**Statement of**

**Mark Rey**

**Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment**

**United States Department of Agriculture**

**Before the**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests\
Energy and Natural Resources Committee**

**United States Senate**

**May 3, 2007**

**Concerning**

**S. 647: The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007;**

**and**

**H.R. 356: To remove certain restrictions on the Mammoth Community
Water District's ability to use certain property acquired by that
District from the United States**

**\
**Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to today to provide the Department's
views on the bills which are on the agenda today.

**S. 647: The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007**

The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007 provides
management direction for Mount Hood and its surrounding landscapes that
emphasizes the importance of wilderness, recreation, and forest health,
as well as cultural, historical, environmental and scenic values.

The Administration recognizes that the bill's sponsors have conducted a
considerable amount of outreach and worked with a number of communities
of interest including local and state governmental entities, tribes,
profit and non-profit organizations and individuals in the development
of S. 647.

Last year, the Administration testified in hearings on two bills
concerning the management of lands in and around Mount Hood: S. 3854 and
H.R. 5025. We are gratified that several of the suggestions offered at
that time have been considered in S. 647, and it is preferable to last
year's Senate bill. However, we still have critical concerns regarding
several provisions which precludes our support for the bill as written.

Several of the provisions continue to be highly prescriptive and
limiting, and we believe, could benefit from additional collaboration
among all stakeholders. While we strongly support public involvement and
community collaboration, the concept of legislating management direction
is problematic. We find the land exchange provisions and several of the
wilderness designations to be especially troubling. We would like to
work with this committee and the sponsors to ensure that existing legal
and cooperative frameworks for decision-making continue to be honored as
we seek to meet the goals of the legislation.

**Overview**

S. 647 would expand the National Wilderness Preservation System and the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and designate national
recreation areas, and a special resources management unit. It would
provide for the retention of fees from recreation and other special uses
and establish a recreational working group.

In addition, the bill would direct the Secretary to work with State,
local, and other Federal governments to develop an integrated
multi-modal transportation plan, and, with the State of Oregon, study
the feasibility of establishing a gondola connection and a multi-modal
transportation center located near Government Camp.

The bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a Forest
Stewardship Assessment to address forest health, to establish Memoranda
of Understanding for watershed management between the Forest Service and
irrigation districts or municipalities and to study long-term biomass
available on the Mount Hood National Forest. The bill would direct the
Secretary to establish priority-use areas and provide for the gathering
of first foods by members of Indian tribes with treaty-reserved
gathering rights.

The bill would require the Secretary to enter into specified land
exchanges with private landowners and directs the Secretary to publish a
prospectus to operate a ski area and inn that would be acquired in an
exchange.

**Analysis**

The Administration supports many of the concepts and provisions of this
bill, including some wilderness and wild and scenic river designations,
and the attention focused on recreation, watershed and forest health and
transportation issues on and around Mount Hood.

We would like to work with the committee and sponsors to correct
technical items and resolve concerns regarding the legislation
including: 1) effects of some of the wilderness proposals; 2) special
use fee retention; 3) restrictive management requirements of the Crystal
Springs Watershed Management Unit; 4) the requirement to enter into a
land exchange that, in our consideration, is not in the public interest;
and 5) the requirement to undertake procedures required by the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other laws for
a legislated land exchange when the statute leaves no discretion to take
into consideration the information obtained by these procedures.

The bill also authorizes approximately \$2 million in appropriations and
many new management activities without identifying sources of funding or
proposed offsets. It requires some 20 different types of plans, studies,
and management activities without consideration for ongoing forest or
regional priorities. It sets multiple timelines that are unachievable
given the volume of work, current staffing, and requirements for third
party participation.

**Wilderness**

S. 647 proposes to designate approximately 128,800 new acres of
wilderness on the Mount Hood National Forest, and about 1,700 acres of
wilderness on adjacent lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The Administration would support the designation of wilderness for areas
that are consistent with the hallmarks of wilderness described in the
Wilderness Act of 1964 -- areas dominated by the forces of nature, with
primeval character and natural conditions that contrast with developed
lands and offering outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive
and unconfined recreation.

The best opportunities for achieving these conditions are within those
proposed areas that are contiguous to existing wilderness areas. The
additions that, in our opinion, could enhance existing wilderness areas
include approximately 59,000 acres consisting of the following: Bull of
the Woods (5,400 acres), Mount Hood (2,000 acres), Salmon-Huckleberry
(7,700 acres), Roaring River (31,000 acres), and Gorge Face (12,500
acres).

We would like to work with the committee to seek agreement on mapping
changes that would provide more manageable boundary locations and
enhance the overall wilderness character of the proposed wildernesses.
We also seek the flexibility in legislative language to make minor
boundary adjustments prior to survey to exclude non-conforming uses such
as power lines, roads and existing permitted operations. In addition, we
understand that some of the maps referenced in the legislation have been
modified since the bill was first introduced, and bill language should
be amended to reflect the changes.

We have specific concerns with other proposed wilderness designation
including many of the smaller, isolated areas. These areas are currently
managed for values and uses that are inconsistent with wilderness
designation, including motorized access. Examples of proposed wilderness
with limited or impaired wilderness character would include areas close
to I-84 and Highways 35 and 26, and small extrusions and peninsulas
extending from existing wilderness and from some of the proposed new
wilderness. We believe these proposed areas would be adversely impacted
from adjacent activities or from activities associated with the
continuation of existing uses, such as mountain biking and motorized
camping. We would like to work with the committee to explore
alternatives that could meet the intent of protecting these areas for
future generations short of wilderness designation.

S. 647 proposes new wilderness within the boundary of the Columbia River
Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) designated by Congress in 1986. Most
of the area within the CRGNSA covered under the bill is adjacent to
urbanized areas and significant infrastructure (such as the cities of
Hood River, Bonneville, and Cascade Locks, the unincorporated
communities of Dodson and Warrendale, Bonneville Power Administration's
high voltage power lines that traverse and transect the Gorge,
Interstate 84, and the Union Pacific Rail Line). We believe that
adjacent land uses, in conjunction with special provisions for existing
rights such as the Army Corps of Engineers permit related to Bonneville
Dam, could potentially conflict with and compromise the wilderness
character of the proposed Gorge Face Wilderness. The CRGNSA designation
has been highly successful in protecting and enhancing the scenic,
cultural, and natural and recreation resources of the area while
accommodating economic development consistent with these purposes.

Section 106 would require the Secretary to construct a system of
defensible fuel profile zones. Significant intergovernmental agency and
community involvement has resulted in the development of the City of
Cascade Locks Community and the Clackamas County Community Wildfire
Protection Plans, completed in 2005. Implementation is being planned by
the Forest Service and these partners at this time. However, it would be
difficult to implement the proposed zones in a manner consistent with
the Mount Hood National Forest Management Plan. The area around
Government Camp is spotted owl habitat. Previous fuel reduction projects
in this vicinity have been limited because effective treatment would
change the stand composition, conflicting with spotted owl habitat. More
flexibility in bill language would address this concern

**Wild & Scenic River Designations**

The Department supports the wild and scenic river designations proposed
by S. 647, with the exception of the Fifteen Mile Creek and the East
Fork Hood River. The former did not rise to a level of significance for
a wild and scenic river eligibility study during the Land and Resource
Management Planning process and we believe it still does not merit
further consideration. The East Fork Hood River was determined not a
suitable addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in the
Mount Hood Land and Resource Management Plan. The paragraphs amending
Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act should not be numbered,
and several river-specific proposals require further clarification. We
look forward to working with the committee to address these concerns.

The Forest Service is also concerned about its ability to protect wild
and scenic river values with regard to particular wild and scenic river
boundary locations; the language relative to water rights and flow
requirements; culverts; and treatment of State highways. We prefer that
the boundaries be adjusted to exclude potentially nonconforming
activities to protect the values associated with these special
resources. We would like to work with the committee on amendments to
address these concerns.

**Recreation**

Title IX of the bill would, for a 10 year-period, provide for retention
of land use fees from special use authorizations, recreation residences,
resorts (including winter recreation resorts), communication uses,
linear rights-of-way, and other special uses. Revenues would be held in
a special account for expenditure toward a variety of purposes, such as
installation, repair, maintenance, and enhancement related to visitor
enjoyment, access, and health and safety.

We recognize the importance of outdoor recreation to the social and
economic well-being of the Mount Hood region today and into the future.
We share the sponsors' concerns with the challenges of managing complex
and often conflicting recreation values and uses. However, the new fee
retention authority for the Mount Hood National Forest as specified in
the legislation is objectionable. The inclusion of new authority for
retention and expenditure of land use fees would result in a loss of
Treasury receipts which are used to fund ongoing programs.

The proposed legislation would provide for the establishment of a Mount
Hood National Forest Recreational Working Group that would be exempt
from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This working group would
provide advice on planning and implementing recreational enhancements on
the Mount Hood National Forest, including advice on how the retained
fees should be expended. The FLREA already requires the creation of a
Recreational Advisory Committee, with similar membership. We believe
creation of any additional advisory council would be administratively
burdensome and costly and would like to work with the Committee to
develop a means to address the objectives of this provision.

S. 647 would designate a Mount Hood National Recreation Area (NRA). The
Administration supports this designation, which recognizes the variety
of recreational activities that visitors currently enjoy in the proposed
area. We also appreciate the significant changes in language reflected
in this bill in response to Administration concerns with language in
previous versions. We suggest that some of the smaller isolated tracts
now proposed for wilderness would be better protected as additions to
the proposed national recreation areas as an alternative to wilderness
designation.

The bill proposes only the Mount Hood NRA, although the maps reference
two additional national recreation areas: the Fifteenmile Creek NRA, and
the Shellrock Mountain NRA. As mapped, the Mount Hood NRA overlaps the
proposed Badger Creek Wilderness (3,004 acres), the proposed Barlow
Butte Wilderness Area (1,973 acres) and the proposed Twin Lakes
Wilderness Area (6,359 acres). This dual designation would prove
difficult to manage and could also be confusing to the public. We
suggest that national recreation area designation for all of these areas
is most appropriate. The bill should be amended to reflect the
designation of the three separate national recreation areas referenced
on the maps.

**Transportation**

The Administration supports collaboratively participating with the State
of Oregon, local governments, and Federal departments in the development
of a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation strategy for the Mount
Hood region. We do not support language contained in Section 402(e),
which assigns responsibility for the transportation plan to the
Secretary, or Section 402(f) which authorizes the appropriation of \$2
million to carry out the section. Existing funding mechanisms under
section 1117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)(P.L. 109-59)
are already available to the Oregon Department of Transportation to
address transportation planning. Indeed, the Mount Hood National Forest
has recently secured \$100,000 of funding under section 3021 of
SAFETEA-LU for the State to begin work on preliminary planning. The
transportation plan will include a review and compilation of all
existing studies related to transportation in the Mount Hood region.

In addition to the transportation plan, the bill would require the
Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing a
gondola connecting Timberline Lodge to Government Camp and an
inter-modal transportation center in close proximity to Government Camp.
Given the complexity of conducting this study, we suggest that the
Department of Transportation has the appropriate expertise to carry it
out.

A 2001 gondola feasibility study conducted with funding from the Federal
Highway Administration estimated the cost to construct a gondola from
Government Camp to Timberline Lodge ranged from \$21 to \$26 million,
and estimated the cost of the gondola from Government Camp to Mount Hood
Meadows ranged from \$37 to \$56 million. We do not believe another
study of the gondola feasibility would be needed and we would recommend
including the completed study as part of the regional transportation
planning process.

Section 404 authorizes the Secretary to provide State and Private
Forestry program grants to Cascade Locks and Hood River County for the
burial of power lines, but the use of these funds is inconsistent with
the purposes of the State and Private Forestry program. Section 405
allows for activities not normally permitted in designated wilderness
and wild and scenic rivers to repair, realign, expand capacity, and
carry out other activities for Highway 35 and any other existing State
highway. We would like to work with the sponsors to adjust the proposed
wilderness and wild and scenic river boundaries to reduce the need for
these types of activities within these designations while still allowing
the State to respond to unforeseen emergencies.

**Forest & Watershed Stewardship**

We support the objectives of the Forest Stewardship Assessment in both
bills to determine forest health needs. The Forest Service is currently
developing an integrated vegetation management approach similar to the
approach provided for in the legislation. The ability to use existing
information and processes would expedite developing a forest stewardship
assessment consistent with other agency efforts. However, the
legislation requires commencement of implementation of the stewardship
assessment projects within a limited time frame, and the Department is
concerned this requirement will redirect other available funds allocated
to meet higher priority needs. The bill, if enacted, therefore would
require the Forest Service to utilize existing funds and displace other,
more critical, ongoing work. Again, we would like to work with the
committee to address this concern.

We support the concept of assessing the amount of long-term sustainable
biomass available in the Mount Hood National Forest. The Forest Service
has already begun a study as part of a recent memorandum of
understanding signed by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and
others to analyze the supply of biomass for a tribal co-generation
plant. The bill restricts biomass material to by-products from forest
restoration activities. We would like to work with the sponsors to
expand the definition of biomass to be consistent with the language in
the memorandum of understanding with the Confederated Tribes of Warm
Springs.

**Local and Tribal Relations**

The bills would encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with
the Tribes, Federal and State entities, and local communities. We
support this general direction. We also support the requirement to
identify, establish, develop, and manage priority-use areas for
gathering of first foods by member of Indian tribes with treaty reserved
rights (as provided in section 802(a) of S. 647.

**Land Conveyances**

We appreciate the sponsors' efforts to resolve long-standing conflicts
on Mount Hood with the Cooper Spur- Government Camp land exchange
proposal, as well as the changes in the bill to address some of the
valuation-related concerns expressed in previous testimony.

While we support the direction in S. 647 to use nationally recognized
appraisal standards, the Administration objects to the bill's
requirements that depart from those standards. The Administration also
objects to the additional requirements that the date of valuation be the
spring of 2005 and that appraisal be approved by other parties, namely
the County and Mt. Hood Meadows . To protect the public's investment,
appraisals performed for any proposed exchange should be done as close
to the date of transaction as is feasible. Approval of appraisals is
normally solely at the discretion of the Secretary. Mount Hood Meadows
and Clackamas County should have the opportunity to provide the
appraisers with market information, but should not share approval
authority with the Secretary because of their potential interest in the
outcome. We have a number of suggestions for improving the land exchange
proposal.

First, we recommend reconsideration of the requirements that the Forest
Service would take possession of an aging infrastructure, solicit a new
concessionaire, and be prohibited from subsequent land or facility
adjustments, because all could be problematic.

Second, we suggest consideration of alternative exchange lands. The 770
acres of private lands offered to the United States at Cooper Spur do
not have national forest characteristics. They are heavily disturbed,
fragmented and interspersed with roads, power-lines, and subdivisions.

Third, we recommend re-evaluation of the unique resource implications of
privatizing the two parcels of land at Government Camp. We have other
concerns regarding the Cooper Spur land exchange process and would like
to work with the committee on amendments to address these concerns.

The Administration supports the proposed exchange with the Port of
Cascade Locks to improve the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. The
administration does not object to the Hunchback Mountain exchange with
Clackamas County. We note that this exchange would require a legislated
adjustment to the Mt. Hood National Forest Boundary and we would work
with the committee to address this.

Sec. 503(f)(1) provides that it is the intent of Congress that the
Secretary complete all legal and regulatory processes required for the
exchange of Federal land and the non-Federal land in 16 months. This
timeframe is unachievable given the applicable requirements for
environmental studies, public participation, evaluation of alternatives,
Endangered Species Act consultation, additional third-party consultation
requirements in this legislation, and the limitations in sharing costs
with the proponents, as well as conflicts with the Region's existing
priorities for critical land exchange work.

In addition, the requirement that provisions with legislated outcomes,
such as the land exchanges, be subject to participatory environmental
laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act is not consistent
with the requirements of such laws since there is no ability for the
agency or the public to effect adjustments to the proposal because the
outcome is specified in the legislation.

The Administration could support relevant conveyances if bill language
is amended to address these concerns.

**Summary**

In summary Mr. Chairman, while we are encouraged by the sponsor's
efforts on behalf of the Mount Hood National Forest, the Administration
has significant concerns with S. 647 as presently written. Nevertheless,
we see a great potential, working with the many stakeholders of the
region and beyond, to meet the bills objectives to protect for future
generations the recreation opportunities and resource values of the
Mount Hood National Forest. We believe we can accomplish these
objectives using existing authorities as well as some of the provisions
of the bill. We strongly support negotiated agreements on land
management and we are committed to continuing to work on the sections
where we have concerns.

**H.R. 356: "To remove certain restrictions on the Mammoth Community
Water District's ability to use certain property acquired by that
District from the United States"**

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this bill, which
would remove use restrictions included in the patent the Mammoth County
\[California\] Water District received when it purchased approximately
25 acres of land from the U.S. Forest Service \[Inyo National Forest\]
in 1987. The lands were purchased at market value by the District for a
community sewage treatment facility, which up to that time had been
authorized under a Forest Service Special Use Permit. The District has
since upgraded their sewage treatment system, and their aeration ponds
are no longer necessary. The District wishes to convert these ponds to a
more suitable community use that would be compatible with the adjacent
sewage treatment facility, but the use restriction from the patent must
first be lifted.

The Department supports the bill.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes my testimony.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.