[House Report 108-667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-667

======================================================================

 
TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTINUED USE OF 
   ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL OUTFITTER HUNTING CAMPS ON THE SALMON RIVER

                                _______
                                

 September 8, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1003]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill (S. 
1003) to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the 
continued use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps 
on the Salmon River, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of S. 1003 is to clarify the intent of Congress 
with respect to the continued use of established commercial 
outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 (CIWA, Public Law 
96-312) designated over two million acres of the Idaho 
backcountry in the Salmon and Challis National Forests as the 
``Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness'' and 79 miles of 
the Salmon River as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act. The CIWA included a finding that ``such protection can be 
provided without conflicting with established uses.'' Section 
9(b) of CIWA states that the River corridor is to be managed 
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, rather than the more 
restrictive provisions of the Wilderness Act.
    Along this 79 mile stretch of the Salmon River are a number 
of outfitter hunting camps. Ten of the camps are privately 
owned and three operate under Forest Service special use 
permits to provide commercial recreational services. These 
camps are located at Stub Creek, Arctic Creek and Smith Gulch. 
As described by Under Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey, these 
camps ``provide unique, traditional services and experiences to 
the public in a setting that cannot be duplicated.'' The 
current permits for the camps were issued in 1995 and run until 
2010. The three permitted camps were established and in use 
prior to the enactment of CIWA. It is important to note that 
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, permanent structures are 
allowed on ``wild and scenic'' rivers as long as they do not 
``substantially interfere'' with the nature of the river. (16 
U.S.C. 1281 (a)). In this case, the structures already existed 
before the River was designated and are part of its character. 
Moreover, it takes several hours by dirt road and then boat to 
reach the camps and without them, most of the public would not 
have access to this portion of the Salmon River. Additionally, 
Forest Service permits for these outfitters require mitigation 
to protect scenic, aesthetic, and fish and wildlife values to 
comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. One highly visible 
hunting camp was allowed to be relocated in 1988 to a new site 
where it is now screened from view, with the intent of 
enhancing the values that caused the River to be designated.
    Although the legislative history accompanying CIWA 
indicates an intent to provide for the continued use of the 
three camps, some environmental groups have disagreed, claiming 
the three camps violated the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A 
lawsuit was filed, and a federal district court held in 
September 2000 that the three camps were inconsistent with the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. (Wilderness Watch v. United 
States Forest Service, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D. Mont. 2000)). 
The court also ordered the Forest Service to have them removed. 
When the court ordered the Forest Service to remove these 
facilities, it also directed the agency to consider the needs 
of the camp owners in setting a timetable for removal. In 
January 2003, the Supervisor of the Salmon-Challis National 
Forest signed a Record of Decision that continued use of the 
camps with temporary facilities and set a schedule of removal 
of all permanent facilities at the three camps by December 31, 
2005.
    In the aftermath of the lawsuit, many of those who 
developed the CIWA indicated that the original intent of the 
law was misinterpreted and the outfitters should remain. 
Included in the appendix to this report are letters in support 
of S. 1003 from Cecil Andrus, former Governor of Idaho and 
Secretary of the Interior in the Carter Administration; Bethine 
Church, the wife of former Senator Frank Church, the author of 
the CIWA; James McClure, former Senator from Idaho; Frank 
Elder, Forest Service witness who testified on the legislation 
which became the CIWA; Dennis Baird, Sierra Club witness, who 
also testified on the legislation; and Norm Guth, former Salmon 
River lodge owner.
    During consideration of S. 1003 in the Resources Committee, 
several members of the minority party questioned whether the 
three camps should be allowed to continue because of the 
refusal of their owners to vacate them in the 1970s. The 
minority argues that prior to the enactment of CIWA several 
camps had been asked to leave the area. While seven of the 
camps were disbanded, the three camps affected by this 
legislation remained. They were still in place when CIWA became 
law in 1980. While this may have been a legitimate question of 
fairness during consideration of CIWA in 1979 and 1980, the 
camps were nonetheless included in the legislation. The 
Wilderness Watch decision pertains to the administration of the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and not the merits of each 
individual permittee. As such, the issue raised by the minority 
was addressed, right or wrong, with the enactment of CIWA. S. 
1003 clarifies the intent of Congress as it pertains to CIWA's 
interpretation in the Wilderness Watch ruling.
    The Committee notes that while some national environmental 
groups have opposed S. 1003, those who participated in the 
original drafting and negotiating of the legislation which 
became CIWA are supportive of the bill. Also, by and large, the 
people of Idaho as well as the entire Idaho Congressional 
delegation support S. 1003.
    S. 1003 would clarify the intent of the bill and would 
allow the three established commercial outfitters to continue 
use of the national forest as long as they are in compliance 
with their special use permits.

                            Committee Action

    S. 1003 was introduced on May 5, 2003, by Senator Larry 
Craig (R-ID). The Senate passed the bill with an amendment by 
unanimous consent on November 24, 2003. In the House of 
Representatives, the bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
Forests and Forest Health. On June 17, 2004, the Subcommittee 
held a hearing on the bill. On July 14, 2004, the Full 
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee 
was discharged from further consideration of the bill by 
unanimous consent. No amendments were offered and the bill was 
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 
voice vote.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII 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 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
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 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill 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 this bill would increase revenues to the federal 
government of less than $10,000 a year.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does 
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not 
apply.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 28, 2004.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1003, an act to 
clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the continued 
use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps on the 
Salmon River.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

S. 1003--An act to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the 
        continued use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps 
        on the Salmon River

    S. 1003 would allow three hunting camps located on the 
Salmon River, a designated wild and scenic river in Idaho, to 
continue to operate. As the result of a lawsuit against the 
U.S. Forest Service, those camps are required to vacate, by 
December 31, 2005, the sites they presently occupy under 
special permits.
    Based on information provided by the Forest Service, CBO 
estimates that enacting S. 1003 would have no significant 
impact on the federal budget. Allowing the camps to continue to 
operate would result in increased offsetting receipts (of less 
than $10,000 a year) beginning in fiscal year 2006 because the 
Forest Service would be able to continue collecting permit fees 
from them. (Such receipts are deposited in the general fund of 
the Treasury and cannot be spent without appropriation.)
    S. 1003 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    On August 1, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 
1003 as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources on July 23, 2003. The two versions of the 
legislation are identical, as are the estimated costs.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. 
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 3 OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT

                          (Public Law 90-542)

  Sec. 3. (a) The following rivers and the land adjacent 
thereto are hereby designated as components of the national 
wild and scenic rivers system:
  (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (24)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (D) The established use and occupancy as of 
                June 6, 2003, of lands and maintenance or 
                replacement of facilities and structures for 
                commercial recreation services at Stub Creek 
                located in section 28, T24N, R14E, Boise 
                Principal Meridian, at Arctic Creek located in 
                section 21, T25N, R12E, Boise Principal 
                Meridian and at Smith Gulch located in section 
                27, T25N, R12E, Boise Principal Meridian shall 
                continue to be authorized, subject to such 
                reasonable regulation as the Secretary deems 
                appropriate, including rules that would provide 
                for termination for non-compliance, and if 
                terminated, reoffering the site through a 
                competitive process.
  [(D)] (E) Subject to existing rights of the State of Idaho, 
including the right of access, with respect to the beds of 
navigable streams, tributaries or rivers, dredge and placer 
mining in any form including any use of machinery for the 
removal of sand and gravel for mining purposes shall be 
prohibited within the segment of the Salmon River designated as 
a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System by this 
paragraph; within the fifty-three-mile segment of the Salmon 
River from Hammer Creek downstream to the confluence of the 
Snake River; and within the Middle Fork of the Salmon River; 
and its tributary streams in their entirety: Provided, That 
nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to prohibit the 
removal of sand and gravel, outside the boundaries of the River 
of No Return Wilderness or the Gospel-Hump Wilderness, above 
the high water mark of the Salmon River or the Middle Fork and 
its tributaries for the purposes of construction or maintenance 
of public roads: Provided further, That this paragraph shall 
not apply to any written mineral leases approved by the Board 
of Land Commissioners of the State of Idaho prior to January 1, 
1980.
  [(E)] (F) The provisions of section 7(a) of this Act with 
respect to the licensing of dams, water conduits, reservoirs, 
powerhouses, transmission lines or other project works, shall 
apply to the fifty-three-mile segment of the Salmon River from 
Hammer Creek downstream to the confluence of the Snake River.
  [(F)] (G) For the purposes of the segment of the Salmon River 
designated as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System 
by this paragraph, there is hereby authorized to be 
appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, after 
October 1, 1980, not more than $6,200,000 for the acquisition 
of lands and interests in lands.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    S. 1003 would overturn a Federal Court decision that found 
that the use of lodges, cabins, and other permanent facilities 
on national forest lands along the Salmon National Wild and 
Scenic River was a violation of law.
    Supporters of S. 1003 claim this court decision is a 
misinterpretation of the 1980 Act that designated this area. 
While under the wild river designation, permanent facilities 
are not allowed, supporters claim this prohibition wasn't 
supposed to apply to the Salmon River. However, neither the 
1980 Act nor its legislative history speaks to such an 
exemption, even as the law and its legislative history speak to 
other exemptions granted in that legislation.
    S. 1003 raises a number of fairness and management issues. 
It has been brought to our attention that long-standing Forest 
Service Regulations in effect at the time of the 1980 Act 
prohibited permanent facilities in this area. In fact, in 1970 
the Forest Service ordered the eight outfitter camps not in 
compliance with this prohibition to remove their permanent 
facilities. Five outfitters complied with this directive, three 
did not--the same three that are seeking exemption by S. 1003.
    What signal does this legislation send to those outfitters 
who followed the rules? When asked about this at the hearing on 
S. 1003, Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey's response was 
that there are often winners and losers in legislation. Do we 
really want people to believe they can ignore the rules or let 
the Forest Service turn a blind eye to the law and its own 
regulations?
    Further, the direct language of S. 1003 would grant these 
three commercial outfitters a special right of use to national 
forest lands that other national forest users don't have and 
would severely limit Forest Service authority on the issuance 
and management of these outfitter permits. The Administration's 
testimony asked for changes on these matters but none have been 
made.
    We recognize that the Forest Service has been part of the 
problem here by renewing permits when they had no legal 
authority to do so. That is why an offer was made to allow the 
existing permits to run their course. That offer was rejected 
and as a result we are left with the original bill with its 
policy and management problems.
    S. 1003 is anything but a simple bill. Members need to take 
a long and hard look at its problems. In the absence of changes 
to correct its serious deficiencies, we urge defeat of this 
legislation.

                                   Nick Rahall.
                                   George Miller.
                                   Edward J. Markey.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Jay Inslee.
                                APPENDIX

                              ----------                              

                                                      May 22, 2003.
Mr. Doug Tims,
Northwest River Company,
Boise, ID.
Re A Bill Clarifying Commercial Outfitter Hunting Camps on the Salmon 
        River.

    Dear Doug: I have looked at the proposed legislation 
concerning the lodges at Stub Creek, Smith Gulch and Arctic 
Creek along the Main Salmon River in the FCRNR Wilderness.
    These lodges and camps were well known at the time the Act 
was written and debated, and any effort to have them removed as 
part of the deal would have raised great controversy, I'm sure. 
Indeed, Frank was committed to achieving a balance in the 
legislation that allowed many such facilities to remain in 
place. I question whether the law could have passed without 
this type of compromise.
    Frank certainly wanted to maintain a true wilderness but he 
was a realist about the situation. His effort always was 
mindful of keeping the River of No Return accessible for as 
many people as possible. Staying at the lodges is a great 
alternative for some families then and now. He understood the 
need to keep out inappropriate uses such as vehicles and roads, 
but he clearly advocated for the valid historic recreational 
uses in the 1980 bill for the River of No Return Wilderness.
    You have my permission to send this letter on to all 
relevant congressional representatives and committees.
            Very sincerely,
                                       Bethine (Mrs. Frank) Church.
                                ------                                

                                                      May 30, 2003.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Please accept this correspondence as my 
total support for S. 1003.
    As a result of my years as Governor of Idaho and as 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, I am intimately 
familiar with the issues and location of the properties in 
question, properties that are now inside the outer boundary of 
the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area. I have 
personally visited the locations in question and was involved 
in the decisions that permitted Norman Guth, owner of the Big 
Squaw Creek facility, to move that facility to a less intrusive 
location away from the river's edge. He agreed to move; the 
Forest Service was happy; and it appeared that we had enhanced 
the wilderness characteristics of the area. The new location of 
this facility is at Smith Gulch, which is much less obtrusive 
but permits ``existing uses'' to continue.
    In 1980, when we passed the legislation that finally 
created the River of No Return Wilderness Area, which is now 
the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area, we thought 
the issue had been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I might 
add that Norm Guth went to considerable expense in creating the 
new facility, and he did it simply because he is a good 
citizen, one whom I have known for more than 30 years.
    The 1980 record of the committee hearing is, I think, quite 
clear as to what the intent was, and I hope that you and your 
committee will see fit to pass this proposed legislation to 
clarify the issue once and for all.
    With warm personal regards to you, I remain
            Sincerely,
                                                   Cecil D. Andrus.
                                ------                                

                                                      June 3, 2003.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I support the efforts of Senator Craig 
in S. 1003 to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to 
the continued use of established commercial outfitter hunting 
camps on the Salmon River.
    In 1979, Senator Church and I heard extensive testimony 
from the citizens of Idaho and others concerning the 
establishment of the River of No Return Wilderness. At issue 
before the Congress were the Idaho and Salmon River Breaks 
Primitive Areas. These areas and the surrounding lands that 
were recommended for wilderness protection make up a vast area 
of more than two million acres. The area is very challenging 
terrain cut by the Salmon River into canyons and river 
corridors with very difficult access.
    Idahoans had developed a number of historical methods of 
access prior to Congress addressing the future management of 
this vast area. It is very important to local citizens and 
outfitters to have a way to explore and enjoy Idaho's multitude 
of hunting, fishing and recreation opportunities. As we heard 
in the hearings before the Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, 
and Renewable Resources there was significant support for 
designation of a large segment of central Idaho as wilderness, 
but equally important that the public be allowed continued 
access.
    To strike this balance we placed the following language at 
the beginning of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act:

    Sec. 2. (a) The Congress finds that--
    (1) certain wildlands in central Idaho lying within the 
watershed of the Salmon River--the famous ``River of No 
Return''--constitute the largest block of primitive and 
undeveloped land in the conterminous United States and are of 
immense national significance;
    (2) these wildlands and a segment of the Salmon River 
should be incorporated within the National Wilderness 
Preservation System and the Wild and Scenic River System in 
order to provide statutory protection for the lands and waters 
and the wilderness-dependent wildlife and the resident and 
anadromous fish which thrive within the undisturbed ecosystem; 
and
    (3) such protection can be provided without conflicting 
with established uses.

    Contained in the bill was a balance between management 
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act. 
The congressional record includes extensive discussion of the 
reason for the dual designation. Under the Wilderness Act, 
existing uses such as airstrips, powerboat use and camps with 
permanent structures on the Main Salmon would not be allowed. 
We included specific language in the Act that directed the 
Forest Service to manage the Main Salmon corridor as Wild and 
Scenic in order to allow continued access via powerboats and 
the camps with permanent structures.
    Senator Church and I specifically questioned Assistant 
Secretary of Agriculture Rupert Cutler and Region Four 
representative Frank Elder about this balance. Their answers on 
the record and later in statements to the committee reports tie 
back directly to the ``such protection can be provided without 
conflicting with established uses'' language on the face of the 
bill.
    The committee report states ``While both the River of No 
Return Wilderness and the Gospel-Hump Wilderness overlap 
portions of the Wild and Scenic River corridor, the Committee 
reiterates that only the rules and regulations promulgated 
pursuant to the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will apply in 
the river corridor. Thus certain activities not generally 
permitted in wilderness areas, such as the hunting camps on the 
river, the use of motorized tools to gather firewood, and small 
hydroelectric generators can continue within the wild and 
scenic river corridor on the river.''
    At the hearings, I specifically asked Assistant Secretary 
of Agriculture Rupert Cutler about the dual designation. I 
asked ``Did I understand your most recent proposal did not deal 
with the earlier questions with respect to the management of 
the river corridors--particularly the Middle Fork and the main 
Salmon? Middle Fork is a Wild and Scenic River and it is your 
suggestion that it become wilderness and go into the more 
restrictive management of wilderness? But that the Salmon River 
itself would not become wilderness but would become part of the 
wild and scenic rivers? Mr. Cutler, ``That is correct, in order 
to continue the mode of transportation on the main Salmon 
River. The question of contained use of camps on the main stem 
also would be provided for by excluding the main system 
corridor from the wilderness area.''
    Here and at several other places in testimony, the 
``camps'' that were discussed are those at Smith Gulch, Arctic 
Creek and Stubb Creek as referenced in S. 1003.
    At present, these facilities are under Forest Service order 
to be removed in 2004. S. 1003 must be acted on promptly in 
order to provide for the continuation of this important 
historical access to the Salmon River by the public. It was 
clearly our intent in 1980 that this use, which is facilitated 
by the permanent structures at each site, shall continue for 
present and future generations.
            Sincerely,
                                                  James A. McClure.
                                ------                                

Hon. Larry Craig,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
    Dear Senator Craig: I have been involved in administration 
and management planning of the area now designated as the Frank 
Church River of No Return Wilderness and the Salmon Wild and 
Scenic River during much of my career as a Forester with the 
U.S. Forest Service. I testified before the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee during consideration of the Central 
Idaho Wilderness Act, and later served as leader of the team 
which prepared the Congressionally mandated management plans 
for the subject Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River.
    I have read Senate Bill 1003, and believe it is consistent 
with the intent of Congress and the interpretation of Forest 
Service managers implementing the Central Idaho Wilderness Act 
of 1980. Congress included specific language in the Act, and 
further explained it in accompanying committee reports, 
regarding the continuation of certain uses, activities, and 
developments which would ordinarily be disallowed in a 
Wilderness/Wild River setting, but which were specially 
excepted in this situation. These included jet-boat and chain-
saw use and buildings (and related developments) used as 
hunting and fishing camps by Outfitters operating under 
provisions of Special-Use Permits issued by the U.S. Forest 
Service.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Frank S. Elder.
                                ------                                

                                                      May 28, 2003.
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Re S. 1003.
    Dear Sir: I have read the text of S. 1003 and believe that 
its language is fully consistent with the original intent of 
Congress when it passed the Central Idaho Wilderness Act.
    I participated as a conservationist in most aspects of the 
writing of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act, working closely 
with Senator Frank Church and his staff in that long process. I 
have also personally visited all three sites where outfitter 
camps operate on public lands along the Salmon River.
    In writing this legislation, Sen. Church intended to the 
maximum extent possible to insure that uses compatible with the 
natural values of the Salmon River that were in place before 
enactment would be able to continue at the same level after 
enactment of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act. Sen. Church had 
visited all three camps in existence at the time this 
legislation was being considered and repeatedly stated that it 
was his intention that the law would permit their continued 
existence under USFS permit. Based on my memory of these 
events, there can be no doubt about what Mr. Church intended 
the final legislation to do. Sen. Church was also a fine writer 
in general, and of legislation in particular, and consequently 
I can see no room for ambiguity in interpreting this 
legislation and Mr. Church's intent: these three camps were to 
stay.
    One of the three camps is now at a different location than 
at the time of enactment, but that move was made at the behest 
of the Forest Service and was designed to relocate the camp to 
a less visible and intrusive spot--a request generously agreed 
to by the lease holder.
            Sincerely,
                                                      Dennis Baird.
                                ------                                

                                                      May 28, 2003.
Hon. Senator Larry Craig,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Senator Craig: I wish to express my support for S. 
1003 which clarifies the original intent of Congress with 
respect to the continued use of established commercial 
outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River.
    In 1979, I was president of the Idaho Outfitters and Guides 
Association, representing hundreds of outfitters and guides who 
served the general public, allowing them the opportunity to 
access and enjoy what was then known as the central Idaho 
Primitive Area. Working with a broad, bipartisan coalition, the 
outfitting industry supported what became the largest 
wilderness area in the lower 48 states--now the Frank Church--
River of No Return Wilderness.
    I was directly involved in fashioning the Central Idaho 
Wilderness Act of 1980 in a manner that was thought at the time 
to expressly allow the continuation of established uses of the 
Salmon River country. Among those established uses were many 
airstrips, the use of motorized jetboats on the Main Salmon 
River, and established hunting camps in the Main Salmon River 
corridor. There was a great deal of attention paid during the 
legislative process to assure that the Main Salmon River 
corridor would be managed under the Wild and Scenic River Act, 
even though the wilderness area overlapped. The reason for this 
specific arrangement was so that uses based on motorized access 
and camps with permanent structures, normally prohibited in 
wilderness, could continue in the Main Salmon River corridor.
    It was well understood by all parties involved including 
the U.S. Forest Service managers that the ``hunting camps'' 
referenced repeatedly in the legislative record, were the camps 
now located at Smith Gulch, Arctic Creek and Stubbs Creek. 
These three camps have long been an important method for the 
public to visit and enjoy the hunting and fishing resources of 
the Main Salmon River corridor.
    During the hearings before the Senate, both Senators Church 
and McClure questioned Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 
Rupert Cutler and Frank Elder from the Region Four office of 
the Forest Service about how the law as written would be 
administered with emphasis on the effect on established uses.
    Secretary Cutler testified, ``Our revised River of No 
Return Wilderness proposal reflects a balance between 
wilderness necessary to help round out a quality wilderness 
preservation system and the consideration of other resource 
values that are essential to the well-being of local and 
regional economies.''
    Secretary Cutler, ``We favor administration of the main 
Salmon River under the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act, rather than as part of the wilderness, so as to permit the 
continuation, as appropriate, of motorized travel on the river 
and outfitter and developed camping facilities within the river 
corridor. This method of travel and these facilities are needed 
to support a major existing recreational use of the river.''
    Senator Church further questioned Secretary Cutler and 
Frank Elder, ``What is your general view about the location of 
the outfitted and guide hunting camps on the main Salmon 
River?''
    Mr. Elder, ``The number and type of outfitter or hunting 
camps that exist now are reasonable. If the entire area were to 
be designated as wilderness, these types of structures would 
not be permitted under the act, which is the reason we proposed 
a Wild and Scenic River corridor, which allows slightly more 
permanent developments.''
    Senator Craig, the Frank Elder who testified about the 
camps had been the district ranger who worked directly with the 
owners of the camps in question. I owned the Smith Gulch camp 
and worked with Frank Elder and others in the Forest Service to 
assure that the camps would continue and that they would exist 
in a manner that would minimize their visual and environmental 
impact on the area.
    In closing let me thank you for your efforts to clarify the 
original intent of Congress on this matter. I was one of over 
600 Idahoans who testified in Salmon, Lewiston, Boise and 
Washington, DC. The law as passed was a compact with the people 
of Idaho. It stated that we could achieve the balance of 
protecting the magnificent resources of the Salmon River 
country while allowing continued historical means of access. 
The words on the face of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act, 
``such protection can be provided without conflicting with 
established uses'' have significant meaning. S. 1003 will 
maintain the compact between Congress and the people of Idaho 
and their visitors as intended.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Norm Guth.

                                  
