STATEMENT OF

MARK REY

UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

CONCERNING

S.2709, THE NATIONAL FOREST RESTORATION ACT OF 2004;

AND S.2723, THE LEWIS AND CLARK MT.HOOD WILDERNESS ACT

SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in order to
provide the Department's views on S. 2709, the "National Forest
Restoration Act of 2004" and S. 2723, the "Lewis and Clark Mt. Hood
Wilderness Act".

[S.2709, the "National Reforestation Act of 2004"]{.underline}

S. 2709 authorizes an increase in the annual transfers to the
Reforestation Trust Fund from \$30 million per year to \$90 million per
year. The bill also authorizes these funds be used in areas in need of
reforestation that have been moderately or highly affected by fire or
severely affected by a non-fire natural disturbance event, and
establishes timeframes for completing reforestation treatments following
these events. Finally, S. 2709 authorizes the Secretary to obligate up
to 10 percent of the annual expenditures from the Fund to enter into
cooperative agreements with colleges and universities to conduct
research to promote or enhance reforestation.

While USDA supports the objective of S.2709 to emphasize prompt
reforestation in areas affected by fires and other disturbance events,
we can not support the bill because. we generally do not support
expanded spending through a mandatory account within the Treasury.
Rather, we believe that post-fire restoration efforts, similar to fire
suppression and burned area emergency rehabilitation, are prudently
budgeted for through discretionary funds subject to annual review by the
Congress during the appropriations process. We are also concerned the
bill would limit our flexibility to utilize the Reforestation Trust Fund
for the same types of reforestation activities currently authorized.

USDA also does not support language in Section 5 which allows the
Secretary to obligate up to 10 % of the sums expended from the
Reforestation Trust Fund to enter into cooperative agreements with
colleges and universities to conduct research to promote or enhance
reforestation because it is overly restrictive. We believe that Federal
and private research organizations also have significant capacity to
conduct this type of research. These organizations, when partnering with
colleges and universities, can jointly contribute to increases in
effectiveness and efficiency of reforestation efforts. The Forest
Service Research and Development branch funded over \$31 million for
cooperative research with colleges and universities in Fiscal Year 2003.
We would like to work with the Committee to built and expand upon this
base to include a variety of partners with research expertise.

[S.2723, the "Lewis and Clark Mt. Hood Wilderness Act"]{.underline}

S. 2723 would direct numerous aspects of management of the Mt. Hood
National Forest in northwest Oregon. The bill\'s provisions include
designations of wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other
special areas, and specific directions to carry out a thinning program
to promote forest health. The bill also would establish a national
commission and direct a land exchange involving the Bureau of Land
Management.

While we agree with some of the concepts and provision embodied in S.
2723, we also have concerns with some aspects of the legislation.
Because this bill covers a variety of topics, I will address my comments
to each title individually.

Title I would designate additions to four existing wilderness areas,
Mount Hood, Mark O. Hatfield, Badger Creek and Salmon-Huckleberry, as
components of the National Wilderness Preservation System that would be
known as the Lewis and Clark Mt. Hood Wilderness Areas. USDA can support
some designation of additional Wilderness within the Mt. Hood National
Forest. We are concerned, however, about the effects the proposed
legislation described in Title I, as depicted in the July 2004 map,
would have on the overall management of many of the programs on both the
Mt. Hood NF and the CRGNSA.

We also would need to clarify whether the bill would require the CRGNSA
Act to be amended. The CRGNSA is co-managed by the Forest Service and
the Columbia River Gorge Commission. After a

3-year effort and over 60 public meetings, the CRGNSA Management Plan
has been revised, and it appears to us that this legislation, without
clarification, could cause us to reopen that plan for public review and
comment.

Let me speak to some of our overall concerns with the proposed
legislation, then point out some specifics about each proposed
wilderness addition.

First, the areas proposed as wilderness would limit the existing array
of developed and dispersed recreation activities as well as create
difficulties in meeting total recreation demand by forcing displacement
of non-wilderness users to fewer acres of non-wilderness land.

Second, we are concerned that the wilderness character of much of the
proposed wilderness as depicted on the map would be significantly and
negatively impacted by existing rights and structures. These areas are
close to I-84 and Highways 35 and 26, which are heavily used for both
developed and dispersed recreation activities, including campgrounds,
ski areas, and snowmobile areas. Additionally, there are existing rights
that must be protected in the proposed wilderness, including access to
private lands, water rights, power lines, an electronic site, tribal
rights, and grazing allotments.

Third, the small size and shapes of some of the proposed wilderness
additions would be impacted by adjacent activities which would limit the
free play of natural processes expected to occur in wilderness. The
opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, a
hallmark of the wilderness experience, would be diminished. Unlike most
existing wilderness, much of the wilderness proposed in this legislation
would be entirely dominated by impacts from external, adjacent
activities.

Now I will address briefly each of the proposed wilderness additions.

[Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness Additions]{.underline}

The northern boundary of the proposed additions to the Mark O. Hatfield
Wilderness is very close to the Historic Columbia River Highway and
appears to barely skirt adjacent power lines and developments at
Multnomah Falls, Wahkeena Falls, Oneonta Gorge, and Horsetail Falls.
Nonconforming structures in the proposed addition include the Multnomah
Falls observation platform and Sherrard View Point. Recreation and
others uses would be affected: several miles of designated mountain bike
trails would be closed; directional signs would be removed; existing
paved and surfaced trails would have to be restored to native surfacing.
The area would continue to be heavily used and allocation systems would
be considered to meet wilderness standards. The proposed project to
restore the unique pine-oak ecosystem and reduce hazardous fuels within
the McCall Point addition and stream habitat enhancement projects in
Herman Creek would be inconsistent with meeting wilderness purposes and
would not occur if these lands were designated.

[Mount Hood Wilderness Additions]{.underline}

There are a number of activities inconsistent with wilderness purposes
that take place in the proposed Mt. Hood wilderness additions. The Tilly
Jane addition would affect motorized winter access to the Cloud Cap Inn
historic site and appears to include a number of nonconforming
structures. Vegetative and other management needed to protect these
historic structures would be discontinued, as well as, existing use by
large organized groups. The addition would foreclose the opportunity to
expand ski areas by including approximately 4,000 acres of land
currently designated for winter recreation in the Mt. Hood Land
Management Plan as new wilderness, including 1,200 acres in the Cooper
Spur Ski area. Wilderness designation would conflict with motorized use
which is needed to access the powerline that serves the Mt. Hood Meadows
Ski area and to existing and proposed fish habitat restoration projects
adjacent to the Zigzag River.

[Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness Additions]{.underline}

The proposed Mirror Lake addition contains nonconforming structures such
as bridges and staircases, which provides for user safety on the most
popular trail on the Mt. Hood National Forest. Other proposed additions
to the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness include parking for recreation
residences and a water tank supporting a community water system. The
proposed Roaring River addition includes a power line for the Three Lynx
hydroelectric project.

Existing recreation activities that would be precluded are mountain
biking, snowmobiling, and four-wheel driving. An existing developed
campground appears to be included in the proposal and would need to be
removed. Fire lookouts would not be available for public rental.
Existing recreation at areas such as Mirror Lake and Twin Lakes commonly
includes groups larger than the 12 person group size limit in existing
wilderness on the Mt.Hood National Forest. The existing high level of
use may require a use allocation system to meet wilderness standards.
The permitted commercial mountain bike operations would be terminated.
Present vegetative management for huckleberry enhancement as per
agreement with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs would be
precluded in wilderness.

[Badger Creek Wilderness Additions]{.underline}

The proposed Eightmile Meadow and Mill Creek additions are part of the
City of Dalles municipal watershed. The proposed Lower White River
Addition includes a grazing allotment, and the proposed Bonney Butte
addition includes a permitted hawk banding station that attracts large
groups to watch migrating hawks.

The Department believes these existing rights and uses are needed to
support a wide array of resource protections as well as valued and
important goods and services to the public. We do not support the
changes that would be required if these areas were to be designated
Wildlerness. We have identified areas that USDA considers suitable for
consideration as wilderness designation. We would like to work with the
Committee, the delegation and the people who use these forests on
amendments that reflect more appropriate boundaries for wilderness
designations.

Title I also would require the Forest Service to construct defensible
fuel safety zones between the wilderness boundary and two adjacent
communities. Community Wildfire Protection Plans are underway for
several communities adjacent to Mt. Hood and CRGNSA and we would like to
work within the framework of these plans to incorporate the bills
directions and communities to help implement these plan decisions.

Title II would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by adding portions
of the Hood River, the Zig Zag River, Eagle Creek and Fifteenmile Creek.
The Department is generally not opposed to most of these additions. We
want to point out that the Middle Fork of the Hood River, the Zig Zag
River and Eagle Creek were identified in the Forest plan as eligible for
Wild and Scenic River designation, but suitability was never determined.

Fifteenmile Creek was not evaluated for Wild and Scenic River
designation in the Forest Plan. Habitat restoration work conducted along
about four miles of this stream is likely to effect a designation as a
wild segment of a Wild and Scenic River, but the river could be eligible
and suitable for designation as either a scenic or recreation river
depending on the results of an evaluation.

Mr. Chairman, if the Committee desires we would offer to complete
additional screening for these recommended stream sections and provide a
final report of the results back to the Committee prior to enactment.

We do not support inclusion of the East Fork of the Hood River which was
evaluated for Wild and Scenic River suitability in the Mt. Hood Land and
Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. It
was found not suitable due to issues related to Mt.Hood Meadows Ski
Area, particularly regarding road maintenance (plowing, sanding,
de-icing) and operation of the ski area's sewage treatment plant.

Title III would establish a National Commission on Urban Forests. In
1993, the Forest Service established the Urban National Forest Coalition
(UNFC), a working group composed of Forest Supervisors of urban national
forests, as well as Forest Service Research and Development, and State
and Private Forestry. The coalition has the ability to outreach among
universities and communities to identify and work to resolve common
issues affecting the management of urban National Forests.

Furthermore, the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council
is composed of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The
primary function of the Council has been to make recommendations to the
Secretary regarding cost-share grants for urban and community forestry
projects. But, the Council is also charged under Section 9(g) of the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act to make recommendations to the
Secretary and to the Congress for improving the status of the Nation\'s
urban and community forests. The Department believes that these two
existing entities could effectively perform the responsibilities
enumerated in this title and does not support the establishment a third
national organization as called for in the bill.

Title IV would require the Secretary to identify a Mt. Hood National
Forest Southside Winter Recreation Area. USDA is not opposed to
specially designated recreation areas on the Mt. Hood NF. Management
Area A11 of the Forest plan is already designated as Winter Recreation
Area. We would like to work with the Committee on amendments to assure
the area defined in Title IV is compatible with current and planned uses
including mechanized and motorized access.

Title V would establish the Mt. Hood Pedaler's Demonstration Experiment
Area that, while not designated as wilderness, would be managed in
accordance with the Wilderness Act, with the exception that mountain
bikes would be allowed to operate on designated trails within the area.
The Department does not support of the establishment of the Mountain
Biking Pilot Project. We believe there are other alternatives to better
meet mountain biking needs for the forest and would like to work with
the Committee on amendments that would address this issue. Moreover, we
oppose the funding mechanism proposed for this area. For example, our
experience with the Recreation Fee Demonstration program has shown that
public support is directly associated with the reinvestment of fees
where they are collected and not shifted to other areas.

Title VI would authorize the Secretary to provide funds to counties to
bury power lines within or adjacent to wilderness areas on the Mt. Hood
NF. It is unclear what power lines are intended here, but cost,
technology and environmental impacts may prohibit this type of activity.
Regardless, maintenance of both buried and overhead power lines requires
vehicle access, occasionally access by heavy construction equipment.
While we agree with the sponsor that power lines may be visually
inconsistent with wilderness, preserving wilderness character and
attributes would also be difficult with the access and motorized
equipment use necessary for maintenance of buried lines. We would like
to work with the Committee on amendments to resolve this issue.

Title VI also would authorize funds for counties to replace 4 culverts
on wild and scenic river segments. We are concerned by the apparent
waiver of Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for the
replacement of culverts in Section 602 and 603 of this title as well as
Section 902 in Title IX. Limiting the ability of the Forest Service to
evaluate a culvert or bridge as a water resources project may limit the
protection intended in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We would like to
clarify this with the Committee.

Title VII of S. 2723 proposes a land exchange between Clackamas County,
Oregon and the Federal government. It is our understanding that the
intent is to complete this exchange with the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The BLM would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
the Committee on amendments to clarify a number of issues related to
this proposed exchange. First, the legislation needs to specify which
acres of Federal land and Clackamas County lands are intended for the
exchange. If the lands intended for this proposed exchange are BLM "O&C"
lands, under the Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield
Management Act (Public Law 75-405) this could complicate any proposed
exchanged and we urge the sponsors to consider these implications.
Furthermore, it is important that the lands involved in any exchange be
of equal value and be subject to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisition. Finally, the BLM would like the opportunity to
develop a map to accurately portray this proposed exchange.

Title VIII would require a highly prescriptive forest health thinning
program for plantation second growth stands to produce timber for
primary and secondary wood products, and restore biological diversity
and structural complexity to young managed stands for a period of ten
years. The bill would define "old growth" as groves and trees that are
at least 120 years old or previously unmanaged. This bill would mandate
targets for pre-commercial thinning and commercial Westside matrix
thinning. Additionally, the bill would prescribe forest treatments for
Eastside thinning.

USDA supports active forest management, where appropriate, under
standards and guidelines established in the Mt. Hood Forest plan as
amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, subject to available
appropriations. Our existing statutes, including the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act recently enacted with the leadership of this committee,
provide us adequate authority to provide treatment where it is needed,
and the Department is strongly opposed to the provisions contained in
Title VIII.

Thinning treatments under section 801 could occur only in plantation
second growth stands, as defined by the bill, where previous harvest
removed more than 90 percent of the overstory of the original stand and
that are more than 5 acres in size. The Mount Hood National Forest has
young natural stands that have arisen following wildfire, where no
harvesting occurred following the burn, but forested stands have since
been established in these areas. Similarly, the Forest has areas where
young stands in need of treatment have been established where less than
90 percent of the overstory was removed by the harvest operation,
particularly where trees were left to meet wildlife objectives for snag
retention, as well as small areas less than 5 acres in size that would
benefit from a thinning treatment. Each of these categories of young
stands would be excluded from treatment under this section.

Section 801(b) of S. 2723 imposes a new definition of old growth that
appears to be inconsistent with existing biological definitions for the
late successional forests common to the Mt. Hood National Forest and
elsewhere in the bioregion. The proposed definition focuses solely on
age, ignoring other important ecological attributes of old-growth such
as canopy layers, presence of snags, and presence of coarse woody
debris.

The proposed legislation would classify any stand not previously managed
as "old growth" regardless of age. The proposed legislation would
prohibit treatment of these areas under the auspices of protecting 'old
growth,' regardless of whether old-growth values were present. For
example, on the Clackamas River District, 80-year old stands
encompassing about 1,000 acres that resulted from a burn (not a timber
sale) would be considered old-growth under the legislation because they
have not been previously managed.

Section 801(c) would establish new criteria for selecting contractors,
giving preference to local contractors. The Department supports job
creation in the communities surrounding Mt. Hood. This language would
appear to limit competition, and narrow opportunities, in the existing
small business community, which includes minority and women-owned
businesses, but which lies beyond the state. In the case of timber sale
contracts, "local" sale purchasers are very limited due to the mill
closures which occurred in the past decade. Bidders now come from all
over Oregon and Washington and purchase logs that may go to 3 or 4
different mills for processing. The Department believes language
submitted in Section 313 of the President's FY 2005 Budget provides a
better approach, and ensures a suitable balance between local preference
and appropriate open and fair competition.

Section 802 requires the Mount Hood National Forest to complete 5,000
acres of pre-commercial thinning annually for the next decade. Section
803 requires thinning 1,200 acres in lands defined as "matrix" under the
Northwest Forest Plan. We believe forest managers should retain the
flexibility to set priorities

to accomplish Forest plan objectives in an annual program of work and,
therefore, do not support the statutory establishment of these
activities.

Section 804 provides for thinning areas on the Eastside of the Mt. Hood
National Forest to move stands into 'the natural range of variability'.
It prohibits the removal of all large and old trees, but does not
specify the criteria for determining trees that would qualify as either
'large' or 'old'. Such restrictions may make it impossible, under this
section, to remove larger or older trees that are infected with
diseases, such as root rots or heavy mistletoe infestations, and thus
preclude the overriding objective of improving forest health.
Furthermore, requirements for the retention of all size classes would
conflict with objectives of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

Title IX contains several miscellaneous sections, three of which
(901,903,904) cover previous existing rights. We suggest again that
compromised wilderness character could be avoided by changing the
wilderness boundaries to exclude ongoing uses.

Section 905 would authorize the retention of certain fees collected on
the Mt. Hood NF. USDA supports revenue retention for special use fees
agency-wide, but not on a forest by forest basis.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions from you or the rest of the Committee members.