analysis to determine the economic effects of the
proposed use allocations and operating limits on each of the
existing commercial outfitters. This analysis is complete and
the Forest is incorporating the findings concerning economic
effects into the river management plan.
The appeal decision also addressed the issue of access to
private lands within the river corridor, and directed further
review and analysis. This analysis should be completed in time
to implement any proposed changes by the 1998 season. In the
meantime, there will be no change in the current policy which
provides for unrestricted motorized access to these private
lands.
The decision to delay implementation of the non-motorized
window portion of the final Snake River management plan pending
the private land access analysis was itself the subject of
litigation. The Hells Canyon Preservation Council had sought a
preliminary injunction forcing the Forest Service to implement
the non-motorized launch schedule identified in the plan. In
May, the court denied the preliminary injunction, and the Snake
River plan is currently being implemented for the 1997 primary
season without the non-motorized window. The Forest Service has
provided the court with an anticipated schedule for completion
of the private land access analysis before the 1998 primary use
season.
summary
The Snake River plan is an example of the process the
Forest Service follows to reach resource management decisions.
This collaborative process is open and inclusive, allowing the
public ample opportunity to make their concerns known and have
them considered. As resource stewards, we have the
responsibility, by law, to seek to balance the needs of the
people with the available resources.
Although this process is sometimes slower than is desired,
I am convinced that it works. We prefer that the forest
planning process be given the opportunity to complete its
course. We think that is fair to the people who have
participated, and local forest managers, that they see the
results of many years of effort carried forward. The proposed
legislation would force this process to start over again.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
answer questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee
may have.
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS BUMPERS AND WYDEN
If enacted, S. 360 would overturn the Forest Service's
management plan for the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.
The bill would favor one class of recreational users over
another--in this case, operators of motorized ``jet boats''
over non-motorized ``float boats.'' We see no need to supersede
a management plan developed by the Forest Service after years
of public debate and involvement, designed to accommodate both
motorized and non-motorized river craft users within the
recreation area.
The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in Oregon and
Idaho was established in 1975 ``to assure that the natural
beauty, historical, and archaeological values of the Hells
Canyon area and the 71-mile segment of the Snake River''
running through the recreation area were ``preserved for this
and future generations.'' Over sixty-seven miles of the Snake
River within the recreation area have been designated as
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, with 36 miles
designated as ``scenic'' and 31\1/2\ miles designated as
``wild.''
The 1975 enabling legislation for the recreation area
authorized the Forest Service to develop regulations necessary
to accomplish the purpose of the Act, ``including provision for
the control of the use and number of motorized and non-
motorized river craft.'' While the enabling legislation made it
clear that the operation of both motorized and non-motorized
river craft were recognized as valid uses in the recreation
area, the Act is also clear that the Forest Service is
authorized to regulate the use and number of river craft in
order to minimize conflicts between the different recreational
experiences.
The Forest Service testified before the Committee that
increasing use levels within the recreation area ``have changed
the river canyon setting from the primitive or semi-primitive
experience normally associated with wild and scenic river
designations. This change is directly associated with increased
levels of both motorized and non-motorized river craft.''
The number of commercial and private non-motorized river
craft within the recreation area have been regulated by the
Forest Service since the 1970s. Until the new regulations were
developed, no similar restrictions have been imposed on
motorized river craft. Under the new regulations, motorized
river craft would not be allowed on the river for three days
every other week during the summer (and not even then if the
three-day period encompasses a major holiday such as the Fourth
of July), and only within the Snake River segment designated as
a ``wild'' component of the Wild and Scenic River Systems.
While use ceilings would also be imposed on motorized use in
the rest of the recreation area, according to the Forest
Service the new caps exceed the current level of use. By
comparison, non-motorized use would continue to be limited to
five launches per day within the recreation area.
S. 360 would require the Forest Service to adopt a
management plan for the recreation area that would permit the
use of motorized boats on the Snake River within Hells Canyon
on all portions of the river during all times of the year. The
bill would also prohibit any restriction on the use of private
powerboats for access to and from private property, even though
the Forest Service testified that no private inholdings are
within the segment proposed for closure to motorized river
craft.
In our opinion, the Forest Service has acted properly and
responsibly to try and balance two potentially conflicting uses
within the recreation area. The agency has correctly
interpreted the 1975 enabling Act by proposing a management
plan which allows both motorized and non-motorized uses to
continue while imposing reasonable limitations to minimize
conflicts and enhance the recreational experience for both
users.
Dale Bumpers.
Ron Wyden.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill S. 360, as ordered 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):
(public law 94-199--dec. 31, 1975)
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,
archaeological 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; and
[(d) provision for the control of the use and number
of motorized and nonmotorized rivercraft: 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 non-motorized
river craft as necessary, but only to the extent
necessary to ensure that such uses are compatible with
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 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.