<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:71931.wais]
H.R. 427, H.R. 434, and H.R. 451
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 25, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-931 WASHINGTON : 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 25, 2001................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 47
Prepared statement on H.R. 427........................... 47
Letter from Bull Run Heritage Foundation submitted for
the record............................................. 49
Condit, Hon. Gary A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Prepared statement on H.R. 434........ 3
Doolittle, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 434........................... 26
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 451........................... 4
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 427........................... 46
Prepared statement on H.R. 434........................... 24
Prepared statement on H.R. 451........................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Brougher, Steve, Issues Coordinator, Central Sierra Chapter
of Wilderness Watch........................................ 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 434........................... 29
Collins, Sally, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Oral statement on H.R. 451................................. 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 427, H.R. 434 and H.R. 451.... 18
Oral statement on H.R. 427............................... 68
Oral statement on H.R. 434............................... 41
Howarth, William Boyd, Chairman, Juab County, Utah, Board of
Commissioners.............................................. 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 451........................... 7
Rosenberger, Michael, Administrator, Bureau of Water Works,
City of Portland, Oregon................................... 57
Prepared statement on H.R. 427........................... 59
Additional materials supplied:
Boggs, Denise, Executive Director, Utah Environmental
Congress, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 451...... 75
Gearhart, Frank, President, Citizens Interested in Bull Run,
Inc., Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 427.......... 76
Maluski, Ivan, American Lands Alliance, et al., Letter
submitted for the record on H.R. 427....................... 77
HEARING ON H.R. 427, TO PROVIDE FURTHER PROTECTIONS FOR THE WATERSHED
OF THE LITTLE SANDY RIVER AS PART OF THE BULL RUN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
UNIT, OREGON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 434, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR
RETENTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION, AT PRIVATE EXPENSE, OF THE 18
CONCRETE DAMS AND WEIRS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EMIGRANT
WILDERNESS IN THE STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; AND H.R. 451, TO MAKE CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS AREA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Wednesday, April 25, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. McInnis. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear
testimony on H.R. 451, H.R. 434 and H.R. 427. I appreciate the
witnesses taking time to offer remarks on these bills today,
and I look forward to hearing each of your comments.
Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member can make opening statements. If other members
have statements, they will be included in the hearing record.
Now, is there any objection to Representative Doolittle
having permission to sit on the dais and participate in the
hearing? Seeing none, so ordered.
Today the Resources' Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health is conducting a hearing for those three bills as I just
mentioned. I appreciate our witnesses taking time to offer
remarks on these bills, and I look forward to your comments,
but I would ask that all the witnesses honor the five-minute
limit on testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 451
I would like to thank Chairman Hansen for taking the time to
testify before the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee and to
commend him for his leadership on the Mount Nebo Wilderness Boundary
Adjustment Act. This legislation is a balanced attempt to correct an
oversight within the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 that presently
threatens the drinking water supplies of several communities in Mr.
Hansen's District. The Chairman has gone to great pains to accommodate
all of the parties with a stake in the legislation, and for that the
bill deserves the support of the Members of this Subcommittee.
The Mount Nebo Wilderness Area is located in the Uinta National
Forest in Juab County, Utah, not far from my District in western
Colorado. Mount Nebo was designated as wilderness with the enactment of
the Utah Wilderness Act in 1984, a bill Chairman Hansen sponsored.
Unfortunately, the legislation and accompanying maps wrongly designated
as wilderness various parcels of public land that included water system
developments.
Because, as we all know, the Wilderness Act does not allow any
motorized vehicles to enter into wilderness areas, these water systems
have begun to deteriorate without the aid of maintenance. While some of
the necessary maintenance has been done by hand, much of the work
requires the use of either motorized or mechanized equipment. In one
area, Willow Creek, a concrete ditch once became so dilapidated by
normal wear and tear that it was unable to sustain the flow of water.
Due to the county's inability to sufficiently maintain the ditch, the
water caused substantial erosion before it was finally repaired. At
present, without the possibility to adequately maintain these water
developments with machinery, more large-scale damage along these lines
will occur to the other facilities.
To remedy this situation, Chairman Hansen has introduced
legislation to remove these eight tracts, each of which is home to a
water facility, from the wilderness area. Again, it is critical to
remember that these areas were erroneously included within the borders
of the wilderness area in the first place. Moreover, as Commissioner
Howarth has pointed out in his written testimony, these parcels will
still remain in the public domain, and will therefore still be subject
to the Forest Service's management protections.
Much to their credit, Chairman Hansen and officials from Juab
County entered into negotiations with local Forest Service officials in
an effort to identify additional would-be wilderness areas to
compensate for the 428.774 acres that would be excluded in the boundary
adjustment. The parties agreed to include 439.209 acres of land
classified as ``roadless'' to offset the discharge of the eight parcels
with water facilities. When viewed together, then, this boundary
adjustment would actually result in a 10-acre net gain in the overall
size of the wilderness area.
As a general matter, I know that there are some who are opposed,
per se, to removing land from wilderness protection. While I might be
sympathetic to this argument in some instances, this is not one of
those times. The Chairman's bill is an eminently fair attempt to remedy
an unfortunate oversight within the 1984 legislation, in a manner that
honors the Mount Nebo Wilderness Area's broader preservation values. At
the end of the day, the wilderness area actually increases in size,
even as Juab County's water facilities are excluded. For these reasons,
this bill clearly deserves the support of this Subcommittee.
______
[The prepared statement of The Honorable Gary Condit
follows:]
Statement of Gary A. Condit, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, on H.R. 434
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of
H.R. 434, a bill that protects a piece of California's back country
heritage that has become an important wildlife habitat.
H.R. 434 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to enter cooperative
agreements to retain, maintain, and operate at private expense 18
concrete dams and weirs located within the Emigrant Wilderness in the
Stanislaus National Forest. I fully support this legislation, and the
preservation of these historic structures.
The first of the 18 dams and weirs was constructed in 1920- 55
years before Congress designated it as a Wilderness Area. Sportsman and
high-country adventurer Fred Leighton traveled throughout the area,
constructing dams to maintain water flow on the Cherry River to nurture
minnows living in the streams and keep lakes deep enough to prevent
fish from freezing in the winters. His efforts were supported through
funding and labor provided by the United States Forest Service,
California Department of Fish and Game, California Conservation Corps,
Tuolumne County, Tuolumne County Sportsmen's Association, City and
County of San Francisco and local citizens.
For more than 80 years, lakes, meadows and wetland habitats
providing healthy ecosystems for fish, otters, geese, birds, deer,
rabbits, reptiles, waterfowl, and insects have thrived thanks to the
presence of these check dams. Loss of these reservoirs through lack of
maintenance would jeopardize all of these wildlife populations.
Additionally, the absence of these check dams will increase
recreational pressure on remaining lakes in the Emigrant Wilderness
Area. Sport fishing visitors will be forced to congregate around the
few existing lakes, which will also reduce opportunities for solitude,
a key part of true wilderness experience.
Although subtle features of the Emigrant Wilderness themselves,
these 18 check dams have become important aspects of the natural
environment and reflect the unique history of the land and its
visitors. Having personally visited Emigrant Wilderness Area,
specifically Yellowhammer dam, I can attest the wilderness qualities of
the region are in no way compromised by the presence of these small
dams. In fact, the maintenance of these dams insures the continued
existence of many wildlife species, which are a significant draw to
visitors in the area. I wholeheartedly endorse the passage and
enactment of this legislation. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for
providing me the opportunity to share my comments.
______
Mr. McInnis. With that, the Subcommittee will take up H.R.
451, the Mount Nebo Wilderness Area Boundary Adjustment Act.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming. I will have you note I
started the Committee pretty close to on time, since you insist
on promptness. You are recognized, Mr. Chairman. You may
proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
to be here in the Subcommittee, and I appreciate you taking
this piece of legislation.
I want to welcome W. Boyd Howarth, our County Commissioner
and those who are with him from Juab County. These folks are
great public servants, and I appreciate the great work they do
in this beautiful county.
Let me give you a little background on H.R. 451. You know,
we have been playing around with this for a long time. Almost
18 years ago, myself and Jake Garn did a bill on Utah
wilderness and the Forest Service. The area of Mount Nebo is
immediately east of Nephi, Utah, and in that area we thought we
had it worked out. I guess we weren't smart enough to see that
we didn't, but there are some water systems up there and a few
other things we are very concerned about. We felt that they
were cherry-stemmed so that the people in Juab County could go
up in that area and take care of this water. Now, they use this
water. The water they use for culinary purposes and other
purposes, and all of a sudden they were told by the Forest
Service they couldn't do it. We have been hammering the Forest
Service now for 15 years, asking, well, give us a definitive
action on this.
So now we expect our guys out there to put a backpack on,
walk up in there, fix the tile, clean it up, clean the thing up
and walk out. Well, it is almost impossible, and it is a tough
situation for our folks to have there.
So, we thought, well, maybe the best thing for us to do--
and I have been to that area. I have looked at it. I have been
up on top, on the bottom. I think I know it backwards and
forwards. And we have been dealing now, this is the third or
fourth administration we have been trying to square away this
relatively minor problem, which has created quite an
encumbrance on the folks down there in Juab County.
So we are introducing this bill, which in effect says that
we will cherry-stem those areas so that they can take in the
proper equipment to take care of these areas as they need to
maintain, which we thought we did the first time around.
I went up with Jake Garn in his airplane the other day and
we flew around, and this issue came up, and we said--Jake said,
``Well, I thought we had that resolved.'' I said, ``I thought
we did too, but apparently, we don't.''
So I think the only way we can handle this is to put this
bill in and see if we can take care of something that Congress
originally intended. And so this remedy is a legislative remedy
to adjust the current boundaries to exclude the water
development, and also--the commissioner can correct me, but I
think there are some private inholdings in there we also want
to take care of. However, what it does, is we are adding some
acreage, which would in effect more than take up the difference
which is necessary to take care of this area.
Now, Nephi and the town of Mona will now have access to
their water development, inholdings will be removed, and the
Forest Service will have a wilderness area with less human
intrusions and fewer access issues.
Now, I personally feel it is a good piece of legislation,
probably a housekeeping piece of legislation, but I appreciate
the commissioner and his folks from the county being with us,
to spend the time with us. It means an awful lot to those
cities in Juab County.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to
any questions anyone may have regarding this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman, Committee on
Resources, on H.R. 451
I want to welcome Commissioner Howarth to this hearing on H.R. 451.
I appreciate you being with us today. As the good Commissioner knows, I
have taken a particular interest in this ongoing management issue of
the Mt. Nebo Wilderness Area because of my history with the
legislation.
More than 15 years ago, as a junior member of this Committee, I
drafted the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 which created 800,000 acres of
wilderness within the Forest Service lands in Utah, including the Mt.
Nebo Wilderness area. This is a very beautiful area, rich in biological
diversity, offering numerous primitive recreational opportunities,
tremendous solitude and breathtaking views of the Great Basin, all
within one hour of nearly 80 percent of the population of Utah. There
is no question that the Mount Nebo area deserves wilderness protection.
As the members of this Committee know, creating congressionally
designated wilderness is not an easy process. In Utah, we had to work
through a dozen different management issues in each area we wanted to
protect. We had to determine how to protect valid existing rights such
as grazing, mineral development and historic access to certain areas.
We had to navigate through the private inholdings issues and work with
the agency and local governments to identify and draw boundaries that
made the best management sense. The legislation was literally the
result of hundreds of hours of negotiations. However, during the
legislative process we don't always get everything buttoned up exactly
the way we would like.
In this case, 17 years ago, maps were erroneously drawn which
included some pre-existing developments to municipal and agricultural
water systems that have supplied water to Juab County since the late
1800s inside the wilderness boundaries. These systems are old and in
need of constant maintenance and care. But due to the restrictions on
motorized vehicle access in wilderness areas, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to adequately maintain these existing facilities.
In addition to these maintenance problems, a small piece of private
land was also included that should not be inside the boundaries of the
wilderness area.
I know the Forest Service is interested in working toward a
solution. The Committee needs to be aware that the Forest Service has
had more than 15 years to develop a solution. Commissioner Howarth will
tell us that they have been trying to reach an administrative solution
since the wilderness area was declared. Given that we were forced to
introduce legislation to bring about a solution is indicative that it
is not likely that the problem can be solved administratively.
The best remedy is to legislatively adjust the current boundaries
to exclude the water developments and the private inholdings. This bill
accomplishes that. We have also adjusted the southern boundary to
include an area of roadless Forest Service land to compensate for the
acres removed, resulting in a slight increase in the wilderness
acreage. Nephi City and the Town of Mona will have access to their
water developments, inholdings will be removed and the Forest Service
will have a wilderness area with less human intrusions and fewer access
issues.
I know that initially, there were concerns regarding the impact of
moving boundaries back up these canyons and how it might put pressure
on additional development through increased public access.
Administrative roads are used by all agencies. Nothing precludes the
Forest Service from keeping these roads closed to the general public
except motorized access to the County for the maintenance of their
existing water facilities.
Ms. Collins, I look forward to hearing the testimony today and I
particularly look forward to your taking my questions.
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Kildee, do you have any questions?
Mr. Kildee. I have none right now.
Mr. McInnis. With that, we are going to go ahead and ask
the county commissioner. Commissioner? Thank you, commissioner
for attending. A long ways from home. We appreciate your time,
and again ask that you honor the five-minute rule. You may
proceed with your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BOYD HOWARTH, CHAIRMAN, JUAB COUNTY, UTAH,
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Howarth. Honorable Chairman and committee members, I am
William Boyd Howarth, Chairman of the Juab, Utah Commission. We
appreciate the opportunity to represent the residents of Juab
County today, and express our strong support of H.R. 451.
In my written statement I have included a more-detailed
explanation of the issues and problems that we have been
facing, concerning some small areas within the Mount Nebo
Wilderness Area. Because of Committee rules, even the written
submittal is very abbreviated. We have much additional
information to substantiate the real need for H.R. 451. In the
few minutes that I have here today, I will highlight some of
the important points. I would ask you to remember that as you
consider H.R. 451, there are five points that I will briefly
discuss.
Item Number 1. Water systems and patent mining claims
should never have been included in the wilderness of 1984. All
of the information presented during the discussion of proposed
wilderness indicated the wilderness boundary would be at the
8,000-foot level on the west side of Mount Nebo. This was
important to protect existing water systems and patent mining
claims located below that elevation. After the Utah Wilderness
Act of 1984 was passed, it was discovered that the actual
wilderness boundary was, in most cases, brought down to the
forest boundary, in some areas below the 5,300-foot level of
elevation. With this change, the patent claims and the water
systems were held hostage within the wilderness. Their presence
presents significant problems for the owners of the system and
also creates management headaches for the Forest Service.
While the 1964 Wilderness Act provides for recognition of
prior valid and existing rights, and some believe that H.R. 451
is not necessary, over 16 years of experience have clearly
demonstrated that change is needed. While current law may allow
these items to be resolved, this certainly has not been the
case.
On several occasions congressional intervention and even
court action has been required to protect these rights. Bob
Steele, a member of our county commission, was forced to sue
the United States to get access to his patent mining claims and
the right to mine these claims. This suit was settled with a
judgment against the United States.
Number 2 of the stipulation of entry for judgment reads:
``Judgment shall be entered in the favor of the plaintiffs and
against the United States in the amount of $120,000.'' A copy
of this stipulation is attached to my written testimony.
Significant resource damage has occurred when water
delivery systems have worn out or eroded, and if rapid
approvals could have been received, this damage could have been
very well minimized. However, the extended delays encountered
and bureaucratic delays and untruths, resulted in significant
erosion and other problems.
Point Number 2. This will not adversely impact the Mount
Nebo Wilderness. I believe these areas are in fact in conflict
with wilderness management goals and values. There is an
absolute need to access these systems, including needed cleanup
that cannot practically be accomplished without the use of
mechanized equipment. These water rights have priority dates in
the 1800's, and constitute a valid longstanding right to the
owners of those rights.
Point Number 3. There is a net gain of wilderness. Early
discussion indicates that if the total area requested out of
wilderness were less than 500 acres and if there were no net
loss of wilderness acres, this boundary adjustment would be
possible. I feel it is important to recognize there is actually
a small gain of wilderness acreage with H.R. 451. Also the area
that will be added is much better suited to wilderness
designation, and is much more manageable than the areas being
removed.
Point Number 4. The resulting wilderness area is more
manageable. It has been difficult to manage the existing
boundaries. These well-established roads have been gated. In
one area the gates have been removed several times to try and
find a location where the access could be managed. We have
worked hard to make the new proposed boundaries manageable. It
is not enough to easily identify a boundary on a map. The
boundaries need to be easily identified on the ground. Proposed
boundaries will follow ridge lines and etcetera to help with
manageability.
Item 5. The lands removed from wilderness are still within
the forest and subject to Forest Service management. It is
important to remember that while this land was removed from the
wilderness, it is still in the Uinta National Forest. Use of it
will still require special use permits and would be subject to
Forest Service regulation and oversight. There is not a
possibility that these lands can be pillaged.
This change allows the owners of these rights to properly
use and maintain their rights, and also allows the Forest
Service to be much more responsive to needs. H.R. 451 is a win-
win. As one Forest official said, ``Let's solve the issues, so
when we get together we can work productively on the many
issues that face us, and not continue to battle over these
systems.''
These issues have been a source of frustrations for over 16
years. Let us solve the issues that should have never been
created. Protect the Nebo Wilderness. Make it more manageable,
and allow for proper maintenance and operation and management
in these areas. This bill is a reasonable, environmentally-
conscious solution to this problem. Please give this bill your
favorable consideration. And thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howarth follows:]
Statement of William Boyd Howarth, Chairman, Board of Commissioners,
Juab County, Utah, on H.R. 451
Honorable Chairman and committee members: I am William Boyd Howarth
Chairman of the Juab County, Utah, Commission. We appreciate the
opportunity to represent the residents of Juab County here today and
express our strong support of H.R. 451.
H.R. 451 would remove approximately 429 acres from the Mt. Nebo
Wilderness area, add 439 acres to the wilderness area, and make one
technical correction. It is important to note that this a net gain of
wilderness acres. This bill is a conservative approach to remove very
limited areas from the wilderness in order to allow continued use and
maintenance of water systems that date back to the 1800's and to allow
access to the existing patented claims in Gardner Canyon. We have
checked with local cattlemen, farmers, ranchers, and other public
officials. Every one that we have discussed this with agrees that this
is a good area to exchange for the water systems and patented mining
claims that we have identified.
Let me outline a few of the reasons why this bill is necessary.
During the early 1980's, as Forest Service Wilderness was being
discussed, the proposals that were presented showed that on Mt. Nebo
the western boundary of the wilderness area would be at the 8,000 foot
elevation. This was important to protect existing water systems and
patented mining claims located below that elevation. Water is the
lifeblood of any area. After the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 was
passed, it was discovered that the actual wilderness boundary was, in
most cases, brought down to the forest boundary. In some areas it is at
the 5,300-foot elevation. With this change, the patented claims and
water systems were held hostage within the wilderness. These systems
should have never been included in wilderness. Their presence presents
significant problems for the owners of the system and it also creates
management headaches for the Forest Service. Local Forest Officials
have been very positive about trying to resolve these issues.
While the 1964 Wilderness Act provides for recognition of ``prior,
valid existing rights'', and some believe that H.R. 451 is not
necessary, over 26 years of experience clearly demonstrates that change
is needed. While current law may allow these items to be resolved this
certainly has not been the case. On several occasions, congressional
intervention and even court action has been required to protect these
rights.
This bill would take seven specific areas out of the wilderness and
also clarify the map so there is no misunderstanding that one piece of
private property is not within the wilderness area. The areas are
identified as follows:
1. Monument Springs: These springs are a part of the Nephi City
Culinary Water System. A pipeline carries water from the springs down
to a lower collection system. Approximately 1/8 mile of the pipeline
and the springs are within the wilderness. Nephi plans to do some
repair on this system and pipe it down to water the golf course,
freeing up softer water from other springs for the regular culinary
system. The original wilderness bill does give municipalities some
special access rights, however, this small adjustment would prevent
many problems. These springs have a priority date of 1937. This parcel
contains 26.045 acres
2. Gardner Canyon: This canyon provides culinary and irrigation
water and has patented mining claims. These springs in Gardner Canyon
have a priority date of 1878 and 1855. This parcel contains 202.084
acres. Much of this acreage consists of the patented mining claims that
are going to be mined.
3. Birch Creek: Water from Birch Creek is used for irrigation on
farms located beneath the wilderness. These springs have a priority
date of 1850. This parcel contains 4.161 acres. Access is needed to
maintain and utilize this water source including the ability to use
mechanized equipment when necessary..
4. Ingram Canyon: Water from this canyon provides 100% of the
culinary water for four (4) homes in the valley. These springs have a
priority date of 1923. This parcel contains 17.296 acres.
5. Willow Creek: The original water rights in Willow Creek were
secured under Utah Law evidenced by Diligence Claim 79. Water was first
diverted for use into the Willow Creek Canyon System in the 1870's.
Mona Irrigation Company was formed in 1896. Willow Creek South contains
68.156 acres, and Willow Creek North contains 50.38 acres.
6. Mendenhall: These springs have a priority date of 1899 and
provide irrigation water. This parcel contains 16.350 acres.
7. Wash Canyon: These springs have a priority date of 1880. The
water from Wash Canyon is used for irrigation on the farmlands. The
Forest Service has requested that debris and fragments from a previous
line that was installed prior to current ownership be removed. This
also requires the use of heavy equipment for which access rights have
been denied. This parcel contains 44.302 acres.
8. Dale: From the information that we have it appears that the Mt.
Nebo Wilderness Area Boundary cuts this private property approximately
in half. H.R. 451 would clarify that this private property is not
within the wilderness boundary.
Time does not permit me to describe all of the problems that have
arisen concerning these valid rights so I will only outline a very few
of them.
The owner of the patented claims in Gardner Canyon was driving the
existing road to his claims when the Forest Service ticketed him. He
also faced significant unwarranted delays and was told that he would
not be allowed to mine his claims. Even though research showed use of
this road as early as the 1880's, the Forest Service denied Juab
County's claim that this was an RS2477 right-of-way. As a result of
this the owner filed suit against the Forest Service to maintain his
right of access and his right to mine his claims. The settlement
required the Forest Service to pay $120,000 and required that the
Forest Service grant him a special user permit that would allow him
necessary access and the right to mine those claims. I have attached to
my written statement documents verifying the settlement and lack of
recognition by the Forest Service of these rights.
Let me briefly tell you the story of Jack Howard. Jack is an 80-
year-old man who lives just below Gardner Canyon. He personally has
lived at that location, in two different homes, for 77 of the last 80
years. For the three years that he was absent he was serving in the
military. Throughout his entire life (and before that) the culinary
water for the family has come from springs in Gardner Canyon as part of
the Gardner Canyon Irrigation Company. Maintaining the water system
requires cleaning screens located in the canyon. Since wilderness
designation, Jack has had to walk the steep up-hill road to clean the
screens. This is the same road that can be used to mine the claims,
however, at the age of 80 and severely bent over, Jack is still
required to walk the 3/4-mile into the canyon.
During the Utah floods of 1983-84, a large mudslide coved and
destroyed the upper portion of the pipeline. The water that flowed
through that pipeline now flows through an open ditch. During certain
times of the year the water flows through the decaying leaves from the
trees and picks up much of this debris that clogs the screens. Jack is
required to walk up the road to clean these screens. On washday, Jack
and his wife often have to change the filter in their home every two
hours. The irrigation company has been unable to repair the pipeline
because of wilderness designation.
Willow Creek is another prime example that a change is needed. Let
me paraphrase from a letter by the President of the Mona Irrigation
Company. Mona Irrigation Company owns the rights in Willow Creek. While
Mona Irrigation Company's water rights and legal rights to divert and
convey water which originated in the Mt. Nebo wilderness are recognized
by state law and the 1964 Wilderness Act provides for recognition of
``prior, valid existing rights''-- as a practical matter, bureaucratic
delays, lack of response, and down-right untruth proves that this has
not been the case.
When the company proposed renovation of structures that protruded
into ``wilderness'', they were met by obstacle after obstacle by the
Forest Service bureaucracy. Initially, they were told that work was
being done on the required Environmental Assessment. They were told
this many times over an 18-month period. They persevered until the fact
surfaced that not only was the EA never started, many other crucial
facts, such as procedural steps, required comment periods, design
requirements, and other pertinent facts had been so misrepresented to
them that after two years of requesting action, no progress had been
made past the initial phase. After the Forest Service was forced to
take action due to intervention by Senator Bennett, the Forest Service
they continued not only the delay tactics but also sought to interpret
the rules in the most stringent way possible. Our engineer finally
devised an elaborate design, meant to attempt to meet the requirements.
This design used expensive materials, expensive construction methods,
and such stringent requirements that when we put the project to bid,
the low-cost bid was four times the cost the project should have been
required, were in not for the wilderness designation of the upper 900
feet.
The final result was that the project took four years to get
approval, water rights had to be defended against wilderness
``advocates'' who sought to infringed upon them, the costs were
dramatically increased, and the resource was wasted during this
inexcusable delay with significant accompanying erosion damage caused
by an agency supposedly concerned with protecting the resources and
serving the public.
Similar stories could be told of each of the areas that H.R. 451
would remove from wilderness. It is important to remember that while
H.R. 451 would remove these areas from wilderness, the areas will still
be within the Forest, and the Forest Service has adequate regulations
and authority to insure that work that is done in these systems is done
in an appropriate and environmentally conscious manner. I strongly
encourage your favorable consideration of H.R. 451.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Howarth's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.020
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, do you have a question?
Mr. Hansen. I would just like to, if I could, Mr. Chairman,
ask the commissioner, isn't it true that the Juab County
Commission, when this bill was originally passed, was of the
opinion that this water system was going to be accessible for
the people in Juab County and the people of Nephi and Mona?
Mr. Howarth. As I understand, that is correct, that it
would be, such as the morning it came back to committee here,
it was changed down to the 5,300-foot level, when we thought it
would be at the 8,000-foot level, and everything would be safe
within those distances.
Mr. Hansen. I know that you have Mr. Greenhalgh with you
also, your economic development director, and having met with
him many times, I am sure I have had that opinion expressed to
me, I can't understand the attitude of the Forest Service
trying to cut off just water supply to these little
communities, but I would like to just tell the Committee this
is basically kind of a housekeeping measure just to clear up on
issue, and maybe the Forest Service will clear up part of it
when they take the stand. But I appreciate the commissioner
coming, and Mr. Greenhalgh and the other folks with him, for
the good work that they have done there, and I would hope the
Committee would vote favorably on this piece of legislation.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Howarth,
for making the journey here. I have a couple questions. I am
sorry, I am not really familiar with this issue and I missed
part of your testimony. My apologies.
Could you tell us about in the change of the boundary of
the wilderness area, would you characterize this, is this the
minimal changes that would be required for these water systems?
Could your proposal be subject to a criticism that it takes in
more in the exclusion than would be really necessary? Tell us
about that, if you will.
Mr. Howarth. As we have worked it, is the minimal. It was a
cherry stem in order that they could come to the forest
boundary and in, and bring mechanized equipment. They can bring
in the steel pipe now because heavy-duty pipe, extruded PVC, it
will crack and move and bend and break in rocky area and when
the earth moves. And then if it is a community, they can go
into the head houses. They can develop it, because water has to
come from source to delivery to point of use, and that is what
we are trying to do. We have no natural lakes. We have no
reservoirs. In fact, this year we are at 40 percent snow pack.
Since 1851, when the pioneers came, they have used these
sources as water.
Mr. Inslee. Given the nature of water in our west, it is a
little surprising to me that this issue was not resolved when
the bill was first passed. Mr. Hansen indicated there was
apparently some misunderstanding about the elevation or the
level the wilderness was drawn at. It surprises me that
something like that would not be resolved at the time of the
bill, given the nature of the importance of water. Could you
tell us how that occurred?
Mr. Howarth. Maybe I don't understand what you are asking.
Mr. Inslee. Well, as I understand, Mr. Hansen suggested
that there was a misunderstanding about how the parameters, the
boundaries of the wilderness were drawn, and there was some
reference to elevation. I heard somebody say that there was an
elevation difference than they originally contemplated was
going to be in the bill. I am just asking you to explain to us
how this could have happened, to have such a big difference?
Mr. Howarth. I would love to know how that did happen,
because it happened back here. As we know, in that area of the
residents, that bill should have been placed at 8,000 feet. But
when it was passed, the 1984 Wilderness Act for Mount Nebo came
down in fact to the 5,300-foot level. As you leave Nephi, you
can go past Exit 228 of I-15, and it is within a quarter of a
mile of the wilderness boundary.
Mr. Hansen. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Inslee. Yes.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Washington is, I am sure
aware, when we pass a wilderness piece of legislation, they go
draw the maps, and then they let us review those. Well, we
didn't ever get to review them. Maybe that is our fault, maybe
so. But the intent of the bill, which is very clear, is that
these water systems would be cherry-stemmed in, so that these
folks--right on the side of the mountain there, east of the
town. And that didn't occur. If we had had--maybe we dropped
the ball, maybe somebody else. I don't know. If we had done it
right though, we would have again reviewed it and made sure
that that is the intent where that line was drawn. It is very
hard on these wilderness in the west. I am sure you are
probably more aware than I am how difficult it is to draw those
lines on a wilderness area. I think of all the wilderness areas
I have been involved in, we ought to go back and look and see,
well, where do you put this line? And many times it just
happens, and we don't get a handle on it.
So if it is us or it is the Forest Service, I am not sure,
but it was not the intent of the bill, and being the sponsor of
the bill with Senator Garn, we both acknowledge the mistake.
And the folks in Juab County and the city of Nephi and Mona are
the recipients of some rather poor work on maybe our parts or
somebody else. But that is what we are trying to rectify.
Mr. Inslee. Appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Just another
question.
Mr. Howarth, I am always a little bit--at least I am a
little bit nervous about nibbling on these wilderness areas,
that create some red flags because there are a lot of economic
activities around the west, that could tend to want to nibble
on the boundaries of these areas, and maybe it makes sense to
think about a no-net-loss provision when we make these boundary
adjustments so that there is--we try to have a policy of no-
net-loss on wilderness, and I am just wondering if you or
anyone has discussed locally the prospects that if we do change
these boundaries, that we add some wilderness of an appropriate
acreage another place. And you are already doing that, and my
staff is now telling me that is going on. Is that accurate, Mr.
Chair?
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Washington, actually not
much of an increase, but we do add some to this. Actually 10
acres we are adding, so what we are taking away, we are more
than making up for 10 additional acres into this wilderness.
That is not much, but it is better than a loss.
Mr. Inslee. Well, we appreciate that. And thank you, Mr.
Howarth.
Mr. Howarth. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. I might add, Mr. Inslee, in the wilderness
that I put in last year, we discovered a mistake, and for the
Forest Service or for us to now insist that there be no net
loss because there is a couple of acres or so that have been
mistaken in there, the Government shouldn't have added in
wilderness in the first place, and I don't think they should be
stuck with a no-net-loss. So I don't think we should have a no-
net-loss that locks in every wilderness that we have got up
here. But just an aside here.
Let us see. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. I have no questions.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. It seems to me that this is so dependent on the
details of the map, and that I am happy to take the word of the
Chairman and our witness on this. So I have no questions at
this time.
Mr. McInnis. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. McCollum. Nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate very
much you taking the time and testifying for us today.
Mr. Howarth. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. McInnis. At this point in time, we will excuse the
commissioner and ask the Forest Service to come up, please, Ms.
Collins. Welcome back to the Committee.
Ms. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. You may proceed, and we ask you recognize the
five-minute rule.
STATEMENT OF SALLY COLLINS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE, ON H.R. 451
Ms. Collins. My comments on this bill are very short. I am
Sally Collins, the Associate Deputy Chief of the National
Forest System here in Washington, D.C., have been here a year,
and this is the second time I have been before this Committee.
My comments today represent the views of the Administration
on this particular bill, H.R. 451--and I won't go into any more
of a description of it--but let me start with this statement.
We really do recognize that there are legitimate issues
associated with these permitted uses in these eight areas. We
really are very interested in working with you to resolve these
as well as to look at the existing authorities that we have
governing all of these facilities.
And I also want to recognize something that you all have
already said, that when Mount Nebo Wilderness was created in
1984, we may have overlooked some of these areas as maps were
being developed, which may have created this 16 to 18 years of
frustration that you all have been talking about this morning
or this afternoon.
If enacted, Section 5 of this bill would amend the Utah
Wilderness Act to further define water issues, and I do want to
make a point about that. I think that there is some terminology
that is technical that we may need to work on, that may impact
wilderness areas beyond this in ways that we may not want, that
just may be unintended consequences that we are certainly
willing to talk about further.
But I guess my main point is that we are really interested
in working with Chairman Hansen and the permittees and all the
interested parties to resolve all the accessibility and
management issues associated with Mount Nebo Wilderness. And
that is my comment for today. Any questions?
[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins follows:]
Statement of Sally Collins, Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service,
United States Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 451, H.R. 434, and
H.R. 427
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Sally Collins, Associate
Deputy Chief for National Forest System, USDA Forest Service. My
comments today represent the views of the Administration on three
bills: H.R. 451, a bill ``To make certain adjustments to the boundaries
of the Mount Nebo Wilderness Area, and for other purposes''; H.R. 434,
a bill ``To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a
cooperative agreement to provide for retention, maintenance, and
operation, at private expense, of the 18 concrete dams and weirs
located within the boundaries of the Emigrant Wilderness in the
Stanislaus National Forest, California, and for other purposes''; and
H.R. 427, a bill ``To provide further protections for the watershed of
the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management
Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes.''
For reasons I will detail in my testimony, the Forest Service has
some concerns with the management direction provided by these bills.
However, the Department and the Forest Service would like to work with
the Committee to resolve the issues these bills address and work toward
outcomes that will serve our mutual interests. Today's hearing is an
important step in beginning this process.
H.R. 451, ``Mount Nebo Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act''
H.R. 451 makes boundary adjustments to the Mount Nebo Wilderness
area. Eight small areas within the Mount Nebo Wilderness, currently
covered by special use permit authorizations for water and mineral
developments, would be removed from the wilderness. We recognize there
are legitimate issues associated with these permitted uses. We want to
work with you to resolve these, as well as, continue looking at
existing statutes governing these facilities. We also recognize that
when the Mount Nebo Wilderness was established in 1984 we may have
overlooked some of these areas as maps were being developed.
If enacted, Section 5 of the bill would amend the Utah Wilderness
Act of 1984 to further define water uses. We believe the term
``systems'' could be broadly interpreted and would be applied to all
wilderness areas established by the Utah Wilderness Act. For these
reasons we feel there may be unintended consequences that we would like
to discuss with you further.
We are committed to working with Chairman Hansen, the Committee,
and the permittees to resolve accessibility and management issues in
the Mount Nebo Wilderness.
H.R. 434, ``Emigrant Wilderness in the Stanislaus National Forest,
California''
H.R. 434 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a
cooperative agreement to provide for retention, maintenance, and
operation, at private expense, of the 18 dams and weirs located within
the boundaries of the Emigrant Wilderness in California. These small
rock and mortar dams have deteriorated over time as maintenance levels
have decreased. Some structures are in poor condition and are leaking
significantly or have washed out and no longer function. The remaining
structures are in fair to good condition. Because of the age and
overall character of some dams, several are now eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places.
During the 1970's and 1980's, maintenance of the dams was shared
between the Forest Service and the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG). The last permit issued to CDFG for maintenance and
operation was in 1975 and included the 11 structures that remain in
fair to good condition. CDFG declined to participate in maintenance of
the other seven structures. CDFG ceased maintaining or operating the
eleven structures in 1988 when the permit expired.
The Stanislaus National Forest developed an environmental impact
statement and record of decision in 1998 that outlined management
direction for the Emigrant Wilderness. The decision document allowed
for the continued maintenance of eight dams. Under that plan the ten
other structures would not be maintained but would be allowed to
deteriorate naturally over time. Except for Y Meadow Lake (which has no
fish), no lakes would have been eliminated due to the eventual
deterioration of these ten structures. The record of decision received
14 appeals and was vacated in 1999 by the Regional Forester.
On November 8, 2000 the Regional Forester and CDFG agreed to a
joint strategy for future management of the dams. This strategy
outlined the need to maintain the eight dams identified in the Emigrant
Wilderness management direction.
Recently, Mr. Doolittle and Regional Forester Brad Powell have had
constructive dialogue regarding the Emigrant Wilderness dams. We want
this dialogue to continue and would be willing to work with the
Committee, Mr. Doolittle, the State of California, and other interested
parties to resolve this issue.
H.R. 427, ``Watershed of the Little Sandy River''
H.R. 427, if enacted, would add approximately 2,900 acres of
Federal land in the Little Sandy River watershed to the Bull Run
Watershed Management Unit. Currently, the Bull Run Watershed Management
Unit is composed of approximately 95,000 acres of national forest
system land near Portland, Oregon. In addition, H.R. 427 would amend
Public Law 95-200 to prohibit timber harvest activities and general
public access to the entire Bull Run Watershed Management Unit
including the 2,900 acres added to the unit by this bill. Forest
related restoration management activities would be precluded on 8,600
acres of national forest and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
administered lands. This includes management options such as thinning
or selective harvests to reduce fuel hazards in high fire-prone areas.
These restrictions may not be warranted for the Little Sandy River
watershed.
The Administration believes that existing forest plans provide
significant protection for the health of the Little Sandy River
watershed and preservation of future options. Specifically, the Little
Sandy River watershed is designated a Tier 2 Key watershed. This
designation emphasizes high water quality, as well as fish and
watershed restoration.
The point of diversion where Portland draws its water from the Bull
Run River is upstream from the confluence with the Little Sandy River.
A water supply option study conducted by the City of Portland in 1992
dismissed the option of developing the Little Sandy as a municipal
water source because of issues related to water rights, cost of
development, limited capacity, and impacts to a variety of resources.
Therefore, in the foreseeable future it is unlikely that the water of
the Little Sandy will be used as a municipal water source. A Regional
Water Supply Plan completed in 1996 by 27 water providers also
dismissed the option of the Little Sandy Basin as a water supply source
at that time but advocated protection. In addition, if municipal water
rights were ever obtained for the Little Sandy River, the requirement
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to maintain in-stream water
flows for the recovery of Federally listed fish would probably restrict
water depletion even for municipal use.
The Oregon Resources Conservation Act of 1996 (Division B of P.L.
104-208) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to study the portion of
the Little Sandy River watershed within the Bull Run Watershed
Management Unit. The Forest Service, in consultation with the City of
Portland, a private citizen-based Provincial Advisory Committee, and
other interested parties, completed the study and submitted it to
Congress in 1998. The study recommended that the area continue to be
managed under the direction of the NWFP. The reasons cited by the study
are as follows:
<bullet> LThe Little Sandy River has not been and currently is not
planned to be used to provide drinking water; and
<bullet> LThe waters of the Little Sandy River may be needed to
provide for the needs of fish species being considered for listing
under the ESA.
Since that time, both Chinook salmon and winter steelhead in the
Sandy River Basin were listed under the ESA.
BLM has expressed concern with the terminology in section 3, Land
Reclassification, and other references to land classification in H.R.
427, urging that the use of public lands classification terminology
should remain consistent with existing usage and statutes.
There are many environmental safeguards already in place for the
Little Sandy River and other sensitive watersheds in the Pacific
Northwest. We would like to discuss the concepts put forward in this
bill with the Committee to determine how we can meet the concerns of
the Oregon delegation under existing authorities.
In conclusion, I want to re-emphasize that, although there are
points of concern related to these three bills, both the Department and
the Agency are committed to working cooperatively with the Committee
and the bill sponsors toward solutions that will meet our mutual
concerns and objectives.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. I will start. When was it first
brought to the Forest Service's attention that there was a
problem with these boundaries in regards to this specific
problem?
Ms. Collins. I think we have been--we have known, as we
have been working through some of these issues with access on a
case-by-case basis, that there have been issues regarding
whether or not these water systems were in the wilderness, and
when they were in the wilderness, what their rights were for
access. So every time we have gotten a request, we have been
dealing with it, I think, on an individual basis. Because they
are in the wilderness, based on the technical language of the
Wilderness Bill of 1984, we were treating them as part of the
wilderness, granting access based on what rights they had to
access at the time the bill was created.
And that means it is different for each one, so in terms of
recognizing it as a problem, I think a lot of people have known
that this has been an issue and a point of tension probably
since the wilderness bill was created.
Mr. McInnis. I guess my point, where I am going, Ms.
Collins, is that if the responsibility for the problem rests
with the Forest Service, I would expect that the Forest Service
would be cooperative upon the first contact that there is a
problem and work to resolve it in that manner.
Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions?
Mr. Hansen. Well, not really, except hopefully what Ms.
Collins said from the Forest Service, that we could work this
out. Frankly, as I look at over 20 years of passing a lot of
wilderness legislation, I sometimes wonder if we should just
draw the line a little higher and not put any of that in
wilderness, you know, just--but we have got in this habit of
cherry-stemming. I really don't know if that was the intent of
the law. We could have put it much higher, put a lot less
acreage in and not done that.
We have got a number of--a piece of legislation pending
that will be coming before these committees about cherry-
stemming. I really wonder if that is the right thing to do, but
it seems to put a few more acres in, make a few people happy.
But on this one, if I thought this would have been a hassle, I
am sure we would have moved that line up much higher and made
sure that the wilderness line was above where the water system
came in, but that is water under the bridge now, not much we
can do about it.
But I appreciate the comments of the Forest Service. I am
sure we can work this out. I would appreciate you examining the
bill very carefully and seeing if you have any heartburn with
it because it gets reported out of the Committee.
Ms. Collins. I would like to do that. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, a couple questions.
I have been advised that there is one provision in the bill
that affects other wilderness areas and access to water systems
in other wilderness areas in Utah. Could you explain what the
impact of that would be on other wilderness areas?
Ms. Collins. Well, that is that Section 5 that I was
talking about a minute ago, and what we are concerned with
there is that the term, ``other systems'' or ``other systems in
general'' could be broadly interpreted to apply to all
wilderness areas in the State of Utah, not just the Mount Nebo,
and not just these water systems, or not even necessarily just
water systems. And again, I think it is just a matter of us
sitting down and looking at that language. It might have just
been a convenient word to pick, but has some other connotations
to it. So I think we do have to be careful with the language we
use, so that it does not get more broadly applied.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I hope that gets resolved. I would echo
your concerns in that regard. Is there anything that you could
suggest that would not be too onerous a provision, if the
wilderness boundary is adjusted, to have some parameters on the
type of maintenance or construction that is done in the area
that could help maintain the basic character of the watershed?
In other words, does it make sense to you perhaps to talk about
parameters of what type of construction methods to use, or, you
know, where to put these lines? Is there a way to at least
consider how to do this from a method that doesn't damage the
watershed or the rest of the wilderness?
Ms. Collins. We have--if this bill were to be enacted, we
would have to amend our forest plans for those access roads
into those areas. And so what we would have to do is go through
an environmental process to determine exactly, in a very public
way, how a road would be upgraded and at what level. So all of
that would be done and it would be done in the watershed
context. That is part of that planning process that we would
have to go through should this bill be enacted.
Mr. Inslee. Would it make sense to do that now as part of
this process, to define with some parameters what type of road
or what type of pipe or what areas to use before you redraw the
boundary?
Ms. Collins. You know, I just don't know how to answer
that. I am not really sure if that would make sense in part
because how we manage those roads outside a wilderness system
does come under all the other environmental laws that we would
have to go through and be obligated to go through under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
So, if we were to do that, we would be taking that on as
part of rewriting this bill.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson. No questions.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. McCollum. Looking at some comments that were made here,
provided in the packet, and when looking at moving the
boundaries, one of the comments that was in here is the Forest
Service would need to--if the boundaries were moved, they would
need access on the roads to maintain the water systems. And the
comment that was made by this individual was the assumption
that the Forest Service could certainly close those roads to
the general public except for the maintenance that the county
would need to get into the water facilities.
So are you saying that, when you are talking about
upgrading roads in that, are you talking about upgrading them
just for routine maintenance, or are you talking about looking
at upgrading--I am kind of taken aback by your comments,
because a road for routine maintenance for maintaining those
facilities certainly sounds different than what you were
talking about.
Ms. Collins. We may not have to upgrade anything, and that
would be part of that analysis. We might, in places where this
is a municipal watershed and there may be a need to do
something to maintain that, a lot of that is the process we
would have to go through as we do that NEPA process. But again,
that would have to be done for each one of those individual
access points. One of them I think is a trail and will probably
stay a trail, for example.
Ms. McCollum. Do you know if the Forest Service has any
other record of doing this type of--
Ms. Collins. Cherry-stemming?
Ms. McCollum. --road maintenance in the past? And if you
have, have you had pressure for other outside groups other than
counties or maintenance facilities to come in with off-road
vehicles or other access, with motorized vehicles butting up
into and going into the wilderness area?
Ms. Collins. I think every time--and this is one of the
reasons as we develop wildernesses, we are reluctant to do
cherry-stemming, because it introduces a potential use into an
area that is natural, and you end up with some law enforcement
issues. All of those are administrative Forest Service issues
that we end up managing through--I have managed a number of
wilderness areas, and when you have close access to a
wilderness, you are always managing those kinds of problems,
and so, yeah, that is an issue.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if the Forest Service could
provide--could provide you and the Committee maybe some
examples of success stories or problems that they have had with
this, that would be helpful for me.
Ms. Collins. I would be happy to do that.
Mr. McInnis. I might add to that, that remember, as I
understand it, this wasn't supposed to be in the wilderness
area anyway, and the reason it is in the wilderness area now is
because it was a mistake. And now to go on and demand higher
standards of the people whose right it was to access it in the
first place because they were mistakenly put in a wilderness is
patently unfair on its face. So I think we need to keep that in
mind.
Second of all, I can tell you in my district, which is
primarily Federal and public lands, a lot of those rights are
not owned by the Government, and water out in my area, as you
may know, it is considered blood. And the fact that they own
water rights, they have a right to go up there under our
Colorado law, to maintain and to quantify until you put those
rights to a beneficial use. So I don't think that the
Government ought to look like we are really bending over and
doing somebody a favor to let them have a trail to go up and
maintain their water facilities on rights that they own that
have been recognized by the Federal Government since the
beginning of water time, so to speak, in Colorado.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I wasn't disagreeing with that
philosophy, with that statement. I was just trying to find out,
is after those roads have been put in, what other pressures
those property people, accessing the property, probably don't
want other folks fooling around up in there either. I just want
to know what kind of pressures the Forest Service gets in, and
what is going to be the cost of us maintaining and policing
this if we need to.
Mr. McInnis. And certainly that is an appropriate question.
I just have a little sensitivity when it comes to water and the
Federal Government's reign over our access to our water rights.
And as I would reiterate here, this was never intended to be in
the wilderness in the first place, and I just don't want a
higher standard put on these people.
With that, I do thank the witnesses on our first--oh, go
ahead.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Chairman, if I could have one more
question.
Mr. McInnis. Certainly.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. The desire here by the proponents is
to make this available for maintaining these water systems. On
the other hand, if you do take it out of wilderness, it could
end up, for a wide variety of recreational and other purposes
that were not associated with the intent of this bill.
If we were to design a system where you basically took it
out of wilderness, allowed mechanized access to maintain, if
necessary, these water systems, but did not open it up for
other purposes, what would be your recommendation, the best way
to do that? What would you call it? How would you define it? Do
you see what I am getting at?
Ms. Collins. What would we call the sections that are
inside, that are cherry-stemmed out?
Mr. Inslee. Correct. In other words, if we wanted to design
a product to allow the mechanized maintenance of these systems,
but not open it up to all these other purposes that otherwise
might be available on Forest Service land, how would we define
it? What would be the best way to structure it, in your view?
Ms. Collins. I would probably have to get back to you and
talk to you to provide more information on that. But off the
top, I would say that we would manage those as we would manage
any right to access other places. It is different because it is
inside a wilderness, but we still have all the authorities to
gate in cases where we need to gate to keep the general public
out, so that the permittee can use the site. And again, I
think, if you look at all of these individual--all eight of
these, you will find that each one has a little different story
and a little bit different need, so coming up with an answer or
a name for all of them may not be the right thing.
But again, doing the right thing, we could come up with
some ideas about how to do that for each one of those.
Mr. Inslee. I would ask you to explore that, and perhaps we
can talk again in that regard.
Ms. Collins. That would be great.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Ms. Collins. Be happy to do that.
Mr. McInnis. No further questions. And again, I thank the
witness. Ms. Collins, if you would remain there, I think you
are a witness on all three bills, so it will save you having to
continue to come to the table.
Ms. Collins. Okay.
Mr. McInnis. If there are any additional questions for the
witnesses, I would ask the members to put it in writing, and
the witnesses can respond. We will keep the record open for 10
days for those responses.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Brougher, you may come on up to the
witness stand. I would like to introduce our second panel. We
are going to have Mr. Doolittle, who is on the dais, Mr. Steve
Brougher, Issues Coordinator for the Central Sierra Club of
Wilderness Watch, and of course, we have Ms. Collins again for
this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 434
I would like to thank my friend and colleague Congressman Doolittle
for his work on the Emigrant Wilderness Protection Act.
H.R. 434 would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to
enter into a cooperative agreement with non-federal entities to retain,
maintain and operate at private expense the 18 small check dams and
weirs--each of which are largely unnoticeable--located within the
Emigrant Wilderness boundary. The work would be done under terms and
conditions established by the Secretary and without use of mechanized
transport or motorized equipment. The bill authorizes $20,000 to be
appropriated to cover administrative costs incurred by the Secretary to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
Although not specifically indicated within the legislation, it is
widely believed to have been the intent of Congress when it passed the
Emigrant Wilderness Act in 1974 to preserve the 18 ``check dam''
structures. Among others, the Chief Recreation Officer for the
Stanislaus National Forest, has repeatedly gone on record as stating it
was his belief these dams were to be maintained. Additionally, report
language for the 1974 Act explained:
Within the area recommended for wilderness designation, there
are drift fences (5 miles) which will be maintained, but
several cabins and barns will be removed within ten years. Two
snow cabins will be retained. The weirs and small dams will
likewise be retained. (House Report No. 93-989, p.10. April 11,
1974)
In my opinion, the more compelling reason for supporting this
legislation is the many ecological benefits associated with the
continued existence of these small structures. These scarcely
noticeable dams have for decades provided a consistent flow of water to
lakes, streams and wild meadows, which in turn have provided important
habitat for fish and various plant and animal species, including
endangered species. To remove these structures in the name of
protecting the environment, when in fact their removal will harm a
number of species and other natural processes, seems to me to be
counterintuitive.
Again, I commend Mr. Doolittle for his hard work and leadership on
this legislation and I look forward to working with him to secure its
enactment during the 107th Congress. I look forward to hearing my
colleague Congressman Doolittle's testimony, as well as the testimony
provided by Ms. Collins of the Forest Service and Steve Brougher of the
Central Sierra Wilderness Watch.
______
Again, I would remind the witnesses that we expect
compliance with the five-minute rule, and if you will be
outside that, you may submit your testimony for the record, and
it will appear in full in the record. I now recognize Mr.
Doolittle. Mr. Doolittle, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members
for allowing me to rejoin my old committee.
This bill has been--actually it has been--this is the
fourth time I am introducing it. It has been passed out of the
House twice, once with two negative votes and once unanimously
in the last Congress, and it was also passed out of the Senate
Policy Committee as well. The bill has never cleared the
Senate. In one case a hold was placed on it by one of the
Senators for some mysterious reason. And then last time the
Clinton Administration prevailed upon a friendly Senator to put
a hold on it. So I just wanted to indicate to the members it is
not new legislation. It deals with a heavily-utilized area in
my district called the Emigrant Wilderness.
I am going to ask, Mr. Chairman, that the pictures I have
be distributed to the members. I don't think I have one for
every member, but we have enough that you will all see them,
and I will just refer for a moment. These are small--there are
18 small dams that were constructed between 1921 and 1954, that
were constructed in cooperation with two agencies, the U.S.
Forest Service and Civilian Conservation Corps, and then local
volunteers.
When we say ``dams'' that may create an image of Hoover Dam
or Grand Coolee Dam, but these are very small structures. They
are made out of the local materials, and as you can see, the
ones you are looking at in those pictures are pretty
representative with the exception of one dam, which is 25 feet
high and is the tallest. For the other 17 structures, there is
no structure that is over 10 feet tall.
If you take a look--now, there are pictures on both sides
of this handout--and if you will look at pictures 5 and 6,
those are pictures of Middle Emigrant Lake, and that dam that
you see there is--and by the way, in picture 6, it is in the
extreme lower right-hand corner, you can see the top of the
dam, and then you can see, on picture 5, you know, a full view
of the dam from downstream. It is an 8-foot tall structure, and
look at the amount of water that is impounded by it there. This
has created tremendous habitat for fisheries for endangered
species, and this is hot, dry country in California in the
summertime. And but for the presence of these dams, this would
be pretty much dried up. It would be just hot, dry, arid
country.
So they are very popular for people to hike in there, and
by the way, to make a tour of these, you have an 8-hour ride
one way, even to get in to see them. So it is pretty much for
the hardy, who even make it up there.
This was not a wilderness at the time these structures were
built, but at the time the wilderness debate happened and this
area was placed in the wilderness, these structures were not
found to be inconsistent with this. They were described by
Senator Cranston as substantially unnoticeable, and indeed,
they are, and yet, they provide a lot of benefit.
Well, the Forest Service, a few years ago, had made a
determination that they were going to allow these structures to
deteriorate so that there wouldn't eventually be any of them.
That would be a real loss, and if that were to happen, the
effect of that would be to further concentrate visitors into
other areas of the Emigrant Wilderness. That would be very
undesirable. And I would note, Mr. Chairman, that my fellow
colleague from California, George Miller, who at the time was
Ranking Member on the Committee, was an enthusiastic supporter
of this bill precisely for this reason. He felt that there was,
you know, a very beneficial effect to these. There is huge
local support in Tuolumne County, where most of these are, and
that is where this Fred Leighton, the man who kind of
spearheaded this effort years ago, is from.
So I would bring this bill to you again, Mr. Chairman.
Well, even the local environmental groups support it except for
one, as far as I know, and you are going to hear from that one
in a minute. I would--I appreciate your hearing me out on this,
and would ask for your favorable consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 434
Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you for holding this hearing on an
important piece of legislation, H.R. 434, the Emigrant Wilderness
Protection Act. As you know, this legislation was designed to provide
for the maintenance of 18 small dams and weirs within the Emigrant
Wilderness. As the Committee knows, this is the fourth Congress I have
introduced this legislation, and versions of this legislation have
garnered broad bipartisan support, including from this Committee's past
Ranking Member, Representative George Miller. The bill passed the House
by a margin of 424-2 in the 105th Congress, and unanimously during the
106th. On both occasions, my Emigrant Wilderness bill was approved by
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, only to suffer
defeat from threats of ``holds'' to be placed by the Clinton
Administration.
The Emigrant Wilderness'' 18 check dam system was built between
1921-1954 through the combined efforts of the U.S. Forest Service, the
California Conservation Corps, and local volunteer groups. The system
works to enhance the high elevation lake fisheries and species habitat
by keeping year-round flows in the streams. Most of these structures go
unnoticed unless you know exactly where to look for them. They were
built with the natural rock from the surrounding area, and they are
insignificant in size, mostly ranging from 3-5 feet in height.
H.R. 434 will allow a non-federal entity to pay the costs of
maintaining and repairing these substantially unnoticeable structures
by allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a cooperative
agreement providing a non-federal entity the opportunity to conduct the
necessary maintenance.
By providing for the continued maintenance of all 18 dams, we will
protect the stream flow system within the Emigrant Wilderness that for
over 70 years has maintained an ecosystem of lakes, streams, and
meadows of which many species, including the great American Bald Eagle,
depend upon. It is clear that these small structures are important, as
the California Department of Fish and Game has stated in an appeal to
the U.S. Forest Service that ``survey results on file with the Forest
Service attest to the fisheries'' benefits from the dams, including
increased volume of water with acceptable levels of dissolved oxygen
and temperatures that support trout populations. In addition, the
downstream release of water during dry years has significant benefits
to aquatic life and the streams'' fisheries.--
Furthermore, when Congress debated the Emigrant Wilderness Act of
1974, there was extensive dialogue concerning these structures, and it
is clear from reading transcripts of those past proceedings that
Congress intended them to be maintained, and that structures were
consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act as they were ``substantially
unnoticeable.''
Mr. Chairman, if these small, unnoticeable dams are allowed to
deteriorate, many of the lakes and streams will dry up during the
summer and fall months, resulting in negative impacts on the ecosystem,
fisheries, and the area's tourism economy. Again, I thank you for
holding this hearing. It is my hope that we can move this bill forward
with the same resounding support it had in past Congresses.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Mr. Brougher, you may proceed for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE BROUGHER, ISSUES COORDINATOR, CENTRAL SIERRA
CHAPTER OF WILDERNESS WATCH
Mr. Brougher. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee.
My name is Steve Brougher, and I am a volunteer with
Wilderness Watch, a national nonprofit organization, dedicated
to preservation of America's designated wilderness. I am here
to testify on behalf of Wilderness Watch about the concerns we
and 20 other local, state and national organizations have
expressed with H.R. 434, a bill to require the operation and
maintenance of 18 dams in the Emigrant Wilderness.
I began working in the Emigrant as a Wilderness Ranger in
1975, the year of wilderness designation. I became intimately
familiar with this special place, and developed throughout my
22-year career, as a wildlife biologist and wilderness manager,
a thorough understanding of the importance of preserving such
remnants of our wildland heritage. I took seriously my
obligation as a public servant to uphold the intent of Congress
so eloquently expressed in the Wilderness Act, and have
continued to work for proper protection since retiring.
Much of the information you will hear about the value of
this dam from the proponents of this bill is unsubstantiated
opinion contrary to the facts. From my years of experience, I
can say unequivocally that these dams are not essential for
providing recreational opportunities, for sustaining a fishery,
or for the ecological health of the Emigrant Wilderness, nor
are they of any economic importance for local businesses. They
do adversely affect the wilderness values.
But do not take my word for it. This information is readily
available to anyone interested in knowing the facts in reports
by the Stanislaus National Forest that I have cited in my
reporting documents.
The premise of H.R. 434 is to clarify the intent of
Congress that these dams were to be maintained and operated in
perpetuity. I provided a discussion of congressional intent in
my supporting documents. Simply put, congressional intent for
the dams to remain is a spurious argument that negates key
underpinnings of the Wilderness Act and is not supported by the
legislative history. Public Law 93-632 contained no special
provision for maintenance of the dams, but states that the area
will be administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act.
The purpose of the Wilderness Act was to preserve some
areas in their natural condition, untrammeled by man and
without permanent improvements. The Act also directs that
Wilderness will be administered in a way that preserves the
Wilderness character, and specifically prohibits structures and
installations.
H.R. 434 completely frustrates the intent of the Wilderness
Act by putting nonconforming uses back into the area. Did
Congress intend to undo the very purpose of the legislation it
passed when it designated the wilderness? Two examples will
illustrate the fallacy of this illogical argument and how it
would play out across the entire National Wilderness
Preservation system. Some wildernesses contained old homesteads
that were logged, plowed, etcetera. Should we assume that
Congress intended for these old homesteads to be restored, the
encroaching forest cut back, the buildings reconstructed? Many
wildernesses experienced off-road vehicle use prior to
designation, and the evidence of that use remains. Should we
assume that Congress intended for ORV use to continue in these
areas today?
The wilderness resource is a condition where wild nature
prevails without human intervention or artifacts. This resource
once existed throughout this nation, now greatly reduced from
its original extent. Dubious arguments about the historical
nature of the dams overlook a much larger historical
perspective of national significance. The framers of the
Wilderness Act recognized the historical significance of the
wilderness resource to the development and character of this
country, and took action to preserve the last remnants of this
historical legacy for future generations. The dams are 80-years
old or less, compared to the thousands of years that the
natural environment of the Emigrant has developed and
flourished without them.
H.R. 434 is an ill-conceived bill that will degrade
important wilderness values and set a terrible precedent for
the entire National Wilderness Preservation system. Special
legislation to override the Wilderness Act opens the door for
similar efforts to chip away at this vital conservation law,
incrementally degrading the values the Act was intended to
protect. It also interferes with an established 8-year planning
process for the Emigrant Wilderness and would shut out many
citizens who have a legitimate interest in the outcome of this
issue. And despite past assurances that the dams would be
maintained at no cost to the Government, H.R. 434 contains a
provision authorizing the appropriation of $20,000 for
administrative costs, thus requiring taxpayers to pay the cost
of degrading the wilderness values of the Emigrant Wilderness.
Maintaining these dams is the antithesis of wilderness.
Their purpose is to trammel the hydrology and ecology of the
area for illusionary recreation benefits, not to preserve the
wilderness character. To realize the powerful vision of the
Wilderness Act, we must be committed to the idea that we
respectfully leave areas where wild nature can flourish. This
type of action will slowly erode what has been preciously
attained, making it easier to make more changes of increasing
significance. Eventually the wildlands we thought were
protected in a natural state in perpetuity will be reduced to
nothing more than recreational parks that cater to comfort and
convenience. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brougher follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.015
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Ms. Collins?
STATEMENT OF SALLY COLLINS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE
Ms. Collins. Again, we are looking forward to working with
you on this particular bill as well.
To summarize again, H.R. 434 would require the Secretary of
Agriculture to enter into a cooperative agreement to provide
for the retention, maintenance and operation, at private
expense, of 18 dams and weirs within the boundaries of the
Emigrant Wilderness in California.
Now, these small rock and mortar dams have deteriorated
over time as maintenance levels have decreased. Some of these
structures are in poor condition, are leaking significantly, or
have washed out or no longer function. The remaining structures
are in fair to good condition. Because of the age and overall
character of some of the dams, several are now eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
During the 1970's and 1980's, maintenance of the dams was
shared between the Forest Service and the California Department
of Fish and Game. The California Department of Fish and Game
ceased maintaining or operating 11 of the structures, which is
what our memorandum of understanding provided for, in 1988 when
the permit expired.
The Stanislaus National Forest developed an environmental
impact statement and record of decision in 1998, that outlined
the management for all of the Emigrant Wilderness, not just
these particular dams. A decision document allowed for the
continued maintenance of eight dams. The record of decision
received 14 appeals, but that decision, at least the portion of
the decision related to these dams, was vacated by the Regional
Forester in 1999. This is significant, because at the current
time, there is no decision document directing what to do about
any of these 18 facilities.
On November 8th, the Regional Forester met with California
Fish and Game, and agreed to a joint strategy for the future
management of these dams. This strategy outlined the need to
maintain eight dams in the Emigrant Wilderness.
Now, recently, there have been discussions between
Congressman Doolittle and Regional Forester Brad Powell. I
think as of last Friday, the Forest Supervisor met with
Congressman Doolittle and some others, and then Brad Powell may
be meeting again tomorrow. I just met with Mr. Powell on this a
few minutes ago, actually.
We want this dialogue to continue, and are willing to work
with the Committee, Mr. Doolittle, and the State of California,
and any other interested parties to try to resolve this issue,
and that is where I would like to leave that.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle, do you have questions?
Mr. Doolittle. Well, maybe just an observation, Mr.
Chairman. Where there is water, there is life. I don't think
anything would be served by allowing these structures to
deteriorate, and they are deteriorating because they have been
precluded by the Forest Service from being maintained since
that decision was made a few years ago.
All we are asking for is--these dams were built by the
Forest Service in conjunction with volunteers and the CCC, and
the volunteers would like to be able to go in and maintain
them. At one point they actually hauled all this material up
there, you know, rough country, upland country, eight hours to
travel into, and once they got there with all of this, they
were informed that they would not be allowed to carry out the
task of restoration. People arranged to take off time for--you
know, to get vacation time off. It was a major volunteer
effort. And when they went to all this trouble, they were
thwarted. And that just seems to me tragic. It would make--it
would just concentrate undue use in other parts of the
wilderness area, where having them would make it much more
desirable all the way around.
So that would be my only comment, and I appreciate the
offer of the Forest Service to work together, and look forward
to doing that.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I heard in the
testimony from the Forest Service, you talked about maintaining
with private funds, and then there was a combination of the
State of California and the Federal Government at one point in
time. Can you comment on the appropriation of the bill?
Currently we are not putting any dollars into maintaining
these, and this would be something new?
Ms. Collins. No. Currently we are not, and to--there is
much more that has to be done. There is maintenance and
actually upgrading of the facilities, because many of them are
deteriorated, which would be an initial investment. There are
planning dollars to do the environmental documentation around
that, because, as I said, there is no planning document or NEPA
document in place to do anything on any of those sites right
now, and that has to be completed. And then there is an annual
maintenance fee. All of that takes money, and I think the
partnership with California does offer an opportunity to
negotiate some of that for some of these sites. They are not
willing to do all of them. They are willing to consider--I
don't even think that they have gotten to that point in the
negotiations, but clearly they have an interest in some of the
facilities, and so that would be the next step, to work with
them on partnering on some of that, and we have other people
interested in helping with that.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if I may, another question. Could
you comment on whether or not there are exotic species that are
part of the reason why the dams need to be--or people would
wish to keep them in place?
Ms. Collins. Yes. There is at least one species, and I am
going to see if I can remember it. It is a frog. It is a
yellow-legged frog, and I do not remember the prefix of it, but
there is one species that is living in some of the meadows up
there, and there may be others as well. And we can get you that
information if you would like that. Would you like us to do
that?
Ms. McCollum. Well, I asked about exotic, not endangered.
Ms. Collins. Okay.
Ms. McCollum. There are no exotic species then?
Ms. Collins. Oh, exotic fish species in the sense--
Ms. McCollum. We are talking about the dam and the water,
so, yes.
Ms. Collins. Got you, yeah, in the wilderness. I cannot
answer whether or not they have been putting exotic species in
there, but I can get you that answer.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if there is someone else who could
answer it? I would think that the Forest Service, testifying
before on this important issue, would know whether or not there
was exotic fish species, but Mr. Chair, I believe the gentleman
at the table can answer that question. That is my last
question.
Mr. McInnis. Ms. McCollum, maybe you can help me, because I
am not clear on your question as it has been stated. I do not
know what you mean by ``exotic.'' Now, my understanding of
exotic is it is an imported species that--
Ms. McCollum. Right. Something that is not natural to the
ecosystem, that is correct.
Mr. McInnis. So your question, is there something in those
waters that is not natural to those waters as a result of those
dams; is that correct?
Ms. McCollum. Yes.
Mr. McInnis. Can you answer the question, now rephrased?
Ms. Collins. The State of California has been seeding those
lakes with young fish for a long time, but I cannot tell you at
this time whether they are exotics or not, but I will get you
that answer. It could be that Steve knows, but I do not know.
Mr. Brougher. I would be happy to, if that is appropriate.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Doolittle, could you add anything to
assist Ms. McCollum?
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I really cannot because the lakes have
been stocked, but they are stocked with trout that do exist in
this general area. I don't know necessarily, you know, in the
specific little lakes that were created, but they are in the
Sierras. There is an issue now about maybe not stocking some of
the lakes that are in the habitat of the yellow-legged frog,
which is now endangered, and that the fish are eating the
frogs, so Fish and Game is looking at that issue, and there may
be some areas. But I don't think they are looked upon as exotic
species.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair?
Mr. McInnis. Go ahead, Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if the other witness--
Mr. McInnis. I think you need to turn on your microphone.
Ms. McCollum. It is my voice. Mr. Chair, if I could ask the
other testifier if they are familiar with bringing fish that
are not part of the ecosystem into the dam and water area, if
they have any information?
Mr. Brougher. Yeah, I can speak to that. Historically, the
high country of the Sierra Nevada did not support fish above
about 7,000 feet, except in the southern end of the range. The
Emigrant Wilderness, therefore, fish were not native to the
lakes of the high country there.
Fish were introduced into that area beginning in about the
turn of the century or the turn of the 20th century, and the
species that are stocked there are rainbow trout, eastern brook
trout, golden trout, which is native to the Sierras, but not to
that region, and occasionally brown trout. So the fishery that
we are talking about in the Emigrant Wilderness that these dams
were built to support are not native to that area, and they are
indeed preying upon and responsible for a decline in the
yellow-legged frog.
Mr. McInnis. What was the last part, they are responsible
for what?
Mr. Brougher. That the introduction of those fish are in
large part responsible for the decline of the mountain yellow-
legged frog.
Ms. Collins. I also have been told that what they have been
introducing there is brown trout.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, I would add that these fish
are very tasty for the endangered species bald eagles that
thrive in those areas because of those lakes.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Simpson?
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Frankly, I find this
discussion kind of bizarre. As I understand it, these dams were
built before the Wilderness Act went into effect, and the
Wilderness Act, Congress clearly has the power to make
designations within--when it creates a wilderness, to preserve
these dams or to take them out, or to do whatever they want to
do, and apparently they made the decision to leave those dams
in place when they created this wilderness.
And now you want to go in and remove those dams, so you
want us to trammel upon the land to make it appear that it was
never trammeled on? I mean, this is bizarre, as far as I am
concerned.
Mr. Brougher. Would you like me to respond to that?
Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
Mr. Brougher. Okay. Yes, they were present before they
became wilderness, and at the time of designation they were
recognized as being present. But Congress did not write into
legislation any exception to the provisions of the Wilderness
Act. There are times when that does occur. In this case, they
chose not to do that. They chose to recognize the dams were
there, that it did not detract from making the area wilderness,
but that they did not make any special provision to continue
maintenance of these dams. Instead, they have a provision in
that bill that says that the wilderness will be managed
according to the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
Our position on this is not to remove the dams, but rather
just to leave them, no longer maintain them, and allow nature
to take its course, and over time, to restore these areas back
to a more natural condition.
Certainly right now many of these dams have fallen apart,
have been overgrown with vegetation. It would require a
substantial disturbance to these areas not only to rebuild
them, but then to continue to operate them with fluctuating
water levels as they were designed to do.
Mr. Simpson. Do these dams destroy your wilderness
experience?
Mr. Brougher. Well, for me they do, and for a lot of
people, they do. And it is not just a matter of personal--you
know, personal like or dislike, it also has to do with the
intent of the Wilderness Act to manage areas in a natural
condition, that is, in a way in which nature can take its
course, in which humans do not manipulate, actively manipulate
the environment to create a certain effect.
Mr. Simpson. I look at these pictures, and I kind of--I
find it strange that they would degrade your wilderness
experience. Beavers make dams and I guess they don't degrade
the wilderness experience, but if you stack a couple rocks
together, that is a problem, which is what they are. You don't
think that when they recognized these dams in designating this
a wilderness area, that their intent was to maintain them, that
they said, ``Yeah, those dams are there and we are just going
to let them fall apart'', that that was their intent?
Mr. Brougher. No, I don't believe that was the intent. If
you look at the legislative history, the complete legislative
history--and I am not going to go into all the details of that;
I have provided that in my supporting documentation, it would
take a while to discuss it all--but if you look at that entire
history, I think that you will come to the conclusion that
Congress had not intended--I mean, they saw the dams, they
discussed them, there was discussion of retaining them.
Ultimately, in the final bill, that was not done.
We also have correspondence from former Senator Cranston,
indicating--he was a sponsor of a bill for the Emigrant
Wilderness--indicating that he did not feel that there was
congressional intent, I mean he was involved, but he had no
intent for these dams to be maintained in perpetuity.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this just
really a strange situation, where you go in and create a
wilderness, you preserve a wilderness area that obviously has
some human activity that has occurred on it, and then our
intent is to pretend that no human activity has ever occurred
on it. I mean, I find that a bizarre situation, I really do. I
can understand going into an area where there is true
wilderness, where humans have not impacted, they have not built
dams, have not built roads, that type of thing, and saying,
``We are going to preserve this as a wilderness.'' But you can
go to the City of Blackfoot, Idaho and say, ``We want to make
this a wilderness. We are going to tear down all the buildings
or let them fall down by nature.'' I find that contrary to the
Wilderness Act. So I don't have any more questions. I am still
trying to figure out what the heck is going on.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Doolittle, do you want to do a quick wrap-
up?
Mr. Doolittle. Let me just do a quick wrap-up. In the
Committee report for the 1974 Wilderness Act, it says the
following, quote: ``Within the area recommended for wilderness
designation, there are drift fences (5 miles), which will be
maintained, but several cabins and barns will be removed within
10 years. Two snow cabins will be retained. The weirs and small
dams will likewise be retained.''
Now, that was in 1974, and in 1977 a former historic
Chairman of this Committee, Mo Udall, there was a bill passed
out of here that pertained to wilderness, and in the language
of the bill it says the following. Well, actually, this goes
right to the--this is the counterpoint to Mr. Brougher's
testimony. This is what it says in the Committee report, quote:
``Numerous other aspects of the so-called purity issue have
been debated over the past several years, and especially during
the hearings on H.R. 3454''--of which this is the report for.
``In some instances, the strictest interpretation of the
Wilderness Act has led to stringent `purity criteria' which
have prejudiced the potential recommendation of an area for
further wilderness consideration. In others it has led to
public opposition to wilderness proposals based on what is and
what is not perceived to be, sometimes erroneously, permissible
in wilderness areas, and of the provisions of the 1964
Wilderness Act. After more than a decade of experience, the
Committee recognizes the problems with different
interpretations the Wilderness Act creates. The Committee was
pleased to receive the new Administration's less stringent
interpretation of the Wilderness Act, and agrees that this new
direction is in order. To further clarify matters, the
Committee considers it appropriate to comment in some detail on
some of the issues that current policies attempt to resolve and
to offer its guidance as to how the Wilderness Act should now
be interpreted as it relates to certain uses and activities.''
I'm just going to skip down to the one that pertains,
fisheries enhancement. ``Fisheries enhancement activities and
facilities are permissible and often highly desirable in
wilderness areas to aid in achieving the goal of
<plus-minus>preserving the wilderness character of the area,
<plus-minus>as stated in Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act.
Such activities and facilities include fish traps, stream
barriers, aerial stocking, and the protection and propagation
of rare species.'' End of quote from the bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, that quote reveals there is a split.
Amongst most of the mainstream environmental community,
certainly locally, heavily supports this bill. As you can see
from the pictures, those are very desirable areas that would
add to most people's view of a wilderness experience. Clearly,
it is not purity. Purity would result in hot, dry steep slopes
during the fall and late summer.
So I thank you for this opportunity to have this hearing,
and look forward to working with you.
Mr. McInnis. I thank Mr. Doolittle. I also thank the
witnesses on our second panel. The witnesses may have some
additional questions, and if you do, please ask for a response
in writing. We will hold the record open for 10 days in regards
to that. Thank you panel.
Mr. McInnis. I will now introduce our third panel. On Panel
3 we have the Honorable Earl Blumenauer from Oregon, and Mike
Rosenberger, Administrator, Bureau of Water Works, Portland,
Oregon. Again, I would remind the members that your statements
are limited to five minutes. Congressman, you may proceed.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 427
I thank the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, for taking the
time to testify before the Forests Subcommittee on H.R. 427.
H.R. 427, the Little Sandy Watershed Protection Act, would, in
part, extend the boundary of the Bull Run Management Unit to include
the hydrologic boundary of the Little Sandy watershed, an area spanning
approximately 2,600 acres.
Up front, I must say that I have real concerns with this
legislation. In my opinion, it is critical that local land managers be
given maximum flexibility to manage their lands. After all, they know
these resources a lot better than the folks back here in Congress. And
as most land managers would attest, you never know when you're going to
need to adjust your management strategy for any number of unforeseen
reasons. This legislation would restrain that flexibility in the case
of the Little Sandy by statutorily imposing inflexible restrictions
that, under the existing management plan, already exist. In my mind,
Mr. Blumenauer, a case has to be made as to why this designation is
actually needed, again, recognizing that local forest managers have
already gone to great pains to protect this resource.
Having said that, I look forward to hearing the testimony of my
colleague Mr. Blumenauer, as well as the comments of Michael
Rosenberger of the City of Portland and Sally Collins of the Forest
Service.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
courtesy, and the opportunity to make a presentation with you
this morning, this afternoon. It seemed like this morning when
we started.
The subject of today's bill, the Little Sandy Watershed
Restoration Act, is something that I have been working on,
beginning with efforts with Senator Mark Hatfield in 1996, to
deal with the protection of the Bull Run Sandy River Watershed
area that provides water to almost one-quarter of Oregon's
population.
The legislation that is before you today is the result of
extensive work. It has the unanimous support not only of the
House delegation, but there is companion legislation that has
been introduced by the two U.S. Senators, in fact, passed the
Senate in the last session of Congress.
It speaks to an area where there is 109 years of history
dating back to a proclamation from President Harrison, 109
years ago. Ninety-seven years ago was the first congressional
action. This is an effort that is designed to protect the water
and the fragile fish habitat. There is, as near as I can tell,
no objection to the proposal that we have entered into before
you that would extend the boundary of the Bull Run Management
Unit to include the hydrologic boundary of the Little Sandy
Watershed. It protects a critical area of potential drinking
water, habitat for the Portland Metropolitan area. It extends
protection of water quality to deal with some of our efforts at
fish recovery under the ESA in the metropolitan area, and it
would authorize Clackamas County to seek watershed restoration
projects, and maintain the balance in terms of resources within
the Oregon O&C counties.
It is something that is important to the City of Portland
that I represent, but also to people in the metropolitan area,
and represents the sort of balanced thoughtful approach to
protect habitat, protect water resources, and work
cooperatively with the Federal Government as a partner.
I would like, if I could, to introduce Mike Rosenberger,
who it is my privilege to work with when I was Portland's
Commissioner of Public Works, a gentleman with long history in
this issue, who can speak to the specifics of the proposal.
I will remain in case there are any questions of
observations you wish to direct to me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenauer follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, on H.R. 427
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Congressman
Earl Blumenauer, representing the 3rd Congressional District in Oregon.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today, to describe our
efforts to protect the Little Sandy Watershed. As you know, my
distinguished colleagues, Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Gordon Smith,
have introduced an identical measure in the Senate (S. 254), and I
appreciate the Committee moving so rapidly on this matter.
Perhaps no resource is more fundamental to the livability of our
communities than clean, safe drinking water. Fresh, pure water is
critical for life and health and is not necessarily a renewable
resource. There is no environmental goal that should have higher
priority than protecting our valuable sources of drinking water. To
ensure the health of our families today and of our communities in the
future, we must act to ensure that our water supplies are protected and
used wisely.
H.R. 427 recognizes that the Bull Run Watershed is the Portland
area's cleanest and most reliable drinking water source, serving nearly
one million residents. Established in 1892, the Bull Run Reserve was
hailed as a drinking water source that could be shielded from human
activities that pollute water. After its first municipal use in 1895 a
``phenomenal decrease'' in typhoid fever resulted. Protection of water
quality and quantity, as well as preservation of the forest, was
enhanced in 1904 under President Roosevelt's Trespass Act, which
allowed only those who affirmatively protected the forest and its
streams to enter the reserve.
However, during the 1950's, these protections were threatened when
illegal logging began in the Bull Run. Logging was also extended to the
Little Sandy Watershed, and by 1993, more than 350 miles of roads were
built, mostly to facilitate logging, and sediment from these activities
flowed into drinking water reserves.
In 1996, Congress established partial protection for the ``Bull Run
Management Unit'' (BRMU) through the Oregon Resources Conservation Act.
Since then, citizens, the City of Portland, and officials throughout
the region have championed enacting permanent protections for the
public lands in the Bull Run Management Unit and the Little Sandy
Watershed. In fact, work to protect Bull Run began with the efforts of
former Senator Mark Hatfield. A bill to include the Little Sandy
watershed in the Bull Run Management Unit was introduced in both the
105th and 106th sessions of Congress.
The bill before you today, H.R. 427, extends the protection of Bull
Run Management Unit by nearly 2600 acres to include the Little Sandy
drainage and provides for consistent land management protections for
all lands within the Bull Run Management Unit. Why must we protect the
Little Sandy? It is a potential future source of drinking water for the
Portland area. It is also a critical habitat for endangered fish
species, including steelhead, cutthroat trout and chinook.
I am aware that some have raised concerns with this bill, and I
would like to take a moment to address those. Last year, during a
hearing in the Senate, the U.S. Forest Service testified that it stood
in opposition to the legislation on the grounds that adding additional
protection for the Little Sandy was not warranted. They claim the
Northwest Forest Plan provides adequate protection for this important
resource and to the federal lands within the Bull Run Management Unit.
Yet as of today, 37% of the Little Sandy Watershed has been lost to
timber harvest, and much of that was through damaging clearcut methods.
Such practices can have a detrimental effect on water quality and water
quantity, not to mention the fragile forest ecosystem that,
particularly in the Little Sandy, supports several species of
endangered fish that are listed under the Endangered Species Act, as
well as probably countless smaller organisms that have never been
surveyed. Under H.R. 427, we will finally achieve a lasting, permanent,
and meaningful protection for the Little Sandy and all of the lands
within Bull Run Management Unit.
Opponents also point to studies from the last decade which they
claim dismiss the option of the Little Sandy as a future potential
drinking water source. I am fortunate to be joined today by Mike
Rosenberger, chief administrator for the City of Portland's Bureau of
Water Works. His testimony describes why it is critical that the City
maintain a full range of potential options for the future when it comes
to managing a sustainable, long-term vision for drinking water, not
just in Portland, but throughout the region. But I would also add that
I think, given the challenges of meeting future demand for a clean,
reliable drinking water supply, and fulfilling our Endangered Species
Act requirements, local governments and their citizens deserve to have
every possible tool at their disposal. By securing permanent protection
for the Little Sandy, H.R. 427 provides just such a tool.
This bill enjoys strong support from the City of Portland. As one
who believes that government at all levels must work together more
effectively, I see this effort as a model for that kind of cooperation.
In addition, the bill is supported by local citizen groups, and local,
statewide, and national environmental organizations.
The abundant water supply of the Pacific Northwest has been a
blessing, but it is also a responsibility. Protecting it is an
obligation that we must not evade.
______
[Additional material submitted for the record by Mr. Blumenauer
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.037
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Rosenberger?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ROSENBERGER, ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF
WATER WORKS, CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Rosenberger. Thank you, Congressman Blumenauer.
Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike
Rosenberger, Administrator of the Bureau of Water Works of the
City of Portland, Oregon. I also serve as president of the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, an organization of
public water utilities serving 110 million people in the United
States.
The mission of the Portland Water Bureau includes water
supply and distribution, as well as being a leader on watershed
protection issues such as water quality, habitat, and species
protection in the Bull Run Management Unit. I am here on behalf
of Commissioner Sten today, who regrets his inability to attend
due to pressing matters before the city council.
The Little Sandy Protection has been a very high priority
for Commissioner Sten and the rest of our city council. On
behalf of the citizens of Portland and the surrounding region,
I thank you for taking the time to conduct this important
hearing so early in the year. I would also like to thank our
Oregon delegation, especially Congressman Blumenauer.
I am very pleased to be here today to lend Portland's
strongest possible support to H.R. 427. The Bull Run Management
Unit provides water to a quarter of Oregon's population. Today
we ask for protection of the Little Sandy portion of the
watershed so that all of the lands in the Bull Run Management
Unit can be managed together to meet our community's water
supply needs and support recovery of threatened fisheries'
resources. The map attached to my written testimony provides an
overview of how the Little Sandy Watershed relates to the
larger picture.
It is important that we have our management agreement
secured by law so that we have the utmost certainty we need in
order to do proper planning for fish recovery and potential
future water supply. The law will not constitute a loss of
privilege for any entity. Instead, it will give land managers
clear direction.
The protection provided by H.R. 427 insures consistency
across the entire Bull Run Management Unit. Land managers will
manage this important watershed for both water supply and the
threatened and endangered species, including salmon and
steelhead. This bill will help protect the quality and quantity
of water supply because protected for us, provide cooler,
higher-quality water, and a more natural release of water
through snow melt and local groundwater inflow.
This law will be one of the foundations of the City of
Portland's major initiative to assist in the recovery of
threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in an area that
is rapidly growing and developing. The Sandy River basin, of
which the lands and waters of the Bull Run Management Unit are
a part, represents some of the best habitat in the entire lower
Columbia River system.
Because Congress has consistently been willing to help, the
Bull Run Management Unit is the envy of water systems all over
the country. Few actions are seen as being so clearly
beneficial in providing high-quality drinking water and
supporting viable populations of fish and wildlife, as lands
and waters protected from development and unsupervised human
access.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again
for your time, consideration and leadership. I look forward to
working with you toward the goals we share and would be pleased
to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberger follows:]
NOTE: Responses to questions submitted to Mr. Rosenberger
for the record were not available at the time of printing.
Copies will be retained in the Committee's official files.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.029
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
Ms. Collins?
STATEMENT OF SALLY COLLINS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE
Ms. Collins. I am delighted to be on a panel with fellow
Oregonians. I have been hearing about this from the other side
of the mountains for kind of a long time. And again we support
the intentions and interests that have been discussed here, and
feel like there is a huge opportunity for us to resolve any
differences.
I just think there are a few things that we need to
consider as we look at this bill. Again, if enacted, H.R. 427
would add approximately 2,900 acres of Federal land in the
Little Sandy Watershed to the Bull Run Watershed Unit.
Currently the Bull Run Watershed Unit has 95,000 acres of
National Forest System land near Portland, and in addition,
what this would do is it would prohibit timber harvest
activities and general public access to the entire Bull Run
Watershed Management Unit. Now, right now the public can't
access the Bull Run Management Unit. As you know, most
watersheds, commercial watersheds, don't allow people in there
for protecting the water, but right now, the Little Sandy area
within the Bull Run Watershed Unit is available for public
access, and there are people that use it for that purpose.
In addition, forest-related restoration, forest management
activities would be precluded from a total of 8,600 acres of
National Forest and BLM land that would be included in this
buffer area, and the concern there would be, and what needs to
be acknowledged or recognized is that the actions we could take
as a management agency to reduce fire hazards to the watershed
may not be possible with this bill, and may not be warranted.
The Administration really believes that the existing forest
plans, including the Northwest Forest Plan, provide protection
for the health of the Little Sandy Watershed and the
preservation of future options, and specifically the Little
Sandy Watershed is designated as a Tier 2 Watershed. I had
managed under this Northwest Forest Plan when I was in Oregon,
and can assure you that that provides high water quality as
well as fish and watershed protection and restoration
opportunities.
Let me just talk a little bit about the opportunity for
this to be part of the water system in Portland. First of all,
the point of diversion where Portland draws its water from the
Bull Run Watershed is upstream from the confluence of the
Little Sandy River. A water supply option study conducted by
the City of Portland in 1992 dismissed the option of developing
Little Sandy as a municipal water source. Because of issues
related to water rights--there are no water rights right now
that they have to that--cost of development, limited capacity
and the impacts to a variety of resources. In addition to that
a regional water supply plan was completed in 1996 by 27 water
providers that also dismissed the option of Little Sandy Basin
as a water supply source at that time. But it can advocate a
protection--
Mr. McInnis. Ms. Collins, may I interrupt you for just a
second?
Ms. Collins. Sure.
Mr. McInnis. I am just trying to get a picture of what you
are saying. Are you telling me that the diversion to Portland
is not within the watershed, it is upstream from the watershed?
Ms. Collins. It is the--right. It is upstream from the
confluence of the Bull Run Watershed. So anything that we do in
this area, in other words, would not have an impact on the
water qualify in Portland.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
Ms. Collins. Does that make sense? It is not part of the
water quality--the water that goes into the water system in
Portland right now.
Mr. Blumenauer. And the point I was making, Mr. Chairman,
is that is not where the region is now. We are looking at this
as a potential water source for the region, and we--the
region--and Mr. Rosenberger can go on in greater detail in
terms of where we were 10 years ago, and looking at other
options, this is very definitely a part of what the region is
looking at, and the City of Portland, to try and provide water
for a large and growing metropolitan area, where water is in
fact in short supply, and dealing with our strategies for
restoration of habitat. There have been a lot of changes that
have taken place in the course of the last 10 years.
Mr. McInnis. Well, Congressman, I just don't--
Mr. Blumenauer. And we will be happy to detail those as you
see fit.
Mr. McInnis. I just have some reluctance in seeing a
municipality reach outside the point of diversion for
additional control over possible water into the future. My
understanding, you have no water rights in that area. This is
from the testimony, and I stand corrected if you correct me,
and that there are no water rights for you to access in the
area.
Ms. Collins, by the way, I will come back to you to finish
your statement. I didn't mean to interrupt, but this is a very
critical point, because I assume from the testimony of Mr.
Rosenberger, even the Congressman, that we are talking about
the watershed of Portland, Oregon. And now that we are not,
this has lost a lot of credence with me. I just am confused.
Go ahead, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Rosenberger. Congressman, let me see if I can take a
shot at this. We are talking about the Bull Run Management
Unit, the entire Bull Run Management Unit, and Congressman
Blumenauer talked about some of the history of that. Within the
Bull Run Management Unit there is the Little Sandy Watershed
and 22,000, 25,000 acres. The rest of the Bull Run Management
Unit is the Bull Run Management Unit, and is managed under the
auspices of ORCA, Oregon Resource Conservation Act. The Little
Sandy Watershed portion of the Bull Run drainage is managed
under the auspices of the Northwest Forest Plan. Part of our
concern is that those are two different directions to land
managers. And one of the main things of this bill is to have
the entire Bull Run drainage managed under one set of rules, a
consistent set of rules to that the Forest Service and the
city, which as a matter of fact are working better together now
than they have for years, have one set of standards to deal
with water quality, water quantity, and the issues of
endangered species.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Rosenberger, in doing that, one, it is an
area that you don't need today, as I understand the testimony.
It is an area that it is--you hope by some, frankly, some wave
of the magic wand, that you access water rights sometime in the
future that as I understand aren't available today, you are
going to limit public access, which the Forest Service has
testified there is public utilization of this area right now,
and more importantly than anything we have heard, is you are
going to limit the Forest Service's capability to help manage
that area for forest fires.
Mr. Rosenberger. Congressman, maybe I could speak to both
of those.
Mr. McInnis. Let me do this. In all fairness, Mr.
Rosenberger, I interrupted Ms. Collins, and I am now detracting
from her time and her statement. Why don't I let her finish,
and then we will come back to you and we will proceed with this
discussion.
I am sorry, Ms. Collins, you may proceed.
Ms. Collins. I just had a couple more things I wanted to
say. In addition, I was going through a couple of these studies
that had been done. An additional study by the Forest Service
in 1988, along with our provincial advisory committee that we
have, an advisory committee of interested parties, we completed
a study and submitted it to Congress at that time, which
recommended that the area be managed under the Northwest Plan,
which is all of those restrictions that I talked about, and
cited two reasons. One, that the Little Sandy River has not
been and currently is not planned to be used to provide
drinking water. But second, that the waters of the Little Sandy
River may be needed to provide for the needs of fish species
being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
And since that time, both the Chinook salmon and the winter
steelhead in the Sandy River Basin have been listed under ESA.
I guess the main point here is that there are many
environment safeguards in place for the Little Sandy River, as
well as other sensitive watersheds in the Pacific Northwest,
and we are interested in discussing the concepts in the bill
with the Committee to see if there is some common ground that
we can't come to within existing authorities, and looking
forward to doing that. Thanks.
Mr. McInnis. Well, Ms. Collins, let me then ask you--
because I am still confused, so you have got to help me.
Ms. Collins. Okay.
Mr. McInnis. If we proceeded with the Congressman's
request, what restrictions does it put on you under your
current management philosophy or what you are currently
managing?
Ms. Collins. Okay. If you can picture this 95,000 acres
that is in the Bull Run Watershed, a portion of that, about, I
don't know, 20 some thousand acres is included in this Little
Sandy portion of that, and we would be adding 2,900. In that,
we already--a portion of that watershed allows public access
and allows some restoration activities, including timber
harvest, which we have not done since 1992 and have no plans to
do, but would like to have the option to do some restoration
for fuels reduction. That is a potential. We have no plans,
again, to do that. But it is a mechanism that will protect the
watershed that we would like to keep intact if possible. So
that is one.
And then the other one, and I really do commend--people are
talking a lot, and I talked to Gary Larson, the Forest
supervisor, last night, who has been working closely with you.
And I think that we all have an understanding of this, but
there are people that do use that for more primitive recreation
opportunities since the rest of the watershed is not open, and
this portion would be--remain open.
Mr. McInnis. Ms. Collins, let me ask you the following
question, then I will go to my colleagues who are anxious to
join the discussion.
Ms. Collins. Okay.
Mr. McInnis. But if we put this bill into place, what
protections, outside of limitation of public access, what other
protections would they need that you don't already provide in
your current management of that area? What is to be gained by
what they want to do other than perhaps stop public access?
Ms. Collins. Well, that is why, I think, when listening to
the testimony, there is a huge opportunity for us to work
together to meet our common interests, because currently with--
and I am not sure when these discussions started, if they came
before the Northwest Forest Plan or not, but with the
protections in the Northwest Forest Plan for this particular
kind of watershed, there is a great deal of resource protection
for water quality as well as wildlife habitat.
Mr. McInnis. That currently exist?
Ms. Collins. Currently exist, yes, very high level.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the Congressman, could you tell me if there is any
opposition from some of the other units of Government that
would be in the Watershed? I don't know how you are exactly
organized.
Mr. Blumenauer. To the best of my knowledge, the counties
and cities that are affected, the county in which it resides
and the others in the area, are united in support of this.
Number one, this is an area that is in transition. I strongly
disagree with the notion that--the Chairman's point that we do
not have access to the water. Just speaking to the Chairman's
point about water rights, we will be happy to provide you with
information.
First of all, there are two dams that are being removed
that were part of a private utility, as part of the
restoration, and whether we think there is a claim for this
municipality itself, there was a much larger area that has been
involved historically. We will provide you with that
documentation, Mr. Chairman. We think that there is a claim
already.
It is also an area where there is serious evolution in the
last 10 years in terms of trying to have species restoration.
The Forest Service has been evolving over time with its
attitude regarding this. This has been an area of fierce
contention for the last 25 years that I have been involved in
Federal Government and local activities. And I do agree with
Ms. Collins' point in terms of it being an evolution. But I do
think there is a strong case to be made, and the overwhelming
public support is in support of this additional protection, and
it has bipartisan support of both our senators, and as I say,
our delegation.
Ms. McCollum. And so from what I am hearing from the Forest
Service, I heard you say, ``We have no plans, we have no plans,
we have no plans'' on many different issues. But I am hearing
from the Congressman and from the person representing the water
works area, that the City of Portland, working with the region,
you are planning for the future so that a crisis does not come
about. Did I hear that correctly, gentlemen?
Mr. Blumenauer. Yes. And this is not water just for the
City of Portland. This is water that is provided to a quarter
of the state's population, and goes--in fact, they are looking
at regionalizing it beyond the 800,000 people that currently
use water from this Bull Run Watershed, and looking for a
cooperative effort that spreads it throughout the metropolitan
area.
Ms. McCollum. And so you need one person to take the lead
on it, one organization, one group to move forward, working
with the other units, and Portland has taken the lead?
Mr. Blumenauer. And to have the highest level of
protection, certainty and management, not differential levels.
I mean, there are some good things, but it is not the best.
This is one of two major unfiltered water systems in the United
States--I think the only other one is in New York--that because
of the purity of it, that has been able to be maintained. So
people in both parties, private sector, public sector, are
incredibly concerned about this, to be able to maintain the
quality and the supply. And if there are details regarding
management of the--it is not just 2,800 acres for forest fire
protection. The City of Portland has an even higher area of
concern for tens of thousands of acres, 65,000, that is in the
Bull Run. So this is an ongoing discussion, and it is an area
where the Forest Service has made a great deal of change in
time, and I appreciate the evolution that they have taken,
where they have learned that actually the local people had some
pretty good concerns and issues, and they have modified their
positions over time, and we appreciate that, and we think we
ought to continue the discussions about fire protection,
because that is something that is not just 2,800 acres. If we
have problems in this watershed, it affects water for 800,000
people, maybe a million people or more, and it is more than
just 2,800 acres.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I really don't have
any questions, other than, as I understand it, this area that
is managed by the Forest Service, is what you call Tier 2
protection, right?
Ms. Collins. I am sorry?
Mr. Simpson. It is a Tier 2 level, you mentioned in your
testimony?
Ms. Collins. Yes, yes. It is a Tier 2 level watershed,
which means it has got extra levels of protection in terms of
buffering streams and that sort of thing for management
activities.
Mr. Simpson. And as I understand it from the testimony,
really, the only two things that we are really talking about
that are different, other than bringing it under single
management, would be access and potential harvest or fuels
reductions, those types of things, timber management activities
that might occur?
Ms. Collins. I would add one more. And that is the point
that I think was made by the last study that was given to
Congress, and that is the concern that the water that is there,
which is fairly limited in supply and quantity anyway, may be
needed in terms of protecting these species that are listed
under ESA.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Ms. Collins. That is the third point.
Mr. Simpson. I will tell you--and Congressman Blumenauer
mentioned it just a minute ago--but if you have got 95,000
acres already under this watershed that you don't have a fire
protection plan for, I would get on it right away, because I
can tell you what forest fires have done to watershed quality
in Idaho and other places, and the damage that has been created
by forest fires. And if you don't do something about having a
fuels reduction program in that area and in this other area,
eventually lightning is going to strike there too.
Mr. Blumenauer. We have had it for 109 years, Congressman.
There is an aggressive program. And in the other 95,000 acres,
there is a higher level of protection, not the Tier 2, Congress
has provided for it. And that is what we want, is the higher
level of protection.
Mr. Simpson. Of forest fire protection?
Mr. Blumenauer. Of water quality overall.
Mr. Simpson. Does that include--in the 95,000 acres that
you are talking about--and I cannot remember the names--but do
you go in and thin forests out there, and reduce fuel loads and
that type of thing, or does any activity occur in that area?
Mr. Rosenberger. The City of Portland and the Forest
Service do have a forest fuels management program, as well as a
forest fire--you know, or a lightning strike, a way of fighting
fires.
One of the things that I would like to clarify, if I can
back up just a second, is that the Bull Run Management Unit is
mostly owned by the Federal Government and it is managed by the
Forest Service, okay, in conjunction with Portland, you know,
for the Bull Run Management portion, so it is under single
management. The issue here is that two-thirds or so is managed
under the provisions of ORCA, and the other one-third of so,
mostly the Little Sandy Watershed, is managed under the
auspices of a Tier 2 forest under the Northwest Forest Plan.
So one of the things that we want to get out of this is a
consistent approach to the entire drainage. That is one of our
objectives.
If I can go over to the side of something else here just
for a second, just to sort of say where things are, because one
of the issues of the Forest Service is the fact that six years
ago or five years ago, in 1996, the results of a regional water
supply plan said that the Little Sandy was down the list of
priorities and would not be the most reasonable thing to
develop for a water supply for the metropolitan area. And that
was in relationship to some of the other sources in the local
area that seem to be more viable.
Well, viability can be ephemeral. Five years later, one of
the highly-touted water sources is questionable in the
community relative to source water quality and community
acceptance. ESA issues arise on some of the other more highly-
rated potential sources that came out of the study. So these
things kind of move around, and it seems like it is prudent to
protect, to the highest degree possible, a potential water
source like the Little Sandy, to be protected as a potential
drinking water supply, even at the same time as the expectation
is that it is part of the comprehensive approach to address ESA
issues in conjunction with the management of the Bull Run at
the same time as we meet the water supply needs of the
metropolitan community.
Mr. Simpson. Then the only increased protection that you
are really talking about is access by people, isn't it? I mean,
you said you had a forest management plan and a fire plan in
the other area, working with the Forest Service and the City of
Portland and so forth, so really what you are talking about is
just people access?
Mr. Rosenberger. We are talking about people access as well
as not harvesting timber, as in the rest of the Bull Run
Management Unit under ORCA, so that it is consistent with that
level of protection.
Mr. Simpson. And if they have no plans to harvest timber,
then really we are just talking about--I mean, if they did not
harvest timber, then it is just access?
Mr. Rosenberger. Well, Congressman, I think that what I
would say is what you end up, when you put this in law, is you
have certainty. It was 1992, I think, the last time that there
was timber harvest in the Little Sandy Basin and that
watershed. That is nine years ago. We have been using that
basin for 109 years. We are planning for the next 109 years.
And so what happened in the last nine may not be the best
precursor of the future. So from our standpoint, if we can get
certainty, if we can get something in the law, we have a much
better foundation on which to make our strategic planning.
Mr. Simpson. Have you done active fuels reduction in the
Bull Run area?
Mr. Rosenberger. Congressman, how active that is and how
detailed it is is not something--I do not know the answer to
that. I cannot describe that. I can provide that to you. Would
that be helpful?
Mr. Simpson. Yes, it would.
Mr. Rosenberger. Okay.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rosenberger. That goes beyond my technical ken.
Mr. McInnis. I thank the panel, and I also thank the
Committee. As the Committee knows, if you have any further
questions, you can ask the witness. We will hold the record
open for 10 days for additional testimony.
The panel is excused and the Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material supplied for the record follows:]
1. Letter submitted for the record by Denise Boggs,
Executive Director, Utah Environmental Congress, on H.R. 451;
2. Letter submitted for the record by Frank Gearhart,
President, Citizens Interested in Bull Run, Inc., on H.R. 427;
and
3. Letter submitted for the record by Ivan Maluski,
American Lands Alliance, et al., on H.R. 427.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1931.038