FORFST SERVICE'S MANAGEMENT POUCIES AND 

ECOREGION ASSESSMENTS 

OVERSIGHT HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

Al~D LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

FOREST SERVICE POLICIES FOR RIVER MANAGEMENT 

OF THE GREEN RIVER AND THE SNAKE RIVER 

APRIL 30, 1996-WASHINGTON, DC 

FOREST SERVICE ECOREGION ASSESSMENTS 

25-618 cc 

MAY 21,1996-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-83 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-053447-X 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, Califolrnia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Viq~nia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, CalifornilJ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL KlSH, Chief of Staff 

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE A. KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AJ'l"D LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona Samoa 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

WES COOLEY, Oregon FRANK PALLONE, JR., T1NEW,JERSEY 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CARLOS A. ROMERO-BP..RCELO, Puerto 

LINDA SMITH, Washington Rico 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Staff Director/ Counsel 

A."'NE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff 

RICK HEALY, Democratic Legislative Staff 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT POLICIES 

Hearing held April 30, 1996 .................. ................................................................ . Statements of Members: Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho ........................ . Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah, and Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands ................... . Statements of witnesses: 

Bailey, Richard, Executive Director, Hells Canyon Preservation Council .. . Prepared statement ............................ .... ............... ................................... . Bentz, Darrel, Intermountain Excursions and Bentz Boats, Lewiston, 

Idaho ............................................................................................................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Bowers, Richard J., Conservation Director, American Whitewater Affiliation .............................................................................................................. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . 

Coll~~;:::N·s~:J!~~i~~~~: .. ~~~ ~ .. ~~~~ .. ~~~~:.~~~~~.~~~ ~.' .. ~ .. :::::: 

Egbert, Harold, President, Green River Outfliters and Guides Association, Dutch John, Utah ................................................................................ . 

Felt~h,el)~~~.s~~~~i,n&tili··::::::::: :: :::::::: ::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :: :::::::::::::: ::::: ::: :: Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Hauptman, George, Owner, Canyon Outfitters .......................................... .. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Hughes, Jerry, Owner, Hughes River Expeditions ......... ........................ .... .. . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Kulesza, Bert, Forest Supervisor in the Ashley ............................................ . Laverty, Lyle, Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resource 

Management, Washington office ............................................................... .. . Leaper, Eric, Executive Director, The National Organization for Rivers 

(prepared statement) ...................................................................... ............. . Lyons, James R. , Undersecretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture .......... ........................................................ . Mitchell, Sandra F., Executive Director, Hells Canyon Alliance, Boise, 

Idaho ............................................................................................................. . Pearl, Phil, Pacific Northwest Regional Director, National Parks and 

Conservation Association (prepared statement) ...... ....................... ........... . Prepared statement ........................................................................... ....... . Richmond, Bobby, Forest Supervisor of the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest .... ............. ....................................... .................................................... . Sherwin, Dick, Clarkston, Washington ......... ........... .... ........ ............. ............. . Prepared statement ......................................... ......................................... . Thomas, Jack Ward, Chief, Forest Service .............. ................................ ...... . Communication Submitted: 

Feltch, David: Letter to Congressman Hansen ....... ...................................... . Thomas, Jack Ward (Ag. Dept.): Letter with enclosures to Hon. James 

V. Hansen dated June 5, 1996 .... ......... ........ ................................ ............... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

2 

1 

44 

154 

34 

104 

48 

177 

27 

82 

25 

60 

29 

91 

47 

195 

46 

173 

4 

4 

184 

4 

35 

192 

115 

4 

32 

93 

4 

91 

188 
U.S. FOREST SERVICE ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT 

Hearing held May, 21, 1996 ............................................................. .................... .. . Statements of Members: Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho ... ..................... . Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah; Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands .............................. . Herger, Hon. Wally, a U.S. Representative from California ........................ . Statements of witnesses: 

Aune, Phil, Research Program Manager, Pacific Southwest Research Station ................................................................................... ............... .............. . Blackwood, Jeff, Project Manager, Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project ....................................................................... . Carpenter, Forest, Co-Chairman, Project Manager, Southern Appalachian 

Assessment ....................... ........... ...................................................... ........... . Dessecker, Dan, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Ruffed Grouse Society, Rice 

Lake, Wisconsin ........... ......................................... ....................................... . Grant, Fred Kelly, consultant to Owyhee County, Idaho, Board of County 

Commissioners and Land Use Planning (prepared statement) ... .......... .. . Haislip, Thomas W., Jr., Senior Scientist, CH2M Hill, Boise, Idaho .......... . Prepared Statement .............................................. ................. .................. . Loesel, James E., Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, Roanoke, Virginia .............................................................................................................. . Prepared Statement ....................... .. .... .................................................. .. . McGreer, Dale J., President, Western Watershed Analysts, Lewiston, 

Idaho .................................................................................................. ........... . Scurlock, Mary, Pacific Rivers Council (prepared statement) ..................... . Sexton, Bill, Land Management Planning Staff ............................................ . Snyder, Bill, Chief Forester, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Martell, California ................................................. .. ..................... ......................................... . Prepared Statement ................................................................................. . Unger, David G., U.S. Agriculture, Forest Service ....................................... . 

van ~~ki!~~l:~~~ec~ch~·~~~·;· i>~~j~t.~i;;;;~ii~~:· s~~th~;;; Aj;j;~i~~h~ ian Assessment ... .......... ...................................... .......................... ................. . Additional material supplied: Sustainable Forestry Principles and Implementation Guideline!> ............... . Communications submitted: Snyder, Bill, submitted the following: 

Letter to Dale Robertson, dated Jan. 26, 1993, from th ~ following 

Members of Congress: Harold Volkmer, Richard H. Lehman, Cal 

Dooley, and Wally Herger, ............................. ..................... ................. . Letter to Dale Robertson, dated Jan. 19, 1993, from th•~ following 

Members of Congress: George Miller, Kika De . La Garza, Gerry 

Studds, Bruce Vento, George Brown, Sidney R. Ya~~s . Charlie 

Rose, Leon P. Panetta .......................................................................... . Letter to Jack Ward Thomas, dated Feb. 7, 1995 ...................... ........... . 

(N ) 

Page 

199 

202 

199 

200 

204 

204 

204 

220 

298 

232 

281 

222 

251 

233 

293 

204 

223 

262 

204 

241 

204 

268 

277 

277 

279 
FOREST SERVICE'S MANAGEMENT POLICIES 

FOR THE GREEN RIVER AND HELLS CANYON 

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05, in room 1324, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM UTAH, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Lands convenes today for an oversight hearing on the Forest Service's policies for river management. We will focus specifically on 

two magnificent and popular recreation rivers, the Green River in 

Utah, which is within the Flaming Gorge National Recreation 

Area, and the Snake River in Idaho in the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area. 

This is the fourth of our series of oversight hearings on Forest 

Service policies and land management activities. While today's 

hearing is more narrowly focused than previous oversight hearings 

have been, the specific issues we are addressing are representative 

of the process and controversy that agency management must face 

regularly on every National Forest. 

We look forward to hearing from the witnesses about how the 

process works and how they believe it might be improved. We hope 

to learn how many layers of planning, analysis, and decisionmaking the Forest Service must go through before it resolves how a 

particular stretch of river or piece of land will be managed; how the 

public can best get involved, how long the planning process takes 

and what it costs; how many different laws guide or otherwise affect the management decision on the Green River or the Snake 

River or a particular part of any National Forest; and what other 

Federal agencies share jurisdiction over the issues you must address as you manage the rivers and lands in the National Forest. Finally, we will look for lessons learned from the two case studies today so that we might find ways to better resolve controversies 

over public use and resource management, determine what decision 

should be made and when, reduce the Forest Service planning and 

management costs, and assure that the quality of the environment 

of our rivers and forests is maintained for future generations. 

(1) 
2 

We have a lot of witnesses here today, representing diverse 

points of view. I know many of you have come a long way to share 

your thoughts with us. Before we begin, I would like to welcome 

Mr. Collett and Mr. Egbert from Dutch John, Utah; Mr. Feltch 

from Vernal, Utah; and Forest Supervisor Kulesza and his group. 

Thank you, and the witnesses from Idaho and Oregon, for coming 

all the way across the country to be with us. 

We are very pleased to welcome Jim Lyons, Undersecretary for 

National Resources and the Environment. Until today, we have not 

had the opportunity to hear from you during our oversight process. 

I know the subcommittee members particularly look forward to 

your testimony today. 

Mr. Lyons is accompanied by Chief Thomas and other Forest 

Service staff and witnesses, and I thank all the witnesses and 

members for your participation. Let me just say that I have talked 

to many members of the committee who will be milling back and 

forth here today. Everyone has mark-up; we have got a lot on the 

floor, but we are very interested in this hearing, and you can count 

on it: we will spend a lot of time going over your written proposals. 

Let me also say that without objection, everybody's entire written 

testimony will be included in the record so that we can peruse it 

on airplanes and other places, and we can call you on that, I am 

sure; and on top of that, we will probably send you some written 

questions at a later time. 

Jim, we are grateful to have you with us here today, but before 

we start, I would like to turn to my colleague from Idaho, Mrs. 

Chenoweth, for any opening remarks she may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening statement. I thank you for holding these very important hearings on river management that impacts several of the western 

States. I welcome those that have travelled across the country to 

be here, and I reserve a special welcome for those from my home 

State of Idaho. Hells Canyon is a well known treasure to people all over the 

world. Idaho is very fortunate to have such an abundance of recreational resources and the Snake River-Hells Canyon is certainly 

an outstanding display of what makes Idaho so very unique. 

In the late 1800's and the early 1900's, adventurous river captains took their steamboats and stern wheelers through the rugged 

territory of Hells Canyon. The river was an important method of 

transportation for many homesteaders and miners who called Hells 

Canyon their home. 

Many legends and traditions have arisen out of the travels of the 

undaunted river captains and the inhabitants of Hells Canyon. The 

colorful region of the history is imbedded in the Hells Canyon Act 

by ensuring that various types of recreation and transportation are 

recognized as valid uses on that river. Senator Frank Church made it very clear what his intentions for 

Hells Canyon were when drafting the legislation. In 1975, when 

the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture testified in hearings on the 

proposed legislation that there were times when boating perhaps 
3 

should be prohibited entirely, Senator Frank Church responded to 

that testimony unfavorably by saying, "I think that you have given 

the present use of the river and the fact that access to it for many 

people who go into the canyon, if not the majority, is by the river, 

and jetboats have been found to be the preferred method of travel 

by a great many people who have gone into that canyon. This is 

a matter of such importance that Congress itself should define 

what the guidelines would be with respect to regulation of traffic 

on the river, and that the discretion ought not to be left entirely 

to the Administrative agencies." 

As a result of his strong position, the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Act provided clearly that both motorized and nonmotorized river craft were valid uses of the river. Despite the 

strong record which outlines the intent of the act, the Forest Service has drafted plans over the last 15 years that ignore the will of 

Congress, and these points have been made abundantly clear to the 

agency over time, but we are still faced today with a plan that proposes management of the river as wilderness when Congress has 

expressly stated it was not to be wilderness. 

We have had numerous hearing on oversight of the Forest Service management and the same theme keeps coming to the forefront. 

The agency is not following the intent of the law. Just as timberdependent communities are struggling under Forest Service that 

favor preservation over resource use, so, too, are recreationalists 

feeling squeezed by an agenda that favors one use over another. That is why clarifying legislation is needed. H.R. 2568 simply ensures that the intent of the original act is followed, and this legislation is supported by Idaho's Congressional Delegation and our Governor, Phil Batt. 

I hope this hearing will shed some light on the agency's actions 

over the last several years in Hells Canyon and the impact they 

have on my constituents and their communities. · 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Kildee from 

Michigan, do you have any opening statement? 

Mr. KILDEE. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just listen to 

the witnesses. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate your being with us. Mr. Secretary, we 

will start with you and go right down the list. Let me just ask before we start, does anyone on the panel need more than seven minutes? 

Mr. LYONS. I believe, Mr. Chairman, I will present the opening 

statement for the entire panel. I won't use all of their seven minutes, and then we will all be prepared to answer questions. 

Mr. HA."N"SEN. Do you need ten? 

Mr. LYONS. Ten would do fine. 

Mr. HANSEN. We will start with ten minutes and limit everyone 

from then on to seven, and I can see we have a long day here, so 

perhaps we have to give the next panels five. 

Thank you for being with us. 
4 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. LYONS, UNDERSECRE:TARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK WARD THOMAS, 

CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE; LYLE LAVERTY, DIRECTOR OF 

RECREATION, HERITAGE AND WILDERNESS RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON OFFICE; BERT KULESZA, FOREST SUPERVISOR IN THE ASHLEY; AND BOBBY RICHMOND, 

FOREST SUPERVISOR OF THE WALLOWA-WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST 

Mr. LYONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 

it. 

I am pleased to be here to discuss the General Forest Service 

Policies and the processes for river management, particularly related to the Green River in Utah and the Snake River on the Idaho 

and Oregon border. I am accompanied by Jack Thomas, as you mentioned; by Lyle 

Laverty, Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resource 

Management in the Washington office; Bert Kulesza, who is Forest 

Supervisor in the Ashley; and Bobby Richmond, who is Forest Supervisor of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

Along with Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and Chief 

Thomas, we are all committed to the long range and short term 

planning processes that provide the direction for Forest Service 

Management of rivers and the other lands and resources under our 

jurisdiction. 

The general guidance and specific requirements for river management the Forest Service have had are in a number of statutory 

provisions. I will provide an overview of these authorities, consistent with the questions you asked in your invitation to appear, and 

I hope this will give you an idea of some of the matters we have 

to deal with, the processes we have to follow to develop general 

guidance for river management and direction. 

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974 is the overarching authority of the government's long range 

planning for the Forest Service. The long term strategic plan developed by that act and by its guidance are for all Forest Service programs. RPA, of course, was amended in 1976 by the National Forest Management Act, directing the Forest Service to develop land 

and resource management plans and forest plans for each unit of 

the National Forest. These plans are to be devised every ten to 15 

years, and are amended as appropriate to reflect significant 

changes in resource management conditions and directions. 

Each Forest supervisor has the responsibility to en:mre an interdisciplinary approach in developing forest plans, taking into account the physical, biological, economic, and social aspects of protecting and restoring ecosystems and providing multiple use benefits from those ecosystems, including river management. 

In our efforts to protect natural resources, we often find it necessary to provide specific direction that addresses individual ecosystem components, such as rivers. For example, in the case of how 

rivers are managed, the desired future conditions, goals, objectives, 

standards and guidelines for specific rivers are stated in each forest plan. 
5 

However, as re~ource conditions change from increasing use of 

the river or other factors, the Forest Service has the responsibility 

to take the necessary action to ensure that resources are protected. 

More specific management actions necessary to implement the forest plan are usually included in a river management plan. If river 

management direction is developed during the forest planning process, the direction is normally approved as a part of the forest plan 

and the accompanying environmental impact statement. If river 

management direction is developed after the forest plan has been 

approved, that direction is included into the forest plan as a plan 

amendment. 

Where rivers are included in special management areas, such as 

National recreation areas, management direction is incorporated 

into forest plans either by reference to the NRA . standards or 

through a subsequent forest plan amendment. In all stated cases, 

these procedures apply. 

The Forest Service has the authority under NFMA and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act to provide a range of river recreation 

opportunities to the extent consistent with the needs and demands 

of other resources, with or without statutory designations. Standards and guidelines for specific river management are stated in 

each forest plan. 

In addition to managing rivers under the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, some river 

management plans are mandated by Congress through the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act. This act provides that certain selected rivers 

with their immediate environments can possess that standing of remarkable scenery and recreational values, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values to be preserved in 

free-falling condition, and that they and their immediate environments be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Snake River was congressionally designated in 1975, as referenced by Congresswoman Chenoweth, and is a component of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the legislation that 

created Hells Canyon an NRA. 

In 1984, the Forest Service developed a management plan for the 

Snake River as part of the Hells Canyon NRA in accordance with 

Section 3[d] of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The segment of the Green River in Utah managed by the Forest 

Service is not a congressionally designated river. Management direction of the Green River is provided through the forest planning 

process in concert with the Flaming Gorge NRA legislation. 

Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Forest Service administers all portions of 97 rivers which represent more than 60 percent of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, totaling about 

4,385 miles of designated rivers. 

For each designated river administered by the Forest Service, 

Congress has passed an individual bill amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Section 3[d] of the act requires the development of 

"a comprehensive management plan for such river segment to provide for the protection of the river values. The plan shall address 

resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices necessary or desirable to 
6 

achieve the purposes of the act. The plan shall be coordinated with 

and may be appropriated in a Resource Management planning for 

effective adjacent Federal lands." 

Further, Section 5[d] of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires 

the secretary to consider potential additions to the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System during the forest planning process. If as 

a result of the planning process a river segment studied is ·determined to be eligible and suitable for designation, Forest Service 

manages the segment to preserve the values making it suitable for 

inclusion. 

This is the basic statutory framework within with river corridor 

management direction is developed for wild and scenic rivers. 

Through delegated authority from the Secretary of Agriculture to 

the Chief of the Forest Service, forest supervisors and area man- agers have the authority to develop and implement management 

direction for wild and scenic rivers. To develop management plans, the Forest Service conducts intensive public participation processes in compliance with NEPA and 

Forest Service direction. A number of methods are used to solicit 

local, regional, and National comments including public meetings 

in first the local communities in order to reach a broader plan with 

a diversity of interests. Generally, a comment period ranges from between 30 to 90 days, 

depending on the type of decision and the extent of public interest. 

Working collaboratively with communities and the other public and 

receiving their input is instrumental in coming to a final decision 

prior to issuing management direction. 

Upon issuance of new management decisions, the public at large 

and those individuals who hold special use permits for use of Forest Service lands have the opportunity to utilize, if they feel it necessary, the Forest Service's Administrative Appeals process. That 

appeals process under 36 CFR 215, 217, and 251 allows appellants 

to interact with the forest supervisor responsible for the new direction. 

In addition, under 36 CFR 251, the appellant is allowed to make 

oral presentations to the appeal officer. In the case of almost all management direction, the Forest Supervisor makes the final decision. These decisions are appealable to 

the regional forester. Let me briefly turn to the two river segments of focus today. The 

Green River corridor is located in the Flaming Gorge National Recreational Area, and the Ashley National Forest has lead management responsibility for two segments of the river immediately 

below Flaming Gorge dam. The Bureau of Land Management ad- ministers a third segment that reaches to the Colorado State line. In 1975, Congress authorized the Colorado portion of the Yampa 

and Green Rivers for study as potential additions to the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. At the request of the State of 

Utah, portions of the Green River in Utah were included in the 

study. The National Park Service conducted the study of 91 miles of 

Green River below the Flaming Gorge spillway, of which 12 miles 

were located in the Flaming Gorge NRA. The study, which was 

completed in 1980, resulted in the conclusion that the 91 miles of 
7 

the Green River and the 47 miles of the Yampa River are eligible 

for designation. 

However, in 1983, the Secretary of the Interior recommended to 

Congress no action on the designation of the Green and the Yampa 

Rivers until a number of interrelated activities providing water 

right, a BLM wilderness study, and water developments on a tributary of the Yampa were resolved. Due to lack of active support, 

there has been no further effort to designate the Green River as 

part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

There has been a significant shift in the use of the Green River 

since 1986. According to Forest Service planning date, in 1986, recreational boating constituted 63 percent and fishing 37 percent of 

river use. 

As the reputation of world class, blue ribbon fishing in the Green 

River became known, fishing and outfitting and guide use substantially increased. A 1991 study concluded that 91 percent of all recreational use was related to fishing. 

Social and environmental impacts are in direct proportion to the 

number of visitors. Use continues to grow on the Green River. Approximately 97,000 people visited the corridor in the 1995 peak use 

season. 

As a result, displacement of some user groups due to the perceived crowding is clearly occurring. In fact, some of the perceptions are that there is no longer a quality recreational experience, 

because of the number of people in the river corridor at one time. 

The Flaming Gorge NRA environmental impact statement and 

management issued in 1977 provided broad guidance on river management. Since the issuance of the wild and scenic river study in 

1980, the Green River has been managed to protect its outstandingly remarkable recreational values and other characteristics as a 

scenic river, in addition to achieving the purposes for which the 

NRA was established. 

The Ashley National Forest and resource management plan implemented in 1986 provided further direction of management of the 

Green River corridor. The forest plan called for forest officials to 

complete a plan for National Forest System Lands within the corridor and define such things as carrying capacity, resource impacts, 

and management objectives. 

To aid in developing such a plan, forest managers contracted for 

a study of current use levels and areas of conflict within the Green 

River corridor. The study, concluded in 1991, is the basis of the 

draft environmental assessment on a proposed management plan 

for the Green River which was released in May of 1995, and which 

generated much public interest. 

The decisionmaking process included extensive public involvement and reflects interagency cooperation in establishing carrying 

capacities, outfitter and guide use allocation, safety and sanitation 

requirements, and identifying need capacities. 

With regard to the Snake River, in 1975, the Hells Canyon NRA 

legislation designated the Snake by amending the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. The Snake flows through the 650,000-acre Hells Canyon NRA. It has carved the deepest river canyon in North America. 

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. We want to hear the rest of your statement. Don't pay any attention to the red light. 
8 

Mr. LYONS. Float and powerboat use are among the river's more 

popular activities. Recreational use restrictions on the Snake began 

in the early 1970's when commercial boat outfitters were required 

to operate under special use permits in response to concerns about 

the growth in the number of outfitters. Powerboat use has been unlimited under previous management plans. 

The Forest Service proposed to place limitations on commercial 

and private powerboats in 1982 in order to keep recreation use 

within the social and physical carrying capacity of the river and to 

reduce encounters between float and powerboat users, but the decision was reversed by then Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, John 

Kroll, a member of the Reagan Administration as continuing the 

ongoing use of powerboats on the river. 

A comprehensive management plan for Hells Canyon NRA, including the Snake River, was issued in 1984. Regulations which address, among other things, the use of motorized and nonmotorized 

river craft on the Snake were issued in 1994. 

The Forest Service is currently in the process of revising the 

1984 comprehensive management plan for the Hells Canyon NRA 

in response to resource concerns and recently issued regulations. 

Limitations on powerboat use were proposed in the new river 

plan completed in 1994. The record of decision and the final environmental impact statement for the Snake received 31 separate appeals by individuals, organizations, and commercial outfitters. 

Most of the appeals were by outfitters and guides appealing limitations placed on the user of powerboats. The regional forester 

upheld many components of the river plan and resolved the appeals; however, it was determined that the potential economic impacts of the proposed river plan were not adequately analyzed or 

disclosed. 

The forest supervisor was directed to conduct additional analysis 

to determine the economic impacts of use allocations and operating 

limits of the river plan on each of the commercial outfitters affected. This additional analysis was initiated in December, 1995, and is 

scheduled for completion in July of this year with implementation 

of river use guidelines planned for the summer of 199'7. 

The Forest Service has responsibility, in summary, Mr. Chairman, to manage these valuable river resources for the American 

people. We recognize the importance of these rivers to the local 

economies and to future generations. 

It is our intent to promote responsible use of these rivers by 

maintaining access for all users. We understand that final management decisions may not please everyone. Believe me, I understand 

that in spades in this job, however, the process that is used to 

reach the final decision is by law and by practice open and inclusive, allowing people every opportunity to make their concerns 

known. 

Public participation has played a major role in the planning effort for these two rivers and will continue to do so. We will continue to welcome the public's role in the process and to seek a balance among the various concerns and interests that affect both the 

Green and the Hells Canyon areas. 
9 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I just want to emphasize that this is a very complex issue, and we have attempted, 

Jack and I, to emphasize the fact that it is important to allow local 

forest supervisors the discretion and the authority to make decisions that will reflect needs and conditions in their observation 

from the ground, and for that reason, I am going to defer many of 

my questions to the supervisors who are with us today, because 

they have the on-the-ground experience in dealing with this. 

That concludes my statement, and I think the panel is prepared 

to answer questions at this point. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I notice the panel is here 

really not to give statements but to back you up, is that right? 

Mr. LYONS. That is right. 

Mr. HANSEN. Chief Thomas, it is always good to have you with 

us. Do you have anything you want to say about this? 

Mr. THOMAS. No, sir, I think that statement covers it for all of 

us, and we are prepared to answer your questions. 

Mr. HANSEN. Do the rest of you gentlemen have anything you 

would like to say? 

Mr. RICHMOND. We will concur. Mr. HANSEN. We have supporting actors. All right, the gentlelady 

from Idaho, do you want to start the verbal abuse of this panel? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The only testimony we will hear is from Mr. 

Lyons, right? 

Mr. Lyons, are you or anyone else on the panel attorneys? 

Mr. LYONS. I am not an attorney, Congresswoman. I don't believe 

any of the other gentlemen are. No. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have a question with regards to commercial 

use of the river. 

Is it not correct that the salmon was listed as an endangered species under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service and various other agencies? 

It is listed in commerce because it crosses State lines and that 

is why the National Fish Reserve also manages the Salmon on the 

Snake River? 

Mr. LYONS. Congresswoman, I will state briefly that responsibility for listing decisions relating to the Endangered Species Act do 

not fall within the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The jurisdiction, as I understand it, is divided between the Fish 

and Wildlife Service for terrestrial and inland fish species, and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service for National Species. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But my question and I may not have made 

myself clear, was the Salmon listed-the jurisdiction for covering 

the salmon is within your province, right? 

Mr. LYONS. For listing decisions, that is correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And for management decisions. 

Mr. LYONS. Well, we have some responsibility for management 

decisions as well. Actually, why don't I let Jack explain this, because he has much expertise in the consultation process. 

Mr. THOMAS. Listing decisions, Congresswoman, are the prerogative of the National Marine Fisheries Service in terms of matters 

of fish. Recovery plans are prepared in conjunction with the land 

management agencies. 
10 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. My question is, the species has been listed 

under Commerce and--

Mr. THOMAS. I finally understand. I thought you said commons. 

Yes, madame, the Department of Commerce contains the National 

Marines Fisheries Service. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. My question is to you, Mr. Thomas, and I would like to have your agency write your opinion on this, 

and I want to make sure that I mention to the staff of this committee and to my own staff that I really would like to see that opinion. 

The opinion is, under commerce, commerce law, when a highway 

or transportation system such as a river is used for commercial 

purposes, can you limit one commercial use? Can you, the Forest 

Service, limit one commercial use? 

Have I made myself clear with regards to the question? 

Mr. THOMAS. I understand the question. Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. Could your department write that opinion 

for me---

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, madame. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH.-because I think there is a serious question in 

Congress in what the Forest Service is doing in limiting jetboat activities. 

Mr. THOMAS. I will assure you that we will answer your question. Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. Mr. THOMAS. We will even get a lawyer to answer it. You may 

get several. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Thomas, when do you think you or any 

of your attorneys here might be able to have that opinion to us? 

Mr. THOMAS. I would be certain that it would probably be here 

in a month, probably more quickly than that. I don't think it is a 

very complex question. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is good. I do have a question for Mr. 

Laverty and any of the Forest Service people who may want to answer this. 

We have a gentleman by the name of Martin Kennedy who 

wants to transport his equipment and some of his clients in his 

jetboat from one side of the river to the other. He ha.s not been allowed to do that as he has in the past. 

With this question in mind, how can we stop activity on a commPrcial highway or transportation system? On what basis is the 

Forest Service preventing his access to that transportation system? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Martin Kennedy does not have a commercial 

powerboat license on the Snake. There are 19 outfitters licensed by 

the State of Idaho and authorized by the Forest Service, and he 

does not have one of those 19 licenses. He was an outfitter on the Oregon side of the river and was allowed to cross the river with his own boats to provide services to 

his guests, and he currently does not have a permit. In fact, we are 

conducting an investigation to see if he has been conducting illegal 

commercial powerboat outfitting on the Snake River. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Richmond, I have a letter here from Edward Cole dated October 30, 1995, that says a current copy of your 

U.S. Coast Guard license is on file in our office, so it looks like 

from your correspondence from the Forest Service that he is licensed. 
11 

Mr. RICHMOND. He is not licensed as a commercial powerboat 

outfitter on the Snake River. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Is this then a license that you have consistently asked for and that all outfitters are required to get? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Kennedy has never applied for the State outfitter guide licensing board nor to the Forest Service for a powerboat outfitter license. There are 19 of those, and as I say, he does 

not have one. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. Mr. HANSEN. Does the gentlelady from Idaho want to take a little 

more time? You can have an additional five minutes if no one objects. I know you have a lot of things you are very concerned about, or we can get you on the second round. We will wait for the second round. Mr. Kildee from Michigan, 

you are recognized for five minutes. Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't know that the 

Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Federal Government to 

regulate the use of Navajo waters, and the Federal Government 

has done that on many rivers. 

I would like to commend you for providing the controlled use of 

a number of motorized and nonmotorized craft on the Snake River. You are only carrying out what Congress gave you as a mandate 

almost 20 years ago. I think it is very important-it has been a 

long time since that was written. It became public law on December 31, 1975, and I commend you for moving to the controlled use 

of the number of motorized and nonmotorized vehicles. 

The bill that we passed then recognizes that the use of such craft 

is a valid use and we asked for control in use of the numbers. 

My experience has been in Michigan that very often, we destroy 

the very features that attract us to a certain place in the first place 

if we don't have some reasonable control of its use. I have seen that 

happen very often. The very beauty, the very unique features are 

either diminished or destroyed because there is not a reasonable 

control of the use. 

I feel that is why Congress passed the law in 1975, and I commend you for implementing that at this time. I encourage you to 

continue it. Thank you all. 

I give back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Cooley. You are recognized for five minutes. Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have 

some questions submitted with my opening statement for the 

record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. Mr. Lyons, would you tell me what statute or where are the regulations that say you have authority to 

regulate boating or commerce on the Snake River which is a navigable river? 

Mr. LYONS. I am going to have to yield to Mr. Laverty who might 

be able to comment and give a specific response. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Cooley, on the Snake River on the Hells Can- yon of the wild Snake River portion, the authority for managing 
12 

use comes from Section 10[a] of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

That portion of the act is very specific in terms of the direction 

from Congress to manage the use on those rivers. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, the thing is, the river itself was taken out of 

the wild and scenic in the act itself. It is not a part of the wild and 

scenic section. It was completely taken out and would be governed 

separately, not as a wild and scenic, but separately within the canyon. 

Mr. THOMAS. The Hells Canyon NRA, the legislation that established the NRA, also designated that portion of the river as a wild 

and scenic river, so that act congruently established the Snake 

River as a wild and scenic river. 

Mr. COOLEY. I would like you to get an attorney's opinion on that 

ruling, because the way we read this, it is exempt. It not wild and 

scenic. It was to be used for commercial uses and was completely 

pulled out of the bill. 

I have a copy of the bill and if is not the understanding, then 

I would like to have some legal person on your side make a determination. 

Mr. THOMAS. We will follow up on that. 

Mr. CooLEY. The thing is, as I was reading through this bill, and 

I know you have as well, I was very surprised to see that it was 

such a bipartisan bill that was passed on the floor. 

I looked at the legislators and the Congress back to 1975 and Al 

Uhlman; Mr. Miller, who is on this committee; Les Coyne were 

mainly responsible for this-Mr. Gindell, were responsible for this 

legislation, and it seems to me that the legislation now the way we 

interpret it has turned into a bipartisan issue, and I don't think it 

should be that way. 

I think apart from this issue, this should have been a bipartisan 

issue, but now it has turned into something else. As 1 read the Section 10[c] provision, I misinterpret, I guess, what the Forest Service is trying to do, because as I read this, it provides that all crafts 

must be recognized for use on the Snake River within the recreational area, which would include motorized craft as well. 

Section lO[c] and [d] is specific, the way it is written, and it looks 

to me as if the Forest Service through administrative rules and interpretation is circumventing the will of Congress at the time the 

legislation was passed. 

Mr. THOMAS. I was just going back over the other part of that 

section. Section [a] speaks about that those plans are to determine 

the varying degrees and intensity of use for the protection of those 

resources, and I think that is exactly what the plans are designed 

to do. 

Mr. COOLEY. Section [a] says the standard for use and development of privately owned property within recreation which rules 

and regulations the Secretary has made to extend he deems feasible empowered with authority delegated him under Section 9 of 

the act which may differ from the various parcels of land within 

the recreation area. That is what Section [a] says. 

Mr. LAVERTY. Mr. Cooley, we have researched this thoroughly 

from the legal standpoint and we did not just invent this. This has 

been going on for quite a while. 

Mr. COOLEY. I think it has been going on since 1970, in fact. 
13 

Mr. LAVERTY. We will be happy to provide you with that rationale, but none of us here are lawyers. We have done it, and we will 

be happy to provide you with a thorough assessment. 

Mr. COOLEY. When you do that assessment, I would like you to 

maybe put inside that assessment, if you might, provide what you 

think Congress meant at the time in 1975 when this was passed, 

because the way we interpret it and our people look at this is pretty clear. 

Mr. LAVERTY. I thought it was remarkably clear. It is just that 

you and I don't agree on that. 

Mr. COOLEY. No, we do not, obviously. I just think that Congress 

was pretty specific at the time and wanted to relate the fact that 

uses would be equally controlled, nothing would be prohibited as 

far as motorized or floating or anything else, and it looks to me as 

if the Forest Service has made a decision that they are going to interpret this in a way in which they feel makes it a specific use for 

one particular mode of use of the river. 

I appreciate your response to that as far as your attorneys are 

concerned as to the original bill. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Cooley. There have been some very 

interesting proposals brought up here. 

One of the things that disturbs me is that I have noticed the 

amount of use on the Green River reached a peak in '92 and has 

since gone down rather substantially. 

Is that trend continuing? If that is the case, and it peaked in '92 

and is going down, is there a need to come up with any new proposals, or is this just kind of an insurance policy that you people 

have come up with? What is the answer to that? 

Mr. LYONS. I will have Bert Kulesza answ·~r that. 

Mr. KULESZA. Mr. Chairman, the use did peak in 1992 at about 

107,000 visitors for the season. Last year, the use dropped to about 

97,000 visitors for the season. 

Although it has dropped, all the numbers in the early 90's have 

been a substantial increase over the use patterns that we experienced in the 1980's. Based on those numbers, we felt we needed to 

respond to what we believed as crowding and increased use in our 

management plan. 

Mr. HANSEN. In your EA, it says on page 259 that there is little 

evidence that any displacement is going on. Why don't you give us 

a definition of the term displacement to start with? 

Mr. KULESZA. Well, the definition that I would use for displacement is that the current uses on the river, for example, if users 

were primarily using a segment of the river for recreational rafting 

or for fishing from a standpoint of having an environment that possessed solit'.lde in their mind and their view, and over a period of 

time durine increases in use, there were more people, that sense 

of solitude would be diminished. 

Also, as uses change from recreational boating to fishing as we 

have experienced on the Green, some of those people would tn:i' 

to go elsewhere for that experience, sensing that the quality 

ence that they were looking for isn't there any mo>·c 
14 

Mr. HANSEN. And the experiences, according to all. these things 

I have been reading, one is fishing, one is boating, and what else 

is there? 

Mr. KULESZA. Those are the two primary uses on the Green 

River. Rafting, boating, and fishing. There is also hiking. 

Mr. HANSEN. Hiking? 

Mr. KULESZA. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. People hike along the river? 

Mr. KULESZA. Along the National recreation trail primarily, 

seven miles from the spillway to what we call the Little Hole, 

which is in section A. 

Mr. HANSEN. They come down to Little Hole, and then they go 

down to what, Brown's Pond or something like that? 

Mr. KULESZA. Some go down to Brown's Pond, right. 

Mr. HANSEN. And they go from Little Hole down to Brown's? 

Mr. KULESZA. There is a trail from Little Hole halfway down into 

Section B and then there is another segment of the trail that comes 

up the other way. They do not connect. 

Mr. HANSEN. Aren't most of those people fisherman that walk 

along there? 

Mr. KULESZA. Excuse me? 

Mr. HANSEN. Aren't most of those folks fishermen who walk 

along there? 

Mr. KULESZA. Yes, they are. 

Mr. HANSEN. So fishing probably is the biggest use of the river. 

Would you agree with that? 

Mr. KULESZA. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. When they get below Little Hole, then there is 

some rafting where they go down and go around and go through 

what they call Hell's Half Mile, where they shoot rapids and all 

those different things. I have done it a couple times. I just can't remember all the names. 

But that would be rafting from there on down, I would assume. 

ls that right? 

Mr. KULESZA. There is rafting from that point down, but there 

is also considerable recreational rafting from the spillway to Little 

Hole as well. 

Mr. HANSEN. Say a person has a commercial-what do they call 

those things, dories where you stand up and fish in front of them 

and you have the plate on your knees and all that kind of stuff? 

Those people are very jealous of whatever they c:all them, the 

sloth permits, the use that they have on the river. I was looking 

at this proposed plan, and if this proposed plan goes through, what 

do they do? They have to adjust their use of the river to fit the Forest Service plan? 

Mr. KULESZA. Are you speaking of the commercial outfitters? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. KULESZA. The proposal that we have will continue to have 

the same number of outfitters that we currently have, and the 

amount of use available to those outfitters will not be significantly 

diminished. 

Mr. HANSEN. What about the private use of the river? The person 

who just does it on his own, is he limited then? 
15 

Mr. LYONS. In the proposed plan, we are looking at establishing 

a cap on the use of the river by private individuals as well. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let us say that hypothetically somebody wants to 

go up and float down from the dam down to Little Hole, which 

many of us have done many times. I have never called the Forest Service to ask permission. Now, if I want to do that or any citizen wants to do that, how does he 

do it? 

If this proposal goes in, does he then have to call and set a time, 

get an appointment? How does that work? 

Mr. KULESZA. Mr. Chairman, we are not looking at establishing 

a reservation system. We would encourage any individual to proceed essentially as they have done in the past. 

There is room on the river. What we are looking at is a cap on 

the use at any one time so an individual would be able to arrive 

at the Green River in the morning and get on the river and float. 

It may be that if the cap is implemented, there may be a time 

during the peak use period of the day that if they were trying to 

float, they may have to wait a while. Mr. HANSEN. In other words, at the peak time, somebody might 

have to wait his turn, but he doesn't have to call ahead and get 

a reservation. Is that right? 

Mr. KULESZA. That is correct. Mr. HANSEN. Do you see a need for these additional requirements with the reduction of use, the use being reduced? Do you 

still see a need for it? ' 

Mr. KULESZA. Mr. Chairman, we do see a need, and that need 

was established in a study that the Forest Service contracted in 

1988 to '91 which was to review the recreation and carrying capacity of the river. -

That study gave us information which led us to believe that we 

needed to establish these caps on the use of the river. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Lyons, in your statement, when I was reading 

along as you were giving it, you talked about powerboats in Idaho. 

What are we talking about, jetboats that go up the river? Is that 

the type of thing you are looking at? 

Mr. LYONS. On the Green River? 

Mr. HANSEN. When you were referring to powerboats in Idaho 

and you said that there was a conflict between recreation use and 

floaters and rafters and powerboats. Now, we are talking what, jetboats that go up the river? Is that 

what we are talking about? 

Mr. LYONS. Bob, would you address that? If we are speaking 

about the Green River, that is not correct. It is on the Snake. Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Jetboat outfitters, there are 

19 Jetboat outfitters who travel the Snake up and down the river. 

Mr. HANSEN. Are we getting complaints from people that it destroys their experience or their happiness, or is there a possibility 

of a safety question? 

Mr. RICHMOND. We found in a 1988 study by the University of 

Idaho that the visitors at that time had indicated that there was 

a crowding factor in terms of the amount of use on the river. The float use has been restricted on the Snake since the late 

1970's, and they have been under the restriction of use. Jetboat use 
16 

had grown significantly from the early 80's to the early 90's, and 

what the river plan that we proposed would do, it would meet the 

level of visitor expectation and visitor profile as was found in that 

1988 study by the University of Idaho and would spread the powerboat use more evenly across all days of the week. 

Historically, there has been quite a peak on the weekends of use, 

and a dropping off in the middle part of the week. It would spread 

that use. 

Mr. HANSEN. Have you had any complaint from people who were 

floating the river, whatever, or walking, about the noise factor? 

That is a sensitive issue in this committee, because we keep hearing this from Secretary Babbitt about airplanes and anything else 

that goes into a recreation area or a park. 

I am not that familiar with it, but I imagine a certain amount 

of noise goes along with these things. It doesn't bother me, but I 

am just curious if you are getting complaints about that? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Have you had any accidents where a powerboat has 

had a collision or in apy way hit a floating raft? Has anything like -that occurred? 

Mr. RICHMOND. There have not been any-how would I call this, 

unplanned accidents. 

I think there have been a few bumps and grinds by some, you 

might say, extremists. 

Mr. HANSEN. Has the Forest Service been called, is it a tort 

feasor on any situation where there has been a lawsuit because of 

a problem on the river with commercial or private rafting or the 

powerboat people? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Not that I am aware of, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HANSEN. You don't appropriate any money to take care of 

any potential problems as far as any lawsuits against the United 

States Government, and I would assume that every organization 

coming in here complains about the amount of time they spend defending lawsuits. 

Chief, have you had any problems? 

Mr. THOMAS. I would defer to the supervisor, but I don't know 

of any legal actions. Of course, we do have a judgment fund if that 

was the question. 

Mr. HANSEN. So if we eliminate noise, we eliminate crowding, we 

eliminate lawsuits, what has the river planning done? 

Mr. RICHMOND. I am not sure I understand your question, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have a built-in problem with regulations, and I 

know they are necessary; don't get me wrong, and I appreciate 

greatly what you folks do. 

I am just saying, when you start eliminating the problems that 

Mr. Lyons and others have come up with, I want to hear a reason 

why we want to put these regulations out. 

Mr. LYONS. Mr. Chairman, let me address that, because I just 

want to clarify a point. 

These aren't problems that I came up with. These reflect the surveys that we do on the ground. Bob just referenced research work 

done by the University of Idaho. 
17 

We don't seek to eliminate noise and conflicts. We seek to better 

manage them to provide a quality recreation experience for all 

users of the river. 

Of course, the difficulty is demand increases, and I would suggest 

that perhaps the situation described on the Green, where the use 

went down for a period of time, not certainly reflecting a trend. I 

think the information that we have indicates that there is likely to 

be even greater demand for use of the river in the future. 

What we seek to do is try to better manage river use to provide 

quality recreation experience that is defined by the users of the 

river, not commercial users, so that the noncommercial users can 

continue to enjoy the quality of recreation experience they have 

come to expect, one of the reasons they are attracted to these 

areas, and so that commercial users can continue to attract the clients that they seek to help support their livelihood and who want 

to enjoy that kind of recreation experience. 

It is obviously a very difficult challenge. The regulations aren't 

put in place for the sake of putting them in place. They are an attempt to try and manage a resource which is of tremendous public 

value, and interest and demand, and trying to come up with something that to the best of our ability reflects and responds to what 

we hear from users. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I might add that to give you an 

idea of what the visitors said in 1988 in that study, just to give you 

a bit of a flavor of what they said, 35 percent of the visitors that 

were interviewed by the University of Idaho said that they felt that 

the river situation in terms of floaters and powerboaters was 

crowded at that time. 

Eighty-nine percent of those visitors said they would accept regulation if that regulation would maintain the existing river experience, because 94 percent of those visitors favored maintaining that 

river experience that they were having during that 1988 period. 

In 1994, we did a public opinion survey as part of the revision 

of the comprehensive plan for the Hells Canyon NRA, and motorized recreation was the most frequently mentioned "incompatiblehuman activity" and that, of course, wasn't specific to the river. It 

was specific to upland use as well. 

Over two-thirds of the public comments on that EIS in fact supported fair and equitable use that would continue this desired 

recreation experience. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is always hard to come to a place where we can 

please people. We will always have some complaints. 

I know you folks work diligently to try and do what you think 

is right, that people do have a good experience on the rivers and 

that has become an interesting and a fun thing for the American 

public to do, and I do it myself every chance I get and enjoy it immensely. 

Every time I fish the Green River, I wonder why there are so 

many people around. Being an old Wyoming and Montana fisherman, if I see somebody within 500 yards, I think he is too close, 

but I am of the old school. 

Us old folks see it that way; however, I fully realize that a lot 

of people really enjoy these experiences. When wrestling with our 

end of this thing, we don't do what you do, but we do have to pass 
18 

the laws that you have to follow, but we want to do it fairly and 

equitably, so that people do have a good experience on the river. 

But experience on the river is kind of like beauty. It is in the eye 

of the beholder. I have run the Grand Canyon a number of times. 

My oldest son used to be a riverman on the canyon. I walked across 

it. My wife, who 100 years ago worked at the North Rim, where 

she was the receptionist there, and I have even flown in an airplane down there. Most of us do have some love affair with the 

Canyons in the Grand Canyon; yet every time I go down there, I 

like to question people, like at the old Whitmore Ranch or some of 

those areas, what did they think of it, and it's-you won't help the 

fur trade. Like a lawyer from LA said he was going to sue the Park 

Service or the Forest Service or whoever I need to, because I saw 

condensation trails as I was hiking down Wetpan FUdge. How extreme can you get? 

You can't ground Delta Airlines and American Airlines and that 

kind of thing, and we don't necessarily have a Huey right over his 

head. I could agree to that, but somewhere, there is some moderation in all these things. 

I worry aboui; the people. Secretary Babbitt was sitting here the 

other day and he and the President want to substantially reduce 

the amount of people who could overfly when they brought props. Well, I can see that, but on the other side of the coin, what about 

the people who don't have the time? What about the people who can t do it, the older folks? Don't they have a right to see the canyons, too? 

We are always trying-! don't know who said moderation in all 

things. It should be strictly limited, but somewhere, there has got 

to be &orne moderation. We are all trying to get to that point. 

Excbse me, I don't want to give you my lecture. We are honored 

to have the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from 

New Mexico, Mr. Richardson, with us for any appropriate wisdom 

he wants to share. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I am just here to make sure 

you are not hurting my friends. 

Mr. HANSEN. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Lyons. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question on the 

Snake River. Are there any restrictions on powerboaters on the 

Snake River? 

Mr. LYONS. Bob, why don't you address that? Bob Richmond is 

the supervisor responsible for that area. 

Mr. RICHMOND. There are currently proposed restrictions for 

powerboats on the Snake River, and we are in the planning process. We are about to issue an environmental assessment on the 

powerboat restrictions, and we will be going through this summer 

analyzing again the feedback from the public, and I will make a 

decision by the first of August of this year on that issue. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The Hells Canyon legislation, as I understand 

it, stipulates that there have to be some kind of control and use 

of motorized river craft. Isn't that correct? 

Mr. RICHMOND. The legislation is not that clear in terms that 

there has to be restrictions on anything. What the legislation does 

is tells us that motorized use on the Snake River is an acceptable 

use and gives us the language, I believe, to manage that use just 
19 

as we would manage raising a timber harvest or any other resource 

use in a National Recreation Area. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. In terms of powerboaters versus what are 

called nonmotorized users, would you say that your plan has a certain balance? 

Mr. RICHMOND. We think so. If you talk to some powerboaters, 

they don't think so. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for letting me 

ask my questions. I am glad that Mr. Lyons is here. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. We all appreciate the 

honor of your presence. 

Is there a second round here? Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Richmond, I 

have some questions for you, but before I get into that, I wish the 

gentleman from Michigan had stayed around, because his comments with regards to the Federal Government being able to restrict activities on the river were specifically excluded in the Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Act wherein, and I want this made 

very clear on the record, wherein Section 6 states that no provision 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act nor of this act nor any guide--

lines, rules or regulations issued hereunder shall in any way restrict or conflict with present and future use of the waters of the 

Snake River and its tributaries upstream from the boundaries of 

the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area created hereby for beneficial users, whether consumptive or nonconsumptive, and I think 

that is pretty clear. 

I don't think there is any doubt left in that language. 

Mr. THOMAS. It is out of context, madame. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Pardon me? 

Mr. THOMAS. It is out of context. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I don't think you can take this language out 

of context. I think it is very clear, and if you feel that it is out of 

context, then let me see what your opinion is. 

I have studied the law, and I don't think that this is out of context at all. 

Mr. Richmond, you stated that you did a survey with regard to 

use of activities on the river. You couched your answers with regards to a survey very interestingly; however, I have a copy of your 

report which was suppo;;ed to be part of your environmental impact 

statement. It is chapter 3, titled affected environment of your own 

report, and this report states that about 78 percent of surveyed 

visitors, that means people outside of Idaho, surveyed visitors felt 

the presence of powerboats on the river was not a major problem, 

and about 85 percent felt noise from powerboaters was not a major 

problem. Recreationalists are generally satisfied with the amount 

and mix of activity on the river and also feel a need to regulate use 

to maintain the quality of the experience. That is your own study. 

Also, the Forest Service reported that, and this is the premier 

whitewater powerboating river in the United States, and it is one 

of the few areas available for powerboaters to travel in a back 

country setting into the main rapids. So you can see why this Committee and the Congress get a little concerned when we see by public policy, you are trying to change the clear objective of the law. 
20 

Mr. Richmond, I have a question. The river recreation management plan you adopted for the Snake River and Hells Canyon is 

probably the most complex regulatory and difficult to administer of 

any in this Nation, yet your forest can barely afford to provide 

basic services. My constituents tell me that seasonal staff can't be 

hired, that the new campground at Pittsburgh landing can't be 

maintained or the water turned off, and the trails can't be opened. 

Given the budget constraints that all agencies are under, how 

can you justify a restrictive plan when other basic services are left 

undone? 

Mr. LYONS. Congresswoman, I don't know that Bob is in a position to have to deal with larger budget issues that affect the Forest 

Service as a whole. Like, I think, all forest supervisors, and like all 

forests, Wallowa-Whitman is facing constraints that we recognize 

in our goal of trying to reduce our expenditures to get down to a 

balanced budget. 

The recreation program is a program that has not received significant increases in funds in recent years. In fact, our proposed fiscal year '97 budget is flat-lined with regard to recreation receipts. We have some flexibility and ability with regard to the recreation 

program to develop other sources of revenue. We have used partnerships and volunteer programs as a mechanism to help us deal 

with everything from trail maintenance to facilities maintenance. 

There is contained in the recently signed Appropriations Act a 

provision for a pilot program to allow us to charge recreational receipts at certain developed camp sites and also to pour the money 

back into recreation management. Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Lyons, I really appreciated your testimony 

when you said you wanted to return more control to your local foresters, and I am asking him about his management of his own forest. 

Mr. LYONS. Well, I just wanted to make clear--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Obviously, Mr. Lyons--excuse me. 

Mr. LYONS. Yes, madame. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Obviously, you don't want him to answer. Is 

that the case for the record? 

Mr. LYONS. No, I think Bob knows well how to answer the question and he is free to answer the question. I just want to make 

clear, Congresswoman, that you understand the context in which 

a Bob Richmond or a Bert Kulesza have to operate. They get a certain amount of funds to work with, and they make the best management decisions they can make based on their professional expertise. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do understand how we allocate the funds. I 

don't understand what happens to them when they get to your 

level and down to the local level. 

So I wonder with regards to that forest and the management of 

those facilities, if we might have a breakdown of the funding. 

Mr. LYONS. I am sure that we can provide you that. I don't want 

to interfere with my supervisor's opportunity to answer the question, if you would like him to do so. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I am asking you right now, Mr. Lyons, to get 

the numbers for us. Mr. LYONS. We can certainly do that. 
21 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. When will you provide them? 

Mr. LYONS. As soon as we can. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Within 30 days? 

Mr. LYONS. We can do that, I am sure. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Can we make sure that is here within 30 

days? 

Mr. HANSEN. I will look forward to receiving the information, and 

I am sure they will give the report. 

Mr. LYONS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Richmond, I understand that after appeals were filed with your plan in 1994, that the regional forester 

told you to do a study of economic impacts as required under 

NEPA. 

Have you considered this? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Congresswoman Chenoweth, we did in the environmental impact statement, the NEPA process, do the economic 

analysis. We did it on the outfitting community as a whole, not by 

individual outfitters. 

The Regional Forester, in reviewing the appeals, directed me to 

do an economic analysis specific to each individual outfitter and 

display those effects in an environmental analysis, and we are currently working on that. We will have the draft of that EA published by the lOth of June, and we will have it in the public's 

hands for 30 days for their review and comment, and I will have 

a decision by August 1st on that. Mrs. CHENOWETH. We are looking at a river about 65 miles long 

and about a half-mile wide. Doesn't that require an environmental 

impact statement? That is a major Federal action. 

Mr. RICHMOND. We did the environmental impact statement, 

Congresswoman, on the entire river, and as I mentioned, the regional forester felt that my economic analysis was not specific 

enough to individual outfitter permits, so we will tier this environmental analysis to that EIS. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Richmond, this is a copy of the economic 

analysis done by the outfitters, and I am advised to date, you have 

not used the information in this. Mr. RICHMOND. To date, what I have done is analyzed that proposed model and found that it doesn't meet standard accounting 

definitions or methodologies and consequently, overestimates the 

economic effect. My staff, in meeting with the Hells Canyon Alliance told them where we see the weaknesses in their logic. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. This is quite amazing. Would you be willing 

to work with the outfitters on the economic impact? My concern is 

not only the outfitters, but other landowners and other interested 

parties on that river have not been dealt with at all. You have not 

counseled with them. You have not asked their opinion. You have 

not sought their advice on the economic impact. 

Can you say for the record and for this committee that you would 

work with the affected landowners and outfitters on that river? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, Congresswoman Chenoweth. I can. In fact, 

I have been working very closely with all of the folks concerned, 

and there were, by the regional forester's direction, only three outfitters that we were required to review in depth in terms of their 

situation because the rest of the outfitters in terms of how they re-
22 

sponded to the final environmental impact statement had no new 

information to provide us. 

We continue to work with our friends and neighbors in the outfitting business to adequately analyze and display the economic effects, and I will make another decision, as I said. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. If a licensed CPA made a statement that this 

report was concluded under standards of the normal practice within the industry of accounting, a licensed CPA gave you that sort 

of statement, would you then use this information? 

Mr. RICHMOND. I would consider it. I am not going to say here 

that I would use it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You would only consider using the information 

if a CPA said that they used standard accounting methods? 

Mr. RICHMOND. I believe that the method that we are currently 

using, based on reviews that we have had by the regional economists in Region I of the Forest Service, Region IV of the Forest 

Service, and Region VI of the Forest Service confirms that our 

analysis is right, and I believe that I can use that as a standard 

report if I have to accept it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are these people certified public accountants 

in their reviews? 

Mr. RICHMOND. They are card-carrying economists. See, one of 

the problems with the agency model is that they are basing it on 

investment and in some cases on what I call blue-sky potential in 

terms of selling your businesses, and there was a term that 

whipped around this town a few years ago called voodoo economics, 

and I think that there is some of that involved in the model so far. 

Unless that is shaken out. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now, a certified public account would not put 

his name on the report verifying that these figures were acquired 

under standard practices if there is voodoo economics in play here. 

Mr. THOMAS. Could I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? 

For one thing, a CPA is a CPA, which says you got an accounting 

principle. An economist is an economist who usually develops econometric models that utilize that sort of information. 

What a CPA says about an accounting process doesn't have much 

to do with the econometric model. I think here, we are talking 

about econometrics, not a CPA assessment. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I don't think so. I think that 

the economists engage in an art and CPAs engage in a science, and 

that is what we are after. 

I think that by engaging in art, it gives the Forest Service too 

much latitude to impose personal preferences by public policy, and 

so that is why I think we need to stick to general accounting principles as set forth as science and followed by the CPAs. 

Mr. THOMAS. I think we do. The point of it is, having some training in econometrics myself, I still think there is a very clear distinction between what goes into an econometric model which might 

have some utilization under CPA regulation, but running a model 

is a whole different question. 

We are talking about-for example, I don't think a CPA has 

much to say about the validity of an econometric model. Conversely, I am not sure that economists have much to say about accounting practices. I think those two things are very different. 
23 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Richmond's 

response was that these numbers were not put together under general accounting principles that they would recognize, and I think 

that the standard that is recognized and should be recognized as 

the scientific standard are those principles under which a CPA 

would operate. 

Mr. THOMAS. We might have some other CPAs as well. 

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentlelady from Idaho. We have spent 

one hour on this panel. 

I will turn to my friend from Oregon for any questions he may 

have, and then let us move to the next panel. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lyons, could I get 

a comment from you on Judge rejects the limit on the powerboat 

traffic on this recent court decision? 

Mr. LYONS. I am not familiar with that court decision, Congressman, so I am afraid I can't comment on it. 

Mr. COOLEY. Is anybody on your panel familiar with this court 

decision eliminating use? You are not going to be able to implement 

this? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Is that Judge Redman's decision. 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes. Mr. RICHMOND. What Judge Redman decided was that there was 

no need to implement the plan until I complete this additional 

analysis that I am required to do, and he has given us a date of 

June lOth of having that environmental analysis in the public's 

hands, and we intend to meet that. 

Mr. COOLEY. Is this concerning the policy establishing guidelines 

for powerboat access to private holdings and the judge believes that 

the river recreational management plan decision without even view 

or opportunity for comment from landowners is affected? Is that 

part of Judge Redman's decision there? 

Mr. RICHMOND. I am not sure that I recognize that language. 

Mr. COOLEY. You said that you had a poll that was taken by the 

University of Idaho, said that people talked about the powerboating 

being limited. Do you have a copy of that poll? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Pardon me? 

Mr. COOLEY. Could we get a copy of that poll? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COOLEY. I appreciate that. My last thing is that to the chief 

here. You made a reference that Mrs. Chenoweth made a statement on 

Section 6 out of context. I want to read you Section 6 right from 

the law. Mr. THOMAS. Can I return the compliment? 

Mr. COOLEY. Section 6[a], no provision of the Wild and Scenic 

River Act [82 Staff 906] nor of this act or any guideline, rules or 

regulation issued hereunder shall in any way limit, restrict, or conflict with the present ahd future use of the water of the Snake 

River and its tributaries upstream within the boundaries of Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Area for the beneficial use, whether 

consumptive or nonconsumptive, now or thereafter existing, including but not limited to domestic, municipal, stockyard, irrigation, mining, power, or industrial use. 
24 

Now, that is not out of context. That is out of the law, so if you 

want to talk about that, you will have to talk about something else. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, could I respond? 

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. 

Mr. THOMAS. Public Law 94-199, 1975, Section 10, "The Secretary shall promulgate or may amend such rules and regulations 

as he deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this act. Such 

rules and regulations shall include but are not limited to [a], standards for the use and development of privately owned property within the recreation area which rules and regulations the Secretary 

may to the extent he deems advisable implement with the authority delegated to him in Section 9 of the act which may differ among 

various parcels of land within the recreation area; [b] establish 

guides to ensure full protection and preservation of the historic, archaeological and paleontological resources of the recreation area; 

[c], provision for the control of the use of motorized and mechanical 

equipment for transportation over or alteration of the surface of 

any Federal land within the recreation area; and [d], provision for 

the control and use of the number of motorized and nonmotorized 

river craft, provided that this use of such craft is hereby recognized 

as a valid use of the river within the recreation area; and [e], 

standards for such management utilization and disposal of natural 

resources on federally owned lands including but not limited to 

timber harvesting by selected cutting, mining, grazing, and the 

continuation of such existing uses and developments which are 

compatible with the provisions of this act." Emphasis on [b]. 

Mr. CooLEY. Emphasis on [b]? What section? 

Mr. THOMAS. Section [d]. 

Mr. COOLEY. In your proposal, I understand that you are proposing to limit or completely disallow a certain period of time for any 

powerboats on that river. Is that true? 

Mr. THOMAS. That is right. 

Mr. CooLEY. And that, you think, is admirable? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. COOLEY. Doesn't that conflict with the provision m that 

statement [d]? 

Mr. THOMAS. Not to my interpretation. 

Mr. COOLEY. Provided the use of said craft is a valid use of the 

Snake River recreation area. Provisions for controlling use and 

numbers of motorized and nonmotorized river craft, doesn't that 

sort of imply that there should be a balance there? 

Mr. LYONS. That is correct, Congressman, and I think the point 

here is attempting to strike--

Mr. CooLEY. You are restricting complete use of motorized 

boats--

Mr. LYONS. For a limited period of time so as to balance--

Mr. CooLEY. But you restrict everybody. 

Mr. LYONS. I would say that there--

Mr. COOLEY. Overall. 

Mr. THOMAS. Nonmotorized use is now restricted. 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes, sir. But in the same number, percentage wise? 

Mr. THOMAS. I think this is a new way to try to approach some 

balance, but we have had restriction on the number of launches of 

nonmotorized craft for some number of years. 
25 

Mr. COOLEY. But under the new guidelines, will that same issue 

apply to the nonmotorized as well in equivalent numbers? If you 

had to live with that guideline do you think everybody can live 

with it? 

Mr. THOMAS. I would answer the question by saying we are seeking balance, which I guess we would agree that we need balance. 

Maybe we disagree about how to approach it. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the panel being with us 

today. I guess to summarize the concerns that we may have, if we get 

the statistics, 97 percent of the folks are happy with the issue of 

rivers. We also have the commercials and others saying that more 

proposals limit their use voluntarily. It kind of makes you wonder 

about the necessity of this. With that said, let me thank each and every one of you for being 

here, and I know you would like to get out of here and get off the 

hot seat, and I can surely understand that, but sometimes, the 

folks that follow you may give information you may want to hear, 

and I know you have got other things to do and we don't want to 

take your time, but if you would like to stay, you would be more 

than welcome to listen to some of the testimony from some other 

folks. 

Mr. Undersecretary, thank you for being here. Chief, always good 

to see you, and I appreciate your taking the time. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the three people to my left will remain through the hearing. They are actually the people that know 

anything anyway. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate it. We will call our next 

panel. 

Our next panel is Mr. Craig Collett, Vice President of Flaming 

Gorge Lodge, Dutch John, Utah; Mr. Harold Egbert, President of 

the Green River Outfitters and Guides Association , Dutch John, 

Utah; Mr. David Feltch, from Vernal Utah. 

Let us take them in the order of Mr. Egbert, Mr. Collett, and Mr. 

Feltch in that order. Would that be all right? 

Mr. Egbert, we are going to take you first. Is that OK? 

Mr. EGBERT. That will be fine. 

Mr. HANSEN. Let me thank you for being here, and we will just 

ask you questions. We are going to run out of time, and that worries me, so do you think you could condense your comments to five 

minutes, and we will go to questions? Does that give you enough 

time? 

Mr. EGBERT. Yes, we can. 

Mr. HANSEN. When that light in front of you-I do the same 

thing with my members, it is just like a traffic light. When it shows 

green, you start, and when it is red, you wrap it up. Mr. Egbert, you have the time, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD EGBERT, PRESIDENT, GREEN RIVER 

OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES ASSOCIATION, DUTCH JOHN, UTAH 

Mr. EGBERT. Thank you. My name is Harold Egbert. I represent 

the 13 outfitters and guides who are legally licensed to carry on 

commercial activities on the Green River. 
26 

We participate in activities such as scenic flow trips, guided fishing trip, walkway trips, and things like that. Use on the Green 

River for commercial use has grown from about 400 trips in 1987 

to approximately 3, 700 trips in 1995. 

All but one of the permits that are issued to those 13 outfitters 

on the Green River are term permits, which are renewable every 

year, under the temporary system that we are working under, 

which creates great hardships for the outfitters who are not assured of having an operation next year. They have to reapply each 

year for that use. 

The Green River commercial use, as I said, has constituted about 

five percent of the total river use in the A section, the first section, 

and about seven percent of the total river use is attributable to 

commercial use. That is the only section of the river that has been 

subject to any type of regulation or control or restriction of any 

type in the past. 

We were interested to read the Forest Service's presentation 

where they quote on page 8 that use continues to grown on the 

Green River. Approximately 97,000 people visited the river in 1995. 

In the year that the study was done in 1990, there were about 

114,000 people who were there. 

As a result of displacement of some user groups due to perceived 

crowding that it is inferring, in fact, some of the perceptions are 

that there is no longer a quality recreational experience, because 

of the number of people in the river corridor at one time. 

You made reference to the fact that 97 percent of the people, according to their own study, were satisfied or had exceeded their expectations for the experience, and that is the feel that we have, too. 

We receive surveys back that are sent by the Forest Service to our 

customers, commercial customers. We receive approximately ten 

percent of our total number, which is 1,500 that we did. We received somewhere between 100 and 150 responses back, and not 

one negative response was made concerning the experience or the 

type of experience that they participated in. The only negative responses were in the actual flow fluctuations which we have very little control over, if any at all. 

We also are interested in the studies which make reference to 

summarizing and conclusions there which state that two of the 

most salient findings to come out of the survey of the Green River 

users are that perceived crowding is only weakly linked to numbers 

seen and not at all dissatisfaction. 

Moreover, there is little direct evidence to suggest that displacement is going on. Some suggest that it is not, as you read. We feel that the people have three choices when they come to the 

Green River. They can enjoy their experience and come back; they 

will come at another time and use a different section of the river 

or another time of year; or they will not come back depending upon 

their own perception of their experience. We prefer to let those people make that decision rather than the 

Forest Service or any other agency who might say that they are 

qualified to determine whether someone has had a successful expe- rience or not. 

We rely very strongly on our operation upon return customers 

who come back year after year rather than upon those who may 
27 

have a perception of a great experience and not be sure of what 

they are getting into. We rely very strongly on those who have been 

there and come back and are satisfied and happy with their experience. 

We do notice that if they do have a problem with a certain time 

of year, that they will come at another time and make that experience at another time of year. We work very hard to do this. We are 

a seasonal operation. We work hard to develop our business and 

our opportunities in the early and late part of the season. 

I would like to refer to page 3, the background of relationship between the outfitters and the guides and the Forest Service there. 

In quick summary of this experience there, we have about ten 

years of frustrations that we have dealt with in having to deal 

with, in every year having to reapply for these permits. 

We work very hard in the operations and the outfitters that are 

there have made the effort over the past ten years to be part of a 

responsible organization and provide good services. They are there 

because they have been successful in what they have been able to 

accomplish. 

As you see, we have had to deal with some unusual restrictions 

and things that have happened without our input or our discussion 

in that timeframe. 

In summary, we would like to say that we do respect the right 

of the general public to come here and to make their determination 

on their own whether they have had a successful experience. We 

feel that if we do our job and the river is so beautiful and the experience they had was so good there, that they will have a desire to 

come back, rather than having an agency or some other person tell 

them that they have that successful experience. 

We have 97 percent, as is said, 97 percent of the people in the 

survey said they were happy with their experience there, and we 

feel that very little regulation is required to ensure that those 

other three percent could have a happy experience or good experience also. 

[The prepared statement of Harold Egbert may be found at the 

end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Egbert. Mr. Collett, we will turn 

the time to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG COLLETT, VICE PRESIDENT, FLAMING 

GORGELODGE,DUTCHJOHN,UTAH 

Mr. COLLETT. My name is Craig Collett. My family and I operate 

two businesses within the Flaming Gorge National Recreation 

Area. One of those businesses is under a special use permit in the 

town of Dutch John and the other is on private property. My family 

and I have been there since 1957. My father started the business 

in Dutch John as soon as the dam was begun. 

Flaming Gorge recreation area is visited by over 2,000,000 people 

a year. There are a lot of people that come for various experiences, 

and the Green River is only part of that. 

I would like to start off by saying that the Green River has not 

been designated as a wild and scenic river. In 1988, the Forest 

Service began looking at developing a new Green River management plan. As part of developing this plan in 1991, the Forest Serv-
28 

ice had a study done to analyze the recreation use capacity of the 

Green River which Harold referred to and which has been referred 

to earlier. 

I would like to quickly read a couple statements in the conclusion 

part of that study. One thing is something other than the number 

of people seen explains most of the crowding. Existing conditions 

of crowding appear to be fairly well accepted by a substantial portion of the current user population. Also, it says, "Caution is therefore counseled in departing too much or too rapidly from existing 

conditions." 

The most recent attempt by the Forest Service to complete the 

Green River management plan was begun in March of '95. There 

were five proposed alternatives, of which alternative B was the proposed action. You have that in your handouts. Alternative B, the part that I will address, is the restriction of 

public use. Just briefly, it is basically 600 persons in the Spring 

Vol. Section A, which is a 7.2-mile section in the spring; during the 

summer, there would be 750 maximum persons in that section at 

one time; in the fall, 350. 

My concerns about this proposal were stated in my letter to the 

Forest Service in April 25, 1995, and you have a copy of that. As 

a business that depends on visitors for our livelihood, we are concerned about public restrictions or even the perception of restrictions on the Green River. News releases and publicity about possible restrictions have already begun circulating. I am convinced that because of this, some 

people have already decided not to come to the Green River. We 

have phone calls all the time from people calling and saying, I understand there are restrictions, and we say no, there aren't any; 

they are just proposed. We wonder how many people don't bother 

to call and just don't come. The Forest Service has stated that they can deal with the environmental and safety concerns created by more people on the river. 

Therefore, my question is, does the Forest Service have the right 

to restrict public use of public lands and public water because of 

perceived overcrowding? 

I say perceived, because I am not convinced that the actual problem exists. The public is intelligent enough to decide for themselves 

if the river is too crowded. The choice then is theirs, to choose if 

and when they will come. On the Fourth of July weekend, crowding is fun; the more the 

merrier. For a tranquil fishing experience, coming during the week, 

early morning, early or late season would be best. 

People don't like to be told what they can and can't do. Use of 

the Green River hasn't significantly changed since 1991; that has 

been stated. It has gone down from 114,000 visitors per year to 

97,000. It has been pretty even since that time. 

It therefore appears to me that people are already deciding for 

themselves if the river is too crowded. Let the people continue to 

make their own choice. 

My philosophy is, if it is not broken, don't fix it, and make sure 

that the solution isn't worse than the problem. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Craig W. Collett may be found at the 

end of hearing.] 
29 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Collett. I appreciate your comments. Mr. Feltch, we will turn the time to you, sir. You are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FELTCH, VERNAL, UTAH 

Mr. FELTCH. Thank you. My name is David Feltch, and I rep- resent the local public. I live in the Vernal area and have used the 

river for many years. I think we all feel that most people think the same way as we 

do. I think most Forest Service personnel tend to lean toward the 

feeling that the quality of an outdoor experience is based upon the 

amount of solitude that one enjoys. 

I have been an avid user of the Green River for many years. 

Twenty years ago while floating the Green River, even on a Saturday, you might see one or two other rafters. At that time, we usually caught eight, ten fish a day. Today, when I float the river, we catch around 30 fish a day, yet 

the Forest Service is trying to tell us that our experience now is 

not as enjoyable because we see more folks. Maybe they have forgotten that their figures show that 91 percent of the river users are 

there primarily to fish. The statement read by Mr. Lyons said that their main responsibility is to protect resources. It didn't say that they are deter- mined to enjoy them. If there are a number of people that are hav- ing a negative impact on the environment, then there need to be 

some changes made, but on Green River, this can easily be accomplished by adding a restroom on the A section and educating the 

public on the importance of taking only pictures and leaving only 

footprints. When a raft pulls out of the river, it leaves no evidence 

of its passing at all. 

I believe the Forest Service needs to listen to what the public 

wants, not manage all rivers for the sole purpose of a solitude experience. Currently, 91 percent of the public response is of a positive 

nature. This does not indicate a need to put some regulations on 

it. 

Most families plan their vacation around their work schedule, 

the kids' school. We go somewhere knowing it might be a busy time 

of the year at that location, and we will have numerous other peo- ple there, but we would rather go and see the sights than stay 

home. Yet, the Forest Service wants to tell us we won't have what 

they consider a quality experience, so we can't go at all. Yesterday was a good example of this. I took the opportunity to 

visit several local attractions. There were lots of other people at 

each one of them. I am sure that my experience visiting the Capital 

would have been enhanced had there been fewer people. However, this will likely be the only time in my life I will visit this area. 

What a shame it would have been if I was turned away because 

I was the 751st person to arrive, thus denying me the opportunity 

to see that magnificent structure. The Forest Service showed their proposal and it is far being ex- ceeded. They want to put up locked gates and not let anyone 

launch until 7:00 a.m .. The sole purpose for this is so they can 

count the number of rafters and hikers at any given time in the 
30 

river corridor, ignoring completely their own figures showing that 

no current overcrowding. 

If the Forest Service does implement this part of the plan, it will 

result in an increase of rafters putting on at one time, thus 

lumping boats together and concentrating them instead of letting 

the public spread out naturally. When my friends and I go fishing, we usually try to put on about 

5:00 in the morning. It's a little known secret, and I don't know if 

I want to tell secrets here, but that is the best time for fishing, and 

to be told you can't go fishing on a quality fishing stream until we 

get up and get to work goes against my nature. 

There are also large groups such as family reunions, scout, or 

church youth groups which want to float the river. They want to 

go with the group, but the proposed plan would force them to 

launch over a passage throughout a period. This would mean a 

long, frustrating wait at the beginning of their trip along with the 

same long wait at the take-out ramp as they wait for the remainder of their group to arrive. Any positive feelings resulting from 

these people seeing fewer boats or hikers would be greatly offset 

by the couple of hours they would wait prior to and at the end of 

their trip. There are three other rivers in our area that can be run, the 

Yampa, Split Mountain, and Gates of LaDore, all of which have 

very strict regulations as to the number of people allowed on each 

day. Why must the Forest Service also try to put limits on this last 

section of river available to the general public? 

Please let supply and demand work regarding how many people 

are allowed to use our public lands. If families feel they didn't have 

an enjoyable experience, word will spread and the number of users 

will decrease accordingly. We don't need a government agency telling us when we are having fun. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Feltch may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentlelady from Idaho. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this testimony 

and I also appreciate the fact that Mr. Laverty and Mr. Richmond 

remained in the audience to hear the testimony because it has impressed me that we often have, more often than not as a matter 

of habit, we have the agency personnel testifying first. We have 

people who have come a long way to be heard, so I very much appreciate those two gentlemen remaining in the audience. 

I hope that we can have our people who are offering testimony 

from a long ways away perhaps go first so that others can hear 

them. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and give back my 

time to you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. COOLEY. I really appreciate your testimony and I find it very 

interesting. As we go through this process, not only today but other 

times, it appears, I guess to some of us, anyway in Congress, that 

it looks as if the Forest Service and many other agencies are looking for more control than they are really trying to manage the resource. 

I know that is a pretty broad statement to make and it will probably get me in trouble, but I really feel that way at times when 

we look at specific instances where it appears that it is illogical 
31 

what is occurring and the type of authority that is being exerted 

by agencies. 

I think your statement about whether they can regulate a park 

to allow you to go out on the river, I know the Chairman and I 

have had occasion, not very often, but to go fishing, and you are 

right. The fishing is better at 5:00 than it is at 7:00, but it seems 

like we have an agency that in some instances and some people in 

the agency that are merely looking for control more than management, and I do appreciate your comments and your testimony. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman from Oregon. Listening to 

this group speak, these are really the kind of folks that really do 

work on the rivers, and I have often wondered; I am not as familiar 

with it as you folks are, but I have spent a lot of time on the Green 

River and Flaming Gorge and those areas. I have been over the environmental impact statement, and I don't know whether the plan 

they are coming up with is going to change the experience that people have, whether it will be a good experience or be a bad experience. 

I really didn't find any complaints up in your area, Vernal, north 

of Duchesne, way over, up around those little towns going the other 

way. It looked pretty good, and I really get concerned when we 

start regulating. Regulation gives us more heartburn around here 

than any other single thing. 

I have often said that the most powerful person in the world is 

the young attorney who writes regulations after we finish with the 

laws. He can put something in there and I can hardly recognize the 

law. 

I used to be speaker of the house in Utah, and I used to get to 

write one page for every paragraph so they could understand and 

the courts wouldn't sue me and the president of the Senate on the 

Congress' intent. 

I know that the Forest Service has a big responsibility, and I appreciate our good, dedicated citizens who work in the Forest Service, but I sometimes worry that we create our own problems, kind 

of like your statement. I agree, too, if it ain't broke, don't mess 

around with it, but it seems like we are very good at that. 

I do feel that private industry and voluntary controls go a long 

way. People doing things, maybe we can be very gentle in how we 

induct them into that, but I do appreciate the testimony that the 

three of you have given us. It has been very informative to all of 

us. 

I am going to ask the gentlelady from Idaho if she would take 

the chair. I have a mark-up on resource development. I am one of 

the ranking members, and I have to get over there, and it is very 

important, but I do want to thank you for being here, and I call 

the next panel, which is Panel III, and I thank this panel. 

Mr. Diek Sherwin, from Clarkston, Washington; Mr. Darrel 

Bentz, Intermountain Excursions from Lewiston, Idaho; and Ms. 

Sandra Mitchell, Executive Director of Hells Canyon Alliance, 

Boise, Idaho. If those folks would like to come forth, I would really 

appreciate it. 
32 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to welcome Mr. Sherwin, Mr. B~ntz, and Mrs. Mitchell, and I would like to begin with Mr. Sherwin. 

STATEMENT OF DICK SHERWIN, CLARKSTON, WASHINGTON 

Mr. SHERWIN. Thank you. My name is Richard Sherwin, and I 

have been a private floater of the Snake River and Hells Canyon 

since 1976. 

I am here to testify in favor of H.R. 2568 because it is important 

to embrace legislation that does not advocate exclusive use of Hells 

Canyon. 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act specifically provided for use of motorized river craft in Hells Canyon and recognized such use as valid. 

Some claim powerboats should be limited or eliminated in the 

Hells Canyon recreation area to protect the cultural, ecological, and 

environmental resources of the canyon, and to make the river safer 

or more enjoyable for a specific user group. 

I believe that the real reason is because of economic competition. 

Elimination of Jetboats from the river for three days a week is not 

acceptable. Those in favor claim Jetboaters are being unreasonable 

by refusing to give up just 24 of the most productive days of the 

entire year for the commercial Jetboat operators. 

This would be comparable to giving into a demand by K-Mart 

that Wal-Mart close its doors for 24 days a year, commencing the 

day after Thanksgiving. 

The commercial floaters know that forcing the commercial 

powerboaters to lose 43 percent of their use during the peak of the 

season would drive many out of business and out of commercial 

competition for the use of the river. Many believe the powerboaters should be willing to give up the 

use of the wild designated section of the river. They speak about 

this section in terms such as wilderness, solitude, and primitive. 

Congress purposefully excluded the entire river corridor from any 

wilderness designation. In order to have solitude by definition, one 

would have to be in the area all alone. There are signs of civilization on every nearly every bar and flat spot in the canyon. The 

area is anything but primitive. 

I am not against fairly regulating Jetboat traffic in Hells Canyon. Except possibly for certain holidays, Hells Canyon is not overcrowded. No plan should be written just for these rare instances, 

but reasonable limits based on average current use should be applied to powerboat traffic. 

Some seeking Jetboat elimination have resorted to gross exaggerations and perhaps even perjury. In a recent legal declaration, 

the executive director of Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Richard K. Bailey, stated, and I quote, "I have spent an average of 

about 40 days per year floating the Snake River over the past 13 

years. I have had dangerous and unpleasant encounters with 

Jetboats on each trip." 

At the very least, this statement by Mr. Bailey is a gross exaggeration. In all probability, it is blatant perjury. Only the very 

naive would believe that Mr. Bailey had a dangerous encounter 
33 

with Jetboats on every single trip he has taken in Hells Canyon 

for the last 13 years. Mr. Bailey has consistently demonstrated a city-slicker mentality 

of wilderness, solitude, and primitive areas by claiming they exist 

in Hells Canyon. These conditions do exist in the nearby Frank 

Church and Selway-Bitterroot wilderness areas, but not in Hells 

Canyon. 

Mr. Bailey claims to hunger for these conditions of wilderness, 

solitude, and primitive existence, but has never demonstrated a 

willingness to seek them on rivers where they now exist. He appears to be waiting for Congress to create such an area for his exclusive use in Hells Canyon. 

Referring to Jetboats in the canyon, Mr. Bailey claims Jetboats 

"belie the wilderness characte1· that I and so many others seek a 

brief taste of in Hells Canyon." 

He states that a great many of his customers are dismayed by 

Jetboats on the Snake River, and their trips have been ruined from 

the noise, speed, fumes, and wakes that create dangerous conditions. He also claims very few of his customers have chosen to return to float the Snake River but have chosen instead to float rivers with less or even no motorized traffic. 

It is no surprise that very few customers have returned to float 

the Snake River with Mr. Bailey. Who would want to spend their 

money and vacation floating a river with a guide who consistently 

accentuates his philosophy that the entire trip was ruined because 

of all those noisy, speeding Jetboats causing wakes and exposing 

everyone to imminent danger. Would any of you sitting here be a 

return customer? 

In the summer of 1994, I and several others floated the Snake 

River the same three days as Mr. Bailey and some of his customers. During this float from Hells Canyon Dam to Pittsburgh 

Landing, my party experienced eight encounters with five separate 

Jetboats. At the Pittsburgh Landing take-out, I asked one of Mr. Bailey's 

customers how he enjoyed the trip. He responded that the area was 

beautiful and the river was great but that his entire trip had been 

ruined by literally "dozens of roaring Jetboats." This man's experience had been ruined by a guide who was obsessed with the elimination of Jetboats on the river, Jetboats that were not ever even 

encountered. No wonder many customers do not want to float again with Mr. Bailey. They all have returned to write letters to the Forest Service 

complaining that their experience was ruined by Jetboats. 

All who were with me on this three-day trip had a great time 

and could not wait to return for another float. 

I could go on and on about misleading statements by Mr. Bailey, 

Mr. Grubb, and others who wish to control Hells Canyon for their 

own purposes. I apologize to this committee for presenting such 

negative testimony to you ladies and gentlemen here today. I would 

much rather tell you how beautiful Hells Canyon is, how fun it is 

to recreate there and invite all of you to come and enjoy a few days 

there with me. I, and those who float with me have never failed to enjoy a float 

trip in Hells Canyon. I have never been put at risk of danger by 
34 

a Jetboat on the river. On one trip, when a member of my party 

fell and split his face open, a passing Jetboat was there to get that 

person out of the canyon and to medical attention. 

I urge you to pass this legislation and allow the Forest Service 

the latitude to write a fair management plan for Hells Canyon that 

ignore this. All who are willing to share it can endorse. Those who 

refuse to enjoy and share the canyon need to find another place to 

recreate. 

It has been an honor to speak to you on this subject. Thank you 

for your patience and your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Richard G. Sherwin may be found at 

the end of hearing.] 

[The submitted Exhibit may be found in Committe,e files.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Sherwin. Mr. Bentz. 

STATEMENT OF DARREL BENTZ, INTERMOUNTAIN 

EXCURSIONS AND BENTZ BOATS, LEWISTON, IDAHO 

Mr. BENTZ. My name is Darrel Bentz, and I live in Lewiston, 

Idaho. I started rafting rivers in 1964 and built my first Jetboat 

out of plywood in 1966 while still in college. I now build welded 

aluminum Jetboats mostly for commercial duty. In addition to the 

Northwest, Bentz boats operate in places like Canada, Alaska, 

Saudi Arabia, India, Guyana, and Nepal. 

I also have an outfitting business and carry guests on both the 

Salmon and Snake Rivers. I helped organize the Welded Aluminum 

Boat Manufacturers Association, and I am currently its vice president. 

Jetboats used for river running are rugged, welded aluminum 

craft capable of negotiating major rapids and propelled by water 

jets. Since there is no propeller projecting beneath the boat's bottom, they can run in shallow, rocky rivers. They are powered by 

automotive type engines adapted for marine use. 

The size of the craft dictates the size and number of engines required. Typical boats have a cruise speed of 28 to 35 miles per hour 

with a top speed of about 50. Modern Jetboats are quiet, maneuverable, and safe. 

In 1990 through 1994, commercial Jetboats carried 94,934 passengers into Hells Canyon, yet throughout the canyon's entire history of commercial Jetboating, there has never been a boating associated fatality. 

The Forest Service has no records of any incidents involving a 

Jetboat hitting a float craft while running on the river in Hells 

Canyon or the other two major rivers these crafts share, the Salmon and Rogue. 

Running the Snake River in Hells Canyon is an experience of a 

lifetime, and powerboating is the preferred mode of travel for about 

80 percent of those who do it. Commercial powerboats facilitate enjoyment of the canyon in a safe and inexpensive manner with virtually no impact on its resources. 

This is the only way many visitors could ever experience a 

whitewater river. They spend most of their time on the water, stopping only at hard sites capable of tolerating heavy use. The wild 

river leg of the journey is where the passengers, mostly seniors, ex-
35 

perience the deepest gorge, major rapids, and the real Hells Canyon. This costs from $85 to $95 per person, depending on the trip's 

length, most ranging from 180 to 200 miles. My brother and I own private property on the Lower Salmon 

River. The lodge there is used for family gatherings and my outfitting business. We have always enjoyed free access to that property 

via the Snake and Salmon Rivers, both serving as public highways 

for over 100 years. In its latest management plan without talking to the landowners, the Forest Service notified us that we would each be allowed one 

trip per day to our property. This works fine some days, but when 

we are carrying supplies or large groups, several boats or trips may 

be required. One private lodge, operating a bed and breakfast in 

the wild Snake River was virtually cut off from its customers by 

this. 

While appeals have resulted in a review of the plan's private 

land access provisions, there is no guarantee that a new version 

will be any better. Some people want to deny me, my friends and 

customers access to the river in spite of the language in the Hells 

Canyon Act recognizing both powerboating and floating as valid 

uses. The Forest Service attempted to prohibit us in 1981 and failed. They attempted again in 1994 with a plan that eliminated 

powerboats from the very heart of Hells Canyon for three days a 

week at the height of the recreation season. The effect on commercial powerboating is potentially devastating, like closing the doors 

of J .C. Penney stores three days a week the month before Christ- mas. 

This latest plan not only eliminates many businesses. Worse yet, it makes second class citizens out of our clients denying them so 

that another user group deemed more deserving can have an exclusive experience. 

Powerboaters have always been willing to accept reasonable limits on our use; however, we aren't willing to give up any portion 

of the canyon for anyone's exclusive use. Of the Northwest's 35 

wild and scenic river segments with whitewater, powerboats areallowed on only four, giving floaters exclusive use of 31. That is 

enough. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Darell Bentz may be found at 

the end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Bentz. Mrs. Mitchell. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA F. MITCHELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

HELLS CANYON ALLIANCE, BOISE, IDAHO 

Ms. MITCHELL. Thank you. When proposed construction of dams 

on the middle Snake River led to the passage of the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area Act in 1975, floaters and powerboaters 

worked together to see that the canyon was preserved. However, 

many, including Idaho Senators Frank Church and James- A. 

McClure, were concerned that powerboating, the traditional means 

of access to the canyon for over 100 years, would come under attack. 
36 

As a result Section 10 of the act addresses provision for the control of the use and number of motorized and nonmotorized river 

craft provided that the use of such craft is hereby :recognized as a 

valid use of the Snake River within the recreation area. To accommodate powerboating, a nonwilderness corridor at least a half-mile 

wide was left of the river's length. 

During development of the HCNRA's first management plan, 

boaters agreed to a shared use alternative that limited access by 

both float and power. The Forest Service, however, opted for a plan 

in 1981 that eliminated powerboats from all of the river's Class IV 

rapids for the entire summer. Powerboaters appealed, and the chief 

reconsidered his decision, deciding to allow limited access by boat, 

float, and powerboat to the entire river. 

This decision was also appealed, and the Secretary issued a decision in 1983 allowing unlimited access for day use powerboating 

and limiting float access on the top 16.3 miles of the 67.5 miles of 

the wild and scenic river. 

A new review of the river plan began in 1980 using a citizens 

task force with representatives from all primary user groups. Mter 

two years of deliberation, they recommended a plan allowing 

shared access to the entire river with limited numbers. The forest supervisor, however, adopted a plan in 1994 that 

eliminated powerboats from much of the wild river segment for 

three days a week in July and August to provide those floaters who 

didn't want to see powerboats a nonmotorized experience. Commercial powerboat access was curtailed to the entire river, and access 

to private land was severely limited. 

The management plan for the wild Snake River and the HCNRA 

is based on social rather than environmental concerns. According 

to my Mike Cole, river manager for the Snake River, "Decisions on 

use in the management plan are based primarily on trying to meet 

the social issues which are tied to the recreational experiences. We 

looked at the resource issues but could not justify restrictions on 

Jetboats based on them. There is no evidence that Jetboats have 

more impact on the environment than floaters." 

The plan came in spite of the language in the enabling legislation and from the overwhelming support from the public and elected officials frc . ·. ' ·.laho, Washington, and Oregon. The HCNRA's act 

validity language is intended to assure that both motorized and 

nonmotorized river craft would be provided access to the Snake 

River, one no more valid than the other. Yet at every management 

planning juncture, powerboating has been targeted for elimination 

for some part of the summer. The act's validity language has proven inadequate. 

H.R. 2568 is designed to clarify Congressional intent that this 

river be shared, protect access to private land, and ensure the limits placed on powerboating are reasonable. 

The Hells Canyon Alliance was formed to provide a common 

voice for all who support shared use of the Hells Canyon wild and 

scenic river. The original founding organizations are the Northwest 

River Runners, Western Whitewater Association, a.nd River Access 

for Tomorrow [RAFT]. Our board of directors includes a broad spectrum of those concerned with Hells Canyon's future, Floaters and 
37 

powerboaters, both commercial and private, boat manufacturers 

and business people. 

Hells Canyon Alliance supports shared use of the canyon and 

river within their capacity. Reasonable and equitable limits for all 

users is necessary to protect resources and provide an appropriate 

social experience, education of the canyon visitors or other measures necessary to protect and preserve the canyon's outstanding 

values. 

We do not favor one user group over another, and we are willing 

to work with the managing agency or other interest group to find 

reasonable solutions to the canyon's issues. We are not opposed to 

powerboat restrictions, and we have never opposed them. 

We also encourage adoption of the least intrusive management 

measures that can effectively resolve problems. The resource extraction industry, once so important to the economies of the Hells 

Canyon rim communities, are virtually gone. In their place, recreation plays an increasingly important role. Much of Hells Canyon 

takes place on the wild and scenic Snake River, and powerboating 

is the largest segment of that industry. Severe reductions in access by powered craft will severely damage economic prospects for many in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon 

for years to come, with few alternatives in sight. The most obvious 

effects will be felt by the 19 commercial powerboat outfitters who 

make their living taking customers into the canyon for sightseeing 

and fishing. 

According to a recent study done by Mr. Bob Peterson at Cougar 

Country Lodge, the annual economic impact of these outfitters totals over $28,000,000. This does not include the canyon's second 

largest float outfitter based at Hells Canyon Dam. 

Private powerboating, a popular family recreational activity, contributes about $1,500,000 annually. In the Lewiston, Idaho and 

Clarkston, Washington Valley alone, 13 businesses that manufacture and sell welded aluminum Jetboats contribute $17,000,000 annually. Not included in this figure are other Pacific Northwest 

manufacturers who construct boats used on the Snake River. Manufacturers of pump, marine engines, trailers, upholsterers, maintenance business, banks, advertisers, airlines, tour ships, travel 

agents, restaurants, hotels, tackle shop, and fuel suppliers will all 

suffer losses. 

The above assessment is weak; we know that, but it is far better 

than the one the Forest Service did. Americans are not well served 

by this plan, and Congress' commitment is not lived up to. 

If those who don't like motorized cannot go to the 31 other rivers 

where they can experience a nonmotorized experience, then we ask 

them to come and learn to share with us and enjoy Hell's Canyon. 

We ask you to please, please pass this bill. We need it desperately. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Sandra Mitchell may be found at the 

end of hearing.] 

[The submitted Attachments 2, 3, and 4 may be found in the 

Committee files.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mrs. Mitchell. I would like to turn 

to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Cooley. 
38 

Mr. COOLEY. Ms. Mitchell, we hear or at least you implied that 

powerboaters cause no more resource damage than maybe the 

floaters. Could you elaborate on that, that sort of a general statement has been made? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes. I think there are those who would like that 

to be true. However, the Forest Service has looked at it and studied 

it and they have found that in fact, there is no more impact. I suspect that you could make a case that floaters have more impact because they spend more time on the beaches. But of the floaters and the powerboaters, neither have any negativEl impact. It is 

really, truly a recreationally benign sport. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. Some of the Statements made by some 

of the testimony submitted to us claim that guides and outfitters 

will probably suffer under the Forest Service's latest plan, amendment plan. What real harm comes to either group if this plan is 

implemented? What do you see as a person who is involved in this 

process? 

Mr. BENTZ. I think that the Forest Service regulations as they 

are probably won't put all the outfitters out of business. They will 

definitely put some of the outfitters out of business, depending on 

that particular outfitter's economic status, whether he has other 

businesses to supplement. It is going to be potentially devastating. 

Mr. COOLEY. Will it be adversely on others as equal to the 

powerboaters, or is it going to be more devastating to one group 

than the other as it is proposed? 

Mr. BENTZ. The commercial powerboaters are going to be the 

ones that will be hurt the worst. Private powerboaters will be 

harmed, certainly not to the degree that commercial powerboaters 

will be. I think even more important than the commercial powerboaters 

who will be harmed are their clients. Physically handicapped people, elderly people who cannot visit the canyon in any other manner would be prevented from seeing the true heart of Hells Canyon 

three days a week during the heart of the season. 

Mr. CooLEY. Mr. Sherwin, what do you think is motivating the 

elimination of the powerboats? What has started this? 

When you read the law and you look at '95, and you look at this 

with such a-and a little bipartisan effort by a lot of--on both sides 

of the aisle, a lot of people. If you look at the vote, with a lot of 

support, and we look at Section 6 and we read that, and sort of, 

to me, it is pretty specific and defined, and now all of a sudden we 

find that in 1996 we have what seems to be a different opinion on 

the way the law was intended. 

In your opinion, what is motivating the elimination of 

powerboaters system? Apparently, the one thing we have heard, 

there has been a lot of compatibility between people on the river 

using power and people who are using floats or whatever else. 

Mr. SHERWIN. I really believe that the motivation is basically 

economic. I think that private people, floaters and boaters alike, 

have been pulled into an economic battle between ~ommercial interests that has expanded to the point to where it has frankly just 

gotten out of hand. 

I think that there are certain outfitters on the river that would 

benefit greatly by elimination of powerboats. I know the alliance, 
39 

when it first started, was accused of being a powerboat lobby. It 

is still constantly referred to as the powerboat lobby arm. I personally invited all the float outfitters on the Forest Service 

provided list that were operating in Hells Canyon in 1994 with an 

invite to join the alliance. I have a copy of the letter I sent them, 

I have a list that I checked off that I sent to these people. 

They didn't respond, they didn't join. They didn't want, apparently to come work out a plan. I don't think that it is a matter of 

people wanting to limit powerboats. I think really down deep, most 

people that are on the other side of this issue would like to eliminate powerboats to increase that float business. 

I am a fl'oater, but there are lots of rivers we can float in an area 

where we don't have powerboats, and I enjoy floating with boaters 

sometimes. 

I think it is economic. I think we have an economic thing going 

on here. One person told me-l will be real brief here. When I 

called one of the people who was a big float outfitter on the river, 

I got his wife on the phone, he was on the river, and I asked her 

why they hadn't responded to my invite to join the alliance. Her 

comment was that it was purely business, that they could increase 

their profits if they could eliminate Jetboats off the river. I think that is the driving force. 

Mr. COOLEY. If we are talking about economics and apparently, it has sort of shifted into the reason we are having tension and conflict; it is not for the environment, not for the experience, but strictly for the money. 

I am not sure if that is true or not, but let us just go with that 

factor. How much money is involved in this? How much money is 

totaled in this thing, in this experience, over a period of time? 

Do we have three or four months where you can enjoy this, when 

it is not too cold or too hot? Tell me. Mr. SHERWIN. In the primary use season, you have somewhere 

around three months. I can float the river-! like to float it in late 

fall and do some steelhead fishing and other things. Mr. COOLEY. But probably a lot of people don't like the chilliness. Mr. SHERWIN. Right. 

Mr. COOLEY. So what are we talking about, three months? 

Mr. SHERWIN. In this three-month period, you are asking me 

what economic effect? 

I will be real honest with you. I am a private floater, and I don't 

really understand all these economic figures that both sides of the 

commercial argument are throwing around. 

I think Darrel or Sandra would probably be much better on that 

aspect of it, but I just think that the economics are driving certain 

people, and they are dragging other privates along with them into 

this argument. 

Mr. COOLEY. For a floater, can you give me a general idea of 

what the total revenue is for three months? Just a general idea. 

Mr. SHERWIN. I am sorry, I can't. I am sure that the next panel 

can fill you in on that very well. 

They have some commercial people there that probably have 

those figures much better than I do. 

Mr. COOLEY. Does anybody on the panel know? 
40 

Ms. MITCHELL. In an affidavit by Mr. Peter Grubb, who is a commercial float outfitter in a recent court case, he was a plaintiff; he 

said that if powerboats were eliminated, that he could increase his 

business by 70 percent. 

Mr. COOLEY. What would that mean in dollars? 

Ms. MITCHELL. As far as dollars, I don't know. I mean, a Jetboat 

trip for a day is $75, $85, and I would say that a float is probably 

$150, $200 a day. It is a lot more expensive. 

The experts on that are obviously the commercial floaters, but it 

certainly is a more costly enterprise and expense than it is to go 

on a Jetboat trip for a day. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Sherwin, are you a commercial floater? 

Mr. SHERWIN. No, I am not commercial at all. 

Mr. COOLEY. We are talking about something motivating this for 

monetary reasons, and I think, Madame Chairman, we should 

probably look to try to find out what are we talking about here. Are 

we talking about lots and lots of money, or are we talking about 

a little of it? 

I thought we were here trying to regulate the resource and not 

looking at the monetary factor. Maybe we are looking- at the wrong 

area. 

From the testimony given, it looks like the powerboats are less 

harmful to the environment than the floater is, but the floater apparently, according to testimony, goes on the beaehes and have 

recreation on the beaches for hours and hours and hours, and the 

powerboaters, it looks to me like they go down and stop at a place, 

go back up and get out pretty quickly. 

I think we should ask about the dollar value. I didn't mean to 

ask it. We just got off of what we were talking about, and hopefully, we are not talking about taking money from the public, but 

managing a resource. 

Thank you, Madame Chairman. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Cooley. Mrs. Mitchell, you 

heard Mr. Richmond make the statement about the fact that he 

doubts or he had concern about the figures in the report that the 

outfitters and guides had put together and compiled with regards 

to the economic impact of this decision. 

Would you be able to supply verification that these figures were 

accumulated in a scientific manner? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Absolutely. When we began that process of doing 

an economic analysis, we discussed it on January 24th in the Forest Service and they said if we could provide a model, they would 

take a look at it. 

We went to great difficulty to provide that model and to give it 

to the Forest Service with the intent that we would continue to 

work together until we would come up with a model that they 

would accept and would truly demonstrate what that plan will do 

economically to those outfitters. 

Presently, that door has been closed. I was delighted to hear Mr. 

Richmond say that if we provide him that information that he will 

revisit that economic model and take a look at it. It is our goal to 

work with the Forest Service to provide the accurate information 

they need to make a good decision. 
41 

This decision impacts not just 19 powerboaters and outfitters. It 

impacts the American public who come to see that canyon, and if 

they shut those people out, we will suffer for years and years, and 

there is no reason to do it, because it is really needless if they shut 

out the American public. 

We are determined to continue to work with the Forest Service 

in whatever manner possible, so if they need more information, I 

guarantee you, we will get it to them. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I would 

hope that both you and Mr. Richmond will keep this committee 

posted with regards to the progress that you have in working together. 

Ms. MITCHELL Thank you. I will take the liberty of making that 

commitment for Mr. Richmond. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Can you tell me what types of limitations 

powerboaters would be willing to submit under--

Ms. MITCHELL. I will give you a word, and it is going to be generic, and there will be those who will question, but I will tell you 

right now, we will accept reasonable limitations. We truly will. 

This has never been about unreasonable use or unlimited use of 

Jetboats. We go to that canyon for the same reason most of the 

floaters go, and that is for a primitive, back country experience. We 

don't want bumper-to-bumper Jetboats or bumper-to-bumper floaters. 

We want to have reasonable use, and we truly believe that we 

can achieve those numbers. We have agreed on two occasions to 

limit our use. The only reason there is no limit on Jetboats in Hells 

Canyon is because the Forest Service keeps throwing our agreements down in the garbage. 

They have walked away from our agreements. We make the 

agreements; they walk away. They did it in 1980; they did it in the 

LAC. 

We still stand ready to accept reasonable limitations, and I give 

you the word of all those people out there in Hells Canyon who use 

and love that canyon that they will accept those limits. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. When we talk about access and the impact on 

the river, in the average Jetboat, how many people usually are in 

that boat? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I think it about 3.2, about the size of the National 

American family. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And how many people are usually in the 

rafts? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, the rafters do have restrictions on the 

upper 16 miles of the river at their request. They went to the Forest Service and said regulate it, we have too many floating the 

river and not enough campsites. Right now, they have five launches a day, 30 boats and 30 people 

in each launch. The plan calls for five launches a day with eight 

boats and 24 people, I believe. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Per outfitter, per rafter? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Five launches a day. Three of those launches are 

commercial--

Mr. BENTZ. Three are private. 
42 

Ms. MITCHELL. Three are private and two are commercial, and 

each one of the launch will be eight boats and 24 people, and once 

they launch, they can remain on the river for as long as they 

choose. They can make it a two or three-day or five-day float. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And they actually use the river and the campsites more than do the Jetboaters, right? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Right. The reason is that it is a slower trip and 

they start later in the day, and then they run a few rapids and pull 

over. 

Their form of recreation is positive; it is great. It is a great way 

to see the canyon. It is just that not everybody can afford to take 

that time or can endure the rigors of a float trip. 

That is why is it great to have both uses, both power and float 

on that river. It is very compatible. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to ask Mr. Sherwin, does the Forest Service regulate the floaters and if so, how, and how many licenses or permits are required of the floaters? 

Mr. SHERWIN. Yes, floaters are regulated in the upper section of 

the river, the upper, I think it is 16.5 miles presently under the 

present plan. 

I am not sure-are you talking about how many licensed float 

outfitters are operating there? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. What I am asking, is there an equivalent environment for the number of permits that the Forest Service asks 

of the floaters as compared to the Jetboaters for the use of the 

river, not the campsites? 

Mr. SHERWIN. I am not real sure that I understand the question, 

but what I think you are asking-are you asking is it a fair way 

to do it, to do the permits? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Let me apologize for not being very clear. My 

question is, are the floaters required to get the same number of 

permits as do the Jetboaters? Ms. Mitchell? 

Ms. MITCHELL. They are required to have the same licenses that 

the commercial powerboaters are, and there is a restricted number. 

There is a limit on how many are allowed to use the Snake River, 

so they do their license by outfitters and guides associations and 

they get a permit from the Forest Service in the same way. 

Mr. SHERWIN. I am sorry, I misunderstood you. You are talking 

on the commercial end of it, and I am really a little ignorant on 

the commercial end, although I do understand that in 1975, the 

commercial floaters did request the Forest Service to come up with 

a management plan to allow for them to be permitted because they 

were having problems at the launch areas. Like on a Friday, every 

commercial outfitter and private floater was there trying to launch, 

and they couldn't get their boats in the water. I know a couple of those floaters that were involved in that, and 

at that time, I think there were 18 commercial floatE!rs on the river 

and something like 30 applicants who were waiting to get commercial outfitters license to float the river. 

The commercial floaters could see that they were going to 

squeeze each other off with overcrowding if that happened, and 

they did request that the Forest Service install the permit system 

there to regulate their use, which also, I might add, somebody said 

something about blue-sky value. It made the value of one of those 
43 

commercial float operators' permits skyrocket, because instantly, 

they were limited, so the ones that were established were, of 

course, in favor of that. That is how-to my understanding, and I am not an expert on 

the commercial end, and I don't pretend to be. I am a private floater, and I like to recreate, and I am just trying to protect that right, 

but to my understanding, that is the way the permit system came 

about. 

Some of the gentlemen who follow are probably much more 

knowledgeable in that than I am, but that is my understanding of 

it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Sherwin, what has been your experience 

in terms of powerboating encounters as a floater with regard to the 

crowding and the safety of the floaters? 

Mr. SHERWIN. I haven't had a problem with it at all. When I go 

into Hells Canyon, I expect to see powerboats; I know I am going 

to see powerboats; and I don't object to seeing powerboats. I have never had a specific problem with anyone because they 

were up there by powerboat or by any other means. I think in the 

canyon, like anywhere, you can get along or you can not get along, 

and it is just up to you. I would say my experiences have been equal with floaters and 

boaters and people who are horsebacking. I have made a lot of new 

friends in all segments of river use up there. We have camped together; we shared camps many times. Most of my friends I met in 

Hells Canyon that I have now that are close friends, and some of 

those are boaters, some are floaters; a couple are horseback packers who go in there. I don't think it is a problem. I don't see it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Bentz. 

Mr. BENTZ. Could I make a brief response to that? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. Mr. BENTZ. I would say probably 99 percent of the time there is 

not a problem, over 99 percent of the time. It is compatible use. As a person who is on the river day after day during certain 

times, I might encounter maybe 130 rafts in a day. Of these, almost all of them are either friendly or they are indifferent. Once 

in a great. while, we will encounter some hard core people who are 

anti-powerboat, and you can tell with the commercial raft groups, 

the commercial powerboat outfitters that run tours in upper Hells 

Canyon day after day, when they encounter floaters. If a float group is on a five-day trip, powerboaters go by those 

people maybe every day for three to five days and the commercial 

float outfitters who are friendly to powerboaters, you can tell it in 

the attitudes of the guides; you can tell it in the attitudes of the 

clients. 

The commercial float outfitters who are very unfriendly to 

powerboats, after the second day, you can tell it in the clients. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Interesting. Well, I thank you very much, and 

I want to thank the panel, Mr. Sherwin, Mr. Bentz, and Mrs. Mitchell. 

As you know, the record does remain open, and any additional 

information that you would like plus information that Mr. Cooley 
44 

may be asking of you, we would like to be able to receive that within ten days. 

Thank you very much. 

I would like to welcome the next panel. Mr. Richard Bailey, Jerry 

Hughes, George Hauptman, and Richard Bowers. 

Thank you, panel. I would like to begin the testimony with Mr. 

Ric Bailey. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BAILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

HELLS CANYON PRESERVATION COUNCIL 

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I have fashioned 

my testimony around oversight, because my understanding was 

that this hearing was specifically on oversight as opposed to specifically on H.R. 2568. 

I want to commend you for holding this hearing, because if Congress wished to examine a classic example of recreation use conflict, it would examine the Snake Wild and Scenic River in Hells 

Canyon. 

If it wished to showcase a hallmark example of the Federal mismanagement of a National treasure, it should point to the Snake 

River. If it wished to explore a sterling example of injustice in administering competing recreation uses, Hells Canyon is where it 

should go. 

To this very day as we sit here, the use large, loud, fast, physically imposing Jetboats on the Snake Wild and Scenic River has 

never been limited or regulated. There is virtually no limit on the 

number of daily or seasonal Jetboat launches, no speed limits, and 

no wake or noise reduction measures. 

There are several astounding aspects of this situation that this 

committee should know about. First, the 20-year-old law that designated the Snake Wild and Scenic River specifically requires the 

control of the use and number of both motorized and nonmotorized 

river craft, yet it has never been done. 

Second, during this 20-year-period of unlimited and uncontrolled 

use, the number of Jetboats navigating the Snake Wild and Scenic 

River has escalated five-fold. 

Third, in adding incomprehensible twists to this travesty is the 

fact that for 18 years, nonmotorized river craft use has been strictly regulated with a very distinct use cap. 

Aside from the obvious infringement of such a bizarre system on 

nonmotorized recreationists, it has resulted in animosity between 

the two use constituencies. But just as important, this terrible situation has resulted in an expectation on the part of Jetboaters of receiving continued preferential treatment and special privileges. 

They have taken on the attitude that this is their river and everyone else has to play by their rules and put up with the physical 

intimidation, annoyance, and hazard of their form of recreation. 

I am going to digress just a little bit. I worked on this issue for 

a number of years, and it has been an issue that has been one of 

many issues that I have worked on, but this one has become a particularly emotional issue. 

I want to just say that I have repeated all of the analogies and 

I frankly have grown weary of the rhetoric, my own as well as others'. The simple fact of the matter is that for two decades, we have 
45 

lived with the regulation system in Hells Canyon that restricts the 

benign use and lets the malignant use run at will. 

We have listened to the Jetboat lobby tell us that their fuming, 

speeding, thundering Jetboats really aren't a problem for those of 

us who row a raft, insinuating that either we are just lying about 

those impacts or about the jetboats and that those impacts are just 

a figment of our imagination. These claims are obviously false to 

anyone with common sense, and the impacts are very real. 

I would like to digress at this time to let you know that I have 

seen some near-fatal incidents on the river. One example that I 

would like to bring up is an example where I was guiding a trip. 

We had two kids, one 11 and one 14 years old, swim across the 

river in their life jackets, hike up a trail to Suicide Point across the 

river from Salt Creek where we were camped. They came back 

down the trail with one of the guides. As they were swimming 

across the river, three Jetboats which were apparently racing came 

around the corner. You couldn't hear them until they were right 

there. They came within approximately ten feet at approximately 

60 miles an hour of hitting those kids, so I get a little bit rankled 

when I hear people say that there isn't a conflict, that there isn't 

danger. 

We have heard testimony that there hasn't been any deaths, and 

there haven't been any major collisions. Do we have to wait for a 

death or a major collision before we do something about the situa- tion? 

What I really wish is that the Jetboat lobby would just tell the 

truth and have the dignity to stand up and say that they really 

don't care about other people's experiences, and that they want 

their vision of river management to rule everyone, because that is 

what it comes down to. The Jetboat constituency, the Jetboat lobby 

is insistent that they want regulation of river use, but the only regulation that they will accept are the regulations that they have 

come up with. 

I think that this inequitable situation is going to be perpetuated 

by H.R. 2568. In my estimation, it is the epitome of a top-down 

planning situation, where we have a seven-year process of developing a river plan from the grass roots and the Forest Service, despite the fact that I am really upset with them for not having regulated Jetboats for 20 years when the law requires it yet they have 

regulated floaters, they have made an attempt with this plan to 

come up with some even-handed management. Everybody makes some sacrifices in this plan, and this legisla- tion is doing one very simple thing. It is legislating away sacrifices 

made by one user constituency and essentially giving them their vi- sion of how the river should be managed at everyone else's expense. I look forward to your questions. There is too much to say and 

not enough time. I very much appreciate the ability to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Richard Bailey may be found at the 

end of hearing.] 

[The submitted Exhibits and Attachments may be found in t he 

Committee files.] · 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. I would like to call on 

Mr. Hughes. 
46 

STATEMENT OF JERRY HUGHES, OWNER, HUGHES RIVER 

EXPEDITIONS 

Mr. HUGHES. I am Jerry Hughes. I own and operate Hughes 

River Expeditions. This is my 20th year of operating raft trips in 

Hells Canyon, and the 31st year that I have worked in Idaho and 

the western States as a river guide. 

I do not propose eliminating Jetboats from Hells Canyon; however, I do support use limits for both power and float craft in order 

to preserve and protect Hells Canyon. 

I support the Forest Service plan for the wild and scenic Snake. 

Forest Service management of rafts in Hells Canyon has been excellent. Raft trips have been managed for 20 years by limited per- ~its. Rafts are limited to five launches per day, raft parties, that 

IS. 

However, I feel that a great unfairness exists in Hells Canyon. 

Rafting is managed with limited permits, while Jetboat use is unlimited. Forest Service management has been unacceptable to 

rafters because of this obviously unfair system. Rafters are limited 

while Jetboaters can come and go as they like with no limits whatsoever. 

During the early 80's, the Forest Service developed a management plan for all users; however, Jetboaters and their Congressional supporters scuttled that plan. As a result, powerboat use in 

Hells Canyon grew exponentially during the 80's and early 90's, 

during a time when rafting use was capped by limited permits. 

From late spring through early fall, Hells Canyon is overcrowded 

with powerboats on all popular weekends, holiday weekends, on 

many other weekends, and on many weekdays. 

Today, 15 years later, House Bill 2568 is intended to ruin another Forest Service plan that would finally place .Jetboats under 

a limited permit system. Powerboaters claim that the Forest Service will ruin their opportunities. I disagree. Rafting has been limited on many rivers since the 70's. Limited use has not hurt rafting. 

I believe that the Forest Service plan will be good for all users, motor and float, and for the Hells Canyon resource. The plan will 

require change. 

The Forest Service plan does not eliminate powerboating. In fact, 

it provides for a tremendous amount of powerboating on the Wild 

and Scenic Snake. 

From late May to September 10, the plan provides for 1,208 outfitter powerboat days on the wild river, and for six daily private 

powerboat launches into the wild river, and for eight to 23 daily 

private powerboat launches into the scenic river. I c:onsider this to 

be a huge allocation of powerboat use that is unprecedented on any 

other wild river and scenic river. House Bill 2568 tries to legislate that no conflict exists between 

motorized and nonmotorized craft. Unfortunately, conflicts do exist. 

Jetboats, by their nature, are noisy; they throw large wakes; they 

smell of exhaust; and they do intrude on the experience of nonmotorized users. 

House Bill 2568 also locks in patterns of river use that exist 

today. Supporting these current patters of use assures that many 

days will continue to be overcrowded with Jetboats. 
47 

An effective management plan must spread out use to avoid 

crowding, and this bill throws away that valuable option. I support the Forest Service plan for managing the Snake River. The plan is the result of thousands of manhours of work and compromise by every user group. It allows traditional uses while it protects the Hells Canyon resource. Now, after the planning process is almost complete, H.R. 2568 is 

designed to eliminate only the sacrifice and compromise that the 

powerboat community made, and it ignores and leaves on the table 

the sacrifice and compromise made by floaters and other nonmotorized users. 

The Snake River and Hells Canyon is a National treasure. I commend the Forest Service for its management of rafting on the 

Snake, and for the thorough and fair public planning process that 

the agency conducted over the past seven to eight years in order 

to come up with this new plan. I strongly support limited use for all users including Jetboats, and I encourage the members of the committee to support the Forest Service's plan. I hope that Congress will not legislate management decisions for the Hells Canyon NRA. I truly appreciate the opportunity to express my views and attend this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Jerry Hughes may be found at the 

end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hauptman; 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE HAUPTMAN, OWNER, CANYON 

OUTFITTERS 

Mr. HAUPTMAN. My name is George Hauptman. I reside in Halfway, Oregon, and I am a fourth-generation Oregonian. 

Over the years, I spent most of my life working outdoors in Oregon. For the past 20 years, I have outfitted and guided salmon, 

steelhead, fishing, and whitewater float trips. I would like to say that the statement that Jerry just made I concur with entirely, and I would like to add to that. 

As a group, or myself personally, we do not want to eliminate 

powerboats in Hells Canyon. It is a traditional use; we accept 

them; and in good conscience, I would never try to totally eliminate 

them. I have been a permitted float outfitter in Hells Canyon since 

1980. We are the second oldest float company in the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area, and it has been our only business for the 

last decade. 

During that time, I believe that no person has spent more time 

in Hells Canyon than I have. I outfit and personally escort between 

20 and 28 four-day trips per year through the canyon, and I spend 

between 80 and 90 nights a year in a sleeping bag in the canyon. The present plan that has been formulated for Hells Canyon is 

a combination of a limited attempt to include the task force and 

input from all the user groups in the canyon. The plan closely follows the original LAC proposal and except for a 24-day motorless 

window on a 21-mile section of the corridor, the window was provided to allow an opportunity to experience Hells Canyon in a quiet 
48 

setting over a small part of the season. It still allows powerboat access to all portals. 

The Forest Service plan attempted to accommodate all the user 

groups, and from my perspective, it is an excellent plan. It allows 

all of the user groups to access and enjoy a very limited resource, 

one that we often tend to forget is also a National treasure deserving of a large measure of respect. 

H.R. 2568 attempts to legislate that no conflict exists in Hells 

Canyon between the float and powerboat groups. I have spent 

many nights in Hells Canyon over the past ten years and in the 

deep, narrow canyon, a Jetboat passing your camp at 5:00 in the 

morning is quite disconcerting. It is kind of like a motorcycle going 

through your bedroom. 

To legislate that these conflicts do not exist is ludicrous. I have 

thousands of times informed you that a conflict does in fact exist, 

although we attempt to minimize any conflict by educating our clients and specifically avoiding weekends where the powerboat numbers are overwhelming. We choose not to operate on the major 

_weekends of use in Hells Canyon by powerboats which are the 

Fourth of July, Labor Day weekend, Memorial Day weekend. 

The argument that the Forest Service management plan is destroying existing powerboat businesses is untrue. Everyone whooperates on a limited, permitted river who wishes to expand the business beyond the permit capacity must purchase additional business 

opportunities if he is to expand. 

The Hells Canyon commercial powerboaters want the opportunity to expand to always be available to them at any time. There 

are 16 powerboat outfitters in Hells Canyon. The last published 

data in 1993 shows the eight smallest outfitters together took a 

total of 187 people into Hells Canyon during the regulated season. 

That is an average of 23.3 guests per outfitter. At a generous estimate of $100 per person, the average small powerboat outfitter 

averaged $2,335 for the summer season. That is with a powerboat 

and vehicle package costing between $70,000 to $150,000. 

These aren't businesses; they are very expensive hobbies. These 

outfitters are either working on other rivers most of the time or 

using their businesses as a tax write-off. In either case, limiting 

their use in Hells Canyon is certainly not a case of the U.S. Forest 

Service putting an outfitter out of business. 

I urge you to reject H.R. 2568 that repeals the fairly and intelligently prepared the United States Forest Service management 

plan. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of George Hauptman may be found at 

the end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hauptman. Next Mr. Bowers. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. BOWERS, CONSERVATION 

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN WHITEWATER AFFILIATlfON 

Mr. BOWERS. Thank you. I really appreciate it. My name is Richard Bowers. I am the conservation director for the American 

Whitewater Affiliation, AWA. I would like to thank everybody who 

hung around till the very of the testimony and I really appreciate 

it. 
49 

The American Whitewater Affiliation is a National organization 

of about 30,000 members both direct and affiliated members. Our 

membership is comprised almost entirely of noncommercial 

kayakers and canoeists that are involved in whitewater sports. There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon on the economics and on the commercial operators and on rafting, but there are 

a lot of other people on the river. There are private boaters who 

enjoy Hells Canyon just as much as the commercial outfitters and 

for people who have a business there, there are also people who are 

visiting because they love the river 

For that reason, economics does play a very big part, but it is not 

the only part. It is also the environment and it is also the experi- ence, and all these are affected in some way. We do not support H.R. 2568 basically because motorized travel 

is increasing on both the Snake River and Hells Canyon and also 

on Idaho's Lower Salmon River. Both of these are outstanding wilderness trips, and the Lower Salmon is a direct tributary of the 

Snake. 

For boaters who are running on the Salmon, they almost must 

paddle 20 miles to the Snake before reaching the take-out. These 

people are affected also by increased Jetboat travel. 

Earlier today, Mr. Hansen asked and everybody else has asked 

also if there really is conflict in Hells Canyon. If you want to know 

if there is conflict between motorized and nonmotorized craft, you 

can open any whitewater guidebook and it describes this resource. Idaho Whitewater, which is the definitive guidebook on the rivers 

within the State of Idaho describes for the Salmon River that other 

hazards on the river in talking about the recreational hazards include rattlesnakes, poison ivy, cactus and Jetboaters, and it goes 

on. 

There is the Whitewater Sourcebook and almost any guidebook 

that you read, the first thing they point out is to be aware of the 

hazard of Jetboaters, what they present, the hazards the Jetboats 

present to nonmotorized travel. 

You can also look at the two surveys which have been discussed 

many times throughout this day. This is lot more information on_ conflict than just a few people trying to control a canyon for their 

own use. We also see this legislation as posing a big safety problem. In 

claiming that motorized travel is fully compatible with all other 

recreational uses of the river, this disregards the significant and 

documented safety concern. 

Between 1986 and 1989, 65 to 75 percent of all accidents on the 

Snake involved Jetboats. These figures were provided by the Forest 

Service record of incidents. Contrary to what the legislation would propose, Jetboats do pose 

a serious threat to canoes, kayaks, and rafts. We don't expect to see 

them on the river. As we are trying to get through the rapids or 

we are trying to get through the waves, we don't see them coming. Loud noise has been one of the big issues here, but if you are in 

the middle of a series of ten-foot waves, you do not hear Jetboats 

until they are on top of you. Both the Salmon and the Snake offer big water routes, typical 

western routes. If you are moving down, you cannot hear them 
50 

coming. You cannot hear the Jetboats coming up the rivers, and at 

60 miles an hour, for us people that live here in the dty, it is kind 

of akin to driving your bicycle on the beltway. 

We agree with a lot of what has been said today about not trying 

to regulate people off the rivers. Mr. Hansen said that he has a big 

problem with regulations, and I think that our constituency also in 

many instances has a large problem with regulations, especially if 

we think they are overburdensome. 

But we do not-this is becoming more and more of an occurrence 

for almost everybody. Rivers are becoming more and more regulated every day, so with that experience and from our experience, 

we understand that a number of other river users also do not want 

to blocked off of rivers, and we are not recommending that this be 

done on the Snake. 

However, this legislation would not share the resource as we 

stated earlier. It would cut the Forest Service's ability to control 

the highest impact recreational use on the river. It would lock in 

today's growing motorized use levels, and it would attempt to balance us against nonmotorized regulations that were established 

over 15 years ago. We do not see this as a fair balance of the resource. 

The final point is that we see this as setting a dangerous precedent. If this is enacted, then additional legislation could be introduced to allow jet boating on other rivers, and the F'orest Service 

is the managing agency for a lot of very outstanding whitewater 

rivers including two in Georgia, the Cache la Poudre in Colorado, 

the Rogue in Oregon, and many others. 

We see this as a growing problem, and it is not just an idle fear. 

WhiletJetboats are allowed on the Snake, jet skis and personal 

watercraft are not; however, many rivers do not enjoy this level of 

protection. 

In 1995, Jetboats and personal watercraft became an issue on 

many rivers, including Washington's Wild and Scenic Skagit; in 

West Virginia, the New and Gauley Rivers which are also National 

recreation areas; and also, on California Wild and Scenic Upper 

Kern River. 

In 1994, personal water craft were involved in 2,600 collisions, 

almost half of the reported water crashes that were reported. Adding whitewater to this will only increase these levels. 

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Richard J. Bowers may be found at 

the end of hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Bowers. I would like to turn 

to the gentleman, Mr. Cooley, for questions. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Bailey and Mr. Hughes, were you participants 

in the Forest Service LACs or limited access change task force, either one of them? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, I was, as was Mr. Hauptman. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK. Both of your concerns with the proposal that 

the task force agreed upon were limiting powerboat uses and start 

with you first, Mr. Bailey. 

Mr. BAILEY. Well, we proposed that within the LA.C process, it 

came to an attempt to reach a consensus on that plan. Myself and 
51 

another task force member could not agree to the proposal, and 

therefore, we opposed it, and submitted a statement to the task 

force that we did in fact oppose that particular plan that the LAC 

committee had come up with. 

But if I could add, Congressman, that the LAC process is not a 

process to develop a specific plan that has to be adhered to. It is 

a citizens' task force that makes a recommendation to the agency, 

and the agency has no obligation, and this is absolutely made clear 

from the outset, they have no obligation to adopt that plan. 

Mr. COOLEY. What about you, Mr. Hughes? 

Mr. HUGHES. I was on the LAC. I was an outfitter-float member 

of that group. 

When the LAC process was complete, float operators, as I think 

everyone, every interest group left grudgingly accepting the deal 

that we had been able to come up with as a group. The only exceptions are the ones that Ric Bailey just mentioned. 

Unfortunately, there was a year lapse before anything moved on 

the LAC and as time went by, more people from every possible 

point on the compass became disgruntled with the LAC. 

Then over time when the draft environmental impact statement 

came out, we saw the management was going different ways. The 

draft picked up on the idea of one week on, one week off; one 

motorless week, one motor week for the upper wild river, and that 

had been something the LAC group worked with, and from that 

point on, the LAC, while much of the information from that was 

included in the draft and in the final environmental impact statement, we went off into different fine tuning of management alternatives. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Bailey, does AWA make an objection to one 

week on, one week off that you refer to that you would not agree? 

Wouldn't you agree to accept that report, or did I misunderstand 

you? 

Mr. BAILEY. No, we had disagreed to a plan that actually came 

out of the LAC committee which was different than the week-on/ 

week-off plan which came from the Forest Service in their draft environmental impact statement. 

Mr. COOLEY. And you objected to the draft. What part of the 

draft did you object to? I am just interested to find out. 

Mr. BAILEY. Primarily, the level of Jetboat use that was allowed. 

We felt that from the outset, the LAC process did not highlight the 

laws that are required to be adhered to in management of the 

river. In fact, specifically that the upper 32-mile section of the 

river-excuse me, 31-mile section of the river is designated as wild 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the act requires that, 

that be managed as a vestige of primitive America. 

We felt that Jetboat use on that section of the river in LAC 

was-particularly on that section of the river, was far too high. Mr. CoOLEY. But the task force had a consensus, and you just 

didn't agree with the consensus. 

Mr. BAILEY. Myself and another person. Mr. COOLEY. I understood your statement, but could you differentiate for me the definition of a wild river, nonmotorized and motorized, because the corridor not a wilderness. It is-and you keep re-
52 

ferring to it as a wilderness, but it is not a wilderness, so I am confused. 

Mr. BAILEY. I would be happy to elaborate on that. The stateIDent has been made by previous witnesses that the river was not 

intended to be a wilderness area, and in fact, it is correct that the 

upper portion, in fact, the entire river corridor was left out of the 

wilderness area, despite the fact that it is enclosed on either side 

for about the first 20 miles by designated wilderness. 

In fact, the Congress did not clarify that was to allow Jetboat use 

on the entire river. The Congress could have excluded that from 

the wilderness area for a number of other reasons, for example, to 

use drilling equipment to maintain the trail that runs along the 

river. 

There is a trail on either side of the river and Wilderness Act restrictions would have precluded them from using rock drilling 

equipment. 

Another reason would be that they simply felt that the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act was strong enough in and of itself to dictate 

management and appropriate river use levels, but the fact of the 

matter is, that in addition to the primitive vestige that the Wild 

and Scenic River Act talks about, the National Recreation Area Act 

in Section 7 specifically requires that the Forest Service protect 

wilderness on the river, and so we feel that there is substantially 

more provision in the law to provide for a wilderness experience 

than there is to not provide for one. 

Mr. COOLEY. I guess the next question I should ask is, are you 

willing to share the Snake River and Hells Canyon with motorized 

craft? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes. We do not favor elimination of all Jetboats from 

the entire river, and we do--

Mr. COOLEY. I am talking about--excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt, but are you talking about, you are in favor of reducing 

Jetboats on the river for commercial or private use or in what capacity? 

Mr. BAILEY. We do hope there is a place on the river for both 

commercial and private Jetboat use; however, my organization does -favor establishment of nonmotorized areas on the river, and we feel 

that in terms of the Forest Service plan, that is really the only concession in the Forest Service plan that was made to people who do 

desire a nonmotorized experience on the river was that nonmotorized window which is a tiny window when you look at all the 

time and space on the river in that context. 

Mr. CooLEY. How would you handle the private property on the 

river that may fall within your area where you do not want to have 

any motorized boats at all? How would you handle that portion in 

your statement? 

Mr. BAILEY. The only piece of private property that would be on 

the river in the wild section is Kirby Creek Ranch, which is owned 

by the Riddles, but that area is not within the area that is proposed for nonmotorized use by the Forest Service in their plan. 

As far as I am concerned, even if hypothetically speaking the 

Forest Service were to eliminate all motorized use from the wild 

section of the river, the Kirby Creek Ranch is only about a mile 

and a half upstream from the wild river boundary, and I frankly 
53 

would not have any problem with allowing that landowner a certain amount of traditional access to that property. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Cooley. I wanted to ask Mr. Bailey if you follow the line of questioning, what is certain traditional access in your mind? 

Mr. BAILEY. What I could clarify there is that traditional access 

would mean-be access that permit holder or that private land 

owner has traditionally used and traditionally needed to access 

their property to maintain their property. 

To be quite frank with you, Congressman, I would submit that 

the only part of the legislation that you co-sponsored that I would 

agree with and wouldn't have any problem supporting is the last 

section that does provide access for that private property holder. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bowers, you described the effect of powerboat noise on a wilderness experience. What do you think was Congress' intent when the HCNRA act specifically excluded the river corridor from the wilderness designation? What, in your opinion, do you think Congress meant by that 

wording? 

Mr. BOWERS. I am not sure what Congress' intent was at that 

point. I do see a problem with excluding the river from all management for the whole area. The river is the central part of the Hells 

Canyon and I don't see how you can really separate the two at 

least when you are managing it on a day-to-day basis. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hauptman, you mentioned the noise 

caused by the powerboaters. If the noise could be reduced, would 

this address your concern about eliminating the boaters altogether? 

Mr. HAUPTMA...l\l'. It was never my intention to eliminate the 

powerboaters. They are a part of the tradition on the river and that 

would never have been anything that I would consider supporting. 

What I do support-OK, limiting the noise of the powerboats is 

extremely important, and that would go a long ways toward resolving conflict in the canyon. 

Ten powerboats that are below-they have a new technology that 

makes the boat real quiet. Ten real quiet boats don't have-have 

less impact than one very noisy boat. 

So yes, eliminating the noise would go a long way toward eliminating the conflict, but we still need regulation in the numbers. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Based on the testimony I have heard today, 

eliminating some of the noise may create a safety problem, because 

people wouldn't be able to anticipate these boats that apparently 

travel between, you say 60 miles an hour? 

Mr. BAILEY. I said that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And we have heard testimony that the 

powerboaters usually travel at about 24 miles an hour and can 

reach speeds of 50 miles per hour. Is that accurate? 

Mr. BAILEY. I heard that also, yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. I guess my question then doesn't 

need a response, but I do think that there is a safety factor here 

and it really probably is good that we can hear the powerboaters. 

Mr. BoWERS. Madame Chairman, if I could just address that. I 

had mentioned that in my testimony, and one of the facts is that 

while noise is a problem, when you are on the river and you are 
54 

boating, it can be a very loud motor, and it is blocked by the river 

itself. You really don't hear these coming up the river. I have actually been on rivers. I have not been on Hells Canyon 

with the powerboats, but I have been on rivers here on the East 

Coast with jet skis coming up, and they are not quite as loud, but 

they are fairly loud, too. If you are coming up over a series of large waves, that sound is 

totally hidden from you until you get up almost on top of them, so 

there is a safety concern that lowering the noise, I don't think is 

going to affect that. 

I think they will still be on top of you before you can anticipate 

their coming, and in some instances, really react to it. 

The other issue on this is that Hells Canyon, while it is a recognized whitewater river all across the country, it is fairly easy to 

navigate. It is considered to be Class III and IV. That means you have a lot of beginners-not beginners. You 

have a lot of intermediates; you have a lot of advanced boaters, and 

of course, expert boaters, too. This is getting people on there who 

may not be able to react quite as quickly, and that is a safety problem, as I said. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Is that allowed right now, people who are novices at understanding the river and the nuances of the river and 

floating? 

Mr. BOWERS. I misspoke when I said novices. I tried to correct 

that, I am sorry. It is intermediates, but it is Class III water. You do not have to 

be an advanced or expert boater to handle Class III water, especially the different water levels. For private boaters, there is, as far as I am aware, no way if determining if boaters are experts or advanced, nor is that usually 

necessary. 

If you are an intermediate boater and you are with a stronger 

crowd of people that you are traveling with, that is usually sufficient. It may not be sufficient if you encounter a Jetboat at close 

quarters. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hughes, your testimony indicates that 

powerboaters have unlimited use and are not regulated. Do you 

stand by that testimony? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, I do. My understanding of the management of 

powerboats in Hells Canyon is that any private powerboater at this 

time can issue a self-issued permit and launch on the river any 

time they like, and that the only management of commercial 

powerboaters is based on the number of boats that: they can use, but those boats can launch and make as many trips daily as they 

want. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Ms. Mitchell indicated that the powerboaters 

have been wiling to accept a reasonable plan, and that the Forest 

Service has walked away from these offers. 

Would you accept a plan as a commercial outfitter that eliminates floating use three days a week in the high season? 

Mr. HUGHES. No, I wouldn't be happy with that, although I must 

admit that I did everything I could on the draft environmental impact statement to try to make sense of one week on/one week off; 

motors one week, no motors the next. 
55 

I guess I did my level best to get the float community to support 

that. I want good management in this canyon. I don't want free- for-all, and I want to know how many boats I can expect to run 

into on a given trip, on a given weekend, and I was willing to try 

my best to support the draft environmental impact statement and 

figure out a way to work in the State one week and go other places 

on those other weeks. 

That plan did not receive enough support from other user groups 

or from float groups, for that matter, to go forward at the final environmental impact statement. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Let me ask you, Mr. Hughes, on the days that 

we would eliminate powerboaters, then the floaters would have exclusive use. The days that the powerboaters would be using the 

river, does that mean the floaters would not be using the river? 

Mr. HUGHES. On the draft environmental impact statement 

which is history now and not part of any proposal, yes, that was 

the case. The wild river was to be shared one week-shared in a 

manner where one week there was only nonmotorized use and one 

week there was motorized use, but that alternative didn't receive 

enough support to move through the planning process. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that would be exclusive motorized use, no 

floaters? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, that was the proposal. That was, once again, not on the entire river, but just on the upper portion of the wild 

river section. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So what you are telling me is that there would 

be no exclusive use for Jetboaters over and above the floaters on 

the area that is not in the primitive designation. Mr. HUGHES. With the plan that we have now, the only exclusion 

is that 21-mile section for 24 days, although powerboaters can cer- tainly use the other 48 river miles during those days, but during 

this week on/week off option which was a long time in the past that 

it was discussed as a viable option, powerboaters would have had 

the wild river to themselves for a period of time just as rafters 

would have. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to ask Mr. Cooley if he has any 

more questions. 

All right. I would like to also ask Mr. Bailey some questions. 

During the process of developing the LAC management plan, you, 

of course, have testified that you were one of the two members of 

that task force who refused to agree to the consensus recommendation. 

Do you see any conditions under which you would be willing to 

work in good faith with powerboaters toward an equitable, shared 

use plan? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, I certainly always would be willing to work 

with the powerboat constituency and have worked with them 

through the LAC process. 

I might add just to clarify that our disagreements with the LAC 

plan came in the middle of trying to approve a specific facet of that 

plan. It wasn't something that came out and we said, no, we don't 

want it. It was something that was in the middle of being devel- oped, and we said, no, we feel that adjustments need to be made. 
56 

Those adjustments weren't made. It was an arduous process. 

People had worked through approximately 24 day-long meetings 

over a period of a year and a half, and there simply wasn't any 

more time on anybody's part to continue and hash out a consensus, 

so what they did was they simply approved the Jet.boat use numbers that were proposed at that time and accepted the two minority 

reports from the two members that dissented. 

Just to get back to your question, yes, absolutely. I am more than 

happy to work with Sandra and I am even more than happy to 

work with Mr. Sherwin who appears to think that I have some sort 

of a Charlie Manson type approach to making people think that 

Jetboats bother them when they really don't, but that is another 

point. I am happy to work with all of them. Mrs. CHENOWETH. What in your definition is de facto wilderness? 

Mr. BAILEY. De facto wilderness is wilderness that is in fact wilderness, but is not designated by an act of Congress and drawn 

into a wilderness area. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you consider areas that have been used 

commercially and for private ranching and grazing and mining as 

having the potential of wilderness when the 196 Wilderness Act 

said these areas should have the characteristics of being 

untrammeled by man? 

Mr. BAILEY. It is pretty amazing. I think that probably Will Rogers or somebody said that the Congress can do whatever it wants, 

and the Wilderness Act says one thing, but we have seen subsequently many wilderness bills. The River of No Return Wilderness 

has a number of housing developments inside the wilderness area, 

and Boulder Creek Wilderness for example in Oregon has something like 22 clear-cuts within the wilderness area. Certainly, under the purest interpretation of the Wilderness Act, 

those would not qualify for wilderness designation, but Congress 

can certainly go ahead and say, well, we are going to make them 

wilderness anyway. 

I think that under certain circumstances where public demand or 

environmental protection warrants, there could and should be an 

option to include areas where some noncompatible uses, 

noncompatible with wilderness have occurred where we can do 

some rehabilitation work and possibly include them in wilderness 

areas. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you let this committee know and state 

for the record specifically the uses for the river for powerboaters 

that you would comply with, that you would agree to specifically? 

Mr. BAILEY. My organization has a position at this time that 

powerboat use should be occurring on the majority of the river, particularly in the scenic section of the river. 

We believe and have an official position of our organization that 

powerboat use should be limited approximately to 1978 levels in 

the scenic section of the river, and our position is that the upper 

31-mile section should be a permanent vestige of primitive America 

to sustain in perpetuity. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are you still active in Earth First? 

Mr. BAILEY. No, I am not. I haven't been active in Earth First 

since it became an organization that instead of advocating wilderness for the sake of wilderness became an organization that rec-
57 

ommended and advocated illegal practices. No, that has been since 

about 1984. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Bailey, I am very glad to hear you say 

that for the record. 

Mr. BAILEY. I am happy to say it for the record. Mrs. CHENOWETH. You did write for the Earth First publication 

on June 21st, and I can understand a person publishing their views 

and so I appreciate again what you have said for the record. 

But you have indicated that what you recommend is the designa- tion of 790,000 acres of wilderness in both Oregon and Idaho and 

the dismantlement of the Hells Canyon dam, immediate termination of livestock grazing within the wilderness area, and the reintroduction of formerly native wildlife species including bison and 

grizzly bears and wolves. You know where this Congressman sits 

with that issue. 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, I do. Mrs. CHENOWETH. And Federal purchase of all valid mining 

claims, so is that your personal position or your position as a floater, an outfitter and guide, or as the executive director of the Hells 

Canyon Preservation Council? 

Mr. BAILEY. That position is not the position of the Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council, and my personal feelings have evolved over 

the many years that have transpired since that position came out. I feel personally and have absolutely no hesitation in saying that 

Hells Canyon Dam should never have been built. I would like to 

see the dam come down. I don't have any hesitation in saying that 

I don't want that dam there, and I feel that the Idaho power company who has gotten their 30 years of subsidy out of that dam, it 

is time to give the river back to itself, to bring the salmon back to 

the Owyhee River, bring the salmon back to the Boise River and 

the Malheur River and bring back the beautiful beaches, the archaeological sites that were flooded by that dam. I do advocate that, and I am not hesitating to say that I advocate 

that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Bailey, there are a lot of people who fish 

in the backwaters of those dams who really enjoy that recreational 

experience, too. 

Have you taken those hundreds and hundreds and thousands of 

people literally into consideration? 

Mr. BAILEY. Well, actually, I am quite surprised whenever I go 

to launch a float trip below Hells Canyon Dam, because you very 

rarely see any people recreating in Hells Canyon Reservoir, and 

when you do, it is generally just a couple of motorized boats. 

Most of the recreation use on the reservoirs occurs on the two 

reservoirs above Hells Canyon Reservoir, the Oxbow and Brownlee 

Reservoirs, and the vast majority of fishing, in fact, I have actually 

fished in Brownlee Reservoir myself, and that is where most of the 

crappie and bass fishing occurs is in those reservoirs. You see very 

little fishing in Hells Canyon Reservoir. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. I do want to thank 

this panel very much for your very informative testimony and as 

I have said earlier, the record will remain open for ten days if you 

would like to submit additional testimony, and I want to ask the 

Forest Service also if they would like to respond to anything or 
58 

make any closing remarks since you have heard the testimony of 

the three panels that followed you. 

Mr. Bailey, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Hauptman and Mr. Bowers, thank 

you very much for being here and giving your testimony. Does anyone from the Forest Service wish to make a closing 

statement? 

Mr. LAVERTY. If I can just take a moment, I will. Thank you. 

I think as you have listened to the testimony, you understand a 

little bit of the complexity of managing an area as special as Hells 

Canyon. I guess what I would like to just close with, and Mr. Cooley, a 

couple of comments. 

As you look at the business of recreation of a National Forest, 

it really is big business. In 1994, we just completed an assessment 

for GAO that talks about the value and the revenues generated by 

concession operations on the National Forests. That would be the 

outfitters and guides, our concession campgrounds, and the ski 

areas. The gross revenues from those operations in the National Forests 

in 94' was $1,200,000,000, so I think it does give you some indication of the magnitude of the interests on the National Forest, and 

that is just from recreational use. 

There are 5,400 outfitters and guides, different concession operators, so it really is an incredible business, but I think that what 

you have heard this morning is in fact what draws people to that 

use. It is the amazing attractions that exist in our National Forests, and as I look at what is going on, and I jotted down just a 

couple of comments. 

I think the people that are involved in trying to make some of 

these decisions are really passionate about the resource for the future, and I think they are trying to do what is right for the resource for the future as well as deal with the issues that we are 

wrestling with this morning. 

I was thinking about Solomon. I think we are looking for the wisdom of Solomon. We just don't want to cut the baby in half, and 

maybe that is the dilemma that we have. 

What I would just like to do is a couple of comments just to close 

it off. I think the idea that our process, we do have a good process 

that works, and I hesitate with the word process, because sometimes, that really gets to be a burden, but we do have an opportunity to engage people in terms of helping make some of these decisions, in terms of giving ideas and information, and the decision 

resting with that line officer like the Bob Richmonds, those people 

are the most knowledgeable people that we have in the organization to bring that all together. I would really encourage you to let 

that process work, and we have a good mechanism. 

Finally, I would just suggest also that in this process, it is one 

which truly invites public participation and you have heard from 

all three panels about their participation, and not everybody is 

happy, and that gets to be the dilemma that the final 

decisionmaker has to make, what is best for the resource and hopefully, for future generations. Thank you again, though, for the opportunity just to share with 

you some comments. 
59 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Laverty, and I want to thank 

you and Mr. Richmond and Mr. Kulesza for sitting through the entire hearing. I want to thank those people who have testified who have come 

all the way across the country to offer your very fine testimony to 

this committee. This is an extre!Ilely important issue to all of us, 

and I wish we didn't have to have remedial legislation that would 

clarify the intent of Congress. I would hope that we could work 

these things out on the ground, and I would just like to again encourage the parties to try to continue to work together. I think that 

accommodation can be made, because as you said, Mr. Laverty, 

people feel passionately about the resource, and we are Americans 

from one end of this country to the other, and unfortunately, Hells 

Canyon attracts a lot of visitors, and how they want to access that 

canyon was made clear, we feel, in the law, and we look forward 

to watching you as you develop your management plan. 

Again, I want to thank you very much and I want to again encourage for the Chairman your continued cooperation with all 

users. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COOLEY. Madame Chairman. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. 

Mr. CooLEY. Before you close, is that $1,200,000,000 gross? 

Mr. LAVERTY. Yes, it is. That is gross revenue. Mr. CoOLEY. And that is for all of our parks throughout the entire continental United States? 

Mr. LAVERTY. That is just the National Forest. 

MR. COOLEY. Including Alaska and Hawaii? 

Mr. LAVERTY. The National Forests. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. I just wanted a clarification. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Cooley, and with that, this 

hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
60 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HERALD EGBERT 

History 

My name is Herald Egbert and I am currendy the elected president of the Green River Guides and Outfitters 

Association. (GROGA) This Association represents the 13 legally permitted outfitters offering commercial guiding 

services on the Green River in northeastern Utah. These outfitters offer guided float- fishing trips, sc:enic floats, walkwade guided fishing trips and fishing instruction and combinations of these trips. GROGA is recognized by the U.S. 

Forest Service as the body representing the commercial interests on the Green River and has receivod official 

recognition as such. Since 1987, the commercial use on the Green River has grown from 400 trips u1 1987 to the 1995 

total of 3 786 trips. 

I have managed the guide services for the Flanling Gorge Lodge since 1987 .. Since that time, we have grown 

to our position as the largest outfitter on the river, rumling almost 1500 trips in 1995. 

All but one of the permits issued for the Green River are one-year term permits, meaning that they have to be 

re-applied for each year with no assurance that the permit will be re-issued the next year. This alone has created great 

hardships for all of the outfitters, none of which are assured of being able to operate the next year. 

The Green River is divided into three sections, with different management objectives and plans for each. The 

first seven miles from the Flanling Gorge Dam to Little Hole, is know as Section A. According to the Forest Service 

sponsored Green River Use Capacity Study of 1991, page 21, 90% of all fishers and 86% of non-fishers used Section 

A. Commercial guide usage is only S% of the total use of the A Section of the Green River. The second nine mile 

section from Little Hole to Brown's Park is known as Section B. This section receives about 8% of all fishers and 

about 13% of all non-fisher use. The remaining I% of fishing use and non-fishing use is on the C So<:tion, a thirteen 

mile section from Brown's Park to the Colorado State line. 

The commercial use on the Green River has grown from approximately I 00 trips in 1986, to the 1995 total of 

3786 trips. The 3786 total use figure represents an increase of6% from the use level of 1994. 

I have seen the Green River change from a few fishers in cenain seasons and many summer recreational users 

to a year-round fishery with people fishing the river every day of the year. The greatest change I ha'e seen on the river 

is in the numbers of persons using the river. The skill level of the fishers has increased as well as thc: quality of 

equipment used. Many more private dory boats are noticeable as are also the increased number of guided fishing trips 

being run by the commercial outfitters. On a negative note, due to the increased usage, there has be<m a noticeable 

increase in litter ln the Green River Corridor and also an increased number of user conflicts. 

2 
61 

Background of relationship between outfitter/guides and 

U.S.Forest Service 

1986- First real increase in number of outfitter/guides from 3 to 5 

1987- More 0/G permits are issued to a total of 14 

1987- Fall, U.S.F.S. has received over 60 new permit applications 

Meeting with 0/G 

Decision to issue no new permits until situation is studied 

Some applicants protest-congressional inquiries, hence, scoping review by Dave Keddy 

No restrictions on 0/G use 

1988- February, Dave Keddy meets with Stephen Vletas in Teton Village, Wyo. 

KeddyNletas discuss and decide methods for 0/G usage on Green River, complicated calculations 

bring about 2440 system. Appendix 1 

Green River 0/G not included in discussion or decision. 

1988- February, Dave Keddy issues E. A. 

Established 2440 System as part of Operating Plan, only for I or 2 years until new system in place 

One year study initiated and contract let out to begin in fall of 1988 

0/G struggle to work under new 2440 System, problems, trials, and errors 

No weekend restrictions 

Dave Keddy retires (not sure of date) 

1989- Study not started, maybe by fall 

Mike Stubbs arrives 

0/G continue under 2440 System 

No weekend restrictions 

Fall-Study started 

1990- Study conducted-completed in fall 

0/G continue under 2440 System 

0/G asked to voluntarily restrict weekend use, successful as noted in study Appendix 2 

1991- Study released in April 

0/G continue under 2440 System, told this would change next year ( 1992) after study recommendations 

are evaluated 

Mandatory weekend restrictions set at 2 boats per day among all 0/G, no discussion with 0/G 

Mike Stubbs proposal announced and distributed Appendix 3 

F.S. and GROGA meet. discussed recommendations and weekend restrictions 

GROGA response in letter to F.S. dated 11/18/91 Appendix 4 

GROGA requests recognition as association 

1992- Mike Stubbs transferred (date not sure) 

0/G told to wait for Stubbs replacement 

0/G told to be patient, new recommendations will resolve issue 

0/G continue under 2440 System 

Mandatory weekend restrictions continue 

Fred Houston arrival (again not sure of date) 

1993- Fred Houston- can't get to issue, other things more pressing 

F.S. things are behind because of late replacement of Stubbs 

F.S. recognizes GROGA 

0/G continue under 2440 System 

Mandatory weekend restrictions continue 

1994- 0/G continue under 2440 System 

3 
62 

F.S. drops April and October from 2440 System to allow some 0/G growth. 

Fred Houston works on E. A. but too late for implementation in 1995 

1995- April, Public meetings, proposal and preferred alternative explained but public comment not allowed, 

information meeting only 

Deadline for written comments-May I 

GROGA insists that it is hard to comment on E.A. recommendations without knowing how recommendations 

will be managed 

F.S. response-GROGA submit proposal 

Apri128 & 29, Dennis Breer and Herald Egbert meet and put together a proposal and get GROGA 

membership approval before May I deadline 

May I, GROGA submits proposal 

May I. 0 /G submit letters of comment individually on E. A. 

June- Dennis Breer and Fred Houston meet-Fred says parts of proposal accepted, which p111s? Will it work if 

only part is used? 

Actual written F.S. proposal never seen 

September, Fred informs GROGA· will have to operate under 2440 System in 1996 

No E.A., No ProspectUS 

No written response to written comments or proposals, only rumors 

0 /G continue under 2440 System 

December, F.S. 0 /G meeting, concerns expressed by F.S. about E.A. GROGA has not seer~ 

recommendations and now doubt if our proposal is workable, in our haste in April, some things were not well 

thought through. Our concern is that we don't set ourselves up with another version of the 2440 system. 

GROGA requests to see E. A. and recommendations as written now. 

1996- January, 0 /G and F.S. meet to work on E. A. 

NoE.A. 

0/G continue under 2440 System (this system originally set up for one or two years max.)Appenclix 5 good 

and bad of the 2440 System 

January to present, approximately every two weeks we are told the E. A. will be out in a couple of weeks, any 

day now, still no E.A. 

This is only a hasty summary of ten years of frustrations. We are still working under a system of use 

allocation made up in someone's office in a couple of hours that was meant as only a temporary, stopgap 

The 2440 System did not work well then and hasn't improved ten years later. 

4 

measure. 
63 

My perceptions of the Green River and its Uses 

I believe 1he Green River 110 be one of 1he most beauliful plaees on eanh. The CJYS1a] clear water, spec~Kular 

CIII)'OIIS and 1he incredible trout fishery, combine 110 form a unique and Wllllllched experience for any visitor. Every 

visi110r, regardless of their bKk8fOund. is IIOuched by 1he splendor and majesty of 1he flaming Gorge and 1he Green 

River. The U.S. Forest Service Study of 1991, showed 114,00 visi110n to 1he Green River alone and 92% of those said 

that the Green River was the prinwy reason for their visit. 

There have been impressive improvemenls to the facilities oround and olong 1he Green River. The paving of 

1he Little Hole Road and development and paving of parking areu at Little Hole have been obvious improvements. 

Great impmvemenls have been made to the II mile tnil along 1he bank of 1he river and 1he campgrounds below the 

Little Hole area have been vastly improved with 1he addition of picnic tables and fire rinas to eacl!. Concrete runway 

slabs of cement have been piKed as boallaunchin& ramps to make launching and retrieving of all types of boats safer 

and easier. Composting toilets and flush-type toilets have been installed. Many other improvements have been made to 

make the experiences of visiton more enjoyable. 

I believe 1hal the majoriry of people come 10 the Green River to participate in activities in 1he first section of 

the river, 1he A Section. The 1991 study showed this to be 1he case. 90"/o of fishers and 86% of non-fishen used the A 

Section. and I believe that this trend still continues with close lo these same percentaaes today. Because so much of 

the use is concentrated in this section, I was amazed when the study reponed on paae 189, that 97% of the visiton 

were satisfied with their experience on the Green River. 

The IXliiiiiiUCial &Wdin& operations, although only S-7% oflhe lora! use on the river, are a small but very 

noticeable pan of 1he use of the Green River. As a group, they are 1he most sucx:essful fishers. are the safes! user group 

on the river by vinue of their experience, and are the only user group required 10 have first aid training. They are 

required to carry upgraded llotalion devic:es and first aid and rescue equipment that are not required of the general 

public. They have been responsible for many rescues and assists to other users on 1he river and have a far greater 

impact. for good. on the river that their numbers would indicate. 

Commercial users of lhe Green River have been a great boost to the local economy. A study done in Montana 

showed that every dollar spent locally for recreation passed through 1he local economy nine times before it left the 

area. The IXliiiiiiUCial outfitting operations on the Green River priOI'aled just over S 1,000,000 in guide fees alone. 

This figure does not include amounts spent locally and elsewhere for food. lodging, tic:enses, equipment sales and 

rentals, and travel expenses for car rentals and airlines. I think that the commercial interests on the Green River are 

very important financially both locally and statewide. 

5 
64 

Evaluation of the Green River Study as I srut 

One of the most striking items of information to come out of the 1991 Study, to me at least, is illustrated by 

the chan below from page 189 of the study. 

Table 72. Satisfaction levels for first-time and repeat visitors. 

DIIPdtfted Moderaldy Sadtfkd Highly E•<ft<led Mtll 

Slllolled Satittkd ExpedlltiODS 

(I) (2) (3) (4) (~) 

Flntallme 3'1· u-; .. Jl•J. 40•;. to•...:. H 

Repnt .a•;. ts•t. .)8•t. l8•t. 5'1. 3.3 

T ... l 3'1· 15'/• .36'1· 39'1· 1'1. J.J 

On page 18 of the study, it says, "Green River managers must decide what type of experi,,.,ce is to be 

managed for and who that experience is to be created for." This decision has not been made yet, to my knowledge, and 

would seem to be the first thing to be done. Will the Green River be managed for the 3% that are dissatisfied or for the 

97% that are satisfied with their experience• On page 24 the statement is made that "'The maintenw1ce of carrying 

capaciJy in the Green River corridor probably has more to do with the qualiJy of experience prefened by visitors than 

it has with any absolute limit to the number of people which should not be transgressed". The study also stated on 

page 59 that" it is the success or failure of management that will determine whether repeat users ko!ep coming back". 

What these statements say is that the vast majoriJy of visitors are satisfied with their experience on 1he Green River and 

1hat the management decisions that are to be made will be responsible as to whether the repeat visitors will retum or 

not return, i.e. the success or failure of the commercial outfitters. 

Many other conclusions can be drawn from this study such as the demographics of the users, time and money 

spent, levels of satisfaction and JypC of use. One other important finding comes from the Table 98 on page 258. The 

perceptions of problems by major activiJy. This shows that, in descending order, litter on the banks, litter in the river, 

changes in river flows. not enough campsites~ toilets between access points, law enforcement. human waste, access to 

river, toilets at access points, people drinking, qualiJy of campsites, information services, and access to trails and roads 

are the problems identified by users. Crowding and too many guides are not on this list and do not seem tO be 

considered by the study to be major problems. 

6 
65 

Effects of U.S.F.S. Proposed Restrictions 

On March 31, 1995, the U.S. Forest Service issued its E. A. for proposed changes to the management of the 

Green River From Flaming Gorge Darn to the Colorado State line. To the present time, this is the only document that 

has been issued on this subject. GROG A has been infonned that the new decisial notice will have the final draft of the 

E. A. and that there have been many changes from this document to the one that will come out "soon". It is therefOre 

hard to comment on the proposed changes since no one outside of the F.S. has seen them. It will be easy, however, to 

comment on the proposals that are contained in the draft E.A of March 31, 1995. 

This E.A identified five alternative management plans and picked one that the F. S. felt would be the best. 

Alternative B was identified by the F .S. as their pttferttd alternative. It was divided into three pam. 

First, restrictions on public use, second, restrictions on commercial guide use, and finally, safety 

n:quirements. My comments are limited to the commercial guide use. The following is the entire 

proposal for commercial guide usage. 

2. Commercial Outfitting (for fishing from watercraft) limits for any given day: (FS and BIM) 

Daily Boat Launch limits 

SEASONS OF USE SEcriONA SEcriONB SEcriONC 

1ST FISHING 30 20 NO LIMIT 

411 ··6115 MONITOR 

FLOAT &. FISH 20 20 NOUMIT 

6116--9/3 MONITOR 

2ND FISHING 20 20 NO LIMIT 

9/4 .. 10/31 MONITOR 

Seasons of use, I st fishing. float & fish, and second fishing an: strictly name of periods of time and do 

not limit activities. The names were chosen to indicate the primary activities occurring during the 

period. 

These management limits will be managed within the follo,ving constraints: 

·limit the number of outfitter companies to no more than I 0. 

·The number of launches available (per chart above) will be divided between companies as 

defined in their prospectus response and by the selection panel. 

There is no plan to limit the number of private launches with this alternative. Private launches will be 

controlled by the number of people on each section of the River at one time. These numbers will 

fluctuate daily depending on whether the visitors choose to hike the trails, walk/wade fish, float or boat 

7 
66 

fish. 

This is the ~nt e preferred alternative as it pertains to the commercial outfitters. It is very easy 

to see why the Guide Association opposed this alternative. What we don 't understand is why more than 

a year later, we still don't have a workable management system. 

Under the current 2440 System in plac., the only controls on any user groups on the 

Green River are on the commercial outfitters. We are 5% of the total A Section use and are only 7 & of 

the total river use. It is hard to understand how restriction on use for only this small user group can have 

any significant effect of crowding or any other problem on the river. 

According to the Green River Study. page 89, 92% of all river users and 94% of all fishers made 

their visit to the Green River the primary purpose of their trip. To publicly announce or to even hint that 

there will be restrictions on users will cause a negative reaction by these users. They wiU not invest the 

time or money to travel to the Green River if they feel that their use may be limited or that they cannot 

do the activity that they are traveling to participate in. lb.is will have an obvious and severe impact on 

not only commercial outfitters but also on all businesses that are pan of the industry that has been built 

around the Green River. 

We propose that these users be allowed to mal« their own decisions about whether or not they 

would return to the Green River based on their own satisfaction with their experience and not by a 

detennination by the Forest Service or any other agency as to whether they had a good experience. We 

believe that the marketplace will control crowding and that people will return as long as they are 

satisfied. If they feel crowded or unsatisfied with their experience. they will 1- not come back, 2- use a 

different section of the river, 3- come at a different time of year. I feel that the most imponant thing to 

remember in all management decisions is that the visitors, i.e. general public or all users. be the ones to 

make these decisions, not the F.S ... BIM, or any other agency. 

8 
67 

CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL CAPACITY FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING ON THE GREEN RIVER 

Three approaches were used to calculate an estimated capacity for commercial 

fishing service days on the Green River below Flaming Gorge Dam, until a study 

is completed that will confirm the estimate or make revisions upward or d;,-.mward. 

The capacity is based on a 214 day season, (April 1 to Oct. 31) when most of 

tl':e fishing occurs. It is also confined to Segment "A" of the Green River 

corridor (from the Dam to Little Hole) where 80% of fishing use takes place. 

~OD I: CAPACITY BASED ON ACTUAL 1986 USE 

In 1986 23.288 anglers fished the river from the dam to Little Hole, during a 

214 day period. An assignment of 5% was used as an appropriate level of 

co~ercial use. This is five times greater than the commercial use that 

occurred prior to the change of fishing regulations on January 1, 1985. 

23,280 X 5% ~ 1,165 service days 

METHOD II: CAPACITY BASED ON LIMITING THE ~~~ER OF GUIDES OR BOATS ON THE 

RIVER EACH DAY 

It is assumed that one boat per mile would be an acceptable level of commercial use for the 7.2 miles of river in Segment "A". 

7 boats X 2 fishermen per boat X 214 days = 2,996 service days 

Eased on past experience in estimating use, it is further assumed that this 

le•;el of use would only occur on 60% of the days in the 214 day period. 

2,996 service days X 60% = 1,798 service days 

METHOD III: CAPACITY BASED ON THE PHYSICAL LIMITATION OF SPACE (WITH NO REGARD 

TO RECREATION EXPERIENCE LEVELS) 

1.2 miles of river X 5.200 ft. per mile= 38,016 feet of river 

Each fisherman was assigned 100 ft. of space 

(2 fishermen per boat or 200 ft. between each boat) 

5% of total fishing use was assigned as commercial use 

Assume that average actual use would be equal to 60% of full use 

on all days in the season . 
68 

38,016 ft. of river divided by 200 ft. between boats = l.90 boats 

190 boats X 5% • 9.5 boats per day or 1.3 boats per mile 

9.5 boats pe~ mile X 2 fishermen per boat X 214 service days X 60% of full use 

= 2,440 service days 

The commercial fishin~ caEBCitl of each method is: 

Method I 1,165 service days 

Method II 1,768 service days 

Method III 2,440 service days 

Ave::age 1,791 service days 

Therefore, 2.440 service days would be the best estimate or maximum use, until a study is completed to verify this estimate or adjust it. 

The capacity could be provided by: 

1 pe::mittee with 9 boats 

2 permittees with 5 boats each 

3 pe::mittees with 3 boats each 

4 permittees with 3 or 4 boats each 

5 permittees with 2 boats each 

9 pe::mittees with 1 boat each 
69 

am in particular, is the period during which Spillway launch capacity is most severely tested 

A review of these day suggests that time-slot management is most needed for the 7:00 am 

hour on Saturdays, when the mean number of launches (25.7) anproaches the theoretical 

peak launch capacity (disregarding river otters and float tubes, however, the mean number 

of launches for this time slot is <20). The Forest Service should consider extending time 

slot management from 6:30 am to 9:30 am on Saturdays during the floating season. 

The peak for commercial boat launches is in the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 am. It should be 

noted that commercial boat launches do not now appear to present much of a management 

problem in terms of competition for Spillway launch facilities during peak periods. Indeed, 

given the allocation of 2,440 user-days in Segment A, this amounts to just over 4% of the 

total number of people launching at the Spillway during the t99o peak season. Even 

assuming a group size as low as 2.5, this would amount to a total requirement of less than 

1,000 launches per year to service the allowed commercial use. Thus, even if all the 

commercial boat launches were concentrated in the most desirable hours of the most 

desirable seasons, they would use only about 5% of the total number of launches available 

between 7:00 and 10:00 am over the course of the peak season. Moreover, commercial 

guides try to avoid high float days, and this is reflected in the fact that the proportion of use 

attributable to commercial outfitters is at its lowest on the peak day of the week (Saturday) 

and during the peak months (July and August). 

4.7.4 Enforcement 

It is important to recognize that limits have already been set on the use of the Green River 

and its resources in the form of fishing, watercraft, and safety regulations. About one-third 

of Green River users would like to see greater enforcement of these limits (Figure 26). 

Although 65% of mailback respondents felt there was no problem with enforcement of laws, 

rules, and regulations, 20% felt there was a moderate problem and 15% noted a serious 

problem. The need for greater enforcement was voiced by 6% of intercept respondents and 

25% of the mailback respondents. It was the single most cited comment on the mailback 

225 
70 

ANALYSIS OF DAILY UtniCK LIMITS, SII:ASO"IIB OF Ullt. AlfD li.ANG! or U1JlfCHES/0-G 

lat Seeeon 

Float Season 

2nd Saason 

a .. t 

Ap-ril 1 - June 15 

June 16 • August 31 

Sept 1 Ootober 31 

Rest 

Numbe-r of Days 

76 days 

55 'tlaye 

61 days 

186 daya 

1at Season (76 daya) x (30 + 20 + "10") • 4 0560 low 

(30 + 30 + "10") - 5o320 high 

Fluat Season (55 day•) x (20 + 20 + "10")- 2o750 low 

(20 + 30 + "10") - 30300 high 

2nd Fiahing (61 days) x (10 + 10 + "10") - 1 0 830 lov 

(20 + 20 + "20") - 30360 high 

4o 560 \ 

2 0 7 s6 Launchu 

1o830 . 

5o320 

3,300 

1,830 

5o320 

30300 

31660 

9 0 140 low 10 o 450 1 .. d1um 12o280 high 

LOW 

SEASON Segment A Sepent 8 Sepent: t~ 

lat Sea~:on so, - 2280 33\ - 1504.8 17\ - 775 .1 

Float Season 43\ - ll82o5 43\ - 1182.5 14\ - 385. 

2nd Saa1on 33 1/3•- 610. 33 lj3t• 610 . 33 1/3\- 610. 

TOTAL 4072 . 5 30297 . 3 10770.2 

MEDIUM 

SEASON Saan~ent A S•J!III•nt B Segment ·C 

lat Season 43\- 2287.6 43\- 2287.6 14\- 744 . 8 

Float Seaaon 33\- 1089. 50\ - 1650. lH - 561. 

2nd Seaaon 33 1/3\- 603.9 33 1/3\- 915. 33 1/3\- 311. 1 

TOTAL 3 980.5 408852.6 lo616.9 

HlGH 

SEASON S..~~Mnt A Sapent B Sapant C 

lat Saaaon 43\- 2287.6 43,- 2.287.6 14, - 744.8 

Float Saaaon 33, • 1089. 50' - 1650. l7'- 561. 

2nd Saa•on 33\ • 1o220 . 50' - 1 22.0. 17\- 1o220. 

TOTAL 40596.6 5ol57.6 2o525.8 

Season Total 

4560 . 

2750 . 

1830. 

9140 . 

Season Total 

50320 . 

3 300. 

1. 830. 

100450. 

Sea•on Total 

50320 . 

3 300 

30660 

12o280. 
71 

THOUGHTS 

25 O{G X 1,000 launches 25,000 total launches 

22 X 1,000 22,000 

-7,000 (2nd season adjustment) 

1.5 X 1,000 15,000 

/0 

15 O-G;60 

70 

let FISHING SEASON LAURCBES{WII:K/OOTnTTElt-CUIDl 7:'?, - . i 

launchee/day for whole river • 4 lav../dey/0/G X 7 days =~8 L/wk/0-C j = 4.6 X 7 • 3~:6-----

15 so 

60 

FLOATIHG SEASON LAURCBES{WEIX/OVTFITTER-GUIDE 

• 3.3 X 7 

• 4.0 X 7 

- 23.3 

m 28.0 

2nd FISHIRG SIASOR ARD OFF SEASON LAURCBES/WBEK/OUTFITTI:K-GUIDE 

15 30 • 2 X 7 • 14 

60 • 4 X 7 = 28 

** 7 days would be a •£lex• of launchea over a aet 7 day time period. 

Used the highlighted and underlined numbers to come up vith a total use by each 

outfitter to arrive at a total for the year of 985. tba total number of weeks 

comeo out to be 51.5, I figured they vould not use half a week vith holidays 

etc. in the winter. 

28.0 X 10.9 veaks s 305.2.':- .Iff Q 

28.0 X 7.9 veeka • 221:2~ if,to 

14.0 X 32.7 weeks 457.8--~ 

TOTAL • 985 (rounded up)l launches per outfitter per year ·: · 

15 Outfitters X 985 launches{year 14,775 Total Launches per Year 

ASSUKPTIORS: 1. For the aacond fishing eeason and off eeaeon: aaeume 10 

launchea in Sectiona A&B when the number of launches could go up to 20 and 10 

in Section C vhare it is unlimited. tbia means that come growth ia poasible 

here, but looking realistically at the time of year and paat use, an increase 

is not probable. 

2. For all three time perioda, Section C vaa considered ae 10 launchea per day vherG it ehova as unlim~ted. Thi• a1ao 1eav•e aome room for growth. but 

realietically this number should hold up fairly well. 
72 

Green River Outfitters and Guides Association 

P.O. Box 416, Dutch John, Utah 84023 

G R 0 G A 

Mike Stubbs 

Flaming Gorge National 

Recreaional Area 

Box 157 

November 18, 1991 

Dutch John, Utah 84023 

Dear Mike: 

In response to your recent proposal, a meeting of 

GROGA was held on October 29, 1991. The meeting was attended by 9 out of 10 existing permitees curre•ntly providing service on the Green River. Some aspEtcts of 

the proposal still are not clear to us. In particular 

management of the launch/season vs daily launch limits. 

But overall, the proposal was well received and the 

following comments reflect our concerns. 

We feel that under the current proposal there would 

be room for large and small companies combined, each 

providing individual services and creating theii' own niche the public's demand for services and market place. The past four years under the EA have proven to be both challen~ing and difficult time to grow and survive as a business. Factors other than the restrictions placed on us by the Forest Service have also taken their toll. Changes in the fishery management, unregulated flows by the BOR and 

uncertain economic times are but a few. Despite• this the 

remaining permitees, big and small have shown a deter~ination 

and desire to survive under difficult often impcossible condi tiona. The EA document and the accompani%18; unfair 

restrictions placed upon all business' has not fairly favored all with equal opportunities. We see rcoom for 

growth within most permitees. In fact all have stated a need for some future growth. Also, once again a mix of 

small and large companies as represented by the current 

permitees would be heal thy. There are currently 10 permi tees 

providing quality fishing services on the Green River. These 

permitees are currently meeting the public demand, we see no rational for not choosing from the existing companies. we further strongly see no rational for adding new companies 

to the current list. 
73 

Green River Outfitters and Guides Association . P.O. Box 416, Dutch John, Utah 84023 

G R 0 G A 

Rational and Recommendations: 

1. There be allowed up to 10 permitees in aggregate of small to large in size. 

A. The Forest Service should not auto .. tically issue all 10 perm1ta. 

B. That the permits issued be from the most 

qualified per perspectus. 

c. That 10 large companies would dilute daily launch limits and would not be desirable. 

2. That the number of permits :issued realistically reflect the current public demand for services 

with room for future growth of those permits.· 

3. we feel the current permitees have provided and can continue to provide all services needed, That 

existing permitees be favored heayily before 

entertaining perspectus' from new companies. 

A. Current per•itees have earned an opportunity 

to prove themselves under the new system without the unfair restrictions and regulations of the past. 

4. That permitees be allowed to operate over several 

seasons, up to the launch ceiling until service 

levels for each company are determined, We 

recommend that any system set up to deal with 

launches etc. be on trial basis until all the 

bugs are worked out and subject to review by the 

advisory committee as proposed in the study. 

5. Allocations of launches still need clarification 

and refining but we recommend the following as a start. 

A. Companies should be required to balance use between sections A and B with Section C 

unlimited but monitored per recommendations 

of the study. Ratio A/B to be worked out. 

B. We recommend that range of launches be as follows: 

1ST Season April 1-June 15 (76 days) (30+30+unlimited/monitored 

Float Season June 16-Aug. 31 (77 days)(ZO+aO+unlimitee/monitored 

2ND Season Sept. 1-0ct. 31 (61 days) (20+20+unlimited/monitored) 

c. That the launch flex be seasonal for the 

1st season and 2nd season to facilitate 

seasonal high/lows. The flex for the float season to be determined. 
74 

Green River Outfitters and Guiqes Association 

P.O. Box 416, Dutch John, Utah 84023 

G R 0 G A 

Existing float fishing permitees nave earned tne rignt to secure their permit before outside companies are allowed 

in. 

1. Each has met the public need for five or more years. 

2. Each has met tne challenge as business' 

during a difficult period of restrictions. 

3. Each has worked with the Forest Service, 

doing all that 111hich was askedf in good faith that they 1110uld be treated fairly. 

4. Each has made their nicne (big or smell) in the market place. 

5. Each has not yet reached its potential., and 

desires room for some growtn. 

6. Each bas show respect for the resourc11s and 

the river by doing annual river clean-ltps, providing river rescues, by example setting safety standards, donating services free to 

non-profit organizations to benefit envioronment 

and fisheries, and providing days of free river access and fishing to those 1111:lo are unable or less fortunate in society. 

7 Each has made large investments in timu and 

financial resources as business' (equiptment, advertising, employee training, and other things 

necessary to create a successful business). 

New Float fishing Permitees should not be allowE:d. 

1. No demonstrated need for additional companies, existing permi tees are not yet to potential, public demand being met. 

2. Perspectus be entertained only after a need 

beyond current level that cannot be met by 

current permitees, foliowing the Forest Service 

proposal alternative 2, exhibit A in this letter. 

3. Disruption of current market place by breaking down the net..ork of shop connections established 

by existing permitees. Tne fishing industry is a small market place,each connection is important. 

New business'could break ,down existi~; alliances 

harming existing business. 

4. No track record as permitees on the Green River. 
75 

Green River Outfitters and Guides Association 

P.O. Box 416, Dutch John, Utah 84023 

G A 0 G A 

New Float Fishing Permitees Should No$ i be allowed. 

CONTINUED: 

5. Existing company! e all work well together. Plain and simple, pick permitees !rom 

current list of holders allowing new companies only after a need by public which 

current permitees are not able to meet. 

6. we fear that some overly optimistic company will project more ability than realistic. 

(Forest Service must guard against} Some 

existing permitees can provide examples of 

these services that come and go. 

'1/e feel there still is much to be worked out in this 

process, and by no means are ou~ comments complete, but 

it is a start. We look forward to continued cooperation between GROGA and the Forest Service to bring this process 

to its resolution. Please contact us with any questions, clarifications needed, or comments. 

incerely Yours, 

ennis 

.C-~ E. Breer 

President GROGA 
2440 

GOOD 

ANNUAL FLEX 

ROOM FOR GROWTH-UNLIMITED B 

AVAILABLE TILL USED 

EASY TO ALLOCATE 

76 

BAD 

NO. SET IN STONE TILL 

FOREVER 

PUT 0/G AND FS IN 

DIFFICULT SYSTEM 

CREATING CROWDING 

COMPETIVENESS 

FEAR OF LOSING ALLOT 

BECOME BIGGER EACH YEAR 

OR LOSE-SEE 2:1 THEORY 

NO END OF SEASON USE AVAILABLE 

HARDER FOR SMALLER CO'S TO 

COMPETE 

FS TOLD 0/G TO SHOW WHAT THEY 

COULD DO 

FS POLICY OF 2440 PROMOTED/ACCELERATED 0/G GROWTH 

FS MUST TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESULTS 

A 

B 

B 

BREAKEVEN 

2:1 THEORY 

A 

B 

B 

B 

GROW A LOSf: 

B 
77 

Fishers enter early, numbers begin to bu:td at 7:00a.m.; rafters come later, their peak does 

not begin until after 9:00 a.m. A very pronounced peak in overall arrivals occurs at 9:00 

a.m. About three-quarters of our sample arrived during the Thursday-Sunday period. Boat 

fishers take trips of about eight hours, shore fishers spend about six hours at their activity, 

and nonfishing floaters spend about five hours in their trip. 

Aithough not strictly a "logistics" issue, in Section 4.2 we also include an analysis of average 

spending patterns. The average Green River user spends nearly $500 on his trip, and over 

three-quarters report spending between $50 and $500, however very substantial amounts (up 

to several thousand dollars) are spent by the remaining one-fifth of users. The bulk of funds 

spent went to the following expenses (in rank order): transportation, food, lodging, and 

guide services. 

1.3.3 Crowding and Carrying Capacity 

Of the estimated two million-plus recreation visits made to the Flaming Gorge National 

R<!<:reation Area in 1989-90. an estimated 114,000 visitors used the Green River study area. 

Peak season Segment A use accounted for the bulk of visits (92,000), amounting to about 

80o/c of the total use in all segments and seasons. An average of 279 persons per day 

launched from the Spillway during the 1990 peak season and about 340 used the river during 

the time. Launch rates reached 526 per day during August 1990 and peak floating season 

daily use is estimated at 650-750 persons per day. 

During the first fishing season. we estimate about 450-500 persons per day used the river 

and during th<! second fishing season the number was about half that many. The daily 

average number of guideboats ranged from less than four in October to more than 14 in 

June and was high<!st during the first fishing season (about 10.6 launches per day). 

The mean number of people seen hy Green River users during their trip was 25 over all 

seasons and segments, hut was as high as 41 during the Segment A floating season. The first 

22 
Many of these visitors had 

made several trips in the past 

year. Nearly two-thirds of 

the mailback respondents 

(62%) reported making more 

than one trip in the past 12 

months; 17% had made more 

than 10 trips. Again, 

differences by segment are 

not significant (Chi square). 

The Green River is the 

78 

Table 10. Repeat visitation to the G1reen River study area. 

I 

#of Trips Lifetime I #of Trips Last Year I 

I 

1 27% 0.·1 38% 

2 12% 2·5 33% 

3-10 30% r 6-10 12% 

11-50 17% 11-2:0 10% 

51-100 7% 21-50 5% 

>100 7% 51-lCI() 1% 

101-3(1() 1% 

primary destination for 92% of its visitors and many of them are longtime users of the Green 

River. While 22% reported less than one year of experience with the dver, 36% had 1-5 

years of experience, and 14% had 6-10 years since their first visit. Another 17% had up to 

20 years experience, 10% more up to 30 years, and 1% had been coming to the Green River 

for more than 30 years. One visitor had made his first visit 63 years ago. 

There are no significant differences among peak season users in the three segments in the 

terms of the first year of their visit (Chi square). Those who have been coming longest 

come most often during the first fishing season and least often during the second fishing 

season. 

4.1.5 Acth·ities 

Our survey design resulted in several options to chose from in describing user activities. We 

had the option of combining responses to single items in the intercept sutvey (did you ... fish, 

float, or use a commercial guide) to create five user types distinguishing nonfishing floaters, 

private boat or shore fishers, and private versus commercial guide users (see Table 5). Or, 

we could define activity on the basis of the single question in the maillback survey asking 

73 
79 

restrictions in Segment A). The few commercially-guided shore fishers we encountered 

entered at Little Hole. 

During the fishing seasons, two-thirds of our sample entered at Little Hole and almost all 

of them also exited there. This pattern is even more pronounced during the offseason, but 

in the floating season a bare majority enter at the Spillway. Almost all those who enter at 

the Spillway exit at Little Hole; very few are multi-segment users. Most users in segments 

Band C exit from the same segment in which they entered, but some walk up to Little Hole: 

to exit. 

Including Little Hole, 90% of all fishers and 86% of all nonfishers used Segment A. 

Segment A is dominated by the shore fishers at Little Hole. Boat fishers account for one 

quarter nf Segment A use. but only 5% is attributable to commercial boat fishers. In 

Segment B. by contrast, almost half of all use is attributable to commercial boat fisher~ . 

where! they comprise the largest single component of use. Boat fishing in total amounts tn 

nearly two-thirds of Segment B use, and shore fishing (almost entirely private) accounts for 

the remaining third. Almost all nonfishing floaters are found in Segment A, where they .. comprise 6% of all use. In Segment C, almost all users are boat fishers. divided foughly 

evenly between private and commercial use. 

Fishing is the dominant use during all seasons, and floating is not reported as the "riiost 

important activity" by more than 10% of respondents during any season. Although they do 

not comprise a dominant river user group, nearly 60% of all rafters come during the floating 

season. 

Visitors from Utah andJColorado come least often during the fishing seasons and most often 

during the floating season. Visitors from Wyoming are relatively scarce (compared to those 

from other states) during the peak season; half came during the offseason. Those from 

outside the region (Californians and other states) come almost entirely during the peak 

season. 

21 
80 

"dissatisfied." Generally the further downriver a user entered, the less satisfied he or she was 

with the trip (but these differences are not significant using Chi square). For those entering 

at the Spillway, mean satisfaction was highest (3.5); those enteril)g at Uttle Hole (3.2), or 

at Indian Crossing, Bridge Hollow, or Red Creek (3.3) all had satisfactions near the level for 

the sample as a whole. Those who entered in Segment C (Pipeline Crossing, Swallow 

Canyon) reported a much lower satisfaction (2.4). 

Satisfaction varied for campsites along the river in Segment B. The highest satisfactions 

were reported for sites just below Little Hole (3.6) and at Indian Crossing (3.5), were lower 

at Pugmire Pocket (3.3), and were lowest for Red Creek (3.0). 

Table 68. Satisfaction levels versus perceived level or crowding. 

Perceived 

Crowding 

Very Crowded 

Somewhat 

Crowded 

Normal 

Not 

Crowded 

Total 

Sample 

Dissatisfied 

4% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

Moderately 

Satisfied 

Satisfied Highly 

Satisfied 

17% 34% 36% 

21% 35% 37% 

12% 36% 43% 

12% 39% 39% 

15% 36% 39% 

Exc:eeded Total 

Elcpt:ctations 

9% 100% 

5% 100% 

5% 100% 

8% 100% 

7% 100% 

There is no relation between satisfaction and either the number of people seen or the 

perceived level of crowding (r = -.01, -.04, respectively). Nor is there a relation between 

satisfaction and the actual number of boats or people launching from the Spillway (r = .03, 

.02, respectively). As indicated in Table 68, about the same proportions fall into each 

satisfaction class at each level of reported crowding (Chi square p=.OOO). Thus, if 

displacement due to crowding does occur, it appears that it will not be based on a crowding179 
81 

Table 98. Perception of problems by major activity. 

Total Shore Fish Boat Fish Raftin~ Other 

{n=1010} {n=623} . {n=251} {n=44 (n=64} 

Litter on banks 0.93 1.02 0.80 0.64 0.77 

Litter in river 0.66 0.70 0.63 0.43 0.50 

Changes in river 

flow 

0.56 0.58 0.62 0.36 0.33 

Not enough ri:-rer 0.54 0.58 0.44 0.57 0.46 

campsites 

Toilets between 0.53 0.51 0.58 0.63 0.40 access points 

Law enforcement 0.50 0.54 0.46 0.24 0.32 

Human body waste 0.37 0.36 0.39 0.25 0.41 

Access to river 0.29 0.32 0.26 0.18 0.25 

Toilets at access 0.21 0.23 0.17 0.23 0.15 

points 

People drinking 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.23 

Quality of river 0.18 0.21 0.12 0.24 0.16 

campsites 

Information 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.09 0.15 

services 

Access to trails 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.08 

& roads 

1t.t:can score: on 5Cafc: O=not a problem: l • modC"ratc problem: 2•serious problem. 

258 
82 

PRBPARBD STATZIIENT or CJwG w. couzrr 

April 30, 1196 

My nama i.a cra.iq W. Coll.ett. My family and I operate two 

buai.neaaea wi.th.i.n the rluu.nq Gorge National R8cr-t.ion Area. 

One buai.neas, located in the town of Dutch John, Otab, i.s under 

!'oreat Servi.ce Special Oae Pezmit and was started i.n 1957 when 

Flaming Gorge Dam aonatruction be9an· In 1971 my family 

purchased Flaming Gorp I.odqe, which i.a on private property. 

'!he Green Ri.ver flows out of 1'1aminq Gorge Dam. It has 

al-y• been a bi.g touri.at attraction i.n the area an<l bri.nqa i.n a 

very larqe part of our buai.nesa. '!he ri.ver has always been 

popular for aelf-quidad rafti.nq for famili.ea and youth qroupa, 

but lately is probably moat noted as a premier blue··r:ibbon 

fishi.nq river. 

OVer two milli.on people vi.ait the Recreation Area each year. 

!'laminq Gorge NRA providea many recreational opportuni. ties for 

Jill4l9Ple fran all. over the country and world. 
83 

In 1988 the U.S. Forest Servioe began looking at davalopinq a naw Green River Manag.-nt Plan. As part of developing this 

plan in 1991, the Forest Service bad studies dona to analyze the 

recreation use capacity of the Green River. 

In 1988 I wrote a latter to the Forest Service stating our concerns about allowing additional outfitters to guide on the 

river. (Sea attached Bxhibit "A") In this letter I quoted from 

the NRA Plan which states: "Existing permittees will no:z:mal.ly be 

qiven first opportunity to provide or expand services if it is 

determined there is a demonstrated public need for 

tham .... rurthermcra, new concessionaires will normally be 

discouraged if public demand for goods and services can be 

practically mat on private lands near or within the NRA." 

At this time thare ware thr- outfitters on the Green River. 

Blaven additional outfitters were allowed to came in and we were NOT given the opportunity to expand services before the 

additional outfitters were allowed to come in. 

The most recent attempt to complete the new Green River 

Management Plan was begun March, 1995. There ware five proposed alternatives of which Alternative "B" was the proposed action. 

(S- attached Alternative "B") My concerns about this proposal are stated in a letter which I sent to the Porest Service 

April 25, 1995. (See attached Letter April 25, 1995) 
84 

Aa a business that depends on visitors for our ~ivalihood we are concerned about pub~ic restrictions, or even the perception 

of restrictions, on the <keen River. News rel.eases 31lld publicity 

about possil:l~e restrictions have already been circulating. I am convinced that because of this acme people have already decided 

not to ccma to the Green River. 

The Forest Service has stated that they can deal with the 

environmental and safety concerns created by more people on the 

river. 

Therefore, my question is, does the Forest Service have the 

right to restrict public use of public lands because of perceived 

over-crowding? And I say "perceived" because I am not convinced 

that an actual problem exists. 

The public is intelligent enough to decide for themselves if 

the river is too crowded. The choice is then theirs to choose if 

and when to come. On the Fourth of J'uly weekend crowding is fun. 

The more rafts and people the merrier. For a tranquil fishing 

experience coming during the week, early morning, early or ~ate 

season would be best. 

People don't ~ike to be to~d what they can and cannot do. 

Use of the Green River hasn't significantly changed since 1g91. 

It therefore appears that peop~e are already deciding for 

themsel.ves if the river is too crowded. Let the public continue 

to ~e their own choice! 
85 

Alternative B: 

This is the Proposed Action. 

This alternath·e implements the recommendations developed through "The Recreation Use 

Capacity of the Green lliver Corridor below Flaming Gorge Dam". This document was 

completed by the Institute for Human Ecology in their final report completed in April, 1991. 

The recommendations include sanitation facilities and requirements, safety requirements, 

campground improvements and relocation and reconstruction of the Little Hole National 

Recreation trail. 

This alternative provides for issuing a prospectus for Outfitting and Guiding on the lliver. 

Selected companies would be issued a term permit that is renewable upon payment of fees and 

meeting permit stipulations instead of the current annual permit. 

With implementation of the proposed action, the following activities would occur on the lliver: 

1. Total Use In Corridor (at any one time): (FS-A and B; BLM-B and C) 

SEASONS OF USE SECTION A SECTION B SECTION C 

7.2 miles 8.5 miles 13.3 miles 

1st Fishing Maximum Maximum No Limit 

4/1- 6/15 600 400 Monitor 

Float &: Fish Ma."timum Maximum No Limit 

~16- 9fl 750 400 Monitor 

2od Fishing Maximum Maximum No Limit 

9/4- 10/31 350 400 Monitor 

Seasons of use, 1st fishing, float &.: fish, and second fishing are strictly names of periods of time 

and do not limit activities. The names were chosen to indicate the primary activities occurring 

during the period. 

The capacity carried on the river and on the trail system will be set a.t tliese numbers and the 

users will determine whether the use is land or water based. 

Additional management limits will become necessary in the future. This will include: 

Implement scheduled launchings at Spillway as needed. 

Implement campground reservations of the sites in Sections B and C as needed. 

Implement a regu!arly·schedu!ed shuttle system between Spillway and Little Hole if it 

becomes needed. 
86 

2. Commercial Outfitting (for fishing from watercraft) limits for any giv<m day: (FS and 

BLM) 

DAILY BOAT LAUNCH LIMITS 

SEASONS OF USE SECTION A SECTION B SECTION C 

1st Fishing No Limit 

w- 6/15 30 20 Monitc.r 

Float &. Fish No Limit 

6116- 9/3 20 20 Monitor 

2nd Fishing No Limit 

9/j - 10/31 20 20 Monitor 

Seasons of use, 1st fishing, float & fish, and second fishing are strictly names of periods of time 

and do not limit activities. The names were chosen to indicate the primary activities occurring 

duri ng the period. 

These management limits will be managed within the following constraints: 

Limit the number of outfitter companies to no more than 10. 

The number of launches available (per chart above) will be divided between companies as 

defined in their prospectus response and by the selection panel. 

There is no plan to limit the number of private launches with this alternative. Private launches 

will be controlled by the number of people on each section of the Ri ver at one time. These 

numbers will fluctuate daily depending on whether the visitors choose to hike the trails, 

walk/wade fish , float , or boat fish. 

3. Safety Requirements of this Alternative (FS and BLM) 

Use of watercraft that are not designed and recommended by the manufadurer for white water 

use will not be allowed in Section A. Those watercraft that are allowed on will be required to 

have an extra oar, paddle or flipper attached to the craft. Elimination of this type of watercraft 

from Section A is a Forest Service decision which will be implemented 60 days following the 

signing of this document if this alternative is selected for implementation. 

Use of watercraft that are guided and propelled by fins on the operators feet, unless specifically 

designed and recommended for white water use (Belly Boats, Float Tubes, Water Otters, etc.), 

will be limited to Section B and Section C. Operators of these craft will be required to have 

flippers on their feet to assure proper control. There will be an additional requirement of having 

a spare flipper attached to the craft. This will assure proper operations if ~n accident occurs 

where a flipper is lost. In Section B, users of this type of craft will be required to walk around 

the Red Creek Rapid. 

All other infiatable craft will be required to have three chambers or more as part of the craft 

design for use in Sections A and B. Additional chambers will not be a.lloWE•d to be attached to 
87 

the craft by other than designed means (this is intended to eliminate poorly constructed vinyl 

craft). 

Limit the numbers of people in watercraft to what it is rated to carry. 

Rafts and/or boats will not be allowed to lash together or tow other water craft on the River in 

Sections A and B. 

All safety requirements included in the existing special orders will remain in effect. Extra oars 

or paddles, and bail buckets will continue to be required in all watercraft. Wearing of personal 

flotation devices in accordance with State of Utah regulations will remain in effect. Canoes will 

continue to be required to have additional flotation equal to one-third of their volume. Possession 

or operation of a motorized watercraft in Section A and Section B will not be allowed. 
88 

4. Sanitation Facilities/Requirements within the corridor will include: 

In Section A (FS): 

The existing flush toilets at Spillway and Little Hole will be regularly ma.inta.ined and cleaned as 

early in the spring and late in the fall as practical. When they are dosed, a port-a-potty will be 

placed and ma.inta.ined on the ramp at Spillway and the vault toilet at Little Hole will be opened 

and ma.inta.ined. 

The existing composting toilets on the River at milepost 6 will be open and ma.inta.ined yearlong. 

Additional composting toilets will be installed and ma.inta.ined at milepost 2.5 and at milepost 

4.0. Both will be open and ma.inta.ined yearlong. 

In Section B (FS and BLM) and C (BLM): 

Port-a-Potties will be required to be used by all campers in Section B (FS and BLM). The 

sanitation regulations located at 36 CFR 261.11 b) will be strictly enforced. Trenching and 

burying waste will not be allowed. 

The existing pit toilets at Jackson Creek Camp, Pugmire Pocket Camp, and Red Creek Camp 

will be removed with the pits covered and rehabilitated. 

For day-users of Section B, com posting toilets will be constructed near Big Cottonwood Camp 

and near Red Creek (FS). 

Indian Crossing boat ramp and campground will be reconstructed. It will be upgraded to provide 

a sanitation station (for dumping and cleaning the Port-a-Potties required of all campers), a 

handicap-accessible fishing tra.il, an improved boat ramp and improved camping facilities (BLM). 

A new campground including toilets, tables, parking spurs, water, and fire circles will be 

constructed at Cottonwood Grove (BLM). 

Management of the John Jarvie Historic Site and accompanying sanitation facilities will continue 

in accordance with the approved Site Management Plan (BLM). · 

Bridge Hollow campground and boat ramp will be ma.inta.ined to provide the needed sanitation 

and camping facilities in this area (BLM). 

New toilet facilities will be constructed and ma.inta.ined near the Lone Tree campsite and Swallow 

Canyon raft ramp (BLM). 

Trash within the entire river corridor will be handled by packing all trash to dumpsters that 

will be provided at Spillway, Little Hole, Indian Crossing and Bridge Hollow to serve the visitor. 

Outfitters and guides will be required to carry their trash home with them. (E'S and BLM). 
89 

6. Campfire and Firewood Management 

Under this alternative campfire restrictions will be as follows: 

Section A- No fires allowed except for emergencies (FS). 

Section B- Fires allowed in designated sites only (FS and BLM). Firewood within the corridor 

will continue to be limited to the use of down and dead wood only. When the down and dead 

wood is no longer readily available, fire materials will have to be transported in by the visitor 

(FS and DLM). 

7. Additional management information pertaining to other resources and facilities that will not 

be affected by implementation of this alternative fs in the project file at the Flaming Gorge 

District Office. 

8. Under this alternative a prospectus will be issued for commercial outfitters. Applicants will be 

required to respond to the following evaluation criteria: 

a. List all special use permits held within the last five years for commercial river guiding. 

b. Describe your financial capability to operate a commercial special use permit for fishing or 

scenic floating on the Green River. 

c. Describe your technical capability to operate a special use permit for fishing or scenic 

floating on the Green River. 

d. Describe your proposed plan of services to fishing and/or floating clients on the Green 

River including your business office location and how you would service them from that location. 

e. Describe any proposed benefits to the Federal Government if yc.u are issued a special use 

permit for fishing and/or scenic floating on the Green River. 

f. L1clude documentation of your past performance/compliance with the special use permits 

listed in Item a. 

g. Complete the following chart that indicates your proposed level of operations (in number of 

boat launches/service days) for calendar year 1995. 

Seasons or Use Section A Section B Section C Season Total 

1st Fishing 

4/1 - 6/15 

Float & Fish 

6/16- 9/3 

2nd Fishing 

9/4- 10/31 

Total 
90 

Seasons of use, 1st fishing, float & fish, and second fishing are strictly nam•lS of periods of time 

and do not limit activities. The names were chosen to indicate the primary activities occurring 

during the period. (In the selection process, existing Green River Outfitters will be given credit 

for past performance.) 

This alternative includes: 

Implementing a limitation on the Guide Companies that would not allow more than seventeen 

percent (17%) of their boat allocation to be on Section A on Fridays and Saturdays. This 17% 

will include unpaid (fun) trips. 

Implementing a reservation system will be necessary should use continue tc• grow at existing 

rates. When reservations become necessary, the system will be implemented one year (2nd 

use season) after the decision is made to allow public notification of the ch;mged management 

practice. 

Developing a monitoring strategy to determine if we have met the desired future condition for 

erosion, sanitation and crowding. 
91 

Dear Congressman Hansen, 

I am writing in response to your Jetter asking me to testify before .the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands. The Forest Service's river 

management policy for the Green River tries to put restrictions on its use that are 

unnecessary. 

I have been an avid user of the Green River for over twenty years, using it both 

for recreational river running and fishing. I have my own raft and float the river 

ten to fifteen times a year. I have gone down the river with many scout groups, 

family reunions and civic organizations consisting of ten to over a hundred people. 

The Forest Service's plan to limit the number of people allowed on the river on 

any given day raises several concerns. They say one major reason for this is to 

avoid congestion. They would do this by only letting people launch their rafts 

between 7:00a.m. and 5:00p.m. How this would avoid congestion is beyond me. 

Currently when we go fishing, we usually launch about 5:30 a.m. to avoid the 

recreational rafters who typically get on the river after 9:00 in the morning. 

Under the proposed plan they would force us all into a much tighter time frame 

that would greatly add to the congestion, not to mention that the best fishing is 

early in the morning not during the middle of the day. 

I agree that environmental concerns need to be watched closely. A second rest 

room is needed on the "A" section of the river as well as making sure that safety 

rules are followed. However, only allowing a limited number of people on the river 

at a time will not affect these concerns at all. It's impossible to wear out the 

water in the river. A thousand rafts can float the river a day and they don't leave 

any sign of their passing. We do need to be sure to educate river users of the 

importance of taking only pictures (and maybe a fish or two) and leaving only 

footprints. This is best accomplished through proper education and a few 

well-placed signs, not by limiting the number of people allowed to enjoy our public 

lands. 

The Forest Service also plans to only let a limited number of people launch per 

hour. I have floated the river with groups as large as a hundred people. I wonder 

how much greater the congestion will be when a large group is forced to launch 

over a two to three hour time slot. This will result in long lines at the launch 

ramp not to mention the problem it will cause at the take-out ramp with people 

waiting for several hours for the remainder of their group to arrive. 

I am greatly concerned about the government telling us when we are having fun 

and when we aren't. For the Forest Service to say that if there are over "X" 

number of people on the river then no one is having fun is an overstepping of their 

duties and an infringement on citizens right to use public lands. 

When I take my family on vacation I know that whether we go to Yellowstone 
92 

National Park or Disneyland there are times of the year and day that they will be 

more crowded. Using this knowledge, we plan our trips to make it possible for us 

to have maximum enjoyment. However, we also have to consider when the kids 

are out of school and when I can get off work. We go knowing that there will be 

other people there and that this will cause us to do some waiting a.t popular sites, 

but this is preferred greatly to not going at all. If the Forest Service had asked 

the question in their survey, "Do you wish you had not floated the river today 

because of the number of other people you encountered?", they wot~ld not have had 

anyone who would have preferred to stay home. 

There are three other river trips available in our local area (Split Mountain, 

Yampa and Gates of LaDore) with strict limitations as to the number of people 

allowed on each day. If a person wants to enjoy a wilderness experience they can 

apply well ahead and attempt to draw out on a private trip or pay a guide service 

and float one of these sections of river. The section of the Green River in this 

proposal is the only section that a person can take their family on a trip of a life 

time without costing a lot of money or having to make arrangements months in 

advance. 

Are we going to limit the number of people who are allowed to visit the 

Washington Monument or view the Grand Canyon because some people feel they 

would have a better experience if there were no one else around? Please let 

supply and demand work in regard to how many people are allowed to enjoy our 

public land and it's beauty. If families feel they didn't have a good time word will 

spread and the number of users will drop accordingly. We don't nl!ed a 

government agency regulating who can have fun and who can't. 
93 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. 8HERW1N 

STATEMENT OF FREE-WILL TESTIMONY 

The following is the free-will testimony of Richard G. 

Sherwin, in favor o f adoption of H. R . 2568 and S . 1374 as a 

permanent part of the Congressional Record and a s law . 

This testimony is the opinion of the author , ba s ed upon my 

experiences while floating the Snake River in Hell s Canyon , as 

well as other rivers . It al s o reflects my opinion of c e rtain 

statements , made b y indi v iduals and organizations who advocate 

exclusion in the name of access , and exclusive use, versus shared 

use , of the public domain . 

This testimony i s not intended as a personal attack on any 

of the individuals or organizations named herein . The statement s 

and opinions of these entit i es are only us ed to demonstrate the 

mind set of those who would pervert the usage of a public domain 

to that of a personal playground and/or an income opportunity , in 

the name of environmentalism . 

I am not making any attempt to take sides in the commercial 

float and power boat outfitters battle for control of business in 

Hells Canyon. I am testifying solely as a private individual, 

concerned about dwindling access to the private sector, as a 

final result of that battle . I believe the private sector has a 

right to recreate in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

and that commercial operators are there under privilege . If 

those commercial operators can not get along and share the use of 

this public area, their privilege to operate in the area should 

be rescinded. 

It is my opinion that a ll use of Hells Canyon is subject to 

regulation in order to preserve the i ntegrit y of the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area . Elimination of the right of one class 

of user group, in order to advance or enhance the experience of 

another class of user group, is not a viable option in the Hells 

Canyon area. 

The Snake River is a high-volume river, in terms of water 

flow, that will adequately support both float and power boats . As such, it is clearly navigable by both forms of water craft . 

Since, as it is pointed out by the very testimony of those who 

wish to establish exclusive use of the area, the courts have 

ruled that " rivers that are navigable in fact are navigable in 

law, " this river should remain available to those forms of 

watercraft capable of navigation . 
94 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD SHERWIN 

concerning 

H. R. 2568 & S. 1374 

A BILL 

To require adoption of a management plan for the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area that allows appropriate use of motorized 

and nonmotorized river craft in the recreation area , 

and for other purposes . 

My name is Richard G. Sherwin of 1781 Powe Drive , Clarkston, 

Washingtor 99403 . : am 47 years old, married, and hav ~ a 25 year 

old daughter and a 5 year old grandson . 

I am a private river user , living at the very mouth of Hells 

Canyon. I have lived in the area of Hells Canyon for most of my 

life, except for a year when we moved to Missoula, Montana and 

the time I spent in the United States Air Force . 

When I returned to this area, after my military duty, in 

March of 1976 , I became very interested in Hells Canyon . That 

was the first year I rafted the section of the Snake River from 

Hells Canyon Dam to Pittsburgh Landing . I fell in love with the 

area and have been a regular floater in the canyon ever since . I 

would estimate that I average three or four trips a year in th i s 

area. I would float it more often, if possible, but m:r work does 

not - allow it and I also enjoy floating other rivers . I am also a 

certified scuba diver and enjoy fishing and hiking in Hells 

Canyon and other areas . 

I joined a local river interest group , River Access For 

Tomorrow, (hereinafter referred to as R. A. F . T . ), in about 

1984/85. While R. A.F.T. is primarily a float boat organization, 

its' main purpose, as signified by its ' name, is to encourage 

equal and continued access to all legitimate classes ol' user 

groups to all rivers . I have been on the board of diructors of 

R.A . F . T. for approximately eight years and have served terms as 

the president , vice president and secretary . 

In the beginning years of my interest in floating rivers, 

was not interested in the politics of river access . Like so many 

others , I assumed that the rivers had always been open to the 

public and would remain open forever . My main concern was simply 

to enjoy the rivers in the area in which I I ive . I was aware of 

the fact that there were people in various user groups who seemed 

to be wrestling with each other for control, or use, of the river 

in Hells Canyon, and other places, but it did not affect me 

directly . 

Today, the situation on the rivers in the local area have 

changed dramatically . Politics has become the number one river 

sport and those who don ' t know the rules of the game are being 

virtually squeezed out . Commercial interests , operating under 

the cloak of environmentalists , are working hard to eliminate all 

other classes of user groups, commercial and private , who do not 

fit into their business plan. 
95 

Individuals and organizations are lobbying Congress to pass 

legislation to further their own personal interests, over the 

interests of the public at large, in almost every area of 

recreation. Recreation has become a big business in the United 

States and opportunists have seized the opportunity to take 

advantage of it where ever possible. Backed with big money from 

organizations like the Bullitt Foundation, the Sierra Club and 

others, these organizations have been able to buy media coverage 

and attention. Commercial, environmental phonies, operating for 

profit at the expense of the American taxpayers , are winning the 

battle to eliminate those who are not in agreement with their 

ideas from public recreation areas . 

Unfortunately, I started to find more and more of my time 

being spent in the political arena of river running instead of on 

the water. I started to attend meetings and write ~ditorials in 

the local media concerning river access . Today, I spend far more 

time working to keep my right to recreational access on the 

rivers I love than I spend actually enjoying them. 

Hells Canyon has been a prime example of the very situation 

I have described so far. The U. S . Forest Service has been 

unable to manage the area in a manner that would be fair to all. 

The main reason for this is that there are a number of groups and 

individuals who want it their way only. They believe that they are somehow entitled to exclusive use of this public domain and 

they have set their minds on a no-compromise mission to eliminate 

every individual and every form of recreation that does not fit 

into their personal goal for Hells Canyon . The Forest Service 

has been ineffective in its management efforts because it has 

attempted to make satisfy all parties involved and has not 

concentrated its efforts toward a plan for the canyon that is 

fair and considers the best interests of the public at large . If 

the environmental and cultural aspects of the Hells Canyon area 

can not be protected while providing fair and equal access to the 

public, perhaps the whole area should be made off limits to everyone. 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act provides a very good guideline for management of the area by the Forest 

Service . This act specified the congressionally recognized, 

valid uses of the public domain . One of those recognized uses was motorized water craft. S . 1374 and H. R. 2568 will re- establish this, and other valid uses of the national recreation 

area, as intended by Congress. 

Now is the time to act! Congress has the vehicle at hand to 

allow the Forest Service to dispense with all the rhetoric and 

argument and to provide it with an opportunity to put together a valid, fair and workable management plan for Hells Canyon. 

Those who oppose this legislation claim to be advocates of 

equal river access for all user groups . In reality, however, 

each openly advocates the exclusion of any user who is not in 

compliance with their narrow elitist conception of a politically 

correct river user . There are many w&~ still believe that the 

battle in Hells Canyon is over regulation of motorized use. In 

reality, the battle is o~ elimination of such use. 

The American public is growing weary of the plutocratic 
96 

attitude of these self-anointed-intellectuals who continually put 

pressure on Congress to compress everyone else into their very 

narrow def i nition of an ideal recreationist . These elitists act 

as though they personally own the natural resources of this 

nation. 

The "National Organization for Rivers, " in their own 

publication, "Currents" magazine , emphasizes its goal of access 

to a wide range of river users . In the "Winter 1994- 1995" issue, 

159 , (exhibit II) on the inside cover, can be found the following 

statements : " The name of this organization s hould not suggest 

in any way that the value of rivers is only i n their yisitor use 

days ." 

"In a similar way, we have found that those who wish to 

close (or partially close) rivers to public access sometimes 

c haracterize river running as a thrill sport that gov.,rnment 

agencies can limit or prohibit as they desire. But the U. S . 

Supreme Court , as well as numerous state courts, have repeatedly 

ruled that rivers that are navigable in fact are navigable in 

~and that for these legal purposes navigation include s 

recreational travel by individuals in canoes , kayaks , and rafts, 

even where there are major rapids. The law recognizes your right 

to navigate rivers, not to engage in a sport . (Even though in 

practice they are the same thing . ) Again , we wouldn't want the 

organization name to suggest that river running is merely a 

sport, because it is in fact a basic legal right." (emphasis 

added) . 

Since NORS is so adamantly opposed to the right of jet boats 

to navigate the entire length of the Snake River , a river that is 

unarguably "navigable in fact" for jet boats , that it believes 

that the "law" the Supreme Court, and numerous state courts , 

ruled on in the above paragraph, only applies to selected 

segments of river users. This is the attitude that has created 

an atmosphere of non-compromise that will never allow a fair and 

equal river management plan to be implemented in Hells Canyon . If navigation is in fact a basic legal right for one single user 

group, that same legal right must most assuredly extend to 

others. 

In another paragraph of the same article, (exhibit #1), 

while explaining why the letter "s" has been retained in the 

acronym "NORS", even though the organization is now only known as 

''National Organization for Rivers , " the word ''Sports'' has been 

deleted, the author states: " If you want to find a source for 

the~ in NORS, you could use the~ at the end of the word rivers, 

thereby emphasizing the plural--that NORS wants to preserve, and 

ensure access to, numerous rivers . " 

In a flyer, requesting contributions , entitled , WHAT IS 

"NAVIGABILITY"?, (exhibit #l(a)), NORS lists three different 

legal definitions for the term, "navigability." The final 

paragraph of this flyer states : "PLEASE SEND YOUR TAX-DEDUCTABLE 

CONTRIBUTION TODAY in the enclosed envelope . Help NORS continue 

to work for free public access and preservation on all of the 

nation's navigable--in the broadest sense--rivers!" It is clear 

that NORS is in the business of soliciting funds from indiv i duals 

"in the broadest sense" and applying those funds in the narrowest 
97 

of senses ; to re s trict the very public access , so passionately 

defended in words only, to a whole class of public users . 

In the Winter 1992-1993 issue (volume# 52) , in an article 

written by the NORS staff, on page 6, entitled "NORS Appeals in 

Oregon", (exhibit #2), the following statements can be found : 

"NORS recentl y appealed three river management plans in 

Oregon , with the following results : 

North Umpqua River : NORS appealed a Wild and Scenic 

management plan that would prohibit boating at certain time s to 

reserve the river for fly fishermen . The plan, administered 

jointly by the U.S . Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management , would make boating illegal on a six-mile stretch of 

the North Umpqua from the beginning of August through October. 

In addition, all 34 miles of the Wild and Scenic section of the 

river would be closed to boating in the evenings and early 

mornings year round . 

NORS contended that the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

does not grant management agencies the authority to kick off one 

appropriate user group at the request of another, and that the 

right to navigate rivers including the North Umpqua is held in 

trust for the people by the states , in this case the State of 

Oregon." 

These statements , by the NORS staff, clearly state that they 

do not believe in the concept of eliminating "one appropriate 

user group at the request of another." However , when the U.S. 

Forest Service postponed implementation of a plan to prohibit jet 

boats from a 21 mile long section of the Snake River, NORS filed 

an appeal and this same staff , in the Summer 1995 issue , (volume 

160), page 7, in an article titled , "Hells Canyon plan postponed", 

wrote: 

"The NORS appeal of the plan, filed by NORS Representative 

John Garren, contends, first , that any jet boat use of a Wild 

stretch of river is contrary to the spirit of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act . 

Wording in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, such as ' vestiges 

of primitive America, ' should lead any river manager to believe 

that powerboats are an incompatible use on these rivers, the 

appeal states. The present plan offers an excellent opportunity 

to provide a wilderness setting free of powerboats in the Wild 

section while continuing to allow opportunities for powerboat use 

in the (downstream) 'Scenic' section of Hells Canyon . " (emphasis 

added) . 

NORS, and others , contend that " any jet boat " use in a 

section of river designated a s "wild " by the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, is against the spirit of the act . However they 

completely ignore the actual wording of the act in section l(b) 

which clearly states the requirement that these rivers be 

"preserved in free-flowing condition." This requirement is also 

reiterated in section 2(b) as follows : "A wild , scenic or 

recreational river area eligible to be included in the system is 

a free-flowing strea• and the adjacent land area that pos se sses 

one or more of the values referred to in section I , subs ection 

(b) of this Act . Every wild, scenic or recreational river in its 

free-flowing condition, or upon restoration to this condition, 
98 

shall be c~nsidered eligible for inclusion in the national wild 

and scenic rivers system, and, if included shall be class ified, 

designated, and administered as one of the following: 

(I) Wild river areas-Those rivers or sections of rivers that 

are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible by trail, 

with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

(emphasis added). 

The Snake River in Hells Canyon is anything but freeflowing. The flows are entirely controlled by not only one dam, 

but by a series of three dams. There are wide, well maintained 

trails on both sides of the river for nearly the entire distance 

from Hells Canyon Dam to Pittsburgh Landing. Inclusion of this 

section of river into the wild and scenic rivers system not only 

violates the "spirit" of the act , but the actual wording of it. 

The Snake River in Hells Canyon was included into the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act because there were constant threats to 

construct even more dams in it. All concerned were willing to 

allow inclusion in order to prevent this from happening. This 

included jet boaters as well as floaters. Both sides in this 

present argument know the history of this very well. The 

"spirit" of the act notwithstanding! 

The attitude, displayed by NORS, of being so adamantly 

opposed to the elimination of one selective user group, 

(floaters), while advocating the elimination of another selective 

user group, (jet boaters), is a blatant example of situation 

ethics on the part of the NORS staff. Especially in light of the 

fact that NORS claims to be involved in the fight to keep rivers 

open to the public by ensuring access. 

Congress declared motorized use of the river to be a valid 

use in Hells Canyon at the time the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area was created. In addition to knowing that fact, 

NORS also knows that the river corridor was never declared as 

"wilderness" by Congress . In fact, it was clearly exc l uded from 

the wilderness section of the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area. This attempt to lead their readers to believe that jet 

boats are being allowed in the wilderness is a misrepresentation 

to those readers and a show of contempt for the Congress that 

passed the original act . Their ethics, as well as their motives, 

in this endeavor are highly suspect. 

Those who wish to eliminate jet boats from the wi l d section 

of Hells Canyon often make the false accusation that boaters have 

refused to be regulated on the river. This statement is 

completely false. 

In 1980, powerboaters agreed to a plan to limit jet boat use 

to only 6 boats/day above Rush Creek Rapid. That number would 

include 3 commercial and 3 private boats. These numbers were 

turned down by the Forest Service. Later , it was discovered that 

the intent of those who were in power within the ranks of the 

Forest Service intended to eliminate jet boat use altogether. 

This fact was revealed in an inter-department memo of J uly 10, 

1980 from Mr. Housley, Acting Deputy Chief of the U. S. Forest 

Service, to the Regional Forester of region 6. (exhibit #6). 

Among other things, this memo advocated that since the 
proposed level of use was so low , that now might be a good time 

to eliminate power boat use altogether. It also s tated that if 

use became established , it would be extremely difficult to 

eliminate it at a later date. This memo, intercepted by a friend 

of the power boaters within the ranks of the Forest Service, made 

it clear to all that if the power boaters were to continue to 

enjoy the use of Hells Canyon, they would have to propose higher 

numbers , perhaps even higher than they believed necess ar y, or 

their proposal would be deemed so low as to be unnecessary b y the 

Forest Service . It also s ent a clear message that those in 

charge of the Forest Service planned to eliminate power boat 

usage completely in the upper section of the Snake River. This 

clandestine act, by the Acting Deputy Chief, destroyed whatever 

trust the power boaters had in the Forest Service . 

In 1990, the U. S . Forest Service implemented a committee to 

study the issues of a fair management plan in Hells Can y on. This 

process, referred t o as the "Limits of Acceptable Change", 

included 22 people , representing commercial and private floaters 

and jet boaters , conservationists and livestock i nterests , the 

Forest Service, and others. This committee met 23 times , over an 

18 month period. These meetings often lasted for 8 hours, or 

more . The goal of this process was to establish a consensus 

agreement, among the various user groups, concerning the 

management of the resources of Hells Canyon. This included 

limits on the use of jet boats . 

Two people involved in the LAC process could not reach a 

consensus decision with the rest of the participants . Ric 

Bailey , of the Hells Canyon Preservation Council , and Ron Wise , 

of the Sierra Club , dissented and filed a "Minority Report", 

(exhibit #7), concerning their objection to the agreed upon 

powerboat numbers agreed upon by the task force. 

Reports from other members of the LAC task force were that 

Mr . Bailey and Mr . Wise were unable to agree with the rest of the 

task force on almost every single issue addressed by the group . 

True to form , once again the minority , as represented by the 

"Minority Report ," managed to arouse enough discontent with the 

attempted process to solve conflict in Hells Canyon to scuttle 

the entire process . 

Somewhere in the time period, between the end of the LAC 

study and the formation of the Hells Canyon alliance in 1993, a 

"Proposed Alternative Summary", (exhibit #8), was presented to 

the Forest Service by the Northwest Powerboat Association and the 

Western Whitewater Association. This proposal also recommended 

limits on jet boat usage in the canyon . Like all the others , 

this proposal was also rejected . 

In 1993, at the preliminary meeting to the formation of the 

Hells Canyon Alliance, representatives of several different user 

groups, including jet boaters, at a meeting in McCall, Idaho, 

(exhibit #9), agreed to limit jet boat numbers in Hells Canyon. 

Once again , these numbers were rejected. 

For those who oppose motorized use in Hells Canyon to claim 

that jet boaters have continually refused to present , or even to 

discuss, limits on numbers, is a blatant lie . It would not 

matter what limit s the boaters imposed upon themselves . Unless 
100 

the limit was " 0 ", those who represent the minority would object. 

I t is plain for all to see that their goal i s to eliminate all 

who do not fit into their approv e d definition of " legi t imate 

ri v er user . , 

In 1993 , I became more personal!y involved in the polit i cs 

o f river acces ~ in Hells Can yon . The power boat advocates were 

planning to form an allianc e to bring a wide range of r iver users 

together to create a compromis e alternative that each c ould 

endorse . Because o f my association with the River Access For 

Tomorrow group, I was invited to attend the mee t ing in McCall , 

Idaho . Tim Rivers, another R. A.F.T . member , and I attended that 

meeting and had input , on behalf of R. A.F . T ., to the p r oposal 

that resulted from that meeting. The results of that meeting can 

be found in exhibit #9, attached. 

I was informed that I could invite anyone else to join Hells 

Canyon Alliance , who might be interested in working together as a 

group i n order to reach some s ort of workable compromi s e plan for 

Hells Canyon . On Nov. 8 , 1993 , I s ent a letter to eve r y 

organization and individual li s ted as a commercial outfitter and 

guide for 1992 by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in the 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. (exhibits #10 & II) . This 

letter invited comment from each of those listed and invited each 

to join the Hells Canyon Alliance to work toward a peaceful 

solution, backed by the widest possible spectrum of river users. 

Most of those invited ignored the opportunity to join in unity to 

work out any differences of opinion . They did not show any 

interest in working together, wi th others , to reach a workable 

compromise . 

In frustration, I called a few of the outfitters who did not 

respond to my letter of invitation. The response from the wife, 

and, I assume, part owner of one float business, will never 

escape my memory : "You have to understand my position ; it's 

purely business. If we can eliminate powerboats from the river, 

I can double my fees and still increase my clientele by selling a wilderness experience." , (exhibit 112) . Just a few weeks later, 

this womans' husband was interviewed by a television news crew 

and could talk about nothing but protecting tbe environaent in 

Hells Canyon by eliminating power boat traffic . 

Some of those who ignored this invitation are now joined in 

unity with each other to eliminate jet boat use in Hells Canyon. 

Many are claiming that the Alliance is nothing more than a 

lobbying arm of the jet boat industry. If this accusa t ion were 

true, which it is not, it would not have been possible if those 

who were invited to have input , and refused , would have been 

willing to compromise . As I stated before , the goal o f those who 

are opposed to this legislation is not to regulate jet boat usage 

in Hells Canyon, but to totally eliminate it. These selfanointed-elitists are not interested in compromise or shared use, 

they deaaod exclusive use and have made up their minds to accept 

nothing less . Most of those in opposition are commerc i ally 

connected to the canyon but are trying to convince others that 

·their interests are purely environmental in nature. 

The divisiveness of those who want to eliminate a l l 

motorized use in Hells Canyon is apparent in the fact t hat they 
101 

seem to often get confused and have a hard time keeping their own 

stories straight . For example, on Feb . 2, 1992 , an article in 

the Lewiston Morning Tribune , titled , "Conservationists seek tristate park , (exhibit #13 ) • the Hells Canyon Preservati o n 

Council , (HCPC) , and o ther groups called for Congre ss to pa y for 

a study by the National Park Service to consider including Hells 

Canyon into the national park system . HCPC vice president , Paul 

Fritz , s tated , "The Forest Service 's continuing mismanagement of 

the area forces the transfer of power ." The article also stated , 

"Drawing more attention and tourists could help elevate the 

importance of recreation in the area and tourism's monetary 

contribution to the region's economy, supporters a dded . " 

(empha s is added) . Mr . Fr i tz added , "Rural communities get a shot 

in the arm right away with a national park ." The other groups 

pushing for nat i onal park status of the canyon were the Oregon 

Natural Resources Council and th~ National Parks and Conservation 

Association. 

While the v ice president of the HCPC was advocating drawing 

more attention and tourists to the Hells Canyon area by making it 

into a park, Ric Bailey, the executive director of the council 

and the editor of its journal, the Hells Canyon Falcon , made the 

following comments in the Spring of 1993 i ssue while discussing 

the improvements to the Pittsburgh Landing site; "Aside from 

endangering the petroglyphs mentioned above, this development 

will bring an entirely new group of users down from the canyon 

rim into an already overcrowded area at the river ' s edge . it is 

converting the rustic, semi-primitive , historic river environment 

into a glitzy, motorized tourist trap ." (exh i bit #14) . 

It appears that within the leadership of the HCPC the left 

hand doesn ' t know what the right hand is doing . The only issue 

all of them are consolidated on is the elimination of jet boats. 

This would be in accordance with the words of Kurt Weidenmann, 

leader of the Hells Canyon Planning Team had to say in an article 

that appeared in the Lewiston Morning Tribune on Aug . 17, 1993 . 

He is quoted as saying; "When you sit down and listen to what 

people want , they want exclusive use. " (exhibit #15). Mr . 

Weidenmann's statement certainly seems to be in line with the 

reasoning of those who oppose the intent of this bill . They have 

demonstrated cons istently that the y will never be s atisfied with 

jet boat 1 imi ts , only with tot a I elimination . 

Even though Ri c Bailey is claiming to be aga i nst tourism and 

bringing more people into the Hells Canyon area, he is still in 

favor of turning the area into a national park . That would most 

assuredly mean more tourism and create an even greater impact on 

the environment of the area . On Sept . 24, 1993, Cecil Andrus, 

the Governor of Idaho and former Secretary of the Interior , in 

reference to designating the Hells Canyon area as a national 

park , sa i d ; "Such s tatus would attract much greater numbers of 

people to a fragile environment and would further jeopardize the resources that park proponents also want to protect . " (exhibit 

#16) . Still, Ric Bailey and the HCPC push on with intent to turn 

the ent;re area into a national park . 

The antics , exaggerations and deceitful tactics of Mr . 

Bailey, in his attempts to eliminate those with whom he does not 
102 

agree from Hell s Can y on, have exposed him as an extremist and a 

kook in the immediate area . The local population, who experience 

the wonder s o f thi s area on a regular ba s i s , are not f oo led by 

his exagger a tions. For this rea s on, Mr . Bail e y has gone outside 

of the area to get support for his extreme views. Stories in the 

Wall Street Journal , and other publications, written by rep o rters 

who know very little , or nothing , about the Hells Canyon area 

glamorize his half-truths and turn the s upp o rt o f the unkn owing 

public in his fav o r. Ric know s that he could never sell hi s 

extremist views t o a major i t y o f the pub l i c in the local area 

because they already know the truth . Never-the - less , he ha s 

gained a lot of support from those outside of the immediate area 

who do not have first hand knowledge of the situation. 

IN SUMMARY 

The argument s for and against motorized use in Hells Canyon 

a r e as endless as the number of "what-ifs" that each side could 

come up with in support of their argument s. I feel that certain 

people on both sides of the argument have taken a stand that they 

either can't back away from without loosing face, or, that has 

conditioned them to believe that their own personal point of view 

is 100% right and everyone else is dead wrong. 

My personal point of view is that all types of user groups 

can share this area, if they want to . I d o not own a power b o at 

capable of navigating the rapids of Hells Canyon, and have no 

plans to purchase one. I enjoy floating the canyon with friends 

and often enjoy float trips when friends journey up the river, in 

jet boats, and camp with us . 

Hells Canyon is a wonderful recreation area and it belongs 

to the public, not to just one segment of the public, but to the 

public at large. The river corridor, while being bordered by 

wilderness in certain places, is not wilderness . Congress wisely 

elected not to include it into the wilderness designat i on. There 

are 34 rivers in the immediate area to Hells Canyon and 31 of 

those have already been designated for non-motorized u s e onl y. 

If the Snake River is added to the list of non-motorized use 

ri vers, it will surely increase the motorized use of t h e 

remaining two rivers in the area where motors are allowed . The 

lower section of the Salmon River is a prime example. 

Those 1'commercial environmentalists'' who want to provide 

their clientele w1th a wilderness experien c e have many good 

rivers in the immediate area on which they can do just that . 

Hells Canyon should not be turned into a wilderness area just to 

accommodate the efforts of the s e pirates to plunder the public 

right to access i n order to increa s e their personal inc:omes . No 

one should be allowed to build up a business in a publ i c 

recreation area and then demand that the government designate 

that area to their exclusive u s e. That i s what some of the float 

outfitters are attempting to do . 

The battle for control o f He lls Cany on between commerc i al 

fl o aters and commercial bo aters has drawn the private s ectors 

into action, just to pr o te c t the i r legitimate right to access the 

area . If the commercial pe ople in vol v ed can ' t work ou t their 
103 

differences without jeopardizing the public right of access , the 

answer may be to eliminate all commercial operations in the area. 

At least until they can sit down and work out a suitable 

compromise that will not impact the private sector. 

I support S. 1374 and H.R. 2568 , "A BILL To require 

adoption of a management plan for the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area that allows appropriate us of motorized and 

nonmotorized river craft in the recreation area, and for other 

purposes . " 

This bill is not new legislation , but merely clarifies the 

intent of Congress when the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

was established. 

I support the right of the U. S. Forest Service to set 

reasonable limits on any, or all , user groups within the 

H.C.N.R . A. as a final means of control. 

I do not support the concept of eliminating one particular 

class of user group to enhance the experience, or profit, of 

another user group. Congress must not get into a trend of 

designating public recreation areas for exclusive use only. 

Respe~:~lly~~u~ ~, ~~· ·• 

w.~m:- ({.__ , < . 

Richard G. Sherwin 
104 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARELL BENTZ 

Testimony, H.R. 2568 and S. 1374 

Darell Bentz 

My name is Darell Bentz and I have spent my entire lifetime in the state of Idaho, 

raised on a Salmon River Ranch. I attended the University of Idaho, earning a 

degree in animal science. However, when I found that a career in this field would 

take me away from Idaho and its rivers, I elected to stay here. I started rafting 

rivers in 1964 and built my first jet boat out of plywood in 1966 while still in 

college. I now own three businesses, one building pools and the others oriented 

to my first love, rivers. I manufacture welded aluminum jet boats, mostly for 

commercial duty. These boats have been shipped all over the world, where they 

provide recreation, carry supplies to remote locations and transport people to 

places they could not otherwise reach. In addition to the Northwest, Bentz boats 

operate in places like Mississippi, Alaska, Canada, Saudi Arabia, India, Guyana 

and Nepal. I also have an outfitting business and lodge on the Lower Salmon 

River and carry guests on both the Salmon and Snake Rivers. I helped organize 

the Welded Aluminum Boat Manufacturers Association and am cun·ently its Vice 

President. 

Jet boats 

The concept of moving a boat with a jet of water isn't new. Greek physicist 

Archimedes posed the idea 200 years before Christ was born. Yet, it was not 

until a New Zealand sheep rancher, Bill Hamilton, refined the idea and made 

practical application of it in 1954 that water jet propulsion came of age. Modern 

jet boats used for recreational river running are rugged, welded aluminum, 

shallow draft craft capable of negotiating major rapids. 

Water jets simply follow Newton's Third Law of Motion, that for every action 

there is an equal and opposite reaction. Water is pulled into a pump housing 

inside the craft through an intake grate in the boat's bottom. An impeller moves 

the water through an axial or mixed flow pump and out of a nozzle at the 

transom under high pressure. The boat is steered by turning the nozzle and 

reversed by dropping a devise over the nozzle that diverts water forward, under 

the boat. Since there is no propeller projecting beneath the boat's bottom, it can 

run in shallow, rocky rivers without hitting the bottom. There are no sharp 

blades to hit swimmers or marine mammals. Most recreational jet boats in Hells 

Canyon are powered by automotive-type engines adapted for marine use. The 

size of the craft dictates the size and number of engines required. lbey vary 

from 18 to 42 feet in length and have one, two or three engines, producing a 

cruise speed of 28 to 35 MPH and a top speed of about SO MPH. 
105 

Aluminum hulls are light, tough and up to the job of running rivers, but have the 

disadvantage of readily transmitting sound. As a result, earlier boats were noisy 

for passengers and other people on the rivers they ran. Because of this we 

worked with the Forest Service's Technology and Development Center at San 

Dimas, California to initiate a program that would lead to quieter boats. They 

did some initial testing in the spring of 1991 and held an acoustics workshop for 

northwest boat builders in November. As a direct result of that meeting we 

organized the Welded Aluminum Boat Manufacturer's Association (WABMA). 

WABMA's first project was an acoustical testing program to help us identify ways 

to quiet our boats. Studies were conducted as a cooperative project in 1993, with 

WABMA, the Forest Service, State of Idaho, State of Oregon and Nez Perce 

County participating. Tests of various makes and models of boats were conducted 

by an acoustical engineering consulting firm and designed to provide us with 

information that would identify sources of noise and ways to reduce it. 

Following the testing, WABMA held another seminar to disseminate the test 

results and discuss ways to apply it in our industry. A November 14, 1993 

Lewiston Morning Tribune article quoted Forest Service acoustic expert Rob 

Harrison as saying that testing showed a drop of 6 decibels in just the last year. 

"The boats are phenomenally quieter than just over a year ago. That's like 

having a quarter as many boats on the river." The data collected from the testing 

program has proven invaluable to builders, those who use our products and those 

who share the rivers with them. 

Both the states of Idaho and Oregon have set limits on the amount of noise boats 

are allowed to make. Our new boats easily meet those standards. This is due to 

better mufflers, acoustical insulation in engine compartments, isolation of engines 

and pumps from the hull and other measures identified by the tests. WABMA is 

now initiating industry guidelines and a certification program for new boats that 

will exceed the standards of every state in our Nation. 

Technological advances aren't confmed to noise reduction. Continued refmement 

of jet pumps have made them as or more energy efficient than propellers. The 

obvious advantages of jet propulsion could lead to them replacing props in a large 

segment of the recreation boating market. Modem jet boats are efficient, quiet, 

maneuverable, safe and environmentally friendly. 

~ 

According to Forest Service use figures, from 1990 through 1994 commercial jet 

boats carried 94,934 passengers into Hells Canyon. A large percentage of these 

people are seniors and many are physically challenged. Yet, throughout the 

entire history of commercial jet boating in Hells Canyon there has never been a 

2 
106 

fatality associated with the boating activity. Every year power boat<:rs, 

commercial and private, assist or rescue floaters involved in accidents or medical 

emergencies. The Forest Service has no records of any incidents involving a jet 

boat hitting a float craft while running on the river in Hells Canyon or the other 

two major rivers these craft share, Idaho's Salmon and Oregon's Rogue. The 

Snake in Hells Canyon is a large river and has proven to be safe and enjoyable for 

both rafters and power boaters who are willing to respect each other. 

A letter written to one of my customers by River Ranger Roy Lombardo says a 

lot for the versatility, adaptability and safety of jet boats, based on the Forest 

Service's own experience (copy is attached). He says, "In my opinion, welded 

aluminum commercial jet powered vessels provide one of the safest modes of 

river navigation available." 

Commercial Use 

Traveling through Hells Canyon by power boat is an experience of a lifetime. 

Part of the attraction is the adrenalin rush of challenging major rapids, with their 

enormous waves, rocks and and drops. Part is the humbling nature of the land 

itself--the canyon walls and awesome heights. It also offers a chance: to get close 

to nature and learn about the forces that formed North America's deepest riverine 

canyon, its fish, animals, plants, prehistory and history. Jet boating is the 

preferred method of access to Hells Canyon's Snake River; excluding Lower 

Salmon floaters, who enter the recreation area for only a short distance, about 

80% of those who boat in Hells Canyon choose to do it by power boat. 

Commercial power boats facilitate enjoyment of the canyon in a safe, convenient 

and inexpensive manner with virtually no impact on the canyon's resources. This 

is the only way many visitors could ever experience a remote white water river 

canyon. The typical one day tour from the Lewiston, Idaho area leaves around 

7:30 AM. The river, its history, geology, flora and fauna are interpreted as the 

boat passes up river. The first land stop is at a hardened site for coffee and 

snacks, such as the Cache Creek Ranch portal, with its toilets, lawns and picnic 

tables. The boats also have on-board rest rooms. The next stop is at another 

hardened site, such as the Kirkwood Historic Ranch, for a tour and lunch. They 

then proceed up river to the tum-around point, usually Rush Creek, Granite 

Creek or Hells Canyon Darn. This leg is where the passengers experience the 

deepest canyon, major rapids, important geologic and cultural features, the most 

spectacular scenery and the real historic Hells Canyon. The trip back to Lewiston 

usually involves two stops, one at a beach for swimming and at Buffalo Eddy, a 

rock art site on private land and well out of the HCNRA. They pull into the dock 

at 5 to 6 PM. · 

3 
107 

All of this, including the mid-morning snack, beverage for the day and lunch, 

costs from $85 to $95, depending on the trip's length, 180 to 200 miles round 

trip. A variety of trip options are offered. Some are charter, styled to a group's 

needs. Some specialize in fishing and others overnight at lodges. We see 

passengers of all ages, but by far the majority are seniors and many are 

physically challenged, unable to withstand the rigors of a float trip. The only 

way they can ever experience their recreation area and its river is by power boat. 

There is nothing new about carrying passengers into Hells Canyon by motor boat. 

The first trip I am aware of took place in 1865 when the llO foot Colonel Wright 

went 28 miles above the Salmon River. In 1870 and 1895 two even larger boats, 

136 and 165 feet respectively, went from Boise to Lewiston, traveling the length 

of Hells Canyon. The Corps of Engineers began surveying the river for 

navigation in the 1800's and began blasting rocks to improve navigation in 1903. 

The Imnaha, a 125 foot stem wheeler began hauling supplies and passengers to 

Eureka Bar in 1903. Gasoline powered boats started operation in 1910, carrying 

mail, passengers and cargo to the canyon's numerous homesteads and ranches. 

Even in those times, some of the passengers were tourists, fishermen and hunters. 

The Snake River in Hells Canyon fits a unique slot in the regional spectrum of 

river recreation opportunities. According to the Forest Service's own study, out 

of the 35 Wild and Scenic river segments in the Northwest with class III or better 

white water, only four allow motorized river craft. Floaters have exclusive 

access to the other 31. Two of the four segments open to power boaters are the 

scenic and wild segments of the Snake in Hells Canyon (see Forest Service study, 

Appendix H of the Final EIS, attached). Most power boaters consider Hells 

Canyon's Snake River the Nation's premiere white water power boating river. 

This activity has a continuous history spanning over 100 years. The river's rocky 

banks are impervious to wakes; it is large enough and deep enough to 

accommodate a variety of craft safely. Power boats have made this river 

accessible to all Americans, an opportunity worth preserving for this and future 

generations. 

Private Land Access 

My brother and I own private property in a remote section of the Lower Salmon 

River. The lodge there is used for family gatherings and in conjunction with my 

power boat outfitting business. We have always enjoyed free access to that 

property via the Snake and Salmon Rivers, both of which are considered 

navigable and have served as public highways, used for commerce, for well over 

100 years. In its latest management plan, with no consultation with land owners, 

the Forest Service notified my brother and me that we would each be allowed just 

one trip per day to our property from one specified portal. This works fine 

4 
108 

some days, but when we are ferrying supplies or large groups, several trips or 

several boats may be required; there are times when access from a different 

portal may be required. 

The plan also limits a land owner's ability to subdivide his/her prop, rty and 

insure access for the buyers. Land owners find the value of their properties 

diminished because of the lack of access options. One private prope:rty on the 

wild river, operated as a bed and breakfast and overnight lodge for outfitted 

customers, was virtually cut off from its clientele. While I don't want to see 

subdivision of river frontage lands, I do feel landowners should receive proper 

compensation if their rights to subdivide are taken by denying access to those 

lands. Private landowners on both the Salmon and Snake River's find that if they 

were to subdivide, the highest value use of many portions of those properties, the 

buyer's access to the property would be parceled out as part of the Forest 

Service's private boating allocation. Although the Forest Service has authority to 

purchase or condemn for scenic easements to prevent subdivision along the 

Snake, they have managed to accomplish the same thing indirectly with their plan 

and avoid just compensation. Of course, they have no scenic easement authority 

on the Lower Salmon. This is not right and amounts to a taking without 

compensation. 

By limiting access to those long recognized public highways, the Salmon and 

Snake Rivers, the Forest Service can now tell us when and how we can reach our 

private property. The questions of navigability, state ownership of the river bed 

and public rights of way under R.S. 2477 are not even addressed in the river 

recreation plan or the body of the Forest Service's Final EIS. While our appeals 

resulted in a review of the private land access issue, we should not have to go 

through this again. The private land access language in H.R. 2568 and S. 1374 

assures that this will not happen. 

Summary 

Some people want to deny me, my friends and customers access to the river, in 

spite of language in the Hells Canyon Act that recognizes both power boating and 

floating as valid uses, one no more valid than the other. The Forest Service 

attempted to open the door to prohibition of power boats in 1980 and failed. 

They attempted to do it again in 1994 with a plan that eliminates power boats, 

both commercial and private, from the very heart of Hells Canyon for three days 

a week for two months at the very height of the recreation season Even more 

threatening, is language to extend the control period in the future. 

The effect on commercial power boating is potentially devastating. This is like 

closing the doors of J.C. Penny's stores for the month before Christmas. The 

5 
109 

tour businesses make their money when the tourists are here; July and August are 

the peak of the season. According to a study conducted by the Idaho Outfitters 

and Guides Association, outfitting businesses in Idaho average well under a 5% 

net profit margin. This latest plan would not only eliminate many businesses, 

even more importantly, it makes second class citizens out of their clients, denying 

them access to their recreation area so that an intolerant minority user group, 

deemed more deserving by the managing agency, can have its exclusive 

experience. This is wrong! 

Power boaters, both commercial and private, have been and are willing to share 

and accept reasonable limits to their use to ensure a quality experience for 

everyone. However, they aren't willing to give up any portion of the canyon for 

the exclusive use of private or commercial rafters, particularly in light of the fact 

that this user group already has exclusive use of most of the quality white water 

rivers. There are 35 river segments designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act in the Northwest with major white water rapids. Power boats are excluded 

from 31 of these. Floaters too immature to share should go elsewhere. 

Please pass S. 1374 and H.R. 2568. 

6 
110 

Appendix H 

APPENDIX H 

REGIONAL RIVER RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES 

Providing for a variety of river recreation opportunities Is an important aspect of managing rivers on 

a regional basis. Due to the variety of opportunities provided by the Snake River setting, recreational 

demand for these opportunities and specific guidelines of the HCNRA Act, managing for the intended 

recreation experience has become a significant issue. Alternatives for similar rivEif recreation opportunities for established uses Is a component of determining levels of access. The Forest Service has 

determined, from a regional perspective, it is desirable to provide a spectrum of river recreation 

opportunities (reference analysis file). 

In comparing the availability of recreation opportunities within the Snake Rivl3r corridor with other 

rivers in the region, the comparison should be based on the availability of a similar type of experience 

in order to meet visitors expectations including the following: 

River classification 

Degree of difficulty (class) of rapids 

Accessibility for established user groups (float, powerboat, trail, aircraft) including river recreationists who are physically challenged 

The analysis area for determining regional river recreation opportunities is the Pacific Northwest 

including Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana While British Columbia may provide additional 

river recreation opportunities, it was not considered ir'l this analysis since it lies outside of the United 

States. A more location-specific area.for analyzing opportunities for river recreation was based on 

using Pittsburg Landing as a focal point since it approximates a centralized point on the river on which 

to examine regional opportunities for access to Federally classified rivers. 

As a result of this analysis, several factors were identified including: 

User origin. The majority of private floaters that are applicants and/or trip leaders for float 

launches on the Snake River are from within the region. A zip codl3 analysis for private 

powerboaters shows an identical trend (reference analysis file). Although not analyzed, recreation involving commercial floating and powerboating is known to include local, regional, 

national, and international clientele. An assumption is that a high percentage of recreationists 

who are trail users and aircraft users are of local and regional origin. 

Within approximately 100 air miles of Pittsburg Landing are the launch and·takeout locations 

not only for the Snake River but for the Main Salmon, Middle Fork of the Salmon, and the 

Selway Rivers. These four major rivers are among the most popular whitewater rivers in the 

country for float use, which has resulted In a limited launch allocation tc• address recreational 

demand. These rivers represent one of the best examples of providing a range of river 

recreation opportunity on a regional basis from a true wilderness opportunity (Selway • one 

float launch per day) to motorized access (Snake). They collectively provide one of the best 

examples on a regional basis of the intent of Congress that rivers classified as wild encompass 

a very broad spectrum of uses and access in areas with adjoining wilderness. 

Within approximately 150 air miles of Pittsburg Landing are the major population centers of the 

region that provide a majority of private powerboating use to Hells Canyon. These population 

centers include: 

H-1 
111 

Appendix H 

-Lewiston, ID I Clarkston, WA 

..Spokane, WA I Coeur d'Alene, 10 

-Pasco-Richland-Kennewick, WA (Tri-Cities) 

-Boise, 10 

-Missoula, MT 

The above population centers are generally located within approximately 200 road miles of 

Pittsburg Landing which Is indicative of the maximum distance the majority of private powerboaters travel one way for whitewater recreation on the Snake River. 

For reviewing regional river recreation opportunities, the Snake River was used as a baseline for 

comparison. Only rivers with components similar to the Snake River were Included in the analysis as 

follows: 

SNAKE RIVE~ COMPONENTS 

Federal classification ... . ... Wild/Scenic 

Difficulty of rapids ..... . ... Class III-IV 

Float recreation ... .. .. . .. . Yes 

Powerboat recreation ....... Yes 

Paralleling trails ........... Yes 

Airstrips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes 

Some rivers or types of activities in the following .. analysis may have been unintentionally omitted. 

However, this analysis does provide a good representation of river recreation opportunity within the 

region. 

Analysis for IDAHO 

Number of Federally Classified Wild Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 5* 

Number available for floating . . .... •. 5 

Number available for powerboating . ... 2 (Snake, Salmon) 

Number with paralleling trai[s .. . ..... 5 

Number with public airstrips . . .. . . . . 4 

•snake, Selway, Main Salmon, Middle Fori< of the Salmon, St. Joe. 

Number of Federally Classified Scenic Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 2** 

Number available for floating .. ..... . 2 

Number available for powerboating . . . . 1 (Snake) 

Number with paralleling trails . . . . . . . . 1 

Number with public airstrips .. . . . ... 1 

**Snake, Lochsa The Lower Salmon, while being considered for Scenic classification, has not 

yet been added to the national river system. 

H - 2 

8 
112 

Analysis for MONTANA 

Number of Federally Classified Wild Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 2* 

Number available for floating ....... 2 

Number available for powerboating .•. o 

Number with paralleling trails ....... 2 

Number with public airstrips •....... 1 

*Middle Fori< of the Flathead, South Fori< of the Flathead. 

Number of Federally Classified Scenic Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: o 

Analysis for OREGON 

Number of Federally Classified Wild Rivers with Class III-IV Rapids: 12* 

Number available tor floating ....... 12 

Number available for powerboating . . . 1 (Rogue: Grave Cr - Foster Bar) 

Number with paralleling trails • . . . . . . 9 

Number with public airstrips . • • . • . • . 1 

Appendix H 

*Chetco, Grande Ronde, Illinois, North Fori< John Day, Metolius, Minam, Owyhee, Rogue 

(Upper), Rogue (Grave Cr - Foster Bar), Salmon, Sandy, North Fori< Smith 

Number of Federally Classified Scenic Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 1 0** 

Number available for floating ... · .... 1 0 

Number available tor powerboating . . . o 

Number with paralleling trails . . . . . . . 9 

Number with public airstrips . . . . . . . . 0 

**Chetco, Clackamas, Upper Deschutes, Illinois, North Fori< John Day, Metolius, Upper Rogue, 

Salmon; Sandy, North Fori< Smith. 

Analysis for WASHINGTON 

Number of Federally Classified Wild Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 1 * 

Number available for floating ....... 1 

Number available for powerboating .•. o 

Number with paralleling trails ....... 0 

Number with public airstrips ........ 0 

*Suiattle 

H-3 

9 
113 

Appe,Pix H 

Number ol Federally Classified Scenic Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 3•• 

Number available for floating •.. . ... 3 

Number available for powerboatlng .. . 0 

Number with paralleling trails .. . .... o 

Number with public airstrips . .. .. . . . 0 

usauk, Suiattle, White Salmon 

Analyala Summary for the PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

Total Number of Federally Classified Wild Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 20 

Number available for floating .. .. ... 20 

Number available for powerboating . . . 3• 

Number with paralleling trails . . .. ... 16 

Number with public airstrips . . . . . . . . 6 

•Snake, Salmon, Rogue (Grave Cr to Foster Bar) 

Total Number of Federally Classified Scenic Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 15 

Number available for floating ... . ... 15 

Number available for powerboating . . . 1• 

Number with parallelinQ trails . ... ... 1 0 

Number with public airstrips . . . . . . . . 1 

•snake 

Total Number of Federally Classified Wild and Scenic Rivers with Class III-IV rapids: 35 

Number available for floatlng .... . . . 3!1. 

Number available for powerboating . . . 4 

Number with paralleling trails ... ... . 26 

Number with public airstrips . . . . . . . . 7 

Source: McCoy, et.al, Ed. 1992. River Information Digest. American River Management Society, 

Western Region. 204 pages. 

H - 4 

J() 
Uaited Btatae Dapa~bltat of 

.Aaric-ltun 

David Cameron and Jad lahaaan 

J Sandy Babb Street ~tty 

GaoraetOWil, C..yana 

South Alledce 

Gantlemen: 

'foren 

Beftice 

114 

lalla C..,oa latloa.al lecnatioa .bee 

2535 ti,.nUa Ddu 

•• o ... "' Qlerlretgp. !tahlgtqp IMQ:S 

1600 

My name io lloy I.Otllbardo. 1 •• • River ll&aau workiq for the llallova-Whit11an 

National roreot ln Balla Canyoa. 1 eupervioo all liver Patrol• for the Ballo 

Canyon latioaal lec.-aatlon Area on over oeventy mile• of river corrL!or. One of 

my primary aiaeion• ie the protection and oafety of Yoreot Vieitoro Wb~l• they ere on the wateu of the Vll.S 6 Scenic Snake live~. l have held thh'1'oeition 

for over ei&ht yeare, end 1 have pareonelly operate.S jet boet1 ln both the 

Uaiud Ste'tel and Canada for over twenty yean. 

The majority of our foreet viai'tore that ace .. • Ballo Caayon do ao by way of a ;o.mereial jet powered paa•anaer boat. Since 1990 thela boato have carried over 94,934 people, end hrouaht in revenueo that ezceed 46,920,372. Durina thi• aeae perio6 of time, ve have heel leu then ten llinor aeeidanto iavolvina c,_rcial 

boat traffic. One of theoe inei.Senta war a bila• fire that clicl produce aeverel 

burt~ eaoualtiao. However, we have never had a fatality rea11ltina froa peaaenaer 

vuael operation -du.--ina···thc paet twenty yeeral 

The Poreot Service p~eoeatly ope.-ateo two jet powered patrol boeto on the Snake 

liver• We have a 32 foot tvia••ncl • 24 foot lillll& anaiaa veaael. Both of 

theae boato ware 111DUfectured by Banta Boata in Lewioton, Idebo. We have uaed 

the 24 loot c.-aft for alaoat fifteen yeare nov under the -oat aevare eoaditiono 

iaaaina91e. We have pulhed her for thouaandl of houra with aatr ... loade, on 

daya when the aabient air temperature• aaceedad 105 daareeo, o.- broke ice for ten aileo on the lover .-iver to reach port iD the middle of the niahc, aDd 

throush it dl ohe h .. 1l&Yer failed uol OUr 32 foot tvl.n vaa built 'laot year. 

I vrote the bid epeoifioationo of the ·-new boat and theae otaa4ario ve.-e oOII& of 

tha 110at daundina l have aver ••••· Banta Boata met or uceeded all of our contract requirnantol In my opinion, welded aluainUII eo.mel'cial jo•t pwared 

veuala provide one of the oafeot aodu of river neviaation avaUabl.e. 
115 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SANDRA F. MITCHELL 

Testimony, S. 1374 and H.R. 2568 

Sandra F. Mitchell, Executive Director, Hells Canyon Alliance 

The Hells Canyon Alliance (HCA) represents a broad spectrum of citizens, businesses and organizations, including many of those who actually visit, love and enjoy 

Hells Canyon. The original founding organizations are the Northwest Power Boat 

Association (now Northwest River Runners), Western White Water Association and 

River Access for Tomorrow (RAFT). We have a common interest in assuring equitable access to our rivers and support responsible shared use as appropriate to each 

river's legislative constraints. HCA was formed to provide a common voice for 

groups affected by the Forest Service's management plan in Hells Canyon. Our concerns, however, extend to other rivers in Idaho, Washington and Oregon. 

The following testimony is offered for your consideration concerning a proposal 

to amend the Hells Canyon Nati<?nal Recreation Area Act. Public Law 94-199. December 31. 1975: · · · 

The Need for S. 1374 and H.R. 2568 

Today the vast majnrity of people who recreate in the Hells Canyon segment of the 

Snake River, visit it by motorized river craft. Some of these are private boaters and 

others go with commercial operators on scenic tours. This access is accomplished 

with a minimum of impact to the river, the land or its resources. A small group of 

nonmotorized users objects to seeing powered craft; most, however, are willing to 

share the river. Those unwilling to share have a rich choice of alternatives in this 

geographic area, such as the Selway and Middle Fork of the Salmon. Motorized 

users, however, don't have that luxury. The only other white water livers open to 

them in the wild and scenic system are portions of the Rogue and Salmon rivers. 

Without a single doubt, the Hells Canyon portion of the Snake River is our Nation's 

premier white water power boating river. 

The use of motorized river craft is deeply interwoven into the fabric of Hells 

Canyon's history;traditions and culture. It was for this reason Congress left a nonwilderness corridor for the river's entire length; it was for this reason Congress specified that both motorized and nonmotorized river craft were valid uses of the river 

within the recreation area, the entire river for the entire year. It was not the intent of 

Congress to allow the managing agency to decide that one valid use would prevail 

over the other and be granted exclusive use at the other's expense. 

The process leading to passage of the HCNRA Act was long and labored. As with 

most laws of this kind, its language evolved from extensive negotiations and compromises. Without these, the recreation area could not have oem designated and we 

would have another lake behind another dam instead of our magnificent canyon and 

its plunging rapids. However, today it seems that the agreements and promises which 
116 

led to passage of PL 94-199 have been forgotten; Congressional intent is conveniently 

misinterpreted or ignored. 

Among the people who thought their interests were protected are power boaters. 

Section 1 O's recognition of both motorized and nonrnotorized river c:raft as valid uses 

of the Snake River within the recreation area was thought to protect access by those 

using both types of craft, yet the latest Forest Service management plan features provisions that eliminate power boats from a major portion of the Wild Snake River for 

three days a week during the peak summer use period. One valid use is eliminated to 

benefit the other. 

To make matters worse, those who use motorized river craft fmd their access to the 

open portions of the river arbitrarily slashed to unrealistic levels, based on old and 

faulty data. This drastic regulatory action was not founded on any demonstrated need 

to protect the canyon, its resources or visitors. It did not respond to threats against the 

recreation area's purpose or its listed objectives. It was not necessitated by the dictates 

of law. It's sole foundation was a perceived need by' the managing agency to provide a 

particular kind of social experience dictated by the agency's own in11exible policy. 

To provide this experience the agency took it upon itself to rewrite or expand on 

legislation passed by Congress. It decided to convert part of the non-wilderness river 

corridor to wilderness for 3 days a week for two months, setting a p.recedent for even 

more severe restrictions later. It decided to ignore Congressional intent, granting itself 

authority to regulate "type" of river craft by promulgating regulations after Congress 

refused. It decided to ignore the letter and spirit of Congress's validity language, 

adopting a management plan which determined one valid use to be more "valid" than 

the other. When Congress did not designate the study river as scenic, the agency 

decided to manage it as scenic anyway. Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

makes no reference to type of water craft or the use of motors, the agency has corrected that oversight by directing the elimination of motors via polic;y, interpreting 

references to primitive shorelines as justifying a defacto wilderness, requiring a primitive or semi-primitive nonmotorized experience. After all, both wild river and wilderness contain the word."wild"; they must be the same thing. 

Traditional access to private land provided by the Snake River, a. recognized public 

highway that provided unrestricted access to those properties throughout our history, 

was curtailed in the latest Forest Service management plan. Boat trips to and from 

private holdings were allocated as part of the severely limited launches associated 

with either recreational or commercial boating. The value of these properties plunged 

with release of the plan. If the latest plan is implemented, land owners will be unable 

to use their properties for traditional purposes, potentially devastating associated 

businesses. 

Strong and viable businesses tied to power boating in the canyon will be severely 

impacted by the management plan. The healthy and competitive power boat outfitting 

industry is to be dismantled and restructured to fit a mold designed by the Forest 

2 
117 

Service. Few outfitters feel they can survive. This is based on social and economic 

engineering by an agency that failed to even contact the outfitters to collect information on economic impacts. Although the appeal decision requires them to go back to 

the outfitters and collect site specific data, the planners seem to be going through the 

motions, not intending to make any significant changes. 

Boaters and others who use, love and care for this canyon and its resources participated with the Forest service in development of a management plan using the Limits 

of Acceptable Change (LAC) process for over two years, only to have their work on 

the key issues of use limits and allocation ignored and summarily trashed in favor of a 

socially driven Forest Service plan, a plan that violated both the spirit and letter of the 

Act. The agency apparently felt compelled to move management of this unique river 

towards that dictated by agency policy for every other river in the wild and scenic 

system. Although Congress, in legislative language tailored to the recreation area, had 

the foresight to recognize that this river, its cany~n and uses were different in charac- · 

ter and tradition from others in the wild and scenic system, the agency lacked the 

creativity and imagination to bring forth that vision and recognize its opportunities. 

The Forest Service's leadership's agenda to eliminate power boating from Hells 

Canyon, in spite of the intent of Congress, has been clear from the beginning. Acting 

Deputy Chief R. M. Housley warned in a 1980 memo that if power boats were not 

eliminated then, it would be more difficult to remove them in the future, their eventual 

elimination never in question. The course set in 1980 has never wavered. It is this 

same determined policy that led to elimination of power boats from part of the river 

for part of the year in 1994, a course of action setting the stage to remove them from 

the whole river for the whole year in the future. 

We do not question that boating use of the river, both power and float, must be 

managed to provide a quality experience and protect the canyon's irreplaceable resources. The amended Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires establishment of a carrying capacity. As identified plateaus of acceptable conditions are approached, management actions must take place. Strict regulation of access·may eventually be indicated, 

but should be the last, not first choice; regulations should be imposed only when and 

where all alternative actions have proven insufficient. Every regulation carries with it 

a loss of freedom, a cost not to be taken lightly. In Hells Canyon, however, regulation 

was selected as the preferred tool in the most complex regulatory plan imposed for 

any wild and scenic river in the Nation. It is an enormously expensive plan, one the 

Forest Service can ill afford to implement. 

Quite clearly, the issue of power boating's validity on the whole river for the whole 

year will not be settled until it is decided by the courts or Congress clarifies its intent 

in PL 94-199. Unless this is done, the deeply ingrained p~ejudice against motorized 

recreation within the managing agency will continue to plague that majority of Americans who want to access the river within the recreation area by power boat. The 

3 
118 

courts are already burdened by too many cases of this type, a waste of time, energy 

and fmancial resources for both the United States and its citizens. The only practical 

and permanent resolution of this issue is to clarify Congressional intent in a manner 

that will not allow any future misunderstanding. S. 1374 and H.B. 2568 do that. 

Why don't people who support shared use just quit! Is it worth the battle? The 

answer is decidedly yes! We will not easily give up the right to access our river and 

canyon with either powered or non-powered craft. Floating a churning river through a 

magnificent canyon is something we wish everyone could experience. In Hells Canyon this requires physical stamina, a large amount of money for commercial guests 

and considerable time. But power boating is also a very special and exhilarating 

experience, one available to everyone. Sir Edmund Hillary, the first to climb our 

planet's highest peak, sums it up this way: 

"I have found jet boating perhaps the most exciting mechanical form of 

adventure I have ever undertaken. It involves a wide variety of challenges. 

There is the beauty of the environment--superb streams, wild gar ges, mountain 

lakes. There is such a multitude of problems to tackle--ferocious rapids, 

shallow braided streams, formidable boulders and thundering waterfalls. There 

is the speed, the swift reaction, the sliding around tight corners--. 

Somehow the roar of the engine has never worried me. The jet boat seems 

to fit into its environment. The constant change in direction, the struggle 

against steep rapids, the long, deep, fast stretches, the sharp comers--all seem to 

tune into the engine from a gentle hum to the scream of power in a difficult 

section. Rivers are exciting, noisy things anyway." 

Bloxham and Stark, The Jet Boat, 1983. 

Hillary would fmd jet boating in Hells Canyon today much less noisy and even 

more fitting than expressed in his 1983 writing, but no less exciting. 

The River 

The Snake River in Hells Canyon is unique among those in the Wild and Scenic 

system; the diversity it provides to that system makes it especially precious to the 

American people. It is a large, high volume river. The 31.5 mile "wild" section begins at Hells Canyon Dam in the south and extends to Pittsburg Landing in the north. 

All of the class IV rapids (on a scale from I to VI), the major white water rapids in 

Hells Canyon, are located in the top 16.3 miles. This segment is also the deepest part 

of the canyon. While there is no geographically defmed "Hells Canyon" on the maps, 

most of the old-timers considered that Hells Canyon started at Johnson Bar, about 17 

miles north of the dam, and extended south to Oxbow, Oregon. 

The "Scenic" Snake River flows north from Pittsburg Landing, 36 miles to the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest boundary, giving us a total of 67.5 miles of wild 

and scenic river. An additional 4 miles of undesignated river runs north from the 

4 
119 

scenic river boundary to the recreation area's north boundary at the Oregon/Washington state line. This segment was identified as "Study" in the 1975 Act. The National 

Park SeiVice completed the study in 1980, recommending designation as scenic. 

When Congress elected to take no action on the recomrnendatiqn, the study protection 

eventually expired. After applications were filed to build a dam at Asotin, Washington, legislation was passed prohibiting dams in this segment of the Snake. 

Navigation on the Snake 

This wild and scenic river has a long and colorful history of navigation by motorized river craft. The first paying passengers to go up through its rapids on a motor 

boat made their journey on the 110 foot stem wheeler Colonel Wright in 1865. The 

136 foot Shoshone steamed through the canyon from Boise to Lewiston in 1870, 

followed in 1895 by the 165 foot Norma. The mining boom-town of Eureka was 

served, first by the Imnaha, a 125 foot stemwheejer that fell victim to the Snake in 

1903, and later by the Mountain Gem. 1n 1910 gasoline powered craft began moving 

people, produce and supplies in and out of the canyon, with its many mines, farms and 

ranches. The first contract for regular mail delivery was signed in 1919, and the mail 

has been delivered ever since. The Corps of Engineers began blasting rocks and improving channels in 1903, working continuously until 1975 to make the river safer for 

navigation. While navigability for title purposes has never been adjudicated, no one 

has ever seriously suggested that the river was not navigable, a public highway with 

its bed belonging to the respective states. 

Jet Boats, Fact and Fiction 

While water jet propulsion predates Fulton's steam boat, modern jet boats didn't 

begin replacing propeller driven river craft in Hells Canyon until the early 1960's. 

The very name, "jet boat" generates visions of roaring jet aircraft engines and tremendous speeds. This couldn't be further from the truth, but there are so many misunderstandings that we should take a moment to explain what jet boats are and what they 

aren't. 

Instead of having a propeller mounted below the craft's hull, the jet boat pulls 

water through an intake grate in the bottom near the transom into an axial or mixed 

flow pump housing inside the boat. The water passes through an impeller and exits 

under high pressure via a nozzle at the rear of the craft. It is steered by turning the 

nozzle and reversed by dropping a device over the nozzle's end, diverting water forward under the boat. Since nothing projects beneath the boat, it can run in relatively 

shallow water; there is no propeller to strike rocks or injure swimmers and marine 

mammals. It does not ingest gravel from the river's bottoqumd spill it out the nozzle, 

as was suggested at an earlier hearing before this august body .· Gravel can ruin the 

impeller and other pump parts in seconds. 

5 
120 

Most jet boats used for recreation on white water rivers are powered by automotive-type engines adapted to marine use; the engines are linked directly to the pump, 

with no gearing system. Jet boats found on the Snake River vary from 18 to 42 feet in 

length and cruise on flat water segments at 28 to 35 miles per hour. The small, family-type boats have one motor; the larger commercial craft have two or three. Hulls 

are relatively flat bottomed and made from tough welded aluminum. Engineering and 

design advances over the past few years have produced an attractive, safe, tough, 

maneuverable and quiet craft suitable for the family or the most demanding commercia! applications. They are at home on flat water lakes or running the Snake's most 

challenging rapids. 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act (PL 94-199) 

On Dec~mber 31, 1975, President Ford signed Public Law 94-199, designating the 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA). The purpose of this law, as outlined in the Act, was to "assure that the natural beauty, and historical and archeological values of the Hells Canyon area and the seventy-one-mile segment of the Snake 

River between Hells Canyon Dam and the Oregon-Washington border, together with 

certain portions of its tributaries and adjacent lands, are preserved for this and future 

generations, and that the recreational and ecologic values and public enjoyment of the 

area are thereby enhanced..,.-." Section 7 of the Act instructs the Secretary to "administer the recreation area in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations applicable 

to the national forests for public outdoor recreation" in a manner compatible with 7 

listed objectives. Finally, section 10 of the Act instructs the Secretary to promulgate 

such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to accomplish purposes of the Act, 

including "provision for the control of the use and number of motorized and nonmotorized river craft: Provided, That the use of such craft is hereby recognized as a valid 

use of the Snake River within the recreation area-." 

Sixty seven and one half miles of the Snake River were designated under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act and 4 miles within the recreation area identified as study. The 

Act placed some special provisions on the wild and scenic designation, including the 

regulatory authority of section 10, the validity language of that same section and 

direction concerning planning. 

The original HCNRA Act and later amendments designated about 215,000 acres of 

the recreation area as wilderness. The one half mile wide (average width) river corridor, however, was carefully excluded from the wilderness, even where it was bordered 

by wilderness on both sides. This was in recognition of the river's long tradition of 

motorized access and the Act's validity language. 

If Congress had intended that a wilderness experience be pri!vided in the wild 

section of the Snake, it would not have excluded the river corridorfrom Hells Canyon 

Wilderness. On the Salmon River the wilderness boundary come~; to the river and 

6 
121 

power boating is allowed as an·exception. On other wild rivers, such as the Selway 

and Middle Fork of the Salmon, wilderness overlies the river corridor, with the most 

restrictive designation dominant. In Hells Canyon, by foregoing these options, Con-· 

gress made its intent clear. The corridor was excluded from wilderness because it was 

not to be managed as wilderness. Congress intended that the river be shared by the 

identified valid users and that the river corridor land base be managed without the 

constraints of wilderness designation. If a wilderness experience had been intended, it 

would be wilderness. 

During debate over the legislation that became the HCNRA Act, the Department of 

Agriculture proposed an amendment that would have provided: 

The Secretary, in consultation with other involved State and Federal 

agencies, is authorized to control and regulate the amount and~ of water 

craft use on the river. 

S. Rep. No . 94-153, supra, at 13 (emphasis added). 

The purpose of that proposed amendment was explained by the Secretary: 

"We recommend that the Secretary, in consultation with involved State and 

Federal agencies, be authorized to control and regulate the amount and type of 

watercraft use on the river. At present, a number of Federal and State agencies 

have concerns and responsibilities for controlling regulation of watercraft use. · 

We believe that it is important that the Secretary be given the authority to be a 

focal point for the coordination of these concerns and responsibilities. We 

would expect to exercise any restrictions on use only after careful consultation 

with public and private groups and agencies." 

1d., at 14-15. 

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Long testified in hearings on the proposed legislation that the proposed amendment was to authorize the Department of Agriculture to 

prohibit jet boats, and noted that there were "times when boating perhaps should be 

prohibited entirely." at 103-104. Senator Church responded to that testimony unfavorably, explaining: 

"I think you have given the present use of the river and the fact that access to 

it for many people who go into the canyon, if not the majority, is by the river, 

and jet boats have been found to be the preferred method of travel by a great 

many people who have gone into the canyon. This is a matter of such 

importance that Congress itself should decide what the guidelines would be 

with respect to regulation of traffic on the river and that the discretion ought not 

to be left entirely to the administrative agencies." 

ld., at 104. 

As a result, the amendment wasn't adopted and the HCNRA Act provided clearly 

that both motorized and nonmotorized river craft were valid uses of the river. By 

rejecting the amendment that would have authorized the Forest Service to regulate the 

7 
122 

~ of boats allowed on the river, Com:ress clearly intended the Forest Service not to 

have such authority. On this river, use by float and powered craft was to be shared. 

Later, in promulgating rules under authority of section 10 of the Act, the Forest 

Service gave itself authority to regulate ~of river craft, doing an end-run around 

Congressional intent. This regulatory authority was cited in justifying a management 

plan decision to eliminate jet boats from part of the river, exactly as Senator Church 

had predicted. 

Another indication of Congressional intent is found in a July 15, 1981letter to the 

Chief of the Forest Service, signed by Senators James A. McClure, Steven D. Symms 

and (then) Congressman Larry E. Craig (attachment 4). Senator McClure was instrumental in obtaining passage of the Act in the Senate. Speaking of the newly released 

management plan that excluded power boats from much of the wild river for the summer season, the letter said, "--we are disturbed that the Alternatives considered by the 

Forest Service are not in harmony with the intent of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act." "The House Report states that restrictions would only come about 

after careful consultation with public and private groups and agenc:ies." "The Senate 

Report stated that motorized boats are a valid use and "thereby allowed in the area"." 

Management Plans 

When the Forest Service completed its first version of the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) in 1981, it attempted to eliminate power boating from the heart of 

Hells Canyon for the entire primary recreation season, granting floaters exclusive use 

of the river from Wild Sheep Rapid to Rush Creek Rapid. 

The plan's release was met with public outrage. The letter from McClure, Symms 

and Craig referenced above (attachment 4) contains passages that tell the story quite 

succinctly: 

"--we. request you to withdraw your decision and review the available 

alternatives for management of the National Recreation Area to address 

specifically the following concems:--the Forest service states in its Final EIS 

that its goals are.to minimize polarization between float and power boat uses 

and to provide opportunities for commercial enterprises. The end result of the 

Forest Service's decision is severe polarization between floaters and power 

boaters. It has been estimated that the decision will result in the loss of 33 jobs 

in the boat building industry, with an incalculable adverse impact on the support 

industries that depend on the continued power boat usage.--It should be noted 

that the Forest Service Planning Team urged jet boaters and floaters to devise a 

compromise plan, and assured them that the restrictions adopted by the Forest 

Service would not exceed those worked out in the compromise. Reluctantly, 

the power boaters--negotiated such a compromise--. The Snake River was 

suddenly withdrawn from their access, despite the fact there was no clear need 

8 
123 

for any regulation." 

The reason for the 1981 plan's departure from the path to which its planners had 

committed themselves and the participating public is found in a July 10, 1980 memorandum, from Acting Deputy Chief R. M. Housley to the Regional Forester, R-6. The 

Regional Forester was directed to further justify the use of power boats on the Wild 

portion of the Snake River in the draft CMP: 

"The proposed level of use is so low it appears that now may be a good time to 

eliminate all power boat use. If use becomes established under this plan it will 

be extremely difficult to eliminate it in the future." (emphasis added) (see 

attachment 2) 

Responding to public and political outrage, the Chief reconsidered his decision and 

issued a new plan in 1982, allowing access to the entire river for a very limited number of powered craft, the compromise alternative worked out by floaters and power 

boaters. In the meantime, after obtaining a copy of the July 10, 1980 memo, power 

boaters, who were totally fed up with the Forest Service's lack of good faith, appealed 

the new plan. Assistant Secretary Crowell overturned the 1982 decision in 1983, 

allowing unlimited day use by power boats and citing failure on the part of the Forest 

Service to demonstrate a need for restrictions. 

In 1988 the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest initiated a review and revision of 

the river management portion of the CMP. A planning process called "Limits of Ac- · 

ceptable Change" (LAC) was initially utilized. Over a period of 2 years an LAC task 

force of citizens, representing all major interests in the canyon, hammered out a river 

management plan, completing their task in 1991. It was a long, difficult process, with 

many compromises. However, the plan's framers were, with the exception of two 

members representing environmental groups, committed to it. 

The Wallowa-Whitman then began preparation of an EIS for the plan and, during 

this process, abandoned the LAC plan's direction for allocation of use, adopting instead in the Draft EIS a scheme of their own that would allow power boaters exclusive 

access to the wild river one week and power boaters the next. Both classes of boaters 

were appalled and responded with overwhelming opposition. In the Final EIS, the 

agency gave floaters alone the benefits of exclusive use, closing the heart of the canyon to motorized river craft for three days a week in July and August, the peak of the 

recreation season. They also severely limited motorized access to the rest of the river. 

The decision was justified by Area Ranger Ed Cole during a press conference by 

saying power boaters were willing to share, but some floaters were not. In spite of the 

lack of any demonstrable resource problems or conflict with the Act's objectives, and 

in the face of overwhelming public support for motorized river craft and shared use, 

the agency seemed steadfastly determined to eliminate mqtorized river craft from 

some part of the river for at least part of the year, a decision power boaters feel is 

intended to set a precedent for even more severe restrictions in the future. The Forest 

9 
124 

Service adopted the plan in the Fall of 1994. 

In response to a flood of appeals, a stay was granted by the Regional Forester, 

avoiding disastrous implementation of the plan in 1995. However, the Regional 

Forester's appeal decision supported the concept of a closure of part of the river to 

motorized river craft and regressive limits of access based on old and unreliable data. 

For those who participated in development of the first plan, this. latest planning 

effort was an experience in deja vu. In both plans the Act's validity language was 

rationalized away. In both a sound compromise worked out by the public at the 

agency's urging was summarily discarded. In both the Forest Service was determined 

to eliminate power boating from the Wild Snake River, in spite of Congressional 

intent and public input. 

As evidenced by the 1980 memorandum, the agenda at the agency's top level, one 

that apparently continues today, is elimination of power boating in Hells Canyon. If it 

wasn't to be eliminated in 1981, the Acting Deputy Chief was concerned about effects 

of the plan on efforts to eliminate it in the future; its eventual elimination was not in 

question. Neither was any concern indicated about corrupting the public involvement 

process, in which hundreds of citizens had participated in good faith (a monumental 

breach of ethics), or conflict with Congressional intent expressed in the validity language. They were not even mentioned. 

Issues 

A number of resource and other issues concerning power boating received detailed 

attention by the Forest Service in development of their EIS for the latest river management plan. Most were easily addressed and disposed of because they had no substance. None of the issues, except the agency's own arbitrary social objectives, drove 

their decision to eliminate power boating on part of the river for part of the year; none 

necessitated or supported the severe restrictions imposed on power boat access to the 

remainder. 

The only basis for the decision is the agency's own policy determination of the 

kind of social experience every wild river should provide. Lacking the imagination to 

recognize the Snake River's unique qualities, they relentlessly attc~mpted to move the 

wild section of the river towards their vision of a more primitive setting. This is a 

setting where large parties of floaters traveling the river in bright yellow, blue, red or 

florescent pink high tech-hypalon rafts are OK, adequately primitive. Camping on the 

shores with mini-cities of high visibility nylon tents is compatible; powered boats on 

the river are not. 

Those opposing power boating continue to raise the same old issues with the press, 

members of their organizations and commercial guests, the s~ issues that failed to 

drive the Forest Service's EIS and plan when subjected to analysis; They will probably be raised here to germinate doubts in your minds about this legislation. It is best, 

10 
125 

therefore, that we address and dispose of them here and now: 

Safety 

Those opposing motorized river craft give the impression that jet boats leave 

bleeding and battered bodies behind them at every tum. Nothing could be 

further from the truth. The Forest Service has no records of any incidents 

involving a jet boat hitting a float craft while rwming on the river in Hells 

Canyon or the other two major rivers these craft share, Idaho's Salmon and 

Oregon's Rogue. The one event in Hells Canyon often cited as a collision, 

inaccurately, took place in 1984 and involved a floater standing on the tube of a 

raft, not floating the river but pulled up on a beach. The floater was bending 

over with his derriere displayed. An angry power boater pulled into the bank to 

talk with him and bumped his raft, launching him into the air. 

Wakes are cited as having swamped rafts. That would be quite a trick for 

craft that produces a wake from 4 to 18 inches high, depending on the size, 

speed and draft of the boat, depth of the water and distance. The faster a jet 

boat moves, the higher it rides in the water, the less water it draws and the 

smaller its wake. The rafts we are talking about run the river's most challenging 

class IV rapids, their passengers laughing and screaming with joy as they 

plunge into gigantic holes and smash into 5 foot waves. 

This is not to say that wakes are not a concern. Their biggest impact is on 

rigid craft sitting on or against rocky shores. This can be largely disposed of 

with boater education and strides were made towards that end in 1995 via a 

cooperative education brochure we will discus later. 

Since the Forest Service brought on its HCNRA management team in 1980 · 

there have been six fatalities directly related to boating on the river, three 

floaters and three power boaters. All but one could have been prevented if the 

victims had been wearing a type I or V life jacket approved for whitewater. 

None were caused by interaction between power boaters and floaters. In fact, 

after one of these fatal accidents involving an overturned dory, a jet boat tour 

driver rescued another of the boat's passengers, possibly preventing a second 

fatality. 

Daily during the peak summer season, rafts overturn and people are thrown 

into the river. Each summer one or two power boats will sink. Most of these 

incidents don't involve injuries and the craft are recovered. Sometimes, 

however, there are injuries; whitewater boating and other "thrill" sports all 

involve a certain amount of risk. When accidents happen, power boats often 

make a big difference in quickly getting injured parties out of this remote 

canyon to medical help. Ask Notre Dame's Head <:;oach Lou Holtz. When 

thrown from his raft in a rapid, he found himself under the boat with his broken, 

mangled thumb tangled in a rope. After this near-drowning experience, Lou 

11 
126 

caught a ride with one of the jet boat tours to Lewiston for treatment in the 

emergency room and rejoined to his family's float group the next day. Many 

people recreating on the river have similar experiences every year. 

The Snake is a big river with room for all to use it safely, provided they 

exercise common sense and treat each other with respect. Of course, some 

boaters fall short of both counts. You'll find that with any group of people, 

regardless of their choice of watercraft. We can, however, change attitudes and 

correct shortfalls of know-how with education. 

In the 1995 Hells Canyon boating season the stage was set for conflict by the 

1994 Forest Service River Management Plan which pitted one user group 

against the other. Instead, according to Forest Service River Manager Mike 

Cole, we had one of safest and most tranquil seasons ever, with each group on 

their best behavior. The same was true for the Wild and Scenic Salmon River. 

This was likely due in no small part to "Guidelines for Float/Power Boat 

Interaction on Idaho Rivers" (see Attachment 3), an educational brochure 

produced by the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association in cooperation with 

managing agencies and several organizations, including ours. We helped to 

write the guidelines and our member organizations purchased enough copies to 

mail to each member and for the Forest Service to hand out at Hells Canyon's 

river portals. The organization responsible for most of the tales of Hells 

Canyon woe was invited to participate, but didn't, electing to be part of the 

problem rather than part of the solution. 

Wildlife 

To listen to the opponents of jet boats you would expect to find wildlife 

fleeing in terror every time a jet boat passed. That isn't what happens, however. 

The way wildlife responds to power boats on the Snake River is little short of 

amazing and certainly puzzling. 

Waterfowl passing through the area will fly when power boats approach 

closely; they respond the same way to float craft. Local birds, however, will sit 

quietly or move Just far enough to avoid being hit if they are in the boat's path. 

They have learned that power boats under way are of no threat to their safety. 

Larger animals, such as deer, elk and bighorn sheep, pay little attention to 

power boats unless they pull into the bank or shut down their engines. They 

also have learned that power boats under way pose no threat. Big hom sheep 

will come within a few feet of a boat full of tourists and drink from the river, 

looking upstream, downstream, up slope, anywhere but at the power boat, 

which seems to be of no concern to them--almost invisible. However, their 

entire demeanor changes if the boat turns into shore and a person steps on the 

bank. 

Power boaters have been blessed with opportunities to observe many real12 
127 

life wildlife tableaus with no more effect on the animals than they would have 

had at a Disney nature movie. A tour boat hovered a few feet from a large 

bobcat stalking a feeding deer. The doe, spotting the creeping predator, 

charged, striking with her sharp hooves, nearly killing thct fleeing cat before it 

could scramble under a boulder to safety. Both animals seemed oblivious to the 

boat or its 20 or so entranced passengers. 

In 1995 power boat passengers observed bear, bobcats, mountain lion, 

moose, deer, elk, big hom sheep, mountain goat, bald eagles, osprey, golden 

eagles and other less spectacular creatures with little or no effect upon them. 

Commonly accepted wisdom would tell us that motorized boats would be 

more upsetting to wildlife than nonmotorized craft. Experiences on the river 

don't seem to support that theory, however. Wild birds and animals appear to 

have learned that power boats don't hunt them or take their lives and pay little 

attention to boats or passengers. Float craft, on the other hand, slip up on wild 

creatures quietly, more closely emulating ihe behavior of their predators. Little 

is available in the way of studies, but thousands of wildlife observations by 

power boaters in Hells Canyon would seem to belie the oft accepted truths. 

Salmon 

The only comprehensive study of jet boat impacts on salmon was conducted 

by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (Reynods and Horton, Effects of Jet 

Boats on Salmonid Reproduction in Alaskan Streams, 1994). An earlier study 

in New Zealand suffered some serious flaws, prompting the new research. 

There are, of course, many differences between the Alaskan salmon and streams 

studied and our salmon and river in Hells·canyon. The research dealt with 

sockeye salmon in very shallow water of small streams with floe substrates. In 

Hells Canyon the only salmon species that spawn in the river are Fall Chinook. 

They arrive in the fall, after the primary boating season; the Snake's waters are 

deep and its gravels large. 

The Alaska study indicated that slow moving humans, shadows and bears 

wading the stream were more disturbing to spawning adult salmon than jet 

boats. A study of another flsh species was cited which showed that slower, 

nonmotorized boats produced a greater disturbance to spawning behavior than 

fast, motorized craft. While salmon flared away from their shallow spawning 

beds in response to a jet boat pass, they returned in a few seconds to a minute to 

resume their activity; in response to humans and bears they moved away 

considerable distances for several minutes. 

The researchers found that in small, shallow, steams with fme gravels, 

intense use by large jet boats can kill incubating sa!Jnonid embryos. Many 

variables affected mortality and water depth thresholds couldn't be clearly 

defmed, although the highest mortality occurred at depths of 13 to 23 

13 
128 

centimeters. Mortality dropped quickly at depths greater than 23 centimeters. 

To put this in perspective for we nonscientists, 23 centimeters equals 9 inches. 

The study's conclusion suggested that "limiting jet boat use (size! and intensity) 

may be warranted in shallow, constricted stream channels where the potential 

for substrate disturbance is high." They recommended that any restrictions to 

be placed on jet boating be on a case by case basis, taking into account sitespecific conditions. 

According to a monitoring report by Forest Service biologist AI Mauer, the 

1994 Fish and Wildlife Service survey of Fall Chinook salmon redds found 10 

redds in the HCNRA portion of the Snake River that were located where they 

could be affected by jet boats. These varied in depth from 6 to 1.3 meters; that 

is from 19.7 to 4.3 feet. They averaged 2.1 meters or 7 feet deep. None of the 

redds were shallow enough to warrant marking to help boaters avoid them. The 

conditions are not even close to those defined in the Alaska study as justifying 

jet boat restrictions. 

Nothing in the fisheries studies done to date to indicate any impact by jet 

boating in Hells Canyon upon salmon. It is likely that fast moving jet boats 

cause less disturbance to adult fish than nonmotorized craft, their behavior more 

closely resembling that of predators salmon have learned to avoid. The finding 

of no adverse effects is clearly appropriate for Hells Canyon. 

Beaches 

Hells Canyon used to be notable for its many expansive sand beaches. 

Today, however, most are gone. A few upper river beaches in particularly 

favorable locations survive, and even recruit new sand in high-water years. 

Below the Imnaha and Salmon Rivers we still enjoy many beautiful beaches, 

but even these are much reduced in number and size from their historic level. 

So, what has happened? Are these important components of a wild river 

environment the victims of power boat wakes as some would have you believe? 

First of all, lets take a good look at beaches and how they an! formed. Sand 

beaches in a free flowing river environment are dynamic things, forever 

changing with shifts in the river's bed, eddies and currents. In the spring, as 

water rises, it gains energy with spring snow melt and sand begins to move 

downstream. Existing beaches are eroded away and new sand is recruited from 

the tributaries, river bed and upstream beaches. As the runoff wanes and its 

energy drops, sand begins to settle in the eddies and pockets along the river's 

edge, rebuilding the beaches. This cycle of erosion and deposition has gone on 

for as long as we have had a river, that is until dams were built up stream. 

Brownlee, Oxbow and Hells Canyon dams serve asgjgantic sediment traps, 

capturing sand that would have renewed beaches. The day that Brownlee began 

holding water, the fate of Hells Canyon's beaches was sealed. Since the three 

14 
129 

dams are not very effective for flood control ( they can store only 7% of the 

mean annual runoff), we still get flooding; the erosion end of the beach cycle is 

still alive and well. The deposition end, however, is ill. The flood waters are 

relatively free of the large sediment that forms beaches; we call this clear water 

flooding. Some sand is still recruited from the river's tributaries below the dam, 

especially the Imnaha and Salmon Rivers, but this is a fraction of that which: 

once came down the Snake. 

Geologists Grams and Schmidt published the most comprehensive study of 

Hells Canyon beach erosion done to date in 1991, after reviewing changes in 

beaches from 1955 to 1990. They found the number and size of beaches 

reduced by 75% following construction of the dams, and attributed the loss to 

clear water flooding. When asked what role boat wakes played in the loss, they 

replied that it was insignificant. 

According to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study in 1976, twenty years 

ago, beaches, gravel and mud bars made up about 1% of the shoreline in Hells 

Canyon. The Forest Service, in their EIS felt this figure might have been low, 

but still guessed the percentage at less than 5%. The balance of the canyon's 

shoreline is armored with rock. 

A monitoring study was done by the Forest Service in 1993. Surprising no 

one, they found that boat wakes moved sand near the water's edge. Sometimes 

they found an increase of sand in their transects and sometimes a decrease. In 

either case the sand was not being moved very far. However, when the floods 

cover the bars, this micro movement caused by wakes becomes moot. It 

matters not one scintilla in the broad picture of beach dynamics. If ever there 

was a river where the effects of power boat wakes on the shoreline are nil, Hells 

Canyon, with its rocky shores, is it! 

Noise and Speed 

Jet boats roar up and down the river with their 900 horsepower engines at 60 

to 100 miles per hour. This is the tongue-in-cheek way our opponents try to 

typify river running jet boats. This description might fit the race boats 

sometimes seen on television at competitive events, but these are not the boats 

used for recreation in Hells Canyon. In fact, use of this type of craft is now 

prohibited by state laws without a special event permit, and the Forest Service 

has prohibited such events on wild and scenic rivers. Both the states of Idaho 

and Oregon have set limits on the amount of noise boats are allowed to make. 

The Forest Service already prohibits over-the-transom manifolds in the 

HCNRA and requires mufflers, effectively eliminating the drag and race boats. 

In June, 1991, Rob Harrison and Bill Make! from the Forest Service 

Technology and Development Center at San Dimas, California took a quick 

look at the boat-sound situation in Hells Canyon, traveling the river and 

15 
130 

measuring the sound of several boats. They found that the river was an 

inherently noisy environment--moving water, rapids and wind. ·me noise from 

passing power boats was comparable to the level produced by other recreation 

vehicles on the noisy end of the scale, such as motorcycles and jeeps. 

Manufacturers they talked to were highly skilled and motivated, but little 

acoustic engineering had been applied to their boats. The builders, however, 

were very interested in learning about the acoustic technology that could make 

their boats less impactive and more competitive in the recreation boat market. 

Among Harrison's recommendations was the conduct of a seminar on the basics 

of noise control. 

The Northwest Power Boat Association and Forest Service sponsored a 

sound seminar for boat builders in November of 1991, assisted by acoustical 

specialists from the Technology and Development Center and a private acoustic 

testing firm. As a direct result of this session, the Welded Aluminum Boat 

Manufacturers Association (WABMA) was formed to facilitate the 

communication of technology and to conduct comprehensive acoustical tests of 

jet boats of various sizes and design. Tests would be designed to provide 

information that could be used by manufacturers to cut noise levels of their 

craft, reducing the impact of noise on the boat's occupants and other river users. 

The studies were conducted as a cooperative project in 1993, with the 

W ABMA, Forest Service, State of Idaho, State of Oregon and N(:z Perce 

County participating. The data was used by manufacturers to make their craft 

quieter; progress in acoustical tuning of jet boats continues today. A November 

14, 1993 Lewiston Morning Tribune article quoted acoustic expert Harrison as 

saying that testing showed a drop of 6 decibels in just the last year. "The boats 

are phenomenally quieter than just over a year ago. That's like havin~ a quarter 

as many boats on the river." (emphasis added) 

A Forest Service manager on the Salmon River mentioned that he talked 

with floaters during the 1995 season who were amazed at how quiet many of 

the jet boats had· become. They couldn't hear the boats any more before they 

appeared. Boaters on the Snake had that same experience, with newer craft 

difficult to hear over the river's natural sounds. The loudest noise from some 

craft is made by the water sliding across or slapping the hull. This is due to 

better mufflers, acoustical insulation in engine compartments, isolation of 

engines and pumps from the hull and other measures identified by the tests. 

WABMA's members haven't slowed down. Another seminar was held after 

the testing. Now they are establishing industry guidelines, and a certification 

program for new boats, that will exceed the standards of;every state in our 

Nation. Some older boats on the river are still relatively noisy. However, as 

they replace mufflers to comply with Forest Service requirements they will 

16 
131 

become noticeably quieter. They will eventually be replaced by new, quieter 

craft. 

Powered boats will always create some sound. However, it is of short 

duration, soon lost in the natural noise of a flowing river. Tremendous progress 

has been made in the last few years that will eventually remove sound as a 

serious concern in environments such as Hells Canyon. 

Speed also is often cited as a problem and is often misunderstood. 

Recreational jet boats have certain speeds where they operate most efficiently. 

This varies from one craft to another, depending on load, bottom design and 

other factors. Most jet boats won't plane until they reach a threshold speed of 

20 to 28 miles per hour. Top speeds usually range from 40 to 50 miles per hour, 

depending on load, engine power and other factors. But, high speeds are fuel 

hungry and tough on engines; if the boat moves too slow, efficiency also 

plummets. Too fast is expensive and too slow is expensive. That efficient 

middle ground most boaters aim for usually moves them at 28 to 35 miles per 

hour, slowing to tune the boat to the waves in whitewater and speeding up in 

shallow areas. 

To a point, jet boats are more maneuverable with higher speed. In making a 

hard tum, for example, the boater may slow before the tum, then feed power as 

he goes through the tum, maintaining good adhesion between boat and water. 

The faster a jet boat moves, the less wake it makes. Wakes are largest as boats 

climb onto plane, drop off plane or wallow at slow speed. At very slow idling 

speeds boats don't cause a wake; we call this no-wake speed. However, when 

moving up river against a fast current, it is impossible to idle at a no-wake 

speed and still move up river. The best choice in this situation is to eddy up and 

wait for downstream traffic to pass or speed up to minimize the wake and pass 

craft tied to the bank. 

Those floaters who take the time to learn about jet boats and how they work 

will have little heartburn over the speeds of the jet boats they encounter. Power 

boaters, of course, must also be sensitive to the needs and concerns of floaters. 

Other Land Based Resources 

We have heard power boating's detractors describe floating as 

"environmentally benign" while typifying power boating as rape and pillage of 

river resources. Both assertions are ridiculous, although they may sound logical 

to those who know little about either activity. 

The average float party stays 2.4 days on the river. The average for power 

boaters is 1.3 days. Since the popular one day floats, combined with a jet boat 

ride back to Hells Canyon Dam, are prohibited under)the new plan, all float 

trips will be forced to overnight on the river. The current average stay for 

floaters will increase. The popular campsites in the wild river are occupied 

17 
132 

nightly. Those used by large float parties have paths carved into the slopes 

leading from the water to the camping areas. Most float parties carry large 

quantities of food and equipment, since weight usually isn't a limiting factor for 

large rafts. This requires many trips, from the river in the afternoon and to the 

water in the morning. Vegetation at the campsites is beaten into dust by 

summer's end. Most floaters spend relatively little time on the water (2.5 -3 

hrs.) each day, averaging just over 10 miles per day between the dam and 

Pittsburg Landing. The balance of their time is spent in camp, scouting rapids 

and taking side trips. 

The vast majority of power boaters are day users who don't camp along the 

river. The largest group of Hells Canyon boaters are those who take one day 

power boat tours from Lewiston or Hells canyon Dam. Most of their time is on 

the water. When they do stop, it is at managed, hardened sites, such as the 

Cache Creek Administrative Site and the Kirkwood Historic Ranch. The only 

non-hardened stops are at beaches, naturally hard sites, for swimming. Many 

tour boats already have onboard toilets; the management plan requires all tour 

boats to have them in the future. These boaters have no impact on land based 

resources. 

Power boaters who do camp spend relatively little time on shore. Their 

activities are largely water based--running rapids, fishing. Parties are small, 

averaging 3 people per private power boat party vs. 9 per privatf: float party . 

Many power boaters sleep on their boats and, since weight is critical for power 

boats, they carry less gear to pack around. 

Most power boaters who camp set up their equipment at one site and stay 

there for the duration of their visit. This means that less gear is packed up and 

down the river's slopes; fewer trips equates with less impact. Floaters usually 

stay one night at each site, setting up a new camp every night. 

In 1990 floaters terminated 47% of their trips at Pittsburg landing. Another 

24% terminated their trips above Pittsburg and jet boated back to Hells Canyon 

Dam. Only 19% went all of the way through the HCNRA to the Grande Ronde. 

As you can see, floating is largely concentrated in the 31.5 miles of wild river 

above Pittsburg landing, an area where the Forest Service wants to maintain 

primitive shorelines. To accomplish this they have, incredibly, elected to 

eliminate the uses with the least impact on the shorelines, one day floats 

entirely and power boats for 3 days a week in the peak season. 

There can be no question that power boating has much less impact on landbased resources than floating. The "environmentally benign" claim for floating 

is so much guano. This is not to say that the impact offloating is unacceptable. 

Any human use of land will have some effect upon it. Hells Canyon's 

campsites, their sandy soils and vegetation, are quite resilient. 

18 
133 

Floaters Have Been Regulated For Years; Power Boaters Refuse to be 

Regulated 

As we pointed out above, floating is dependent on campsites and the impact 

of nightly use on these sites can be considerable. This is one of the factors that 

led to limits on floaters in the mid 1970's. 

Float use exploded in the early 1970's. Without regulation, huge numbers of 

floaters arrived at the single launch ramp below Hells Canyon Dam on some 

days, usually weekends. The congestion led to long waits and short tempers. 

As these many parties moved down river, the conflict went with them. They 

overwhelmed the few campsites available in the first night's float. These sites 

were far more heavily impacted then than today. 

Floaters went to the Forest Service, fed up with the crowding and campsite 

competition, and asking for regulation of launches. Power boating was not 

affected by the congestion and was not competing for those first night 

campsites. Since they were not a part of the problem, they were not regulated. 

Float regulations were first applied to commercials and, as private use grew, 

later to them. Since the problem was largely confined to the top 16.3 miles of 

the river above Rush Creek Rapid, the regulations applied only to that section. 

The balance of the river was unlimited for both float and powered craft. That is 

still the case today, although it would change radically under the new 

management plan. In the 1970's, unlike today, the Forest Service regulated 

people only when and where it was absolutely necessary. The closure orders 

limiting float launches in the 1970's and 80's were based upon existing 

regulations; no new regulations were promulgated for either float or powered 

craft until the 1990's. 

It is true that floaters have been regulated for years, at their own request and 

on only the top 16.3 miles of river; it is untrue that power boaters have refused 

to accept regulation. They were willing to accept limits in 1980, but were 

attacked by an agency that wanted to eliminate them. They were willing to 

accept limits. in the 1991 LAC plan, but were again attacked by an agency that 

wanted to eliminate them. They are willing to accept limits today, but need 

action by Congress to assure that the agency's determination to eliminate them 

will end once and for all. 

19 
134 

Attachment 1 

Boating In Hells Canyon, Its History and Management to Date 

The following summary covers the history of boating in Hells Canyon, the HCNRA Act of 1975, special regulations promulgated for the HCNRA, use figures, economic impacts, the University of Idaho study, background of the Hells Canyon Alliance, differences between Hells Canyon's power boaters and floaters, management 

plans and planning efforts, and the current proposed legislation. 

Historical: 

• Steamboats to Jet Boats 

Hells Canyon has a long and rich tradition of power boating that spans more 

than a century. In 1865 Captain Tom Stump took the 110 foot Colonel Wright 

up river into what is now the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

(HCNRA), turning around at a point 25 Miles 'above the Salmon River (Snake 

River of Hells Canyon, pg. 30). Five years later (1870) Captain Sebastian 

Miller brought the 136 foot steamboat Shoshone the full length of Hells 

Canyon, from Southern Idaho to Lewiston. In 1895 Captain William Gray 

followed the route blazed by Bas Miller in the Norma, a 165 foot stem wheeler. 

The steamer Imnaha ferried supplies to Eureka Bar in 1903, followed by the 

Mountain Gem in 1904 (Snake River of Hells Canyon, Pgs. 52··54, 58 and 59). 

The many homesteaders and miners who called the Hells Canyon area home 

in the early 1900's needed transportation for people, supplies and produce. The 

Snake River was a ready highway for them to use. One of the first to provide 

that service on this navigable river was Ed MacFarlane in 1910 with his 36 foot 

gasoline powered Flyer. In 1912 he added the 65 foot Prospector to his fleet. 

MacFarlane began the first power boat tour business operating out of the 

Lewiston area, charging $1.50 for a trip to Wild Goose Rapid. In 1914 he 

braved the rapids to Granite Creek with 19 passengers in the Prospector (Snake 

River of Hells Canyon, Pgs .. 61-63). Many boat Captains and craft took their 

place in the traditions and history of the canyon over the years.. These include 

characters of legendary dimensions such as Press Brewrink, Kyle McGrady, 

Oliver McNabb and Dick Rivers. Their large and sturdy propeller driven craft 

included names like the Chief Joseph, Let's Go, Clipper, Idaho, Florence, 

Wenaha and Idaho Queen. 

The first Snake River Route mail delivery contract was awarded to Press 

Brewrink in 1919. Weekly delivery of the mail from Lewiston to Johnson Bar 

continues today. The boat goes up on Wednesday and.retums on Thursday, 

providing a valuable service for canyon residents. For tourists the ride up river 

into Hells Canyon on the mail boat was an adventure of a lifetime. 

Although the idea had been around for many years, a New Zealand sheep 20 
135 

rancher named Bill Hamilton revolutionized river running with the first 

practical and fully functional jet propelled boat in 1954. This miraculous craft 

could run in very shallow water and proved a match for some of New Zealand's 

toughest white water. Jet pumps appeared on the U.S. scene in the late 50's. 

According to Norm Riddle, a jet boat pioneer on the Snake 'River, Jim West was 

one of the first to use a jet boat in Hells Canyon, equipping a fiber glass and 

wood craft with a Beuhler pump. In 1962 Bob Smith and Paul Filer took a 

welded aluminum boat with twin outboards all the way up river through Hells 

Canyon to Oxbow and return in one day (Snake River of Hells Canyon, Pg. 99). 

Norm Riddle began running jet boats into the Canyon in 1963 and says that 

several others were there before him. He notes that it was rare to see rafts at 

that time. In 1965 Norm married tough welded aluminum hulls and the jet 

pump, giving us a craft that could run through shallows and rapids, was light in 

weight and tough enough to withstand the rigors of Hells Canyon's white water. 

While early designs were crude and utilitarian, they evolved into the efficient 

craft we have today, boats, engines and pumps capable of safely running all of 

Hells Canyon's rapids, yet handsome enough to appeal to buyers as a family 

boat. 

1\vo industries built around these pioneer efforts. The first is the 

manufacture of welded aluminum jet boats. In the Lewiston/Clarkston Valley 

alone over 13 companies build these exciting and durable craft. The second is 

tourism. On the Snake River in the HCNRA 19 outfitters carry about 20,000 

people annually in power boats, a vital part of the region's tourist industry. Of 

course there are many other businesses and services which support power 

boating: marine engines, upholstery and tops, jet pumps, fuel, hotels, restaurants 

and so forth. 

• Floating 

The first European-American to boat the length of the canyon, Donald 

McKenzie, made his amazing journey in 1819 (Snake River of Hells Canyon, 

Pg. 16). During the late 1800's several boaters penetrated the canyon to various 

degrees, investigating the river's potential for navigation and accessing its 

mineral resources, real and imagined. In 1925 a young adventurer Amos Burg. 

traversed the canyon with a canoe. He returned to Hells Canyon on three other 

occasions, the first with a canoe in 1929, the second by raft in 1946 and fmally 

by raft in 1978 (Snake River of Hells Canyon, Pg. 75). Five parties left 

accounts of floating the river in the 40's, including one outfitter trip (Snake 

River of Hells Canyon, Pg. 89). Surplus rafts from World War ll made river 

running more available and inexpensive. By the 50.' S':aild 60's more people 

were braving the rapids of the Northwest's rivers, including Hells Canyon, but 

it wasn't until the early 70's that float use exploded. 

21 
136 

• Corps of Engineers and Navigation 

While the defmition of Wild and Scenic rivers in PL 90-542 calls for 

essentially primitive and undeveloped shorelines, the Snake River in Hells 

Canyon doesn't fit the mold very well. With three dams above that trap 

sediment, the beaches have largely disappeared. Flows are controlled by the 

dams and change hourly. Even the river channel itself has been heavily 

modified over a long span of time to enhance navigation by the large, deeper 

draft craft that used to ply the river for commerce. The river was at one time 

lined with ranches and farms, most now abandoned. Over 2,000 people once 

occupied the Oregon side of the canyon alone in the early 1900's; more worked 

the Idaho lands. There were towns, schools, wagon roads, irrigation ditches, 

orchards, fields and other features of civilization, many still visible today, even 

in the Hells Canyon Wilderness. 

The first reference to modification of the river channel in the HCNRA 

appears in a 1903 Lewiston Tribune article referenced in The Snake River of 

Hells Canyon, Pg. 57. The article spoke of a trip by the steamboat Imnaha with 

a "party of government engineers who would blast away the large rock in that 

menace to navigation (Mountain Sheep Rapid)". In 1914$25,000 was 

appropriated for the Corps of Engineers to improve the river channel with 

explosives (Snake River of Hells Canyon, pg. 63). From 1903 until designation 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1975 the Corps of Engineers continued 

projects to improve navigation of the Snake River in what is now the HCNRA. 

This included blasting rocks, construction of diversions to chan:nel water and 

installation of channel survey markers as navigation aids from Lewiston to the 

end of navigation improvements, 86 miles up-river. The balanc:e of the river to 

Hells Canyon Dam (1 8 miles) does not have survey markers. 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act of 1975 

In the 1950's and 60's there was little doubt in anyone's mind that a dam would be 

built somewhere on the Snake River in Hells Canyon. The only question was which 

dam or combination of dams would be constructed and who would build them, private 

or public power. Those entities took their fight to the Supreme Court where Justice 

Douglas wrote the Court's majority decision and read it on June 5, 1967, a decision 

that brought both back to the drawing boards. 

The court opened the possibility that "the best dam for Hells Canyon might be no 

dam at all. The test, wrote Douglas, is not solely whether the region will be able to 

use the electric power. The test is whether the project will be. ilt the public interest. 

And that determination can be made only after an exploration of all issues relevant to 

the "public interest," including future power demand and supply , altemate sources of 

22 
137 

power, the public interest in preserving reaches of wild rivers and wilderness areas, 

the preservation of anadromous fish for commercial and recreational purposes, and the 

protection of wildlife." (Hells Canyon, The Deepest Gorge on Earth, William Ashworth, Pgs. 138 and 139) 

This decision bought new life to the movement to protect the canyon from dam 

construction and culminated with passage of the Hells Canyon Act in 1975, including 

designation of 67.5 miles of the Snake River as wild or scenic. 

Many people and organizations were important in passage of the Act, but no one 

was more instrumental than Floyd Harvey, a power boat outfitter. Harvey mobilized 

support among environmental organizations and played a key role in forming the 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council. He also elevated Hells Canyon's issues to national attention by jet boating celebrities into the canyon and enlisting their support. 

These included radio personality Arthur Godfrey and singer Burle lves. (Hells Canyon, The Deepest Gorge on Earth, William Ashworth, Pgs. 144-195) 

'This law (PL94-199, December 31,1975) designated 652,000 acres in Oregon and 

Idaho as the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. Within .the recreation area it 

also designated (as amended) 214,000 acres of wilderness and 171 miles of wild and 

scenic rivers. These acres and miles include additions from the Oregon Wilderness 

and Omnibus Rivers Acts, both of which postdate the HCNRA Act. The Snake River 

is designated Wild from Hells Canyon Darn north to Pittsburg Landing (31.5 miles), 

Scenic from Pittsburg Landing north to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest's north 

boundary (36 miles) and Study from the W-W's north boundary to theHCNRA's north 

boundary and the Oregon I Washington state line (4 miles). 

The National Park Service completed its study in 1980 and recommended designation of the "study" river as "scenic" from the present scenic boundary to Heller Bar 

and "recreation" from Heller Bar to the upper end of Lower Granite Reservoir at 

Asotin. The study was held in the Department of Interior until1983, when it was 

fmally released to the President with a cover memo saying that designation was not 

recommended at that time. When no legislation to designate the study river was introduced by 1986, th~ study protection expired and three organizations immediately filed 

to build the Asotin Dam. The resulting outrage was so widespread that Senators 

Symms and McClure introduced legislation which prohibited further dams on either 

the Middle Snake or Lower Salmon Rivers. It quickly became law. 

None of the Wild or Scenic Snake River is within wilderness, although its approximately half mile wide corridor is bordered on both sides by wilderness for 18 miles 

and on one side for an additional 32 miles. 

Some important sections of the act are: . 

• Section 7 which establishes objectives for management; 

• Section 8 which requires a Comprehensive Management Plan; 

• Section 10 which addresses the promulgation of regulations and 

23 
138 

recognizes both motorized and nonmotorized craft as valid uses of the 

Snake River. 

Regulations 

The Forest Service viewed the promulgation of special regulations authorized in 

Section 10 of the Act as optional until the Duck Creek timber sale decision. This 

supposition was based on the "as he deems necessary" language in that section. In the 

opinion of the Forest Service, existing regulations were quite adequatt: and special 

regulations, other than private land regulations, were not necessary. 

Draft private land use regulations were included in the CMP, but this document 

was held up in appeals unti\1984. By then much had changed, such as the addition of 

wilderness acres and local county planning and zoning. It was necessary to do an 

extensive rewrite. Progress, however, ground to a halt under direction from the 

Reagan administration to not promulgate new federal regulations. In 1991 work 

resumed on the private land use regulations. The draft was extensively rewritten and a 

series of public reviews held. The final regulations for private lands within the HCNRA were published on June 13, 1994 .. 

Interim rules for management of National Forest lands were published in the Federal Register and became effective Oct. 5, 1989. The fmal rules were adopted on July 

19, 1994. In these rules the agency gave itself authority to regulate type of river craft, 

an authority they tried to get Congress to provide in the Hells Canyon Act. Congress 

refused their request. Hells Canyon Alliance pointed out this apparent conflict with 

Congressional intent in their comments on the regulations. While oth,~r comments by 

the Alliance were recognized in the final regulations and resulted in some changes, 

this comment was not addressed. 

Use Figures 

Forest Service river use reports are available from about 1978 onward; the latest 

report contains some information for 1994, but the most recent year for which we 

have complete data is·1992. It is important to note that the Cache Creek public contact station at the north end of the river came on line in the spring of 1991. Up to that 

time compliance with the permit system by upstream traveling power boaters entering 

the HCNRA had been minimal, enforcement was also minimal to nonexistent. An 

apparent surge in 1991 power boat use actually reflects the improved rate of compliance. 

During the 1992 regulated season 12,168 people floated in the HCNRA. This 

includes floaters launching below Hells Canyon-Dam, below Rush Creek and from the 

Lower Salmon. L'uring this same period 23,220 people accessetl the HCNRA by 

power boat, 66% of the total, or 2 out of every 3 visitors. If only Snake River Floaters 

are considered, power boaters comprise 81% of the total, 5,556 floaters vs. 23,220 

24 
139 

power boaters. Much of the power boat use took place in sections of the river below 

Rush Creek where neither power or float use is restricted. 

When total annual figures are considered, power boating dominates river use even 

more. Data for private floating isn't available for the entire 1992 calendar year. How-. 

ever, we do have annual data for commercial use. Commercial power boaters brought 

27,230 people into the HCNRA in 1992 (92% of the total commercial passengers) for 

31,731 service days. This compares with 2,516 Hells Canyon commercial float passengers for 6,815 service days (doesn't include the Lower Salmon floaters). 

Economic Impacts 

Any change in management of the Snake River in the HCNRA that reduces access 

by powered craft will have impacts that reverberate through the surrounding communities. The most obvious effects will be to the 19 commercial outfitters who make 

their living taking passengers into the canyon. The boat manufacturers and related 

industries will also be damaged. Manufacturers of pumps, marine engines and trailers, upholsterers, maintenance businesses, banks, advertisers, airlines, tour ships, 

travel agents, restaurants, hotels, tackle shops and fuel suppliers will all suffer losses. 

The following is a rough and conservative estimate of the economic impact of 

power boating, inadequate but better than the Forest Service did in their 1994 FEIS. A 

new analysis of commercial operations is currently under way that shows much higher 

impacts; it is not complete enough at this time, however, to include here. 

Commercial power boat outfitters: 

Gross revenues reported to the Forest Service for 1993 

Estimated number of jobs 

Tourism busi11esses associated with commercial customers: 

$1,992;565 

65 

The following figures are based on estimates developed by the Idaho Dept. 

of Commerce. They found that the typical travel group entering Idaho spent an 

average of $22.06 per day per person and stayed an average of 6.62 nights. 

This gives an average expenditure per person of $146.04. This estimate is 

likely low for the people who participate in the power boat related activities. 

27,558 customers in 1993 x $146.04 = $4,024,570 

Private power boaters: 

No studies have been done to support revenues associated with private 

boating. We know that the average party size is 3 persons in the regulated 

season and that they stay an average of 2.9 days. They took 1,758 trips in the 

1994 regulated season and operated their boats for about 25,491 hours. By 

estimating fuel consumption, engine maintenance, amortization, transportation 

costs, food costs and other expenses we were able to fievelop the figures below. 

Unregulated season use is somewhat different, focused largely on fishing 

and hunting. In 1993 (the most recent figures available) private power boaters 

25 
140 

made 1,448 trips with 3.4 people per trip and stayed an average of 1.8 days. 

They operated their boats about 13,032 hours. 

Regulated season use--estimate total expenditures for fuel, maintenance, 

boat costs, food, transportation and misc.= $974,776 

Unregulated season use-Estimate as above= $498,344 

Manufacturing and associated businesses: 

In the Lewiston/Clarkston valley alone 13 businesses manufacture and sell 

welded aluminum jet boats. About half of these are used primarily on the Snake 

River 1\vo major support businesses are also included in this estimate, one a 

marine engine company and the other a trailer manufacturer. Their businesses 

have built up to support the boat manufacturing. Not included are other Pacific 

Northwest boat manufacturers who construct boats used on the Snake River, 

pump manufacturers, accessory suppliers and raw material suppliers. 

Sales $14,640,000 

Payroll $2,286,350 

Jobs 108 

Total Economic Impact $24.416.605 

University of Idaho Study 

In preparation for the management plan review the Forest Service decided to sur -

vey people who use the river. The study, contracted with the University of Idaho, was 

designed to provide information about river users, who they are, how they use the 

river, their perceptions of the river and management preferences. The study segregated data by different boater groups, commercial float, private float, commercial 

power and private power. It ran from April15, 1988 through Aprill4, 1989. The 

University mailed 1,927 questionnaires and received 1,492 responses, 77%. 

The study is more remarkable for the similarities it disclosed among the groups 

than the differences. All took river trips for the same reasons, to be close to nature, 

enjoy the white water, to be with family and friends, for excitement and to visit wild 

lands. While discussions about crowding absorbed much of the task force's time 

during the LAC effort, the study showed that 65% of respondents did not feel 

crowded. Concerns by the 35% that did experience some crowding were concentrated 

on one section of river and focused, to a large extent, on campsite problems. Only 

24% had negative contacts with other groups; complaints focused on camp conflicts 

and rude people. In the problem identification section of the study responses between 

groups were so close that they were aggregated for analysis. Most boaters didn't 

encounter the problems listed; fewer than 25% identified any item as a minor or major 

problem. Over 80% of respondents from all groups wanted to maintain the existing 

experience. 

Reactions to different management actions and facilities options W(:re mixed and 

26 
141 

too complex to analyze here. The bottom line, however, is located in the study 

report's conclusion. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is the worst trip ever and 10 is 

the best trip ever, 68% ranked their trip as an 8, 9 or 10. Only 1% ranked their experience as a 1, 2, or 3. 

The Hells Canyon Alliance 

The Hells Canyon Alliance, or HCA for short, was formed to provide a common 

voice for those of us who support shared use of the Wild and Scenic Snake River in 

the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. During the Forest Service's management 

planning process we found that our voices were often neither heard nor listened to, 

lost in the crowd or drowned out by a few speaking for huge organizations with members who had no real knowledge of the issues. Only by forming an alliance and pooling our resources were we able to become an effective force. 

The HCA represents a broad spectrum of citizens, businesses and organizations, 

including many of those who actually visit, love and enjoy Hells Canyon. The original founding organizations are the Northwest Power boat Association, Western White 

water Association and River Access for Tomorrow (RAFT). In support of our positionon management of Hells Canyon, the Alliance was joined by others including: 

Adventures Afloat 

Anderson River Adventures 

Beamers Hells Canyon Tours and Excursions 

Bentz Boats 

Cougar Country Lodge, Inc. 

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep 

Hells Canyon Adventures II, Inc. 

Hells Canyon Challenge, Inc. 

Idaho Sportsmen's Coalition 

Intermountain Excursions 

Leo-Tek Manufacturing 

Lewis-Clark Economic Development Assoc. 

Lewiston Chamber of Commerce 

Mainstream Outdoor Adventures 

Meyer's Outfitting 

Northwest Timber Workers Resource Council 

Peer's Snake River Rafting 

Red Woods Outfitters 

Riddle Marine 

River Adventures, Ltd. 

Riverview Marina 

Snake Dancer Excursions 

27 
Snake River Adventures 

Snake River Outfitters 

Steen's Wilderness Adventures 

142 

Welded Aluminum Boat Manufacturers Association 

Z & S Outfitters, Inc. 

Donations from organizations, businesses and individuals have made the HCA an 

effective player in Hells Canyon, paying attorney's fees and other expenses. Our 

Board of Directors includes a broad spectrum of those concerned wilh Hells Canyon's 

future: floaters and power boaters (both commercial and private), boat manufacturers 

and business people. They have assembled an outstanding team, including an executive director with extensive political experience, a recreation specialist and attorneys 

experienced in environmental law. 

Differences between Hells Canyon Power boaters and Floaters 

In addition to the obvious differences involved with their modes of transportation, 

there are many fundamental variations in the ways Jet boaters and floaters recreate. 

• Power boaters spend less time on lands along the river than floaters during 

the summer's regulated season. Most of the power boater's activities are water 

based. While some camp along the river, the majority are day users. Much of 

their land activity takes place at hardened sites such as the Kirkwood Historic 

Ranch. Most floaters camp along the river and spend relatively little time on 

the water (2.5 -3 hrs.) each day. The balance of their time is spent in camp, 

scouting rapids and taking side trips. 

Regulated season power boaters who do camp stay less time than floaters. 

The average length of stay for all power boaters is 1.3 days, vs. 2.4 days for 

floaters. Power boaters who camp have smaller parties: 3 people average per 

private power boat party vs. 9 people for private float parties. 

We have less information about fall, winter and spring use than during the 

summer regulated season because permits were not required until recently. 

Float craft are rarely seen during this time except immediately before and after 

the control period. The single largest draw for power boating during the 

unregulated season is steelhead fishing. This is primarily a water-based day-use 

activity with no land impact. Big Game hunting draws fewer people, but most 

of them do camp along the river and spike up into the mid elevation benches. 

Little of their time is spent in the corridor; the game they hunt is much higher 

on the canyon face. Chukar hunting is primarily a day use activity. 

• Few private power boaters camp between Wild Sheep Rapid and Rush 

Creek Rapid, the section of river with the fewest camp.si~s. The reason is 

simple; most don't want to run the big rapids with a big load of camping gear. 

Floaters nearly always have to camp in this section of river. The limit placed on 

28 
143 

control period float laWlches at 5 per day is based on the numbers of campsites 

in the first two days of a float trip, Hells Canyon Dam to Rush Creek. Power 

boater competition with floaters for camp sites is not much of a factor on this 

section of river. However, conflict over campsites can be completely eliminated 

if the Forest Service will simply implement a campsite reservation system as 

required by the 1983 CMP decision of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 

Crowell. 

• Most power boaters who camp set up their equipment at one site and stay 

there for the duration of their visit. Floaters usually stay one night at each site, 

setting up a new camp every night. 

Power boaters have superior mobility and can go up or down river to locate 

a suitable campsite. Floaters are on a one way trip and fmding a suitable 

campsite can become a consuming task that ruins an otherwise enjoyable 

experience. This creates conflicts between the two groups that could be easily 

managed with a campsite reservation system. 

• Floating is largely concentrated in the 31.5 miles of wild river above 

Pittsburg landing. In 1990 floaters terminated 47% of their trips at Pittsburg 

landing. Another 24% terminated their trips above Pittsburg and jet boated 

back to Hells Canyon Dam. Only 19% went all of the way through the 

HCNRA to the Grande Ronde. 

• Much of the private power boat use takes place between the HCNRA 's 

North boundary and the Salmon River, an area visited by only 19% of the-Hells 

Canyon floaters. The bulk of the upstream commercial day use trips turn} 

aroWld below Rush Creek. 

Management Plans 

• The first plan 

An awareness that a recreation management plan was needed for the Snake 

River first dawned on the Forest Service in 1973. The area was then managed 

as part of the.Hells Canyon-Seven Devils Scenic Area. While the Forest 

Service had a jet boat patrol on the river, its use was limited to cleanup work 

and administrative transportation for fire, trail and range crews. 

A float outfitter asked the three Forest Supervisors involved in managing the 

scenic area and their District Rangers to accompany him on a float trip. He 

worked diligently to show the Forest Service people that float use had grown to 

a point that it was out of control and a threat to the area's resources. Power 

boating was not even an issue. He was successful in his quest and convinced 

the Forests' collective leadership to impose a morato!jum on issuance of any 

new float outfitter permits. There were 18 permits at that time and about that 

many more applications filed, but not processed. Private float use, like power 

29 
144 

boating, was not a major player in the growing use impact picture at that 

juncture. Once the moratorium was imposed, the permitted businesses instantly 

acquired a value they did not previously have. The host outfitter who promoted 

the moratorium so successfully later sold his two Hells Canyon businesses. 

As a result of the float trip and other complaints from floaters about 

crowding at the launch facility and up-river campsites, the Supervisors also 

initiated work on a management plan focused on floating, the element of river 

use threatening to get completely out of hand. The first plan was completed in 

1975, adopting the moratorium and setting a target of 16 float businesses with 

one launch every 8 days. Most floats at that time were 6 days in length, going 

to the Grande Ronde takeout. A limit of 5 launches from points between Hells 

Canyon Dam and Rush Creek would be allowed each day during a control 

season, 3 private and 2 commercial. Initially, because the actual number of 

outfitters was more than 16, the division of launches was more 1han two for the 

commercial sector for some days. Attrition, however, soon brought the number 

down to 16. This worked out to a 50/50 allocation between commercial and 

private in terms of numbers of people because of the Jar ger commercial party 

size. The limit of 5 launches per day was based on the availability of campsites 

in the first two days of the average trip and the capacity of the launch ramp at 

Hells Canyon Creek. These limitations are still valid and were not even 

questioned during the recent management plan review. No limit was placed on 

floating below Rush Creek then and none exists today. 

• The interim plan 

In December, 1975 the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area was 

designated. The legislation called for completion of a Comprehensive 

Management Plan (CMP) by December 1980. A planning team was assembled 

and began its task in 1976. An interim management plan was approved for the 

river, adopting, in large, the 1975 plan. Commercial power boat business were 

to be placed under special use permit and a first come first served system was 

adopted for issuing private float permits and reservations. 

• The Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) 

When the CMP was near completion it underwent internal review by the 

Chiefs office in Washington. A memorandum was sent by Acting Deputy Chief 

R. M. Housley to the Regional Forester on July 10, 1980 directing changes in 

the plan. Housley wanted further justification for the continued use of power 

boats on the Wild portion of the Snake River. "The proposed level of use is so 

low it appears that now may be a good time to eliminate all power boat use. If 

use becomes established under this plan it will be extremely difficult to 

eliminate it in the future." This memorandum communicated direction to 

eliminate power boat from the Wild Snake River, if not now, thmlater. This 

came in spite of a stated willingness 3

hJ the planning team to listen to all users 
145 

without prejudice. They encouraged floaters and power boaters to compromise 

and propose an alternative for shared use with limits numbers. They did so, but 

their alternative was discarded. It may actually be that planners on the Forest 

were not even aware of the memo's existence and the upper level tinkering 

resulting in the plan's power boat closure, as directed by Housley, took place in 

the Regional Office. 

The planning team finished their task and a CMP was sent to the Regional 

Forester and, later the Chief of the Forest Service in December, 1980. The 

Chief signed the plan on May 23, 1981 and must have felt as if he had just slid 

down a banister covered with razor blades. A feature of the plan was a full 

control period power boat closure of the wild river from Wild Sheep Rapid to 

Rush Creek Rapid. This resulted in over 20 appeals and outrage from power 

boaters who had worked out a compromise with floaters to limit power boat 

access in that section of river, but not eliminate it. 

Idaho Senators McClure and Symms and Congressman Craig sent a letter to 

the Chief on July 15, 1981 challenging the plan, asserting that it failed to 

comply with the letter and intent of the Act. They asked him to withdraw his 

decision and, the Chief, in an unprecedented move, decided to do just that. He · 

appointed a committee to review the plan and make recommendations. The 

committee advised him to allow power boat access on the entire river, but to 

limit numbers during the control period in the upper section, a proposal very 

close to the original power/float compromise. It was at this point that the 

Housley memo surfaced. Local managers said they had no knowledge of the 

memo's existence. 

The Chief signed his second decision, adopting the committee 

recommendation on May 12, 1982. However, as you might expect, 

relationships between the Forest Service and Power boaters were badly 

wounded by what power boaters saw as a betrayal of trust; they decided to fight 

any restrictions on their access and more appeals were filed against the second 

plan than the first. It is worth pointing out that at no time did float interests 

enter the process, either in support of the Forest Service or against it. They left 

the agency swinging in the wind alone on a gallows of its own construction. 

In fact, the Forest Service had failed to establish that power boat use in this 

segment of river was at a level requiring restrictions to meet any defined goals 

or objectives. They weren't challenged on their float allocation because 

physical factors dictated the limit. In the case of power boating, however, any 

limits had to be based on resource concerns or social factors and experience 

objectives. Nothing in the plan supported limits on. either basis. 

• The Crowell decision 

On April21, 1983 Assistant Secretary of Agriculture John Crowell signed a 

31 
146 

decision on the river management portion of the CMP. His determination for 

the balance of the plan didn't come until April, 1984. Crowell placed no limits 

on day-use by power boats, but did require assignment of campsites, a directive 

never implemented. Campsite assignment would have resolved most of the 

conflict being experienced in the canyon and imposed an indin:ct limit on 

power boat overnight use. He called for continued registration of all boaters 

and monitoring of the effects of boat use on other values. If the Forest Service 

determined, as a result of monitoring, that adjustments to boating use levels 

were necessary, it could do so, but not before the 1985 season :md only after 

giving notice and soliciting public involvement. 

• LAC 

The Forest Service did monitor conditions and, in response to a perceived 

increase in boating activity throughout the river's length, initiated a University 

ofldaho study of use and users in 1988 and 89. This study monitored social 

conditions that were overlooked in the original CMP. A review of the river 

management portion of the CMP, utilizing the Limits of Acceptable Change 

Process (LAC), began in 1990. A 22 member task force met 19 times over 22 

months and, after 250 hours of work, hammered out a compromise 

recommended river management plan based on goals and objectives. This task 

force consisted of representatives from all interested groups and was facilitated 

by the University of Idaho. The plan recommended by the task force included 

limits for both power boaters and floaters in the wild river. The premise of 

·plans developed under the LAC process is that desired conditions are defmed 

and standards established. When monitoring shows that standards are about to 

be exceeded, various management actions are implemented, such as education 

or site hardening. When all else fails, regulations come into play. 

{1ne fmal LAC report was issued in September, 1991 with only two task 

force members dissenting. 

• The 1994 Plan and EIS 

The next step in modification of the CMP was completion of an EIS in 

compliance with NEPA. The Forest Service began that process in the fall of 

1992 with a series of meetings for scoping and issue development. The LAC 

recommendation was presented as a proposed alternative. Initially the Forest 

Service had hoped that an EA would suffice and that it could be implemented 

by spring of 1993. However, it soon became evident that an EIS would be 

mandatory. 

On August 11, 1993 a Draft EIS was released. The years of effort, intensive 

public involvement and hours of negotiation represented> by the LAC plan was 

abandoned in favor of a scheme that the LAC Task Force had considered and 

rejected as unworkable. As a preferred alternative the Forest Supervisor 

32 
147 

decided to allow floaters exclusive access to the wild river one week, and power 

boaters the next; power boat launches were severely limited. In spite of 

overwhelming public support for shared use, incompatibility between floaters 

and power boaters was cited as the reason for their choice. The public reaction 

was massive, unanimously against the plan which would essentially halve 

everyone's access to the wild river. Most of the public input, about 75%, 

supported the LAC alternative with some adjustments for faulty data. 

The Final EIS was released on August 11, 1994, conjuring up a plan worse 

for most of Hells Canyon's boaters than the DEIS 'severy-other-week fiasco. 

This time power boaters were eliminated from the heart of Hells Canyon for 

three days a week in July and August to provide a near-wilderness experience 

for floaters. The Forest Service conceded that the plan was based on social, not' 

resource concerns. An opportunity was given for further input of new 

information, and masses of input were received, although qualifiers placed on 

the nature of the input assured that most of' it would be disregarded. 

On November 9, 1994 the fmal plan and decision notice were made public 

with only minor changes. The Hells Canyon Alliance, 3 pilot's associations, 2 

state agencies, 4 environmental organizations, 3 individuals and 18 of the 19 

commercial power boaters, appealed the plan. After reviewing the appeals, the 

Regional Forester (R-6) granted a stay, delaying implementation of the plan 

until September 15, 1995. 

Appeal decisions began showing up on July 20, 1995. For the most part, all 

31 were identical. Part of the plan was to be implemented in September, 1995 

after the stay was lifted, a few items were dumped and the rest was sent back to 

planning. Those things affirmed by the decision, such as removal of picnic 

tables, pit toilets and navigational markers in the wild river section, were to 

happen with lifting of the stay. 

Everything not affirmed or reversed was returned for more analysis. The 

issues concerning numbers for commercial power boaters were to be studied 

some more, ·the planning process to be conducted by the Wallowa-Whitman 

with some sort of oversight by the Regional Office. 

There were two areas of special concern to power boaters. One, the 

Regional Forester upheld use of visitor data from 1988-1992. Those numbers 

are flawed and inaccurate for private use, based on guesses of compliance. 

They do not provide a clear picture of the canyon usage and no amount of 

review would provide accurate data; it simply doesn't exist. Two, the concept 

of a nonmotorized window was upheld. However, the exact timing and 

duration was to be studied. 

Other plan features that Deputy Regional Forester RiChard Ferraro affirmed 

include: 

33 
148 

• the Supervisor correctly followed the process; 

• outfitter-guide services are needed; 

• the Supervisor chose a fair allocation system; 

• "prohibiting the cutting or burning of live or dea:d vegetation"; 

• "implementing a chainsaw closure"; 

• "establishing user etiquette education"; 

• "limiting party size for noncommercial users"; 

• "limiting maximum private float craft per party"; 

• "establishing campsite stay limits"; 

• "the establishment of a "no-wake" zone at administrative and 

developed recreation sites"; 

• "prohibiting personal motorized watercraft"; 

Among those items "affirmed with direction": 

• setting of commercial capacity based on the highest 2 out of 5 

years (1988-1992), modified by the 5 year average. He went on to 

require a review of actual use records for those years and to verify 

or refine the estimate of the cap; 

• he supported the carrying capacities established in the plan, but 

delayed limitations beyond those currently in effect until a permitby-permit analysis for commercial uses is completc!d. 

He reversed the following: 

• the Supervisor must further analyze specific effects of allocation 

and operational limitations on individual permits; 

• the Supervisor must conduct further analysis of private land 

access; 

• aircraft access restrictions, including seaplanes; 

• the direction to eliminate drop camps and establish hours of 

operation. 

One environmental group and seven commercial floaters sued the Forest 

Service, challenging the issuance of the stay for the 1995 control season, 

attempting to force implementation by June 20, 1995. The environinental group 

opposes power boats in the canyon; its Executive Director was one of the two 

LAC dissenters and has consistently refused any accommodation with power 

boaters. The seven float outfitters were big fmancial winners in the latest Forest 

Service plan, gaining exclusive commercial access to the heart of Hells Canyon 

for 41% of the peak use season. Their request for an injunction against the stay 

was denied. 

In September, 1995 the Wallowa-Whitman released a'hewsletter with a 

schedule of implementation and action schedule for their response to the appeal 

decision. The exclusion and limits on power boating were not scheduled for 

34 
149 

implementation in 1996 and it appeared that the Forest Service would delay 

their limitations on power boat access until1997. They made it clear, however, 

that they intended to move forward with the plan, complete with the power boat 

exclusion feature and use levels backed down to the 1988-1992 base period. 

Supervisor Richmond announced that he would, in response to the appeal 

decision, further analyze specific effects of his plan on commercial use and 

issue a new decision on that topic. He would also review his approach to 

private land access. His team was to begin gathering public comments prior to 

January 1, 1996. 

The newsletter contained a schedule for plan implementation; the following 

are some excerpts: 

Currently in Effect: 

• a primary use season from the Friday before Memorial Day 

through September 10 

• prohibit personal motorized watercraft 

• establish no-entry zones where known fall Chinook redds are 

threatened 

By November 15, 1995: 

• pack in fuel wood, in compliance with firepan requirements/ 

seasonal fire closures 

• implement a chainsaw closure. 

Between November 15, 1995 and May 24, 1996: 

• remove navigation markers in the wild river, upstream of 

Kirkwood Historical Ranch 

• remove picnic tables at wild river camps 

• remove some structures in the river corridor, such as the metal 

shed at Pittsburg . 

Between May 1, 1996 and May 24, 1996: 

• require private power boaters and floaters to have approved 

human solid-waste carryout equipment in their possession prior to 

entering the wild river corridor 

• require commercial power boats to be equipped with onboard 

human solid waste facilities (toilets) or approved carryout 

equipment 

• remove pit toilets from the wild river 

Effective May 24, 1996: 

• implemen,t a no-wake zone at administrative and developed sites. 

• limit maximum private floatcraft I part}' to 8 

• establish campsite stay limits 

• prohibit camping outside designated sites 

35 
150 

• prohibit the launching of inflatable watercraft from private 

power boats in the wild river, year-round and in the scenic river on 

Friday through Sunday, year-round 

• eliminate the use of kickers on noncommercial floatcraft in the 

wild river year-round 

On January 12, 1996 Hells Canyon Preservation Council again filled suit to force 

implementation of the management plan in 1996 boating season, including the power 

boat limitations postponed by the Regional Forester until the fall of '96. In this suit all 

but two floaters had dropped their support. However, several new organizations had 

been induced to join into a fray they knew little to nothing about. These include the 

National Organization for River Sports, Wilderness Watch, Rivers Council of Washington, American Whitewater Affiliation and Northwest Rafters Association. This 

mean spirited suit also asked the court to impose limits on power boaters at their 1975 

use level on the wild river and the 1978 use level for the scenic river. 

Legislation to Clarify Congressional Intent, 8.1374 and H.B.2568 

On November 1, 1995 Senator Larry Craig, R-ldaho, and Congressman Wes 

Cooley, R-Oregon, introduced companion bills in the Senate and House of Representatives that would, once and for all, settle the issue of shared use by boaters in Hells 

Canyon. The bills were cosponsored by Senator Dirk Kempthome, R-Idaho, Congressman Helen Chenoweth, R-Idaho, and George Nethercutt, R-Washington. 

Congress and the original supporters of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

Act thought it contained language adequate to protect both power and float craft uses. 

It later became obvious, however, that the Act's validity provision was not sufficient. 

The bill introduced November I, 1995 will clarify Congressional intent, confirming 

that both motorized and nonmotorized river craft will be permitted access to, and use 

of, the entire river within the recreation area at all times of year. It establishes that use 

will be allowed at levels not less than those of the past three years, recognizing daily 

and seasonal use patterns. Finally, it provides for access to and from private property 

in the usual and accustomed manner. 

The 1975 Hells Canyon Act recognized both motorized and nonmotorized river 

craft as valid uses of the Snake River within the recreation area. However, in spite of 

the validity language, the Forest Services consistently attempted wilh each of its management plans to eliminate power boats from a major section of the river for a significant portion of the year. The latest plan slashed both private and commercial power 

boating and threatened to devastate the many businesses built around this important 

activity. 

While the Regional Forester remanded the plan on appeal to the WallowaWhitman's Forest Supervisor for further analysis, he left the door open to eliminate 

36 
151 

motorized craft from part of the river for part of the year; the stage was set for this 

expensive and divisive battle to go on for the foreseeable future. 

Perhaps with passage of this simple but effective piece of legislation, the Forest 

Service and those who love Hells Canyon can get on with more important business, 

enjoying the canyon and working together to preserve and protect its marvelous resources. 

Key provisions of the bill read as follows: 

(1) the use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft is recognized as a 

valid and appropriate use of the Snake River within the recreation area; 

(2) motorized and nonmotorized river craft shall be permitted access to, and 

use of, the entire river within the recreation area at all times during the year; 

(3) concurrent use of the river within the recreation area by motorized and 

nonmotorized river craft shall not be considered a conflict; 

(4) use of commercial and private motorized and nonmotorized river craft 

shall be allowed to continue throughout each year at levels that are not less than 

those occurring in an average of the 3 calendar years preceding the date of 

enactment of this subsection, and in daily and seasonal use patterns similar to 

those experienced in those years; and 

(5) use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft on the Snake River within 

the recreation area by owners of private property for the purpose of traveling to 

or from their property in their usual and accustomed manner shall not be 

restricted. 

So there you have it, a bill that leaves no question about Congressional intent. 

37 
l\lpuloui1m 

t over .!'i,I.MXI 

nOUlo .,,U()U 

0 2,000 (I) s,ooo • Um.kr 2,000 

152 
153 

HELLS CANYON . NATIONAL RECREAtiON AREA 
154 

PREPARED 8TATEME~"T OF RICHARD K. BAILEY 

I. ACRONYMS/ABBREVIA ll01"S 

CMPFloatersHCA-. 

HCNRAHCNRA ActHCPCPrivate (Boaters) 

River PlanSnake RiverWild SectionU.S. Forest Service Comprehensive Management Plan for the 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

Nonmotorized rafters/boaters 

The Hells Canyon Alliance (a jet boat lobbying organization) 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act 

The Hells Canyon Preservation Council {The conservation 

organization submitting this testimony) 

Noncommercial motorized or nonmotorized river runners 

The Forest Service's proposed Snake Wild and Scenic River plan 

The 67-mile designated Snake Wild and Scenic River, plus the 4-

mile undesignated section that is within the HCNRA 

The 31-mile "Wild" designated portion of the Snake Wild and 

Scenic River 

II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ON MANAGEMENT OF THE SNAKE WILD 

AND SCENIC RIVER 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act (HCNRA Act) specifically requires 

that the use and number of )2Q.th motorized and nonmotorized rivercraft must be 

.controlled. (See, Exhibit F.) Nonmotorized use and numl,er~ have been controlled 

and limited since 1977. (See, Exhibit R.) Yet incomprehensibly, motorized use and 

numbers have never been controlled or limited. 

The following is a history and record of events surrounding this unfair and 

inequitable use allocation. {This record has been checked and validated by Forest 

Service personnel.) 

1970 Special Use Permits issued for commercial jet boating from Hells Canyon 

Dam. 

1973 Special Use Permits issued for commercial (non-motorized) floating from 

Hells Canyon Dam. Trip permits required for all float trips, both priva te and 

commercial. 

1975 Public Law 94-199 is signed into law establishing the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area (HCNRA) and the Snake Wild and Scenic River, requiring 

in part a "provision for the control of the use and number of motorized and 

non motorized rivercraft." 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 
155 

1977 Interim management guidelines for the HCNRA take effect. Forest Service 

regulates the number of daily launches allowed by nonmotorized rivercraft 

at Hells Canyon Dam on the Snake Wild and Scenic River. Motori zed 

rivercraft use is subject only to self-issue permits. 

1979 Commercial jet boating companies operating from Pittsburg Landing and 

Lewiston/Clarkston are identified, initiating the issuance of Special Use 

Permits. 

1981 Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

the HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP), which proposes 

control of the use and number of motorized rivercraft is signed, but 

implementation is delayed as the result of numerous appeals. 

1983 Final decision on appeals is rendered by the Assistant Secretary of 

Agriculture. The ruling states that control of motorized rivercraft use levels 

cannot occur prior to the 1985 summer season. Control over nonmotorized 

launches remain. 

1985 No process is initiated to control the use and number of motorized rivercraft 

upon the expiration of the 1983 directive of the Assistant Secretary. Controls 

over nonmotorized launches remain. 

1987 Forest Service commissions the University of Idaho to conduct a survey to 

determine user perceptions on use of the Snake Wild and Scenic River, but 

makes no move to control the use and number of motorized rivercraft. 

1989 University of Idaho publishes information obtained from the user survey. 

Forest Service announces its intent to prepare a new management plan 

for the Snake Wild and Scenic River. It convenes the Hells Canyon Limits of 

Acceptable Change (LAC) Task Force to make recommendations for the new 

plan. The agency states that the existing plan, wherein nonmotorized 

rivercraft are controlled and motorized rivercraft are not, will remain in force 

until the new plan is in place. 

1991 LAC Task Force recommendations published in final form. Forest Service 

announces initiation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process to 

write a new Snake Wild and Scenic River plan, which will amend the CMP. 

1992 Public scoping meetings are held regarding thto new rive r plan. Control of the 

use and number of motorized rivercraft is still absent while nonmotorized 

controls remain. 

1993 (August) Forest Service finall y releases a Draft EIS for the new river plan. 

The plan proposes to control the use and number of motori zed rivercraft. 

tim y of HCPC on River Management 
156 

1994 (May) Forest Service releases the river plan Final EIS for public 

review, which also proposes to control the use and number of motorized 

rivercraft. 

1994 (June) Forest Service publishes special regulations to implement the 

provision of Public Law 94-199 that requires a provision for the control of the 

use and number of motorized and nonmotorized rivercraft. The rule defers 

actual provisions for controls to the CMP. 

1994 (October) Forest Service releases Record of Decision for the river plan Final 

EIS. Implementation of the plan is scheduled for January 1995. A second 

survey on user perceptions is published. 

1995 (february) Deputy Regional Forester Richard Ferarro delays implementation 

of the new plan until September 15, 1995 the date after which seasonal 

regulations controlling the use and number of motorized rivercraft in the 

new plan would expire for the year. 

1995 (July) Final decision on appeals of the river plan is rendered. Regional 

Forester declares that the agency must do a study to determine the impact of 

the plan on commercial motorized rivercraft operators and that the 

provisions of the plan that would control the use and number of motorized 

rivercraft cannot be implemented until after the commercial use study is 

completed. 

1995 (August) Hells Canyon National Recreation Area river ranger states that the 

commercial motorized rivercraft impact study may take more than a year to 

complete which means the plan would not be implemented in 1996. 

1996 (February) The Forest Service rel~ases a scoping notice for the commercial 

motorized rivercraft impact study indicating that it will not be completed, and 

controls on motorized rivercraft use will not be implemented, until after the 

1996 summer season. 

During this more than 20 year period wherein the use and numbE,r of motorized 

rivercraft was uncontrolled, the number of jet boat launches has escalated fivefold. 

(See, Exhibit U.) The degree of this escalation was determined by wmparing recent 

use figures with documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that 

provide a rough sketch of what jet boat use numbers were in the mid 1970's. (See, 

Exhibit V.) 

This long history of controls on nonmotorized floating, and uncontrolled 

motorized use, has led to jet boat domination of the Snake River and an expectation 

on the part of the motorized public of continued special privileges including 

unregulated use. 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 
157 

Not only has the motorized constituency enjoyed free run of the river, the 

escalation of jet boat use has driven both private floaters and commercial customers 

from the river. (See, Exhibits G & H.) 

III. THE NINE MOST COMMON MYIHS ABOUT MOTORIZED AND 

NONMOTORIZED USE OF THE SNAKE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

The following information addresses myths and misinformation about motorized 

and nonmotorized use of the Snake River. This discussion illustrates that pending 

legislation (H.R. 2568) is founded on misrepresentations and/or misinterpretations 

of fact. The bill will not clarify or correct misinterpretations of the intent of 

previous legislation. It will create a distinct new mandate that will legislate 

preferred access to, and use of the Snake River by motorized rivercraft at the expense 

of other recreationists. 

MYTH #1: The jet boat lobby represents a viable cross-section of floaters as well as 

representing jet boaters 

The Hells Canyon Alliance (HCA) is a staffed organization that represents and 

lobbies for commercial and private jet boat interests. It advocates vocally for 

minimized regulation of jet boat use, and against dedicating any nonmotorized 

pedod of any kind on the Snake River. It is the primary advocate for H.R. 2568. 

(See, Exhibits A & Al.) 

HCA has stated publicly on several occasions that as well as representing jet boat 

interests, it also represents many, and (it has implied) even the majority, of float 

boaters. (See, Exhibits B & Bl.) It has stated emphatically that floaters and jet boat 

users are not two distinct constituencies, i.e.; motorized and nonmotorized 

recreationists. 

Only one "floater" organization is a part of HCA: River Access for Tomorrow. 

River Access for Tomorrow has stated that it has fifty (50) members. (See, Exhibit C.) 

It has admitted that some of these members also own jet boats. (See, Exhibit D.) 

Conversely, opponents of H.R. 2568 and S. 1374 include the major private floater 

organizations in the United States and the Pacific Northwest, including: American 

Whitewater Affiliation; National Organization for Rivers; Northwest Rafters 

Association; Rivers Council of Washington; and Willamette Kayak and Canoe Club. 

These organizations collectively represent more than 36,000 floaters. All of these 

organizations oppose H.R. 2568 and S. 1374. 

Opponents of this legislation also include every commercial float outfitter that runs 

regular trips on the Snake River and that does not also run jet boat tours. HCA 

represents no commercial river trip outfitting companies that do not also run jet 

boat tours. (See, Exhibit E.) 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 
158 

A lot of people who engage in many different recreational activities and have 

diverse opinions in relation to river management might also t1oat rivers in 

nonmotorized craft. A few of these people might favor the position of the HCA in 

relation to motorized use on the Snake River. But when put in context, this claim 

of HCA is little different than if advocates of a nonmotorized experience on the 

Snake River claimed they also represent motorized recreationists because some of 

their members water ski. 

Moreover, floaters and jet boaters ~ two distinct constituencies. The HCNRA Act 

itself makes this distinction. (See, Exhibit F.) It states clearly that conb:ol of the use 

and number of both "motorized" and "nonmotorized" rivercraft is required on the 

Snake River. If there were no distinction between the two uses, the Act would 

simply have said "rivercraft" rather than making the distinction that both uses 

must be regulated. 

MYTH #2 The contention that jet boats negatively impact the desired recreation 

experiences of floaters or other recreationists is a contrivance 

There are two collections of information which illustrate that jet boats and 

motorized traffic does significantly impact other recreationists. 1) The demand for 

both private and commercial float trip opportunities on nonmotorizecl rivers far 

exceeds that of motorized rivers. 2) Surveys of people recreating (in both motorized 

and nonmotorized craft) on the Snake River consistently show that the most 

frequently named negative aspect of their experience involved jet boats. 

1) On the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, a nonmotorized river, commercial 

outfitters fill far more of available seats than on the Snake and Main Salmon 

Rivers, which are motorized rivers. About 70 percent of available seats are filled on 

the Middle Fork, while roughly 45 percent are filled on the Snake and 35 percent on 

the Main Salmon. These figures reflect an average for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995. 

(See, Exhibit G.) 

It is doubtful that factors other than the availability on the Middle Fork of a 

nonmotorized experience would account for its preferred status. For example, the 

rapids on the Main Salmon and Snake are comparable to those on the Middle Fork, 

and at some flow levels are even more challenging. The Snake provides a more 

intact wilderness surrounding, particularly in its upper 16 miles, than the Middle 

Fork. 

The primary attraction of the Middle Fork Salmon is that it is one of few completely 

non-motorized experiences one can obtain. Clearly the commercial float outfitting 

client prefers this kind of experience. Another profound example of this fact is the 

success rate for obtaining priv ate float permits. 

In 1994, the Forest Service calculated the success rate for obtaining a private permit 

for the Middle Fork Salmon and Selway Rivers (which are nomnotorized rivers) 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 
159 

and the Main Salmon and Snake Rivers (which are motorized rivers). These are 

the four most popular whitewater rivers in Idaho. Private permits are issued 

through a lottery system, wherein the more applications for the lottery, the less 

chance one has of obtaining a permit. 

The success ratio for the Middle Fork and Selway are 19:1 and 24:1, respectively. For 

the Main Salmon and Snake, it is 5:1 and 2:1, respectively. Thus, a person has about 

a 30 percent chance of obtaining a permit for one of the motorized rivers, but less 

than a 5 percent chance of obtaining a permit for one of the nonmotorized rivers. 

(See, Exhibit H.) 

This is as clear an indication as exists that in fact, people who float rivers prefer a 

nonrnotorized experience. However, additional proof of the preference for a 

nonrnotorized experience can be found in a survey of the most heavily motorized 

whitewater river, the Snake. 

2) Three surveys have been conducted that obtained public response to issues 

surrounding management of the HCNRA. Two of these are specific to the Snake 

River. They surveyed all recreationists, nonrnotorized and motorized. All of these 

surveys indicate that jet boats are in fact the number one "problem" on the river. 

The first survey was conducted by the University of Idaho in 1988, when jet boat use 

of the Snake River was about half of current levels. The survey asked about 

encounters with a wide variety of things or situations, and asked which of these 

were "not a problem," a "minor problem," or a "major problem." 

The two leading vote-getters for major problems were "Noise from powerboats," 

and "powerboats on the river." These were also the two leading vote-getters for 

minor problems. (See, Exhibit I.) 

The second survey, conducted by Dr. E.B. Eiselein in 1994, asked respondents to rank 

the human activities which are "not compatible with your idea of best stewardship" 

of the HCNRA. The number one vote-getter for non-compatible human activity 

was "motorized recreation." (See, Exhibit J.) Jet boats were named specifically, and 

were relatively high on the list of non-compatible activities, though were not rated 

as high in the non-compatible category as motorized use in general. 

The third survey, conducted by Washington State University in 1995, asked people 

who had been on the Snake River to name the most negative aspect of their 

experience. Jet boats were by far the leading vote-getter, pulling in more than three 

times the votes than the next negative aspect of their trip, which was the weather. 

(See. Exhibit K.) 

These surveys actually understate the widespread negative public perceptions of jet 

boats. In a 1993 declaration to the U.S. District Court, Dr. Stewart Allen of the 

University of Idaho stated that the 1988 University of Idaho survey only contacted 

Testimony of HCPC on River Man ement 
160 

the people who still use the Snake River, but not those who may have been 

displaced by the profusion of tmregulated jet boat use. (See, Exhibit L.) 

Sociologist Dr. Robert O'Brien pointed out that the 1988 survey failed to adequately 

explore the impacts of jet boats on other river users by using only vague questions to 

address the issue. He indicates that these impacts may be understated due to the lack 

of directness of the questions asked about jet boats. (See, Exhibit M.) 

The meaning of any survey's results can be questioned. So can the effectiveness of 

their questions. But one thing that these surveys have illustrated cannot be 

questioned: That is the fact that a substantial segment of the public that still 

recreates in Hells Canyon is indeed bothered by jet boats. 1n fact, among all users, jet 

boats are consistently named as the number one problem on the river, or the most 

negative aspect of a river trip. The contention that jet boats aren't really a problem, 

or that they are only a problem to a small, exclusive constituency is clearly false. 

MYTH #3: Existing law gives jet boaters carte blanche on use of the Snake River and 

those who would like a nonmotorized experience should just go somewhere else 

This selfish statement has been made on numerot.:3 occasions by representatives of 

HCA. (See, Exhibit N.) 

The HCNRA Act recognizes motorized rivercraft as a "valid" use of the Snake 

River. (See, Exhibit F.) This is as far as the Act goes in articulating the degree to 

which jet boat use should be allowed to take precedence over other uses or concerns 

in Hells Canyon. 

However, that section of the Act also requires the use and number of motorized 

rivercraft to be controlled. This stipulation obviously addresses the fact that 

overuse, and certain use habits that could occur through lack of regulation of this 

activity, could create problems. 

Although there is no passage of the law that establishes jet boating or motorized 

rivercraft as a priority in Hells Canyon, other parts of the HCNRA Act, and the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, do set forth provisions for the protection of 

values that are impacted by motorized rivercraft. 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, under which 67 miles of the Snake River 

is designated, describes "Wild" designated sections under the Act as "vestiges of 

primitive America." (See, Exhibit 0.) Thirty one miles of the Snake is a Wild 

designated river. The HCNRA Act adds that in managing the HCNRA, the Forest 

Service should protect wilderness values and atmospheric habitats. (See, Exhibit F.) 

Neither the HCNRA Act, nor any other law or federal regulation tha t we know of, 

precludes the Forest Service from establishing nonmotorized zones on lands or 

rivers, or from providing relief from motorized use. 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 
161 

There is no legal support whatsoever for the contention that jet boating is or should 

be a preferred or dominant use in 1:-iells Canyon. H.R. 2568 would therefore not only 

change the legal status quo, it would completely revise statutory management 

priorities for the Snake River. 

This characterization of jet boater ownership provides an indication of who, in this 

long debate over Snake River management, is reasonable and who is radical. The 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council has worked for 30 years to protect the scenic 

beauty, free-flowing streams, fish and wildlife, and natural attributes of Hells 

Canyon that are enjoyed by jet boaters as much as other citizens. We do not know of 

the jet boat associations engaging in any substantial activity to protect the scenic 

integrity or natural values of Hells Canyon. Their primary activity is to protect and 

promote preferced recreational access for jet boaters. Yet HCPC supports controlled 

jet boat use on the majority of the Snake Wild and Scenic River. 

Given that, we find it unsettling to say the least that our 2,200 members, as well as 

scores of other recreationists, are being told to go somewhere else if we'd like some 

relief from jet boat impacts. We would hope that the Congress would concur that 

all citizens deserve at least some consideration for the kind of experience that they 

seek in Hells Canyon. 

As is described in Section IV of this testimony, the Forest Service plan locks in the 

jet boat use levels that have built up in the absence of legally required controls over 

jet boat numbers. It accommodates the jet boat constituency by providing its idea of 

river management, the "shared use" concept, on 98.1 percent of the time and space 

on the river. Yet the jet boat lobby has railed against the fact that they are not 

receiving 100 percent. We remain astounded that the jet boat lobby is unwilling to 

make even the slightest sacrifice to accommodate the people who would prefer a 

nonmotorized experience in Hells Canyon. 

MYTH #4: The Snake River is not a wilderness river, therefore 110 wilderness 

atmosphere or experience should be provided 

Characterization of the Snake Wild and Scenic River as being a "multiple use" river 

that is not a "wilderness river" is based on an unsubstantiated interpretation of law. 

In fact, there are strong indications in applicable law that a wilderness atmosphere 

or experience should be provided, as stated above in Myth #3. 

The HCNRA Act supersedes the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and prioritizes 

the protection of natural values over other management considerations. The 

HCNRA, and the Snake River, designated under the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, are therefore not "multiple use" areas. 

It is true that the Snake River is not included within the Hells Canyon Wilderness 

Area, which extends down to the Wild and Scenic River corridor bow1dary for 51 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 
162 

miles on the west side of the river, and 20 miles on the east side. Yet Congress did 

not stipulate that the river itself was not included within the wilderness area, as the 

jet boat lobby contends (see, Exhib't P), for the purpose of allowing jet boat use on 

the entire river at all times. ' 

The river could have been drawn out of the wilderness area for any number of 

reasons related to maintaining management options that might be precluded by 

wilderness designation, e.g.; to better protect and restore the historic and 

archaeological sites on the river, to better manage the section of the river wherein 

the vast majority of all the recreation use in the HCNRA occurs, or to keep the 

option of using mechanical drilling equipment to maintain or construct segments of 

trail across the rocky cliffs above the river. 

Congress also might have assumed that the protections provided to the river by the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the HCNRA Act were sufficient, and it 

wished to allow those provisions to take precedence. But the fact remains, as is 

often pointed out by opponents of wilderness designation, that wilderness 

designation is not the only way to provide a primitive atmosphere or experience. 

Again, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act declares that rivers designated as a 

Wild river under the Act, like the upper 31 miles of the Snake, represent "vestiges 

of primitive America." The HCNRA Act states that wilderness values should be 

protected throughout the HCNRA. The HCNRA Act also requires the protection of 

atmospheric habitats, which implies that the noise of jet boats should be limited. 

The area within Hells Canyon itself, and the country surrounding the gorge, 

represents one of the most substantial expanses of roadless backcountry in the lower 

48 states. Whether statutorily designated or not, much of the river is enclosed 

within or bordered on one side by both defacto and designated wilderness. Much of 

the land adjacent to the river is unroaded and undeveloped. There are only f0ur 

roads that access it, and no roads border the river any further than about two miles. 

It is therefore a defacto "wilderness" river, except for unlimited jet bo<tt use. 

In summary, the,e is no indication that Congress intended to preclude the Forest 

Service from establishing any nonmotorized period. There are several legal 

provisions that provide for the protection of specific Snake River, and HCNRA 

values inconsistent with motorized rivercraft use. Thus, it cannot be said that H.R. 

2568 is simply correcting a misinterpretation of law or intent of law. It seeks to 

legislatively establish a new mandate favoring jet boat use. 

MYTH #5: Nonmotorized recreationists will have exclusive use and jet boaters will 

be discriminated against if a nonmotorized period is established 

The jet boat lobby claims that the 21-mile, 24-day per year nonmotorized period 

proposed in the Forest Service plan is discriminatory against them and promotes 

"exclusive use" for floaters. (See, Exhibit A.) However, in both the current 18 year 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 10 
163 

old rules governing use of the river, and in the Forest Service's proposed new plan, 

jet boaters have vastly greater opportunities to visit the river in the craft of their 

choice than floaters. 

To prove this point, we present river management from two perspec:ives: 1) The 

current use allocation system that has been in force since 1977, and 2) the proposed 

Forest Service plan, which H.R. 2568 seeks to change in favor of increased jet boat 

use. 

1) The number of jet boats allowed to navigate the Snake River is not now, and has 

never been controlled as the 1975 Act requires. (See, Exhibit Q.) A person may put a 

private jet boat onto the river at any time they desire. The number of jet boat 

launches per commercial outfitter are not limited either. 

Conversely, float use llili been controlled since 1977. Both commercial outfitters and 

private floaters have lived for 18 years with a use limitation on 32 miles of the 

Snake River that each year has excluded thousands of people from the ability to float 

the most popular section of the river during the summer months. (See, Exhibit R.) 

In order to run the upper 32 miles of the Snake River between memorial day 

weekend and September 15, private floaters must enter a lottery for a chance to 

obtain a permit. The chances of obtaining one of these permits is approximately 40 

percent (averaging 1993 and 1994 success rates). Individuals are limited to one 

private float permit per year. 

Thus, floaters have a less than fifty percent chance of floating the Wild section of the 

river at all, and will only float it once for a duration of probably three or four days 

each year (which is the standard time frame for a trip through the Wild section). 

(See, Exhibit H.) Commercial float companies are limited to one launch every eight 

days. 

The launch limits, and the lottery system for floaters will be maintained in the 

agency's new river plan. In fact, the launch limit will be tightened by reducing the 

maximum party size from 30 to 24 people. (See, Exhibit S.) Both commercial and 

private floaters will remain limited to the same launch limits they have been 

restricted to on the Wild river section since 1977. In the scenic section, there will be 

no commercial launches allowed, and only one private launch per day. 

Jet boaters have, for 18 years, all but owned this river despite being the more 

impacting recreation use. 

2) However, there is no lottery or pre-issued permit requirement for private jet 

boaters. Nor is any individual limited in the number of permits he/she may obtain 

in a given year. Commercial jet boat launches reflect the use that each outfitter has 

established during the 20-year period of unlimited use. 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 11 
164 

Clearly, even the Forest Service's new river plan will provide far more 

opportunities for jet boaters to access the river than floaters. 

Private jet boaters, on the other hand, stand an excellent chance of being able to run 

part of the Wilj section of the river whenever they wish, and .all of the Wild section 

for all but 24 days of the summer. This is due to the facts that: (a) The number of 

launches they are allotted reflect an increase over the highest use levels ever that 

occurred when use was unlimited, and (b) they are not limited in the number of 

permits they may be issued in a given year. 

The following is a summary of access rules proposed in the new Forest Service plan 

for private float and jet boat use during the summer. 

Float- One launch per person per year. Application for a permit through the 

December-January lottery is required. Permits allow a total of three launches per day 

on the Wild section. One launch per day is allowed in the scenic section. No extra 

launches for weekends. 

Jet Boat- No lottery and no limit on the number of permits per person. No preissued permit required. Six launches per day on the Wild section, 23 per day on the 

scenic section on weekends. Eight launches per day on weekdays in the scenic 

section. No access to 21 miles of the Wild section on Monday, Tuesday, and 

Wednesday for eight weeks in July and August. 

Commercial float outfitters will continue to live under a slightly more restrictive 

use cap that has limited the growth of their businesses for 18 years. Commercial jet 

boaters, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy use levels that havt~ escalated in 

the absence of any use caps whatsoever. 

Jet boaters have clearly been the exception to the rule and have enjoyed special 

access privileges. 1n fact, they have enjoyed free run of the river while floaters have 

been strictly regulated. Even under the Forest Service proposed plan, which H.R. 

2568 would void due to its alleged unfairness to jet boaters, floaters would live with 

exponentially fewer opportunities to run the river than jet boaters. 

MYTH #6: Establishing nonmotorized areas ilt Hells Canyon discrim1inates against 

physically challenged people 

It could be said that ~ restrictions on roadbuilding, or establishment of areas 

where motor vehicles or mechanized transport are prohibited constitutes 

discrimination against disabled or handicapped persons. 

We frankly believe that many physically challenged and elderly people are offended 

by this characterization because often times they are simply being exploited for 

someone else's self-interest. Hells Canyon provides a case in point. where this 

characterization is false for one simple reason: There is abundant, almost 

T .stimony of HCPC on River Management 12 
165 

unparalleled access to Hells Canyon and the Snake River by motor v~hicle, either by 

land, air, or water. 

The Forest Service's draft environmental impact statement for its new HCNRA 

Comprehensive Management Plan describes the following access: 

WATER ACCESS: The Forest Service's proposed plan would allow commercial and 

private jet boat access to the entire river corridor 341 days out of every year. On the 

other 24 days, jet boat access would be provided to 70 percent of the river corridor. 

The plan would allow use levels in excess of the highest levels ever established 

under a system that did not control or constrain use levels. 

A1R ACCESS: There are seven landing strips open to public use within the Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Area, five of these on the Snake River. There are no 

restrictions on commercial or private overflights in the Canyon, or on the number 

of aircraft landings that can occur at a given time. 

LAND ACCESS: There is over 700 miles of open road in the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area. This includes three roads on the Oregon side of the Canyon that 

access points along the rim. Two roads access and run along the Idaho rim. All five 

of these roads are suitable for sedan travel, two are paved. There are four roads that 

access the Snake River, two on the Idaho side and two on the Oregon side. Two of 

these, one on each side, are suitable for sedan travel. 

There is a wealth of opportunities to see Hells Canyon from river or rim without 

ever leaving a motor vehicle. We would contend that there are very few specially 

designated areas or national treasures in America that have as much easy motor 

vehicle access to scenic views and other attractions as the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area. 

We believe that there must be a reasonable limit to motor vehicle access both to 

protect the natural and historic attributes of Hells Canyon, and to protect the ability 

of the Canyon to accommodate other forms of recreation. At any rate, the claim of 

insensitivity to handicapped people is indefensible, and frankly a cheap shot. 

MYTH #7 There are few rivers open to jet boating but lots of rivers providing a 

wilderness experience 

The jet boat lobby is consistent in pointing out that a nonmotorized experience is 

available on many rivers where jet boat use is precluded, yet there are few rivers 

open to jet boating. We maintain that this is not only irrelevant, it is untrue. 

In terms of relevance, the issue is the Snake Wild and Scenic River, not other 

rivers. We are talking about management of a single, distinct, special place. If we 

are talking about other rivers, we could bring into the equation all the rivers that 

have been dammed, where whitewater boating is no longer an option. We might 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 13 
166 

talk about the oscores of rivers along which highways and major devE'Iopments have 

been constructed, precluding the opportunity for a backcountry, camping experience 

in a natural, scenic place. We might ta lk about polluted waters wher·~ even 

swimming is precluded. 

And where would we stop? Would we be speaking about rivers in Idaho only, in 

the Pacific Northwest, or in America, nationwide? How do we draw that line? The 

fact of the matter is, we are talking about Hells Canyon and the Snake Wild and 

Scenic River. 

Nonetheless, we would like to respond in more detail to the misleading contentions 

raised by the jet boat lobby that: 1) There are plenty of rivers where floaters can find 

a nonmotorized wilderness experience, and; 2) there are few other rivers where one 

can enjoy jet boating on a free-flowing river. 

This information was compiled by HCPC. Most was obtained through 

correspondence with agencies that manage these and other rivers. 

1) The wilderness experience is distinguished by the ability of floaters to enjoy a 

camping trip on a river that is free of the trappings of civilization, i.e.; roads and 

modern developments, and is free of motorized rivercraft use. This would include 

rivers that are large enough to be navigable by float boat every year (with the 

possible exception of extreme low snowpack years) for at least two months. 

There are only six rivers in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Idaho, and Washington) 

that offer a substantial reach of wild, nonmotorized and undeveloped river section 

providing a multi-day, or at least overnight wilderness river experience, wherein 

motorized use is specifically precluded by rule or law. (See the chart below.) 

There are other rivers where motorized use is precluded, but these rive rs do not 

offer a wilderness experience either because they are short river sections offering 

only one-day trips (South Fork Payette, for example) or because they are bordered by 

roads (upper Deschutes and Lochsa, for example) and thus do not offer a viable 

camping experience. Jet boats are precluded on most or all of these rivers primarily 

because they are not navigable due to their lack of water volume. 

The ability of nonmotorized boaters to run even the few wilde rness rivers is limited 

by two important factors: 

• Four of these rivers operate under a strict permit system. Obtaining a permit to 

run them is an accomplishment in itself. One might apply for a permit for the 

Middle Fork Salmon River, for examrle, for twenty yea rs or more ar.d never 

succeed in obtaining one. 

• Most of these rivers are seasonaL virtually unrunnable at lower flows. In many 

yea rs, they are only runnable between the fi rst of May and the end of June. 

Testimony ltf HCPC on Riv~r MJna~em nl 14 
167 

Pacific Northwest rivers providing a wilderness experience 

~ ~ Launch Limits Ayg. Season 

Owyhee 120 Yes 2mo. 

Mid. Fk. Salmon 96 Yes 3mo. 

Selway 48 Yes 2mo. 

Illinois 28 No 2mo. 

Rogue 24 Yes 12mo. 

Grande Ronde 15 No 3mo. 

TOTAL MILES 331 

2) Conversely, there are many free-flowing rivers in the Pacific Northwest that are 

open to jet boating. It has been a traditional use on most rivers with enough water 

volume to support motorized rivercraft. The following rivers are those we have 

found where a significant amount of jet boating occurs on a regular basis. 

Pacific Northwest (free-flowing) rivers where jet boating regularly occurs 

~ Miles Launch Limits 

Main/Lower Salmon 360 Yes 

Middle Snake 106 No 

Lower Clearwater 102 No 

Rogue 90 Yes 

Grande Ronde 64 No 

Lower Umpqua 62 No 

Skagit 58 No 

Lower Payette 50 No 

Middle Columbia 49 No 

Clackamas 45 No 

Deschutes 40 Yes 

N. Fork Clearwater 33 No 

Upper Snake 32 Yes 

TOTAL MILES 1,091 

The above information does not constitute a fulhcale, complete analysis of the jet 

boat vs. nonmotorized opportunities issue. There may be other rivers that are 

available to jet boating that are not mentioned, or other rivers that might provide 

somewhat of a wilderness experience. 

Nonetheless, we feel that this limited information illustrates that in terms of river 

mileage, there is more opportunity to jet boat a river in the Pacific Northwest than 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 15 
168 

there i> to obtain a wilderness experience. This would appear to be true both in 

terms of the physical availability of river sections, and the opportunity to run those 

sections. 

In summary, if information for opportunities on rivers other than the Snake were 

used to determine a fair allocation on the Snake between motorized and 

nonmotorized use, the case for dedicating a substantial nonrnotorized period would 

be stronger than the case for precluding any nonmotorized period. 

MYTH #8: Jet boat numbers really are regulated in Hells Canyon, and float boats are 

only regulated on 16 miles of the river 

The jet boat lobby has claimed that jet boats really do have to obtain a permit to run 

the Snake River, and the number of jet boats really are regulated. This is flatly false. 

This statement is meant to defend what is arguably the most inequitable, and 

indefensible use allocations on any river (or area of public land) in America. It is 

meant to imply that jet boat use and/or numbers are limited. They are not. Jet 

boaters are advised to fill out a self-issue permit at some of the launch sites or access 

points to the Snake River. There is no limit to tbe number of these permits that can 

be issued at any time. They are designed to monitor motorized use to determine 

where jet boats go, and how many run the river at certain times. (See,. Exhibit P.) 

There is not currently, nor has there ever been, any system regulating jet boat use of 

the Snake River that controls the amount of jet boat launches that can occur at any 

place, or on any day or season. If a person wishes to launch a jet boat on any day of 

the year, at any access point on the Snake River, they may do so. 

On April 18, 1996, U.S. Attorney Torn Lee respouded to a question from U.S. District 

Judge James Redden asking exactly how motorized rivercraft is regulated in on the 

Snake River. His only example of how the Forest Service had ever regulated Jet 

boat use was that it limits the number of commercial jet boat outfitting licenses that 

can be issued. (This provision is not a limitation on jet boat launches. The number 

of launches, or the number of jet boats a licensee may operate is not limited, and 

private launches are not and never have been limited.) 

Conversely, nonrnotorized use is limited to five party launches per day on the 

upper 32 miles of the river during the summer months. The jet boat lobby has 

stated that this restriction only applies to 16 miles of the river. Again. this is a gross 

mischaracterization that intends to understate the actual regulations that floaters 

have had to live with. 

It would be extremely difficult to launch a float trip from below the 16-mile permit 

area, until one reaches Pittsburg Landing, which is 16 miles below the bottom of the 

16-mile permit area. There are no launch ramps in this section and only one access 

road, which is primitive and does not even reach all the way to the river. 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 16 
169 

All float trips on the upper 32 miles of the river must realistically come through the 

16 mile permit zone. We do not know of any that have not. Until one comes to 

Pittsburg Landing, 32 miles below the only launch site on this section of the river 

which is at Hells Canyon Creek, there is a physical restriction that disallows floaters 

on the upper 32 miles of the river without a permit. 

MYTH #9 The Forest Seroice river plan will wreak economic havoc on the jet boat 

manufacturing and jet boat outfitting industries 

We Wlderstand that all opponents of regulation of the uses of public lands want to 

have an economic argument. But this one is so sweeping, it defies reason. 

The proposed river plan would allow an increase in both private jet boat laWlches, 

and commercial jet boat laWlches. (See, Exhibit T.) It is incomprehensible that 

anyone would dare to make such a claim of impending economic doom under these 

circumstances. Neither commercial jet boat outfitting nor jet boat manufacturing 

could conceivably be impacted in any measurable amoWlt. 

Many of the jet boats manufactured in Idaho are shipped out of the region. HCPC 

has sought to obtain specific figures, but have yet to find a source. Nonetheless, it is 

no secret that local manufacturers are shipping many jet boats out of the region, 

even to overseas markets. 

The most evident economic impact as a result of river regulations is the impact on 

float outfitters. Their business has for 18 years been constrained by a use cap, and 

even the achieving of the maximum possible customers on these trips has been 

hampered by the degrading of the river experience by jet boats. (See, Exhibit G.) 

IV. A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE FOREST SERVICE'S PROPOSED 

MANAGEMENT PLAN AS IT APPLIES TO JET BOATS 

The motivation· behind H.R. 2568 is the alleged unfairne~s of the Forest Service's 

proposed Snake River plan. The truth is that this plan gives jet boaters almost 

everything they could wish for, and gives one small concession to nonrnotorized 

recreationists: A 21-mile, 24-day per year nonmotorized window. 

The following is summary of the key provisions of the Forest Service plan relating 

to jet boats (see, Record of Decision, Wild and Scenic Snake River Recreation 

Management Plan, October 1994). 

The actual use of jet boats will not be regulated by "rules of the road: · The 

plan imposes no speed limits, no requirement to slow down for floaters, no 

requirement to minimize wakes except when near ·· administrati ve sites:· 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 17 
170 

private jet boaters will receive more lailllches on weekends, a privilege not 

given to floaters. 

Private jet boaters will be able to obtain as many lailllch permits as they wish 

throughout the year. Floaters are limited to one per year for the 32-mile Wild 

river section during the summer months. 

Private jet boaters will not be required to enter a lottery or pay a fee to obtain a 

permit, as floaters are. They can call at will to secure a permit. 

Commercial jet boaters will receive additional lailllches on weekends if 

weekday launches are not used. Commercial floaters do not receive such a 

privilege. 

The launches allotted to both commercial and private jet boaters on a daily 

and seasonal basis exceeds the highest established levels that accumulated 

under a system that allowed unlimited lailllches. Jet boat use has been 

allowed to escalate illlrestrained for 20 years while float use has been capped 

since 1977. The plan would lock in jet boat levels and reduce float 

opportunities below the 1977 cap. 

The 21-day, 24-mile norunotorized section encompasses the area of the river 

least used by both commercial and private jet boaters, and includes the days of 

the week (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday) least used by jet boaters. 

Using a "mile days" calculation, multiplying the days in a year (365) times the 

miles on the river (71), the norunotorized period amounts to 1.9 percent of 

the total available time and space on the Snake River. 

The jet boat lobby has advocated a system it calls "shared use," where both 

motorized and nonmotorized recreationists simultaneously use the river, and no 

consideration is given to the impacts of one type of use on the other. 

In thz Forest Serv1ce plan, jet boaters get the system they advocate, shared use, on 

98.1 percent of the time and space on the river. However, they continue to advocate 

for 100 percent. 

V. ANALYSIS OF, AND COMMENTS ON H.R. 2568 

The Hells Canyon Preservation Council and its 2,200 members oppose this 

legislation. The following are the reasons for our opposition. 

1) The bill's provision that "motorized and nonmotorized rivercraft shall be 

permitted access to, and use of, the entire river within the recreation area at all 

times during the year" would make it impossible to preclude motorized use of the 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 18 
171 

Snake River in any place or at any time for any reason. This disregards reasons that 

it might be desirable to do so, including: (a) To accommodate the needs and desired 

recreation experience of nonmotorized recreationists; (b) for safety reasons, for 

example, if high sediment loads in the river resultant from landslides or high water 

flows would make motorized use hazardous; (c) if jet boats were found to be 

impacting a particular species of wildlife such as nesting bald eagles or spawning 

salmon. 

2) The bill would require the Forest Service to disregard reality in stating that 

" .... concurrent use of the river ... by motorized and nonmotorized rivercraft shall not 

be considered to be a conflict." It is a conflict as the Forest Service research and 

surveys have shown. 

3) The bill requires that jet boat use levels that have built up in the absence of 

legally-required controls be locked in with its mandate that "use of commercial and 

private motorized and nonmotorized rivercraft shall be allowed to continue 

throughout each year at levels that are not less than those occurring in an average of 

the three calendar years preceding the date of enactment of this subsection, .. . " This 

disallows any opportunity to fashion future launch levels for motorized craft to 

address specific considerations for river management. For example, if the Forest 

Service found that certain levels of jet boat use was impacting beaches by erosion 

caused from their wakes, or was impacting the experience of iill recreationists, 

motorized and nonmotorized, the levels could not be adjusted down. 

4) The maintaining of "daily and seasonal use patterns similar to those experienced 

in those years ... " (the average of the three calendar years preceding the date of 

enactment of this subsection) could mean more than 100 jet boats on the river at 

one time during summer weekends, according to Forest Service use monitoring. 

The overall impacts to the river from such numbers of jet boats is not known 

because these levels have only occurred over the past five years. In particular, this 

many jet boats on the river at one time could pose very serious safety hazards to 

kayakers, swimmers, and floaters as well as other jet boaters. The relatively narrow 

navigating space of this river could be turned into a crowded speedway. 

5) The bill represents micromanagement of federal agency planning processes. It 

seeks to dictate in genera! what "appropriate use" of rivercraft on the Snake River 

will be. In doing so, it voids eight years of Forest Service and citizen planning that 

was spent to develop a management plan. This work includes conducting and 

publishing two user surveys, convening a citizens task force, writing an 

Environmental Impact Statement, and more than a dozen public meetings. 

6) The bill does not serve the public good or seek compromise. It serves only one 

constituency: The motorized users. It plainly and simply legislates away any 

provisions of the Forest Service river plan that they dislike. There are no 

provisions that accommodate the needs of thousands of nonmotorized 

recreationists, for example, stricter limits on jet boat launches, speed limits, no-wake 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 1 y 
172 

rules, a nonmotorized period. In fact, it voids future opportunities to obtain such 

concessions. 

7) The bill is deceptive and condescending in its inclusion of norunotorized 

rivercraft in i~s provisions. First, maintaining recent overall and seasonal use levels 

of norunotorized rivercraft is superfluous since the growth of this use has been 

firmly constrained on the most popular section of the river for 18 year5. Second, 

there is no reason to mandate that nonmotorized use should be allowed at all times 

on the entire river since there is no social or environmental conflict that would 

warrant prohibiting it, unlike motorized use. Motorized use impacts nonmotorized 

recreationists but not vice-versa. 

8) TIUs bill disregards and contradicts the HCNRA Act provision to protect 

wilderness and scenic values even outside of designated wilderness, and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act direction to protect natural, environmental, and aesthetic values 

such as the primitive character of designated Wild river sections. This bill sets a 

precedent of strictly limiting the ability of managing federal agencies to limit high 

impact recreation use on designated rivers to protect the river environment, the 

enjoyment or safety of other recreationists. 

VI. EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS 

Exhibit AExhibit AlExhibit 8-

Exhibit 81-

Exhibit CExhibit DExhibit EExhibit FExhibit GExhibit AExhibit !-

Exhibit JExhibit KExhibit lExhibit MExhibit NExhibit 0-

Exhibit PExhibit QExhibit RExhibit SExhibit TExhibit UExhibit VA page from the HCA appeal of the Forest Service river plan 

Article from the Hells Canyon Journal Newspaper 

letter to the Editor of the Lewiston Morning Tribune Newspaper 

Article from the Hells Canyon Journal Newspaper 

Declaration of Richard Sherwin to the U.S. District Cou rt 

Op-Ed from the Lewiston Morning Tribune Newspaper 

A page from the HCA appeal of the Forest Service river plan 

The HCNRA Act 

Commercial float outfitter's success rates in fillin); available tnps 

Popularity of various rivers among private floaters 

1988 University of Idaho survey of Snake River users 

1994 Eiseline survey of Snake River users 

1995 Washington State University Survey 

Declaration of Dr. Stewart Allen to the U.S. District Court 

Letter from Dr. Robert O'Brien 

Article from USA Today Newspape r 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

Legal Memo from HCA to U.S. District Court 

1993 Forest Serviet~ decision allowing unlimited motnrizt>d ust 

1977 Forest Service decision to limit nonmotorized u:::.e 

Snake River plan allocation for float and motonzed use 

Forest Service plan's motorized u~ level increases 

Increase in jet boat use since control of their use and numbers was first required 

Jet boat use fi~ures from HCPC's comments on the drait river plan 

Map of Hells Canyon Nat1onal Recreation Area and Snake Wild and Scenic 

River; Pie Graph of Snake Wild and Scenic River Acci,1ents 

Testimony of HCPC on River Management 20 
April 26, 1996 

173 

PREPARED STATEMENT OP J ERRY H tJGHES 

HUGHES RIVER EXPEDITIOHS , IHC . 

P. O . B OX 2 17 C AMB R ID G E , I DAH O 83 6 1 0 

PHONE : (2 08) 257 · 34 77 FA X : ( 20 8 ) 257· 34 7 6 

United States House of Representatives 

United States Senate 

Hearings Testimony 

In introduction, my name is Jerry Hughes. I am 48 years old, and I am a 3rd generation Idahoan. I 

was raised in Southern Idaho and received degrees in Business & Law from the University of Idaho. I 

have worked as a boatman on the rivers of the Western U.S. since 1965. 1996 is my 31st year of 

working as a professional river guide. 

I am a rafting outfitter on the National Wild & Scenic Snake River through Hells Canyon. Along with 

my wife, Carole, I own and operate Hughes River Expeditions. Hughes River Expeditions is the largest 

rafting outfitter in Hells Canyon, and 1996 will be our 20th year of outfitting and guiding raft trips for 

the public on the Snake/Hells Canyon. I was one of two people who represented rafting outfitters on 

the Forest Service Limits of Acceptable Change Task Force that scoped issues and developed 

alternatives for the management of Hells Canyon. I have participated in every step of the 

Environmental Impact Statement process, and I am very familiar with the issues surrounding Hells 

Canyon river management. I represent my business, other Hells Canyon float outfitters, and river 

guests from across the country and from foreign countries who float Hells Canyon with outfitters & 

guides. 

I am not a proponent of eliminating jetboats from Hells Canyon. However, I am a proponent of wellmanaged, limited permit use by all river users including jetboats. I strongly believe that limited permit 

management of both power and float craft is essential to preserve a quality user experience, and to 

protect the Hells Canyon resource. Jetboats with their noise, wake, and odor greatly impact the Snake 

River/Hells Canyon, and all non-motorized users, including rafters, kayakers, hikers, and horsemen. To 

me the current unlimited powerboat use in Hells Canyon is an abuse of a spectacular national 

resource. Unflmited and unmanaged powerboat use essentially makes Hells Canyon into a local 

powerboat park. A powerboat park that Is managed for the convenient lise of some 600 local Idaho 

& Eastern Washington powerboaters. Instead, I believe that the Snake/Hells Canyon is, and should be 

managed as, a National Wild & Scenic River, inside a National Recreation Area that is surrounded by 

National Forest Lands, much of which are Wilderness. I see Hells Canyon as a National Resource 

rather than as an area primarily for local powerboaters. 

Snake River float trips have been managed by limited permits for the past 20 years. Extended, camp 

out float trips are limited to 5 launches per day (with 3 trips/day allocated to private users, and 2 

trips/day allocated to outfitted trips). Float management in Hells Canyon has been excellent The 

Forest Service has accommodated the needs of the floating public in many ways. However, you cannot 

manage one component of river use in a vacuum. The Forest Service management of rafters & 
Hearing Testimony 

page 2 

174 

kayakers is not acceptable if the other major user group on the river is absolute~ unmanaged and 

unlimited. The on~ complaint Hells Canyon floaters have with past Forest Service management is that 

the management affected on~ non-motorized users (rafts, dories, & kayaks) while jetboat users could 

come and go as they pleased with no limits on their utilization of the National Wild & Scenic Snake 

River. 

Hells Canyon power boat use has never been managed or limited in any manner. The on~ 

requirement of private jetboaters has been that they fill out self-issue, non-limited permits, and jetboat 

outfitters have been able to make as many trips as they wanted at any time. This has occurred at a 

time when non-motorized river users were operating under a Strict 5 launch/day limited permit system. 

During the late 70's and ear~ 80's the Forest Service developed a management plan for all users, 

including jetboats. However, jetboaters and their congressional supporters were able to scuttle this 

management plan. As a result, Hells Canyon powerboat use remained unmanaged and unlimited. 

Motorized use on the Wild & Scenic Snake River grew exponential~ during the 80's and ear~ 90's. 

Today from late spring through ear~ fall, Hells Canyon is over-crowded with powerboats on all 

holidays, on most weekends, and on many week days. One of my guests likened rafting on the 

Snake/Hells Canyon on a busy weekend to backpacking along an interstate highway. Forest Service 

management of powerboats in Hells Canyon has been as poor as their float management has been 

good. However, this lack of powerboat management can be traced direct~ to jetboater efforts and 

Congressional interference that derailed the agency's planning process in the ear~ 80's. Unfortunate~. 

15 years later, HR 2568 and S 1374 intend to ruin another Forest Service management plan that 

would place jetboats under a limited permit system. 

Many Hells Canyon powerboat outfitters claim that the Forest Service Proposed Action will put them 

out of business. Private powerboaters claim they won't be able to enjoy and use the Canyon. 

Powerboat manufacturers claim that limited use will harm their boat building businesses. I disagree. 

Rafting has been managed on many rivers since the ear~ 70's. Examples include the the Colorado, 

Green, Yampa, Salmon, Middle Fork of the Salmon, Selway, and many more. Float outfitters have 

thrived, private rafting has become very popular, and there are more raft. dory, & kayak manufacturers 

than ever. I don't accept powerboater claims that limited permits will ruin their businesses and sport. 

Instead, I believe that limited use will require change - change in outfitter pricing, change in outfitter 

services, fewer but higher quality trips, more advance planning when a !ami~ wants to make a private 

powerboat trip, etc. I know that change is hard. I can remember when rafters felt river management 

and limited use would ruin us all. Instead limited use assured rafting a good futurE!. It is well past 

time to manage and limit powerboating in Hells Canyon. The Forest Service Final EIS provides for 

effective management of river use, and I strong~ believe that effective management will be good for 

all users, including motorized users, and for the Hells Canyon resource. 

I am very concerned about HR 2568 and S 1374 because they would lock in place the very problems 

Hells Canyon faces today. First, the bills ignore an 8 year, public planning process that included every 

interest group. The bills also try to legislate that there is no conflict between motorized and non-
Hearing Testimony 

page 3 

175 

motorized river craft. Regardless of this legislative language, conflicts do exist between power boat & 

float users. It is difficult for floaters to ignore a jetboat roaring past their camp at 5:00 a.m. 

Jetboats by their nature are noisy, throw huge wakes, smell of exhaust, and intrude on the 

backcountry experience that float users value when they visit a National Wild & Scenic River in a 

National Recreation Area. Floaters can live with jetboats, but jetboat use must be limited and wellmanaged. Rules of the road must exist for the safe and courteous use of these large, powerful 

machines. Good Forest Service management of powerboat use is essential for public safety and to 

protect the Snake River/Hells Canyon area. 

HR 2568 and S 1374 also lock in patterns of river use that exist today. These patterns of use are 

much of the current problem in Hells Canyon. Supporting current use patterns means that all holidays 

and weekends during the late spring, summer, and early fall will be over-crowded with jetboats. 

Float users need a level playing field with powerboaters. It is difficult and unfair for floaters to live 

with limited permits and managed use while jetboaters can use the Canyon at any time in any 

numbers they want. A key to good river management is to even out river traffic, so that the most 

popular times are no busier than the less popular times. HR 2568 and S 1374 will allow over 

crowding by large numbers of jetboats on weekends, holidays, and other popular times. 

Good management and resource protection for Hells Canyon are vitally important to my business. I 

support the Forest Service's proposed plan for managing float and power traffic on the Snake River, 

The Forest Service plan is not perfect, but it is the result of compromise by every user group. The , 

Forest Service plan is designed to allow traditional uses while it protects the Hells Canyon resource:· 

Proposed powerboat numbers are based on historic use. Float group size is reduced 20%. Each user 

group was asked to compromise. Now after all the compromises, powerboaters want to have their 

use excluded from the plan through legislation. HR 2568 and S 1374 are designed to thwart Forest 

Service management of this spectacular national resource, and these bills are designed to eliminate 

only the sacrifice and compromise of the powerboat public while ignoring the sacrifiCes and 

compromises that have been made by other use groups. The Forest Service's public planning process 

allowed every interested person to comment many times over several years. It is now time to 

implement the Forest Service plan. 

Some jetboaters will have you think that the Proposed Action will eliminate jetboating in Hells Canyon. 

I say the Proposed Action provides for a tremendous amount of powerboating - an allocation of 

powerboating that is unprecedented on any other backcountry river in the West. The Forest Service's 

Proposed Action provides for 1208 outfitter powerboat days annually from late May through September 

10. That will allow approximately 11 outfitter jetboats on the Snake River every day. The Proposed 

Action also provides for 6 private powerboat launches into the Wild River daily. The plan provides 10 

to 25 private powerboat launches daily into the Scenic River. This amounts to a huge allocation of 

powerboat use. 
Hearing Testimony 

page 4 

176 

A lightning rod for controversy in the Forest Service Final EIS is the "motorless" window of 3 

days/week (Mon., Tues., & Wed.) for 8 weeks from July 4 to Labor Day weekend. This motorless 

window excludes powerboats from only 21 river miles between Wild Sheep Cr. Rapid and Kirkwood 

Bar for a total of 24 days each summer. During these 24 days, powerboats can still utilize every 

portal Into the Wild & Scenic Snake River, and they can still recreate on 48 river miles within Hells 

Canyon NRA (48 of the total 69.5 river miles). In turn, the motorless window offers float users a brief 

opportunity to enjoy a small section of Hells Canyon without motorized traffic. Far from excluding 

powerboat use in Hells Canyon, I perceive this small motorless window as an attempt to give nonmotorized users a limited chance to enjoy the Canyon without interference from powerboats. 

The Snake River in Hells Canyon is a national treasure. The country, geography, and geology are 

spectacular. The canyon's depth and ruggedness are unparelleded in North America. There are more 

American Indian archeological sites per mile than on any other river in the region. The area offers 

fascinating backcountry history from pioneer days. Fishing is excellent for a variety of species. Wildlife 

abounds. Wild Sheep, Granite, Waterspout, Rush Creek Rapids, and more are some of the most 

powerful white water in the West. 

1 commend the Forest Service for its management of Hells Can~n float use in the pa•;t and for the 

thorough and fair public planning process the agency conducted pver the past 8 years to mme up with 

a new management plan I hope that the future brings meaningful limited permit managemem to all 

Hells Carw>n river users including powerboats Limited use is essential for all river users in order for 

Hells Canyon to have a quality future. I want the Wild & Scenic Snake River in Hells Canyon to be a 

world class river opportunity for future generations. I am happy to share Hells Ca~lll..Wi!b 

powerboaters However, I expect the Forest Service to manage the area with fair and equitable limited 

permit management for all users. I encourage the members of the committee to support the Forest 

Service's Proposed Action and Final Environmerttal Impact Statement and I hope that the Congre-» will 

not legislate management decisions for the Snake River in Hells CaO¥Pn through HR 13 2 568 and S 

U1L 

;g;~w~~-

( ~~~HES RIVER EXPEDITIONS, INC. 
177 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. BOWERS 

The American Whitewater Affiliation (AWA) does not support H.R. 2568 

introduced by Congressman Cooley. However, we appreciate the opportunity to 

provide our viewpoint on how jet-boats, and this legislation, will adversely impact 

non-motorized travel on the Snake River. Our comments will primarily reference 

these impacts within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (NRA), but the 

AWA has experienced similar problems with motorized craft on other rivers 

around the country. We recognize the growth of motorized river travel as a 

concern of national importance to our members and to all non-motorized river 

users. 

AWA'S CONSTITUENCY AND CONCERNS 

AWA is a national organization with a direct and affiliated membership of 

approximately 30,000. Our membership is comprised almost entirely of 

noncommercial kayakers and canoeists who are involved in whitewater sports. 

The AWA was organized in 1957; our mission is to "conserve and restore 

America's whitewater resources and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them 

safely. • 

The two key concerns of our members and of our affiliate clubs are the 

conservation and restoration of whitewater rivers, and the enhancement of public 

river access. 

To further our conservation mission, AWA maintains a complete national 

inventory of whitewater rivers, monitors threats to those rivers, publishes 

information on river protection, provides technical advice to local groups, works 

with government agencies, and - when necessary - takes legal action to 

prevent the destruction or degradation of whitewater rivers. 

REASONS FOR OPPOSING H.R. 2568 

Whitewater boaters (both private and commercial) boat, hike, and camp along 

the Snake River through Hells Canyon, an outstanding wilderness trip which 

provides more than 70 miles of Class If- IV whitewater between Hells Canyon 

Dam and the Washington border.; 

Whitewater boaters also enjoy 53 miles (beginning at White Bird) of the Class IIIV run on Idaho's Lower Salmon River. The Lower Salmon is a direct tributary 

of the Snake, and boaters who run this river must paddle an additional 20 miles 

on the Snake to reach the Hellar's Bar take out. 

Motorized travel is increasing on both of these rivers and boaters paddling on 

either one are affected by the increasing jet-boat traffic on the Snake. AWA 

cannot support legislation which overlooks the existing and often numerous 

conflicts between motorized and non-motorized river craft. 
178 

2 

AWA disagrees with at least three of the main principles of this proposed 

legislation: 

1. that both motorized and non-motorized river craft are equally suitable for use 

within the Hells Canyon NRA; 

2. that "concurrent use of the river within the recreation area by motorized and 

nonmotorized craft shall not be considered to be a conflict;" and 

3. that legislation is needed which overrides Forest Service's management 

decisions for the NRA and favors motorized over non-motorized recreation. 

In addition to these three objections, the AWA is aware that the increase in 

motorized travel on the Snake is indicative of similar increases on rivers all 

across our country. We are concerned that passage of H.R. 2568 will set a 

dangerous precedent for other rivers, and create a safety concern of national 

importance. 

1. Motorized and non-motorized river craft are NOT equally suitable for use 

within Hells Canyon NRA 

The AWA believes in recreation --we believe that outdoor users are our 

strongest conservationists-- and (especially in river conservation) we believe we 

have the track record to back this up. 11 However, we cannot support that all 

recreation use is equal in its effects on either the environment or on other human 

enjoyment of the outdoors. 

As proposed, this legislation ignores the effects of jet-boats on b•:lth the 

environment and on other use of the NRA, especially wilderness, and in fact 

goes far beyond equal use for motorized travel. H.R. 2568 would release the 

Forest Service from its 1975 mandate111 to control the use of motorized rivercraft 

while continuing to control nonmotorized travel. Nonmotorized travel (canoes, 

kayaks and rafts) has been regulated since 1978 (Permit Attachetd). 

Effects on the Environment 

While all human use has some effect on the environment, there is a big 

difference between human-powered and motorized recreation. No where is this 

more evident than within the Hells Canyon NRA and the Hells Canyon 

Management Plan (completed in 1979 and approved in 1983), where there is a 

documented history of adverse affects from jet-boats on river resources (noise, 

wake and oil spills). 
179 

Effects on Wilderness 

Both the Snake through the Hells Canyon and the Lower Salmon represent 

outstanding and nationally recognized wilderness areas. They also provide 

outstanding multi-day wilderness experiences -- for many a dramatic change 

from everyday stress and civilization. However, two separate surveys completed 

for the Forest Service ( 1988 - University of Idaho, and 1995 Washington State 

University) demonstrates that jet-boat travel and jet boat noise provide the 

greatest major and minor problems for nonmotorized travelers, and the #1 

negative experience for those seeking an outstanding wilderness trip through the 

Hells Canyon NRA (the 1995 survey collected responces from both motorized 

and nonmotorized travelers). 

While wilderness can mean many things to many people, within Hells Canyon it 

means "true" wilderness -- three to five days in the second deepest gorge in the 

United States.iv In his Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold described 

wilderness areas as 'first of all a series of sanctuaries for the primitive arts of 

wilderness travel, especially canoeing and packing."v 

And wilderness has historically been an integral part of Forest Service 

management. In the past few years the Forest Service has embraced the vision 

of wilderness as described by Mr. Leopold. In 1993, the Forest Service 

established the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute near Missoula, 

Montana to "obtain and provide the information necessary to sustain wilderness 

resources in an ecologically and socially sound manner for the present and the 

future.".,; In addition, the Forest Service has doubled the wilderness acreage in 

National Forests in the past decade and continues to increase its emphasis on 

the non-commodity values of National Forests. 

Wilderness is not much of a sanctuary (for wildlife or humans) with jet-boats 

roaring up and down its waters. Under no definition can jet-boats be considered 

primitive arts of wilderness travel, nor do they sustain wilderness resources in an 

ecologically and socially sound manner. Again, this legislation ignores the 

effects of motors in wilderness, and on other wilderness users. Today, primitive 

arts (human-powered recreation) are strictly regulated and limited, while 

motorized jet-boats have fl.Q limitations. 

Affects on Wild and Scenic Values 

The 1986 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act mandates in part, that rivers so 

designated be maintained as "vestiges of primitive America." 

In 1975 Congress designated the stretch of the Snake from Hells Canyon dam to 

Fishtrap Bar (32.3 miles) as "Wild", with another 34.2 miles as "Scenic." If this 
180 

4 

legislation is passed, "vestiges of primitive America" will be defined to include 

jet-boats, jet-boat noise, and jet-boat wakes. 

The Forest Service is an important and major player in river protection and river 

recreation in the United States. It is charged with managing some 96 designated 

components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System (some 4,316 river miles 

including 67 miles of the Snake) ... 

In January of 1995, the Forest Service joined other agencies in establishing the 

Interagency Wild and Scenic River Coordinating Council. The purpose of this 

Council "is to improve interagency coordination" and enhance "protection of 

important river resources. • One of the major goals of this Council is to "Maintain 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Ad as the national and international standard for 

river conservation:• The AWA is a participant in this Council, and we are 

concerned that favoring motorized use of the Snake over human-powered 

recreation by failing to regulate motorized craft is contrary to both the purpose of 

this Council and the clear intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Ad. 

2. Conf!jcts between motorized and nonmotorized craft witbin tbe NRA 

• In claiming that •motorized travel is fully compatible with all other recreational 

uses of the river", H.R.2568 disregards a significant and documented safety 

concern and a exponential increase in the number of nonmotorized craft over 

the last decade. Between 1986 and 1989, 65 to 75% of all accidents on the 

Snake involved jet boats (compiled from Forest Service record of incidence) 

• Western Wbitewater - "jet-boat traffic has tripled in the past decade and 

continues to increase. ·• 

• Idaho Whitewater- (on the Salmon River) "Other hazards include 

rattlesnakes, poison ivy, cactus and jet boaters: • 

• Oregon River Tours- "An increasing number of private boaters exit at 

Pittsburg to avoid the power boats with their camp conflicts ...... 

• The Whitewater Sourcebook- "Further Comments: Watch out for jet-boats!,. 

Contrary to what this legislation portrays, jet-boats on whitewater rivers pose a 

serious threat to canoes, kayaks and rafts. Paddlers don't expect to see them as 

they negotiate whitewater drops and waves, and while many object to the noise 

created by these craft. they are hard to hear over the roar of whitewater. 

This safety issue is especially critical to boaters on the Snake and Lower 

Salmon Rivers. While both are rivers of national whitewater significance and 

reputation, they are both fairly easy rivers to paddle. Both are rated as Class Ill 
181 

5 

in whitewater difficulty (Class IV at high water),ldii which means they are paddled 

by intermediate, advanced and expert boaters. 

Both the Snake and Salmon offer western style big water runs which contain 

large roller-coaster type waves. The Snake below Hells Canyon Dam has twice 

the average flow of the Salmon and considerably more than the Colorado in 

Grand Canyon.m Whitewater boaters moving downstream cannot see or hear 

motorized craft coming up river, sometimes in excess of 60 miles per hour. For 

human-powered craft this is akin to a head-on collision between a car and a 

bicycle at Beltway speeds. 

This presents an even larger problem on rivers where many paddlers are 

intermediates who may not possess the quickness or technique needed to avoid 

such a collision. One of the greatest pleasures of boating big water (for all skill 

levels), is the ability to surf these waves. In this situation, a paddler would be 

facing back upstream -- motorized craft are upon them before they know they are 

there. 

3. Favoring Motorized over Nonmotorized Recreation 

Whitewater boaters do not appreciate attempts to be regulated off of rivers, or 

denied access to individual river segments. Unfortunately, this seems to be 

becoming more and more a common occurrence. From that experience, 

paddlers understand that other river users also do not want to be locked off of 

rivers - and we are not recommending that this be done on the Snake. 

However, H.R. 2568 would: cut the Forest Service's ability to control the highest 

impact recreational use on the Snake- jet-boating; would lock in today's 

growing motorized use levels; and attempt to balance this against nonmotorized 

use levels and regulations which were established over 15 years ago. 

Since 1978, canoes, kayaks and rafts have needed a permit to paddle the Snake 

between Hells Canyon Dam and White Creek (mile 16) from the Friday before 

Memorial Day to September 15. To get a permit, they must enter a four-rivers 

lottery (which includes the Main and Middle Salmon, and the Selway). No 

control over the use and number of motorized rivercraft has ever been 

implemented. 

This proposed legislation states that "use of commercial and private motorized 

and nonmotorized river craft shall be allowed to continue throughout each year 

at levels that are not less than those occurring in an average of the 3 calender 

years preceding the date of enactment of this subsection ... • (emphasis added) 
182 

6 

Since there is no mention of a revision of current lottery or permit applications, 

this would lock in 1978 regulations for nonmotorized boaters while establishing 

much more recent non-regulated use levels for motorized craft. 

Again, the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act of 1975 requires a 

"provision for the control of the use and number of motorized and nonmotorized 

rivercraft .. ." (16USC 460gg-7). In 1988, in 1992, and again just last week, three 

separate legal decisions were made which again determined that the Forest 

Service must publish regulations, including regulations on how motorized craft 

will be limited within the Hells Canyon NRA. xv In October 1994, the Forest 

Service revisited this provision in its Record of Decision (ROD), which again 

determined that regulating motorized travel was necessary. 

By establishing motorized use at current levels, and allowing "motorized 

rivercraft ... access to, and use of, the entire river within the recre,ation area at all 

times during the year'', H.R. 2568 overrides each of these decisions, including 

the Forest Service Management Plan for the NRA. 

A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT 

If H.R. 2568 is successful, then additional legislation could be introduced to 

allow jet-boats on other rivers. With 156 National Forests in 43 States, the 

Forest Service manages many great whitewater rivers including the Snake and 

Salmon in Idaho, the Chattooga in Georgia, Cache Ia Poudre in Colorado, 

Rogue in Oregon and many others. Providing deference to motorized travel on 

the Snake sets a dangerous precedent for these and other outstanding 

whitewater rivers. 

This is not an idle fear. While jet-boats are allowed on the Snake, jet-skis or 

personal water craft (PWC's - a smaller version of the commercial jet-boats on 

the Snake) are not. However, many rivers do not enjoy this leve' of protection. 

In 1995, jet-boats and PWC's became an issue on Washington's Wild and 

Scenic Skagit (just recently, a permit application was filed with the Forest 

Service to run (3) 50-person jet boat trips per day, every day from May to 

September on the Skagit), on West Virginia's New and Gauley Hivers (another 

National Recreation Area) and on California's Wild and Scenic Upper Kern 

River. 

In 1995 PWC use was in excess of 700,000 and during 1994, PWC's were 

involved in 2,500 collisions, almost half of all reported water crashes. Adding 

whitewater will only increase these statistics. 
183 

7 

CONCLUSION 

Whitewater in this country is in short supply. According to AWA's Nationwide 

Whitewater Inventory, only 1% of our rivers enjoy whitewater of Class II difficulty 

or better. Within this are rivers which, due to size and volume, are only runnable 

for days or weeks each year. In addition, many of these rivers are already 

impacted by dams, diversions, pollution and local, state and other federal access 

restrictions. Our remaining whitewater resources do not need another concern 

which destroys much of what paddlers seek on these rivers, or which pose 

serious opportunities for boater injury. 

Barrow, AW A Nationwide Whitewater Inventory. A Geographic Information System for 

Whitewater Rivers in the United States, Second Edition, 1990. 

• Recreationists (boaters, fishermen, hikers and others) have played a significant role in 

establishing many of the major national river organizations such as American Rivers, River Network, 

Trout Unlimited, and the A W A In addition, whitewater boaters and others have developed state and 

regional river conservation groups in New York, West Virginia, Idaho, Washington, California and other 

states. 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act of 1975, 16 U.S. C. § 460 gg-7 (d) requires the 

Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations, including "provision for the control of the use and number 

of motorized and nonmotorized river craft ... " 

"One of the premier big-water runs, the Snake River cuts through Hens Canyon, the second 

deepest canyon on the continent. " Tim Palmer, The Wild and Scenic Rivers of America, Island Press, 

1993., p. 163. 

• Aldo Leopold, A Sand Countv Almanac 1949, Oxford Univ. Press, p . 193. 

,; USDA Forest Service Informational Briefing on Wilderness Management, February 18, 1993. 

rii Ibid. 

Concept paper, Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council, revised February, 

1995. The Council includes the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Ser.ice, and the U.S. Forest Service. 

"' Cassady, Cross, Calhoun. Western Whitewater From the Rockies to the Pacific, North Fork 

Press, 1994, p. 40. 

• Moore and McClaren, Idaho Whitewater, the complete river guide, Class VI Whitewater, 1989, 

p.l58. xi Garren, Oregon River Tours, Garren Publishing, 1991, p. 247. 

Penny, The Whitewater Sourcebook. 2nd Ed., Menasha Ridge Press, 1991 , p. 84. 

A W A dc:\·eloped the International Scale of Whitewater Difficulty, which has become the world 

standard for classif)ing the difficulty of whitewater rivers and rapids. Whitewater is classified from Class 

I (novice) through Class IV (teams of experts only) . 

.u. Western Whitewater, p. 39. 

1988, Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Ling, 9th Circuit. 1992 Hells Canyon Preservation 

Council v. Richmond and 1996 Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. Lowe (both district court decisions). 
184 

The National Organization for Rivers The association of people who protect natural rtvers and your legal rights to vijif rivers. 

Publishers of CURRENTS Magazine. 

2 I 2 West Cheyenne Mountain Boulevard, Colorado Springs. CO 90906 

Phone: 719-579-8759. • Fox: 719-576-{)238. 

May 1, 1996 

Honorable Jim HanHn, Chairman, 

Houae Subcommittee on National Parka, Foreata, and Landa 

Room 812, O'Neill Houae Office Buildin& 

~~ Waahin&ton, DC 20515 

TestimDny submitUdfor the hearing record, for the committee'.s April 30 

oversight hearing on Forest Service managenumt ofHells Canyon of the 

SnakeRiver. - illllll=•u~ 

-----

I, Eric Leaper, make the following 

declaration, both on the basis of personal 

experience and on the basis of countless 

contacts with river canoeists, kayakers, 

and rafters during the past twenty years, 

in my capacity as Executive Director of 

the National Organization for Rivers, a 

nonprofit association with members in all 

50 states, and from my work with other 

similar organizations. · · 

I would first point out that the Snake 

River, like almost all rivers around the 

world, has a V-shaped river bed. As the 

river flows along in a continuing series of 

curves, the deep part of the river is 

toward the outside of each bend. While 

the water surface may be fairly wide from 

shore to shore, most of that surface is 

fairly shallow water. The deep part is only 

a narrow path. Of course, everyone wants 

to navigate along this deep path, not off 

to the side where they might damage 

their boat on a rock. This is especially 

true of jetboats, which have hard hulls 

and motors, and which travel at high 

speeds. Hitting a rock is particularly to 

be avoided for them. 

So it's not like driving down the highway, where you can drive on the righthand half of the pavement, and the 

oncoming vehicles can drive on the other 

half. It's more of a narrow path, best 

suited for one-way traffic. As the jetboats 

come upstream and the non-motorized 

boats go downstream, a two-way traffic 

situation is created. And as the jetboats 

go downstream, they are frequently 

passing the non-motorized boats, since 

jetboats go much faster. In both cases, 

the jetboats are loud and intimidating to 

the people on the non-motorized boats, 

and the jetboats have more of an inherent need to occupy the deep part of the 

V-shaped riverbed. The people on the 

non-motorized boats are aware that a 

jetboat is a heavy object moving at high 

speed, with no actual brakes, and that 

when it is coming upstream through 

rapids, it needs to maintain momentum. 

If the jetboat operator is courteous and 

alert, the encounter between the boats 

can go smoothly. But if the operator is 

careless or inattentiv<~. the encounter 

could result in injury or death. In any 

case, the people on the non-motorized 

boats feel obliged to move aside into the 

shallower water while the jetboat goes 

roaring by. 

The net result is that jetboats are 

inherently an imposition on the nonmotorized boaters. There is an inherent 

inequality in the encounter, the nonmotorized boats being in an inferior, 

vulnerable position. 

·. For these reasons, river runners anticipate a trip on this river with mixed 

emotions. Dealing with the jetboats is a 

fundamental drawback to this river. Even 

though it is a large and very beautiful 

river, I have only run it once myself, primarily because of the motors, and the 

rest of my family has not seen it at all. 
Because of my work, I have been in 

regular contact with river runners across 

the nation fo r about 20 years now, and I 

have found tha t many river runners who 

otherwise would have run this river have 

never done so, because of the motors. 

There is no real controversy on this 

point--river runners universally agree 

thatjetboats are a hazard and an imposition. So the jetboats definitely have the 

effect of keeping many non-motorized 

boaters away from this river altogether. 

Now let's look at the larger picture--

where this river fits in to the national 

scheme of things. The fact is that there 

are only ten major multi-day whitewater 

river trips in the entire United States, all 

of them located in Idaho, Oregon, Utah, 

and the Grand canyon in Arizona. People 

from Colorado drive to Idaho or Utah for 

a multi-day river trip, there being none 

left in Colorado. In the midwestern and 

eastern states, and in California, there 

are no multi-day rivers at all, and in fact 

there aren't even many good day-trip 

rivers left. Hells Canyon is one of the few 

multi-day rivers in the entire nation. It is 

a priceless resource, highly valued by 

people in all 50 states. 

Now, it so happens that on all of these 

ten multi-day river trips, the federal 

government has a strict permit-system in 

effect. People wait for five to ten years for 

a noncommercial river running permit for 

the Grand Canyon. They apply annually 

to permit lotteries for the rivers in Utah, 

Idaho and Oregon, filling out forms and 

paying money just for a chance in a 

lottery. 

The purpose of these permit systems is 

to limit the number of people who run 

the river--to avoid overcrowding, by only 

allowing a handful of parties to launch 

each day on each river. In other words, 

the purpose is to preserve a semblance of 

peace and quiet on the river, so that 

people can enjoy the river and the surrounding scenery with some peace and 

quiet. 

185 

Snake River ·· 2 

This river has such a permit system-· 

for non-motorized boaters only . The 

quiet, slow-moving non-motorized boat· 

ers are restricted and must apply in 

advance for one of the scarce permits--in 

order to preserve the peace and quiet of 

the river. But the loud, fast-moving, 

hazardous jet boats roar up and down the 

river essentially at will. 

So under the present system, if a nonmotorized boater is denied a permit, he 

must forego a visit to the river--supposedly in order to preserve the peace and 

quiet of the river--knowing that while he 

stays home, jetboats are roaring up and 

down the river at will. And if he does obtain a permit, instead of running the 

river with the peace and quiet that the 

permit system was supposed to preserve, 

instead he has to deal with the noise and 

intimidation of jetboats throughout his 

trip. 

The senselessness and kookiness of 

this system is blatant. Obviously, if the 

non-motorized boaters are required to 

curtail their access to the river in order 

to preserve the peace and quiet, certainly 

the jet boaters should also be so required. 

The solution to this situation is obvious, and has already been proposed by 

the Forest Service: To dedicate nonjetboat "windows", periods of several 

days, long enough for non-motorized 

boaters to get down the river with the 

peace and quiet that the system is 

supposed to be preserving. 

That sort of system is the solution, and 

with that said, there really is nothing else 

to say. 

Thank you for this opportunity to 

comment. 

Sincerely, 

Eric 

~~ Leaper 

Executive Director 

The National Organization for Rivers. 
-~ 

186 

National Organization for Rivers The ouociation of people who PfOiect notUtaf rivers and your legal righb to visit riven. 

Founded in 1978. Contributions ore tax-deductible. Pub&shlng CURRENTS Magazine. 

Membership OffK:es: 212 West Cheyenne Mountain Boulevard. 

CoJorodo Springs. CO 80906. • Phone: 719·579-8759. • Fox: 719-576-6238. 

Dear River Trustee: 

This letter is to tell you what the National Organization for Rivers (NORS) is 

working to achieve, why you should join us, (or renew your membership,) and 

how it will benefit you. 

J..b.u~.JJ..A.Aig_d.ifH.~e throughout America between what the law says 

about rivers, and how rivers are treated in actual. eractice. The U.S. Supreme 

Court has ruled thattil.(W_iilj~,are"nayThi!i!il!i.f~ ate nay!ga:§l_iJ:'nJa~ and that "navigation• includes canoeing, kayaking, and rafting. And that the banks of 

navigable rivers are public land up to the "ordinary high water mark," which, 

depending on the local terrain, can be a rather wide strip of land-land that is ..d!Y.!!!.!! useable most of the time. And that this land must be open to you, for~ 

rP_T_?"nlcl!!ng;camp1~~-;-ahCJ?.!!'Tr.,..ncm!'destructlve•vJslfitror. 

The Supreme Court has also repeatedly ruled that the test of whether a river 

is "navigable" is a federal test, even though it determines state ownership. And that 

this test applies equally in all SO states-including your state. And that all navigable 

rivers-as well as those strips of land along them-are "held In trust for the public" by 

the states. Further, the courts have ruled that a state cannot sell or give away these 

lands and waters to private owners-as trustee, the state is obligated to protect these 

rivers, and the strips of public land along them, for public navigation and enjoyment. 

~C!Il.JWI.I!Ab.ly.Julllw.JJ:Lruruhat.wily~U~J:iiiiie 

(; Most people in Georgia believe that only a few large rivers in the state are 

"navigable", and all the rest belong to the adjacent private landowners. Just ask 

theS!!iiiifiiWW.W«Qii;$~ for running one of them! 

.,The Kansas State Legislature has declared that only three rivers in Kansas are 

"navigable". And even those three are not being "held in trust for the public"-the 

Kansas River near lawrence (one of the three) is now thr~'!!~..D -:.~_Qy' J?tQP~ 

dredging for sand for construction use, which would :<reCimate Jts bald._eagl~ 

·pop·uratro·n and destroy its values for the public. 

r; In Colorado, most people (including most government people) think that most of 

· the state's rivers are private property because of the "Emmert decision· of the 

Colorado State Supreme Court. They are unaware,.;p_g__t..J~Llh itt m~Poth sides I agreed that the river was "not navigable". And thatJt wasn'.t _ur:t.t!:Lthttn to decide 

what is "navigable" anyway! 

(.just recently in Oregon, a bill was introduced in the legislature that, if passed, 

· . would attempt to change the definition of "navigable" to cover only a few large 

rivers, and make all the rest private property-similar to Georgia, Kansas, etc. 

. · • In New Mexico, the Rio Grande-one of the nation's major rivers, eminently 

~ navigable-is closed to the public where it flows through various tribal reserva· 

tions. Yes, the land in these reservations belongs to the tribes-but not the high· 

ways, and not the navigable rivers, including those strips of land along them! 

And in most other states, many navigable rivers, and countless strips of land 

below the "ordinary high water mark" along navigable rivers, are blOcked bY-baihed wire fences and No Trespassing signs. 

But according to the courts, this type of state legislation , and these other 

situations, are not legal-whether a river is navigable " for purposes of ownership is 

a question of federal law. not state law. All the rivers in Georgia, Kansas, Colorado, 

Oregon, and New Mexico that can be run by canoes, kayaks and rafts are navigable, 

all of them are held in trust for the public by the state, and on all of them, the state 

cannot legaJ/y sell or give away public rights to private owners. This applies equally 

to all SO states-including your state! 

How can this be? If that's the law, why are so many rivers in so many states 

closed or partially closed to the public, and why are so many rivers turned over 
187 

Tennessee, and runs the many small, but navigable , steep creeks in Appalachia, as well 

as rivers in Europe and South America. Rafters Steve Holschuh and Cathy Sanders, 

from Virginia, who died in a hotel fire in 1980, were generous supporters of NORS. Life 

member Bill Bevins is a kayaker and emergency room physician in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. Anne Sander lives on a river east of Seattle, Washington, where she works 

to conserve rivers for her grandson (age 2,) and canoes class II and Ill rivers. Charles 

Martin, who wrote the guidebook Sierra Whitewater in 1974, has a computer 

consulting company in Concord, Massachusetts. 

What do we all have in common? A desire to know more about rivers and river 

law. A desire to enjoy the beauty and excitement of natural rivers. And to leave things 

better than we found them.t!!tmake sure that alllliVTQalilei1vi7Sar_e ·li~_TCilit-tTuj!.J2~ 

(!h~oreiieGJ 

And to achieve this, who is the most important person of all? 

n D J ~ 

~ ~ 

;; 

• 0 

"' • !;l j ~ 

D ~ ~ 

D _[ i ~ 

EJ ~ 

• • z I<' ~ ~ i l 

• 

:E 

:::r 

'< 

'< • • 

0 :E :E c :::r :::r 

"' Ill 0 :::r .... 0 :!: :!: c ~ ~ 

c. c. Ill 

..., '-· 0 0 r. 

::I 

c 

"' 

.... 

~ 

c -· 

::::: 

~ 

- ..., 

::-

" 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

188 

Honorable James V. Hansen 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests and Lands 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Washington 

Office 

14th & Independence SW 

P.O. Box 96090 

washington, DC 20090-6090 

File Code: 1510 

Date: 

We have reviewed and made corrections to the transcript for the April 30 

hearing regarding river management policies on the Green River in Utah and the 

Snake River in Oregon. 

At the request of Congressman Chenoweth (page 47, lines 140-142 of the 

transcript), enclosed is the Wallowa-Whitman's and Hells Canyon's histor.·ical 

recreation budget allocation. We have also included a section on the Forest 

Service's funding methodology for budget allocations from the fiscal year 1997 

President's Budget. 

At the request of Congressman Cooley (page 54, line 1309 of the transcript), 

enclosed is the survey data summary the Forest Service used in determining use 

on the Snake River. 

Other requests made at the hearing for a legal opinion on com:nercial use 

restrictions on the Snake Rivez· and if the Hells Canyon Natural Recreation 

Area eliminated the Snake River from the Act will soon be submitted under i::l. 

separate transmittal letter. 

Please contact Thelma Strong of the Legislative Affairs staff at 205-0580, if 

additional information is needed. 

Sincerely, 

//?£---; 

~ACK WARD THOM1\S 

/'Chief 

Enclosures 

Caring for the Land and Serving People 

PrintedonRec:ycledPaper A F5-6200-28b (12193) '-4' 
189 

June 2, 1996 

G.Brnst , Davis 

Budget History Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

1991-1996 

Region 6, Wallowa·Whitman National Forest 

(Prepared in response to Congressman Chenoweth's request at 4/30 hearing) 

Forest budget for recreation, trails, wilderness and heritage operation 

and aaintenance : 

1921 1992 1293 1294 1995 1996* 

$3,148,500 $2,851,800 $3,234,000 $3,038,700 $2,662,200 $1,970,500 

Helle Canyon NRA budget for recreation, trails, wilderness, heritage operation 

and maintenance: 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996* 

$1,063,500 $ 999,700 $1,145,700 $1,141,700 $ 827,200 $ 633,800 

Porest budget for recreation, trails and rec roads construction : 

1221 1992 1993 1294 1995 1996** 

$1,714,600 $7,278,700 $5,057,700 $2,255,600 $3,013,400 $ 344,700 

Hells Canyon HRA budget for recreation, trails and rec roads construction: 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1926** 

$ 604 , 900 $5,442,800 $3,647,500 $1,270,500 $2,096,000 $ 68 , 200 

Projected as of May 31, 1996 

Figures may change as current construction projects are completed . 
190 

FOREST SERVICE FUNDING ALLOCATION METHODOLCIGY 

The Forest Service budget process consists of a series of steps designed 

to effectively and effiCiently develop, communicate and implement the 

Agency's corporate policies and priorities. An on-going crrtique of each 

step is an integral pan of the overall process and has resulted in some 

significant changes in recent years. 

One area now receiving considerable attention is the development and 

refinement of the criteria or factors used in the allocation of funds. This will 

result in some important changes related to the allocation of funds among 

National Forest System Regions in FY 1997. A comprehensive effort led by 

the Washington Office with extensive field involvement is reviewing and 

instituting new allocation criteria to better reflect the overall objectives of 

resource program priorities and objectives. This effort is being initiated as 

pan of the budget formulation process, and the results will be carried 

through final distribution of the Forest Service appropriation. 

While the above effort is critical to improving the budget dev1~lopment and 

allocation process, this process can never be entirety formula driven. Professional judgement will always be required in adjusting the distribution of 

funds to address changing conditions -from the national level to individual 

programs. 

The Agency views the development and refinement of allocation criteria as 

an on-going, iterative process involving both field units and the Washington 

Office. 

Example: Criteria for Allocating Recreation Management Funds 

As an example of the above effort, the following fiVe criteria or workload 

factors have been identified/selected for use in the allocation of funds for 

the Recreation Management program: 

Factor/Criteria Unit of Measure 

Recreation Use Recreation Visitor Days (AVOs) 

Developed Site Capacity Persons-At-One-Time (PAOTs) 

Non-wilderness NFS Lands Acres 

Existing Trails (non-Wilderness) Miles 

Special Use Permits Number Administered 

These criteria were selected because they reflect major recreation workload 

differences among Regions that are currently reported nationally. To the 

extent possible, available funds will be distributed based on each Region's 

share of the estimated total program dollars needed for managing the 

recreation program components represented by these criteria. Estimated 
191 

total program dollars are calculated using an estimate of the average unit 

cost for each criterion. Future adjustments will be considered as the quality 

of program-related information improves. Areas of adjustment may include 

stratification of some of the criteria (e.g., RVDs and special use permits), the 

use of average unit costs, the need for criteria to reflect the dispersed 

recreation and concessionaire components of the program, and the need 

to reflect the impact of population on Forests located in close proximity to 

urban areas. 
192 

,..,-~-~on --1 D__, -,. .. La 1..1 .l.CU .1 a... .:::...::> 

r 

/ and Conservation Association ~ . 

Statement of Phil Pearl 

Pacific Northwest Regional Director 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

Submitted to the 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

United States House of Representatives 

Introduction 

on 

H.R. 2568, Concerning Motorized Rivercraft 

in the 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

April30, 1996 

.. --- ~ ~ i 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Phil Pearl and I am the 

Pacific Northwest Regional Director for the National Parks and Conservation Association 

(NPCA). On behalf ofNPCA's more than 450,000 members, I appreciate the opportunity 

to present the Association's views on H.R. 2568. If enacted, H.R. 2568 would encourage 

intolerable levels of motorized rivercraft use within the Hell's Canyon National 

Recreation Area (HCNRA) and set a dangerous precedent for other rivers protected by 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We recommend that this legislation not be enacted. 

Background 

The HCNRA was designated by Act of Congress in 1975. The Act requires the 

protection of wilderness values and requires the United States Forest Service (USFS) to 

"control... the use and number of both motorized and non-motorized rivercraft". The 

~~ r'!!'1 ~ t 

1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W., Washington, D.C. 20036-1904 

Telephone (202) 223-NPCA(6722) • Fax (202) 659 06~0 

U·· '" '' II ~ ' l' •lr" ., , ,, • 
193 

USFS has controlled numbers of non-motorized rivercraft for almostm·o decades. but has 

exercised little. if any, control over the number and use of motorized rivercraft. 

If motorized, and more specifically, jet rivercraft use were not an issue, this bill would 

not be before this committee and none of us would be here today. The fact of the matter 

is that, in recent years, motorized rivercraft use within the NRA has risen dramatically. 

And we are no longer talking about modestly powered craft carrying a family outing. 

What we are seeing are bigger boats carrying commercial passengers, using larger, more 

powerful and louder engines. Indeed, it is not uncommon to have up to I 00 jet boats on 

the river in a given day, some of which are 40 feet in length being pushed by 900 

horsepower engines. 

Issues and Comments on H.R. 2568 

H.R. 2568 states that non-motorized and motorized rivercraft "shall not be considered to 

be in conflict." This is a fallacy--there is inherent conflict. Worse, the bill attempts to 

supersede a public process conducted by the USFS in compliance and accordance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specifically, the bill ignores the 

recommendations and conclusions of the HCNRA Management Plan--an effort that cost 

the taxpayer's over $1 million and took over eight years to complete--and grandfathers 

current unrestricted motorized rivercraft use levels as a statutory minimum 

H.R. 2568 is not only a terrible action in the HCNRA, it also is a terrible precedent for 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It undermines the ability offederal agencies to study 

and plan, through an open public process, the appropriate use of our Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. It compromises the ecology of the river and surrounding environs, the safety of 

everyone using the river, and the natural quiet of the NRA. 

2 
194 

Conclusion 

The existing HCNRA Management Plan properly recognizes that unrestricted motorized 

and non-motorized use of the river does inherently conflict. Yet despite this recognition. 

the existing plan is already overly aggressive with respect to use and number of 

motorized rivercraft within the NRA. There is also a question as to whether such use 

levels are consistent with the spirit and intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

H.R. 2568 clearly reflects the special interests of motorized rivercraft use:rs and attempts 

to falsely assert that there is no conflict between motorized and non-motorized use of the 

river. Worse, it encourages the continued increase in motorized use of the NRA and, in 

doing so, severely compromises the spirit and intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

NPCA respectfully requests that this Committee not yield to the special interests of 

motorized rivercraft and jet boat users, and protect the wilderness values and resources of 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present NPCA's views to the Committee. 

3 
- c~NYo-ir 

Outfitters 

-INC.-

~ 

195 

George and Lynette Hauptman 

P.O. Bo.x 893 

Halfway, OR 97834 

(541) 742-RAFT or 

(541 ) 742-4110 .. _________ • Fax: (541) 742-7208 

Testimony Opposing H.R.2568 and S.1374 

In introduction, my name is George Hauptman. I am 49, and a fourth generation Oregonian . Over 

the years I have spent most of my life working outdoors in Oregon. In the late 1960s I fished 

commercially for salmon off the Oregon coast. For the past 20 years, I have outfitted and guided 

salmon and steelhead fishing and whitewater float trips. I know the pattern of use in Hells Canyon well and wish to testify on legislation that will directly affect my life for the next two decades. I urge you to reject the two bills H.R.2568 and S.l374 and instead support the Forest 

Service management plan. 

I have been a permitted float outfitter in Hells Canyon since 1980. We are the second oldest float 

company in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and it has been our only business for the 

last decade. During that time I believe no person has spent more time in Hells Canyon than I 

have. I outfit and personally escort between 20 and 28 four day trips per year through Hells 

Canyon. I usually spend between 80 and 90 nights per year in a sleeping bag in the heart of Hells 

Canyon. I know the resource intimately. 

Since formation of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, the United States Forest Service 

management of the non-motorized float use in Hells Canyon has been excellent. The management of float use has been fair and evenhanded, intelligently structured and for the most part, 

their staff professional and a credit to the agency. 

On the power boat segment of use in the canyon, there has been no management whatsoever. The 

person who was the river supervisor for II years refused to regulate power boat use in any way. 

He subsequently took an early retirement and is presently an employee of one of the larger 

powerboat outfitters in Hells Canyon. (the same outfitter to whom he issued the only special use 

recreational permit, Sheep Creek ranch, in the wild section of the canyon.) The new Forest 

supervisor has staffed the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area river program with persons 

who are competent and attempting to operate the program in a fair and equitable manner with 

limited funding. 
196 

Tt:>:.umnny of Geor~.:- HJ.urm1 . .m 

Page2uf3 

During the last 8 vears. I have been 1·ery involved in the river corridor planning process. I 11 as 

one of two outfitters representing the Hells Canyon commercial float permittee>- on the Limits of 

Acceptable Change (LAC) task force. 

The present plan that has been formulated for Hells Canyon is a combination of the work of the 

LAC task force and input from all of the user groups in Hells Canyon. The plan closely follows 

the original LAC proposal and allows for a 24 day motorless window on a small section of the 

entire river corridor. This window was provided to allow an opportunity to experience Hells 

Canyon in a quiet setting over a small part of the season. None of the user groups involved were 

particularly pleased with the plan. Segments of the float community wanted no power boat use 

and similarly, some powerboaters wanted no regulation at all. 

The Forest Service plan attempted to accommodate all of the user groups and, from my perspective, is an excellent plan. The plan allows all of the user groups to access and enjoy a limited 

resource, one that we often tend to forget is also a natural treasure, deserving of a large measure 

of respect. 

Frederick Courtney Selous wrote in Sport and Travel in 1900, this passage: "Hctels perched high 

up among the Swiss Alps, railways through the rocky mountains or steamboats on the Zambezi 

are all very good and useful things no doubt, but they destroy the poetry of their surroundings." 

The Forest Service's new management plan allows visitors to the canyon a chance to sense the 

poetry of their surroundings, while allowing the powerboat experience fair acce:;s into the canyon. I personally applaud the Forest Service, for the care and effort they have pet into the new 

plan. 

Federal Bills H.R.2568\S.l374 attempt to legislate that no conflict exists in Hells Canyon between the float and powerboat groups. I have spent more nights in Hells Canyon over the last 10 

years than any other person. In the deep narrow canyon a jet boat passing by your camp in the 

quiet early morning is the same as having a motor cycle roar through the middle of your bedroom 

at 5.00 am, it is quite disconcerting. A good analogy is a trail with one group hiking on foot and 

another group on dirt bikes. The dirt bikers would claim that no conflict exists as long as the 

hikers get the hell out of the way. To legislate that these conflicts do not exist is ludicrous. I have 

thousands of clients that would inform you that a conflict does in fact exist, even though I attempt to minimize any conflict by educating our clients and avoiding weekends where the 

powerboat numbers are overwhelming. 

The argument that the Forest service management plan is destroying existing powerboat businesses is untrue. Everyone who operates on limited permitted rivers who wishes to expand their 

business beyond their permit capacity must purchase additional business opportunities on that 

river. The Hells Canyon commercial powerboaters want the opportunity to expand to always be 

available to them at any time. There are I 6 powerboat outfitters in Hells Canyon. The last published data in I 993 show the eight smallest outfitters together took a total of I 87 people into 

Hells Canyon during the regulated seilSon. That is an average of 23.35 guests per outfitter. At a 
197 

Testimony of George Hauptm:ln 

Page 3 of 3 

generous estimate of 5100 per person. the average small powerboat outfitter ave raged 52.335 for 

the summer season. That is with a powerboat and vehicle package co,ting 570.000 to 5150,000 

each. These are not businesses, they are very expensive hobbies. These outfitters are either 

working on other rivers most of the time or using their business as a tax write off. In either case, 

limiting their use in Hells Canyon is certainly not a case of the U.S. Forest Service putting an 

outfitter out of business. 

The proposed bills are designed to allow the jetboat community to continue their unlimited use in 

Hells Canyon. The bills do not address the intelligent management of Hells Canyon. They are a 

poor example of attempting to micro-manage a national resource for the benefit of a small, local, 

well-funded user group. 

I urge you to reject H.R.2568 and S.J374 and support the management plan. These bills effectively thwart a fair and intelligently prepared United States Forest Service management plan. 

Passage of these bills will be a step toward the degrading of the poetry that is Hells Canyon. The 

canyon deserves much better. 

Respectfully submitted, 

George Hauptman 

Canyon Outfitters, Inc. 

Halfway, Oregon 
198 

Page 4 Hells Canyon Journal August 24, 1994 

P Letters 

Sick of Greed and 

Antagonism 

Dear Editor, 

This letter is being written. 

because I can. 't sleep tonight. 

As a float outfitter and 

member of the Limits of 

Acceptable Change task force, 

ouer the past fiue yeilrs I'ue 

spent way too many sleepless 

nights mullingouerthe social 

problerru and possible plan.s 

forth< Hells Canyon. 

I am sick of it all! 

Editorials, Letters to the 

Editor,letters from preseruatit>nists, from powerboa.ters, 

from outfitters, from paid 

lobbyists, etc., etc. All are 

twistingthefactstomeettheir 

own agenda. and to stalu out 

their pi<ce of the pie. Th< 

actual fad is th< only group 

tlwt ha.sn 't di>wrt<d th< facts 

is the United States Forest 

Service. TM fin.a.l Environmental Impact Statement 

document is uery well dane. 

Read it. It appears t<J luwe 

been · prepared from the 

unbiased point of 11iew that 

Hells Canyon i. not a pri.11att 

backyard ora Disneyland, but 

a uniquely special pLace th.o.t 

dueroes a mea.sure of awe 

and respect from us 

/w.m=kind. . 

I'm tick of th< greed and 

a.ntagon.ismth.i.sn.t:wpla.n.~ 

exposed. Hells Canyon 

deserves a Lot better. It ~U 

su,.. at Hell be h<re wh<n aJ.I 

of u.s are long gone -

hopefully without our faot· 

printr 1<1a deeply embedded 

in the canyon walls. 

Respectfully, 

George Hauptm<m 

Halfway, OR 

2% Tax Endorsed 

Deer Editor, 

How would you like to li ue 

in a state where there is: 

1. No property taxes. 

2. No state taus. 

3. No 24 cent per gallon 

gasoline ta.:::. 

4. No corporate taxes, 

unemployment taus, timber 

seueran.ce ta...r.es. replacement 

tire taxes, cigarette, beer or 

wine taxes. 

4. No car, boat, RV, or OJlY 

other uehicle license fees. 

5. \Vhere schools have the 

money they need to giue our 

children a good education. 

6. Where there is n.o college or 

secondary school tuition, (or 

as near none as possible -

projected for 1996). . 

7. Wh<re charitable gifts and 

pen..sions are not ta.ud. 

8. Where the only state tar is 

th< 2% Equal Ia% and you 

"'pay as you go" according to 

what you spend. Spend 

$40,000 in one year, pay $800. 

Spend $20,000, pay $400. 

Spend 12,000, pay $240. 

9. When you have a fair ta2: 

that works b«au.8e eueryoru 

pays a littk. but no OM i.s 

ouerourdeMd.A Ia% that puts 

you in control qfyour mon.ey, 

not the state; and tourist&, 

drug dealer>, foreigners and 

Ia% ch<ats will h<lp pay. · 

You WIU, ifeMughpeopl£ 

uote YES on tlw! 2% Equal 

Tcu: initiative (*20) that will 

be on the ballot this 

Nouember, 1994. This maybe 

our last chc.nce for a long 

tinu to put this bot.dn.ew plan. 

into effect-U.t'• da il. 

Sincereiy, 

Jandte Kirkland 

GU.nd.al£, OR 

Hells Canyon Journal 

Guest OP.inion 

Looking To Ease the Squeeze of 

by Susan Weber N,)silver bullet ..,:.~lJ magica' 

er.d all our troubles. inst.ef 

It is not surprising tha.t the experience of success: 

Americans, who fl.nd them- projects argues for a caltife 

selves in a daily struggle et~ approach that impro..,· 

against the social and en vi- women's status, maternal a: 

ron.mental decline of their cit- child health, education a: 

ies, towns and neighborhoods, environmemal protectio 

are fed up with policymaking This, plus broad access to f~U. 

gridlock. Often any response ilyplanningandeconomico 

seems preferable to this pur- portu.nity, is what works. 

gatory of inaction. It is a Jesson we would , 

Help-real help, that truly WE'll to apply in the U.S. 

gets at the basisoftheseprob- We are already paying t: lems -could be on its way. This toll for the ardent resistan 

September in Cairo, Egypt, andhostilityofpastAdm.in. 

world leaders meeting at the trt1tions to fam.i!y planni. 

U.N.'6 International Confer- and the mMy other ccmr 

ence on Population and De- nentsneededinasoundpoJ: 

velopment will be asked to lation strategy. Birth and f, 

approve a 20-year blueprint tility rates are back to Ba 

for action. The plan will ad· Boom levels. And a shock.i 

dress the enormous global 60 percent of all U.S. pn: 

population pressures that na:.'lcies are unintended. 

threaten to ove[""Whelm the Worse still, every 67 Sf 

capacity of goven:1menta, oncis another American tee 

economies and environment. agur gives birth. In fact, U. 

Participants are looking at tet:,n pregnancy rate a a 

a sweep ofi.nterrelated issues: Number One a.monghighlyi 

an unprecedented P."Owth in dwJtrialized countries a: 

human numbers, widespread eve-n rival some developi. 

poverty, social md eo:momiC nations. Those young mo: 

inequality,IIIld wasteful pat- ersfaeefewereducationaJa. 

ternsofconsumption-which job opportunities and a o 

together are ac:celerating the tinuing cycle of poverty . 

depletion of baaic reeourcee, themselves and their dUJdr, 

intensifying environmental BeYond the overwhelmi 

degradation and undermining pe;sonal costa, t.ax:payers 1 

human development. 5pend.ing an esti:nated f 

What isn't clear ia whether billion every year to supp 

and how quickly thia new fanlilles begun by teenage 

framework.forpopulationa.nd l~ven with a pro-cho 

· development po_licy can be president at the helm, tht 

tranaformed into action here· res.litiea Bre not eas 

in the United StateL changed. And the U.S. pol 

Since 1~. the U.S. popu· ·cal climate still carries ac' 

lation baa doubled, aDd tho fori&ll1ilyplanningandpo· 

late& Censua Bureau projec- lation programs. This is e tionsindk:ateanotherpou~.Ole dent in the availability of c. 

doubling within the next 60 trB.I:eptives. Since the 197 

years. We have no further to the number of major pharr 

look than our own badcyarde ceutical companies resear 

to aee the periloua impacts of 

thia ever-a:panding popula· THE BEAVER STATE . .' tUm. Flltlllhmd, fisheriea aDd 

other important natunl ar· . ·~• ~tlov'f 'l'o~e ·"!>PiL!-

oas.,..,givingweytoeno::roach· I" ll:i~ .. ~~ iDg auburb ... aprawl Land· 5.lls are rea.chinctheir limit&, No .hzf! Let;f! c;\1.-1? 

even aa pri>age oontinueel<> w~~T 'I'~- < mount. Water supplies are L~e-R. -OJI .. ·! 

dangerously scarce through- -;:;; ~ ':,: 

)~lt the a...;d Southw'!st 8.nd ._ . _ z :":- .~ ' 
U.S. FOREST SERVICE ECOSYSTEM 

ASSESSMENT 

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH; CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. We will come to order. 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands convenes today for an oversight hearing on several ecoregion-based assessments currently being conducted by the Forest Service. This is 

the Subcommittee's fifth oversight hearing on National Forest 

Management issues. While other Federal and State agencies are 

participating in the three assessments we will discuss today, our 

current focus is on how these processes fit within the Forest Service's decisionmaking process. 

The three large scale assessments that have been under way 

since 1993 and 1994 cover California's Sierra Nevada Range, the 

interior Columbia River Basin, and the Southern Appalachian 

Mountains. Collectively, they encompass almost 207 million acres 

of public and private land, more than the entire National Forest 

System. The Interior Columbia Basin Project, the largest of the 

three, encompasses 24 percent of all the acreage in the National 

Forest System. 

I wonder, given the broad nature, and questionable usefulness, 

of the nine regional guides that are in place, how the Forest Service can now expect to issue one or even several decisions adopting 

direction and amending the forest plans for the entire Columbia 

River Basin. According to the Forest Service's testimony, this area 

covers 7 4 different Forest Service and BLM land management 

plans. It is difficult to envision how a decision this broad can be 

useful to local managers and provide the flexibility each forest supervisor needs to effectively manage a National Forest. 

By contrast, I understand the Forest Service does not intend to 

issue one broad decision covering all the National Forests within 

the Southern Appalachian assessment. This approach seems to 

make more sense to me. 

(199) 
200 

Today, I have asked the Forest Service to explain to us the scope 

and cost of each of these projects. It is unclear from the written testimony how much National Forest land is included within the 37 

million acres of the Southern Appalachian Assessment or the 25.6 

million acres of the Sierra Nevada Assessment. Nor is it apparent 

to what degree the assessment covers State or private lands, and 

how the information may be used. These are important questions 

that I hope will be addressed today. 

Collectively, the Federal Government will have invested more 

than $41 million in the three assessments by the time they are 

completed later this year, according to the Forest Service. I am 

sure there are additional costs incurred by the Federal agencies 

and others that have not been included in this total. In evaluating 

the cost effectiveness of this process, we will need to consider what 

additional funding will be needed for smaller scale watershed analyses, forest plan amendments or project decisions before the new 

information can actually be put to use. 

I think we will all agree that it is worthwhile and important that 

the Forest Service provides the best information possible to its local 

managers for planning and decisionmaking purpose~s. Today, we 

will explore whether the broad, ecoregion-based assessments provide the most effective way to collect the scientific information 

needed for Federal land management decisionmaking. I thank all our witnesses and Members for your participation in 

the hearing today. Now we will begin with the Honorable Representative Wally Herger from the great State of California, who 

is probably known as one of the most dynamic Members from California. We will now turn the time over to you for which time you 

may consume wisely and effectively, we hope. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALLY HERGER, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to 

testify today on the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, or SNEP. 

Management of the Sierra Nevada and the forests of California 

is an issue of highest priority to the communities I represent. Mr. 

Chairman, the Sierra Nevada and the forests of California have a 

centuries-old history of frequent and often catastrophic fires. Because these forests are much drier than the forests in the Pacific 

Northwest, they burn much more frequently, approximately every 

25 years. 

In 1994, while fires consume 545,000 acres of Forest lands in our 

State of California, most, like the cottonwood fire near the city of 

Loyalton, California, threaten to destroy entire communities. 

Fire risk in the Sierra has increased dramatically in recent years 

due to a century of aggressive fire prevention coupled with sharp 

declines in timber harvest. These factors combined have made forests unnaturally dense, 80 percent denser than they were just 70 

years ago, according to Forest Service data. To illustrate this point let me provide the committee and you 

with two photos of Yosemite. First is a picture of the valley in--

Mr. HANSEN. Set it up so the audience can see these, too, if you 

would excuse me. 
201 

Mr. HERGER. The first is a picture of the valley in 1866. As you 

look at this photo, notice how open the forest canopy is. You will 

also notice a slight haze in the photo. This is not due to the camera 

used to take this photo; rather, it was due to a forest fire, one of 

many that frequently burned throughout the region each year during the last century. 

Many of these fires were purposefully set by Native Americans 

who use fire to keep forest canopies open for game and useful 

plans? 

The second photo of Yosemite was taken in 1961. In this photo 

you will see how much denser the forest has become. This is typical 

of many regions throughout the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Forests 

that once had open canopies are now choked with dense dens of 

trees. Seven out of 10 years of drought in the region have caused many 

of these overdense dens to experience epidemic tree mortality due 

to lack of water, disease, and insects. 

This next photograph that I will give to the committee is an example of the impact of overdensity and drought on a timber stand. 

This timber stand is located in the Alaskan National Forest. 

As you can see from this photo, well over half of the trees have 

died in some areas of the Sierra Nevada. Tree mortality exceeds 60 

and 70 percent because the epidemic buildup of dead and dying 

trees causes fires in timber stands which consume everything, even 

the soil. Such fires bring forest health to its lowest ebb. Mr. Chairman, even to the lay observer, it is apparent that active management is necessary in order to improve what former 

Congressman Leon Panetta, who authored the legislation that authorized the SNEP report, called, quote, "extreme health problems 

associated with the Sierra Nevada forest," closed quote. 

The purpose of this SNEP study is to provide information on how 

to proceed with this management based on the best available 

science. Some individuals and groups advocate that to protect Sierra Nevada forest we need large, old grove reserves like those established under President Clinton's plan. 

However, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the 

SNEP steering committee in its 1994 progress report to the Congress recognized that such a hands-off approach would not likely 

succeed in the Sierra Nevada forest and that, quote, "efforts to reduce catastrophic fire risk, succession of forest stands and to maintain key ecosystem processes and bio-diversity are much more likely to require active management," end of quote. Common sense agrees with this assessment. The California spotted owl team has concluded that reduction of fire risk in the Sierra 

Nevada is crucial to protect the California spotted owl and other 

species. Accordingly, the CASPO team has recommended proactive 

management activities that reduce the risk of fire as an appropriate method of protecting owl and other wildlife habitat. 

Mr. Chairman, science continues to show that active forest management to reduce fire risk is vital to the health of our Sierra Nevada forest. The Congress should expect that the final SNEP report 

would provide a full range of hands-on active management strategies to address the fire threat in California and thereby protect and 

preserve our forests and forest communities for future generations. 
202 

Thank you. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Herger. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from Idaho, do you have any questions for your colleague from California? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a question. I have 

been in Mr. Herger's district on timber task force hearings and he 

has a problem down there much like the problem we have in the 

entire West, and I have learned a lot from Congressman Herger 

and I appreciate his knowledge and his outspoken direct points 

that he makes on good forest management techniques. I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I do have a opening statement for the record that I would simply like to ask permission to 

insert it into the record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. Would you like to read your 

statement or just insert it in the record? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think in the essence of time, I would just as 

soon insert it in the record. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH 

Mr. Chairman, I am gald we are taking up an ~ssue of paramount importance to 

my constituents. We as a Committee definitely need to bring this issue more into 

the public purview. We need to examine this current trend of "ecological assess- ments" that are being carried out by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and what its potential impacts and coats could be. 

I am especially concerned about one of the projects we are examining today, com- monly referred to as the "Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project" or ICBEMP. There are numerous questions and concerns that many of my constituents have about this initiative. In fact, I feel that there are enough areas of concern, 

that I hope that this will not be the only time this Committee will be visiting this 

issue, and would hope that this Committee consider holding additional hearings on just this particular project. 

Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity of sharing my views 

with the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior about ICBEMP. As we get ready 

to address this issue today, and question the witnesses who have come to testify 

about this project, to help frame the issue I would like to just take a moment and 

reiterate some of the points that I made at that hearing. My number one point, and what I believe is the project's overriding fault, is the 

lack of Congressional authority. ICBEMP was developed under a Memorandum of 

Understanding entered into by the Interior, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and several other federal agencies. This effort has not been directly funded by 

Congress, and has as a result been left out of the authorization loop. What you have 

instead is a plan that is being developed which will be used by the Forest Service 

and Interior to amend their own land use plans and thus will be a major outline 

for management of the Federal lands-all done without specific authorization from 

the Congress. 

My second overall concern about this project is that the manner in which this 

project is being carried out is driving a further wedge between the Federal Government and local and State interests. I have heard the Federal agencies claim that 

they have involved local entities, such as county organizations and resource supported groups into the process. However, all of these groups have expressed to me that while it appears they have a voice in the process, when they have seen the 

memoranda and drafted proposals, they observe that virtually nonfl of their suggestions or data are incorporated into the plan. 

Further, the BLM has announced that it will consider the EIS of the ecosystem 

project to constitute the public input needed for the amendment of the local plans, 

and will conduct no further NEPA review. Thus, even the local plans of the manage-
203 

ment agencies will be amended without the public input required by NEPA, 

FLPMA, and other federal statutes. Let me remind this committee that FLPMA specifically requires that there be 

"meaningful participation" by local groups in the development of Federal Land Management plans. That means more than holding a few "token" public meetings. 

Is has also been reported to me that in a couple of the public meetings, federal 

officials have lead local groups into believing that they should accept what the results of this project are going to be even if it hurts them economically, or if they 

face the possibility of having all access to public resources cut off. In other words, 

"this way or the hi-way." It is this type of intimidation that this committee needs to scope further. In fact, I do not see Jack Ward Thomas, or Steve Mealy on the 

witness list today-but I hope we can get them here before us sometime soon so we can ask them about these type of incidents. 

Mr. Chairman, my third concern has to do with the massive expenditures of this 

project, both in terms of direct discretionary spending and economic and social costs. The agencies have already spent over $30 million in unauthorized taxpayer dollars 

to fund this project-and like many of the "biological assessments" we are seeing 

in the northwest, only have a mountain of paper to show for their efforts. In addition, money has been ciphened away from other on the ground management practices of the BLM and Forest Service to pay for this undertaking, causing the agencies to fall short in carrying out their regular missions. 

As for the economic and social costs- if this project were allowed to come to a record of decision, and the various range and forest plans were to be amended, we would certainly see a dramatic reduction in traditional resource activities in logging, grazing, and mining. This will have a devastating impact on the economies and live- lihoods who depend on these traditional activities. In addition, because private property is spread out throughout our public lands in the west much like a checkerboard, this project will have an effect on the usage of private property, and could 

drive down further the value of private land. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we must take a hard look at the feasibility of applying 

a "one size" fit for an area roughly the size of Texas that contains numerous forests 

and terrains. Again, we are getting away from the absolute necessity of tailoring 

land management plans according to the specific biological and economical needs of a particular area. It makes one wonder whether this project really has anything to 

do with sound science, but more to do with a single-minded vision held by an elite 

few of how we manage our resources. 

As you see, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of issues that we need to examine 

just on ICBEMP alone. I am looking forward to the chance of addressing many of 

them at this hearing. I strongly believe that Congress needs to assert itself once again in this and other issues. How we manage our resources is so vital for the eco- nomic and social need especially for those in the west, that it needs to be left up 

to those who are accountable for their decisions-and that is the people chosen representatives of Congress, not unselected bureaucrats. 

Mr. HANSEN. I agree with the gentlelady. I know of no one who 

takes a more active part in the Forest Service management than 

Mr. Herger and yourself and I compliment both of you. Mr. Herger, would you like to join us on the dais? You have other 

things to do, but if you would like to join us, you would be welcome. 

Mr. HERGER. I would appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. David Unger, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Would you like to introduce the people that are with you? Mr. 

Unger, we appreciate for the record knowing who they are and 

what they do. 
204 

STATEMENT OF DAVID UNGER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY BILL SEXTON, LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING 

STAFF; FOREST CARPENTER, CO-CHAIRMAN, PROJECT MANAGER, SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN ASSESSMENT; CHARLES 

VAN SICKLE, CO-CHAIRMAN, PROJECT MANAGER, SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN ASSESSMENT; JEFF BLACKWOOD, 

PROJECT MANAGER, INTERIOR COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN 

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT; PHIL AUNE, RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGER, PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION 

Mr. UNGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like our other 

witnesses to join me at the table, if that would be all right. 

We are happy to be here today to discuss these ecosystem assessments. I am accompanied by Phil Aune, who is Research Program 

Manager for our Pacific Southwest Research Station in California; 

Jeff Blackwood, who is Project Manager of the Interior Columbia 

River Basin Ecosystems Project; Forest Carpenter on my left here 

who is the Project Manager; and Charlie Van Sickle, science leader 

of the Southern Appalachian Assessment. And also joining us and 

sitting right behind me is Bill Sexton of our Land Management 

Planning Staff. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate you doing that. The testimony and testimony of everyone today will all be included in the 

record. We are quite concerned with what is going to be said here. 

We are not going to put a time on Mr. Unger. 

Mr. UNGER. Thank you. I would just like to summarize some of 

the key points in our testimony and respond specifically to the 

questions that you ask and the request for our testimony. 

Let me just say that all three of these ecosystem assessments 

presented today are unique in a number of characteristics, the size 

of the area, the issues addressed, and procedures used. We look at 

ecosystem analysis as one of the tools in the agency to address the 

increasing complexity and scope of the issues that are involved in 

resource conservation these days and have expanded from the sitespecific level to the landscape and regional level. It has become evident in large scale assessments of the status and function of 

ecosystems are sometimes needed to consolidate the information to 

support our resource management planning. 

I do want to point out that a large number of our ecosystem analyses occur at the smaller landscape level involving tens of thousands of acres rather than this larger ecoregional level that we are 

talking about today in terms of millions of acres. But all of these 

assessments and especially the regional assessments are processes 

to develop and summarize current science-based infonnation on the 

status of biological, physical, and human characteristics. And they 

are often triggered by issues that can be effectively analyzed within 

individual National Forest boundaries. Some of these deeds deal 

with habitat for threatened and endangered and sensitive species, 

perhaps water quality and forest and rangeland health problems, 

but both the smaller and regional assessments that we are talking 

about today provide the framework for subsequent decisionmaking 

and can be used in forest planning and project decisions, and we 

think they can save time and money in the long run. 
205 

Let me, if I may, Mr. Chairman, respond specifically to the questions that you ask in inviting us to testify today, and I will summarize this very quickly but go through each of the three assessments 

and answer those questions having to do with scope, current status, cost, public involvement types of decisions, and the anticipated 

results. The Southern Appalachian Assessment was initiated by the Forest Service. The total number of acres involved in the assessment, 

as you indicated earlier, is 37 million acres. Of that, 4.6 million 

acres are National Forest lands. The others are divided amongst 

other Federal agencies but with the bulk of the land being private 

lands in the remainder. 

The current status is that the assessment is to be released next 

month in June. Cost, $1.8 million. There has been a far-reaching 

public involvement process: A town hall meeting at the beginning 

of the assessment, bimonthly working meetings open to the public, 

monthly newsletters, technical reviews by people in and outside of 

the agency who have expertise. 

For each of our National Forests we had two open houses to discuss the assessment. We had focus groups in five communities, 

telephone surveys, and workshops sponsored by the Southern Appalachian Management Advisory Project in Knoxville. So there was 

a variety of public involvement processes used. There are no decisions that are being made by this assessment, 

as you pointed out. This is an assessment only. The anticipated results are that we will have information for forest plan revisions, for 

cumulative effects analysis, and for site-specific project planning in 

the future. Now, let me turn to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, SNEP, 

which as you well know was initiated by Congress in the 1993 appropriations act being conducted by an independent panel of scientists with the funding coming from the Forest Service covering 

in scope 25.6 million acres. Of that, about 63 percent, including 

tribal government lands, is Federal lands. The State and private 

lands comprise 37 percent of that total. 

The current status of the assessment is to be released again next 

month in June. Cost, $6.6 million. The public involvement process: 

Town meetings, 8-17 town meetings were held; 8 workshops; a 

scientific peer review process of the products; a key contact group 

which has been involved along the way; 40 plus meetings with interested groups; and 4 mailings of newsletters with a mailing list 

of 500 people. 

The types of decisions: Again, none because this is an assessment, not a decision process. 

Anticipated results: Information for Congress, to whom the study 

will be presented. Also, obviously, the information can be used by 

our agency and others in the same manner that the Southern Appalachian Assessment is expected to be used. 

The Columbia River Basin Project initiated by both the Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management covering 144 million 

acres of which 30 million acres is National Forest land. BL\f. 4G 

million acres; tribe, 58; government, 6; State, 5; others includi ng 

other smaller portions of Federal lands, 59 million acre s. 
206 

The status: The assessment is due in August of this year to be 

released. And, as you pointed out, this assessment is also to be the 

framework for a set of broad decisions to be contained in environmental impact statements or a statement that is due to be released 

in August also of 1996 of this year, with a final impact statement 

and record of decision scheduled for May of 1997, a year from now 

after appropriate public involvement and modification and terms of 

that involvement. 

The cost of both agencies together, the BLM and the Forest Service, is $33 million, including costs expected to be ineurred in fiscal 

year 1997. 

Public involvement in the process has included public briefings, 

120 workshops, scoping meetings, a newsletter to a 6,550 person 

mailing list. We have accepted continuous input from people who 

are interested in the project and drafts of the assessment have 

been shared. We have shared information specifically with 4 

States, 22 tribes, and county governments, and there has been scientific peer review of the products. The types of decisions for the assessment itself: No decisions, but 

the final impact of statements propose and will propose decisions 

that would amend the 7 4 BLM and Forest Service plans that you 

referred to in your opening statement which would set in place 

more permanent strategies for dealing with Pacific Salmon inland 

fish and general goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, and 

priorities for management of those lands. The decision may also 

amend the regional guidelines. The anticipated results of the assessment itself: Of course, information for forest plan revisions and site-specific planning and also 

undergirding this set of proposed decisions that are associated with 

this particular project. Let me just say in conclusion, you had also asked about our intentions with additional ecoregional assessments. We have three 

under way: One in the Great Lakes; another in the Ozarks and 

Ouachita Highlands; and the third, the Northern Great Plains assessments, which are expected to be less costly than these earlier 

assessments and all are designed simply to be assessments, not decision documents, in which the framework will be laid forth for improved forest planning and project decisions in the future . With that, let me just conclude my statement, and we would be 

happy to try to respond to your questions. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Unger. We appreciate your statement. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelaJy from Iowa. I will recognize my colleagues for 5 minutes each, Christina. Watch the light, folks. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say I have a number of questions. Will we have a second round? 

Mr. HANSEN. Absolutely. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I wanted to ask, Mr. Unger, you mentioned in 

your testimony that the ecosystem management plans had to be 

brought forth because there were certain issues not effectively dealt 

with in the forest plans. For instance, you mentioned the Endangered Species Act. What other issues are you talking about and 

why can't we deal with the Endangered Species Act forest by forest? 
207 

Mr. UNGER. Certainly, endangers species issues have been and 

can be dealt with forest by forest in the planning process. It has 

been true historically. It has been our view that these issues have 

become more widespread, complicated, and complex and involve 

larger areas of landscape than individual forests in some cases and 

that we can be more efficient in terms of costs and more effective 

in terms of results by dealing with them at a larger scale. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The words "complicated" and "more complex" 

simply are not definitive enough. It takes a broad brush and covers 

over a multitude of sins. That disturbs me. We are talking in the 

Columbia Basin ecosystem management plan of about 144 million 

acres, of which 7 million acres are Forest lands, the rest are private. The cost, to date, I guess has been more than $25 million and 

where did that money come from, the $25 million? 

Mr. UNGER. The funding for the project has come from our existing funds for inventory, and forest planning, from other parts of 

the Forest Service budget having to do with the kinds of problems 

that are being addressed in the assessment, whether they be tim- ber, watershed, wildlife, other kinds of issues that we are dealing 

with. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The moneys have been diverted from forest 

management, timber harvesting, assessing potential areas that 

should be harvested or could be? 

Mr. UNGER. We certainly have, by taking our funds from within 

our existing budgets, had to delay and effect some of our other 

work in the interest of trying to have a more efficient process over 

the long run that will save us money over the long run and enable 

those projects to go forward such as timber harvesting, grazing, 

and so forth. Hopefully, with less interference from litigation and 

we will have more defensible decisions. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Unger, did the Congress authorize you to 

divert funds to a program that they have not yet authorized? 

Mr. UNGER. All of the use of these funds to my knowledge has 

been conducted entirely within the guidelines that the Congress 

has set forth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But am I correct in believing that none of the 

authorizing committees have set forth a program for ecosystem 

management? 

Mr. UNGER. The Congress, we believe, has set forth in a number 

of laws the authority for us to carry forth ecosystem assessments 

and ecosystem management in NEPA, in the Organic Act, in the 

National Forest Management Act, and the other laws that govern 

our operation. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think that is overreaching. In fact, as I look 

at the ecosystem management program, judging from your testimony, sir, you haven't even followed the NEPA process. But I 

wanted to direct some questions to Mr. Blackwood. 

Mr. Blackwood, since you are in charge of this project dealing 

with my area, do you feel that you have sufficiently examined the 

impact of this project on grazing both economically and biologically? 

Mr. BLACKWOOD. The quest ion was, do we think that we have 

had enough examination of the impacts of grazing? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. 
208 

Mr. BLACKWOOD. At this broad scale we feel we have a pretty 

good picture of where we have some challenges within our rangelands. Grazing, of course, is one of the many uses that we have. 

When we talk about some of the broad scale issues that we are 

dealing with, we are certainly not talking about the allocation of 

grazing on these public lands, we are talking more about the impacts of the spread of exotic weeds, encroachment of juniper, effects 

of habitat, and grazing resources, and those are the kinds of things 

we have examined from a grazing standpoint. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Don't the control of noxious weeds primarily 

fall under State law? We have a very, very aggressive State noxious weed law. 

Mr. BLACKWOOD. That is correct. But since a lot of the noxious 

weeds occur on Federal lands, we have some responsibilities there, 

too. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. To cooperate with the State? 

Mr. BLACKWOOD. To cooperate. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That would be in addition to an ecosystem 

management plan, that cooperation has been going on? 

Mr. BLACKWOOD. That is correct. What we have found through 

the assessment process is really where these problems have the 

most potential and where the concerns are greatest and also where -our restoration efforts maybe most effective. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Blackwood. I do have other 

questions for you but I will wait for my second round. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We will protect your right for additional questions. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dale Kildee. Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I notice that you indicate in fiscal year 1997 the Forest Service 

will be completing the Great Lakes assessment. Briefly, could you 

tell what that will entail, that assessment? 

Mr. UNGER. It will be an assessment generally of the type of 

Southern Appalachian Assessment which will be a look at the 

broad issues of forest management, the interactions between different resources such as timber harvesting and fish and wildlife 

recreation, watershed values, soil quality, the whole range of issues 

that we are required to take into account as we develop and revise 

our forest plans, and it would serve as a basis for the decisions that 

are made to go forth with individual projects. Mr. KILDEE. Did you study the questions of the effect of things 

like acid rain on the forest in the Great Lakes area? Is that part 

of your assessment? 

Mr. UNGER. I am not sure whether acid rain effects are included 

in that particular assessment. I would have to get that information. 

Mr. KILDEE. If you could, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. KrLDEE. The Upper Peninsula, particularly in Michigan, has 

large areas of U.S. Forest land and also large areas of State Forest 

land. Do you coordinate any of these assessments with the State 

of Michigan? 

Mr. UNGER. Absolutely. We work with a variety of partners in all 

of these assessments, and they are contributing in many ways- State government agencies, other Federal agencies, and other organizations that are interested in providing information. 
209 

Mr. KILDEE. In the Great Lakes Basin also we border on-from 

my district, I either go east or south to get to Canada. And do you 

coordinate with any of those things at all with the Dominion of 

Canada or the Province of Ontario? 

Mr. UNGER. That is a good question again, and I don't have an 

immediate answer for you. I would think if there are issues that 

encompass moving across those boundaries, we definitely would do 

that. I will, again, provide that to you for the record. 

Mr. KILDEE. Why I ask, among other reasons, is that we in 

Michigan, being kind of a microcosm of the country, a large industrial State and a large agriculture State and forest State, we probably get criticized for our effect upon the air quality with our large 

industrial base there. But several years ago we discovered that Siberia, Ontario, was the great offender in putting things in the air 

that later were affecting the forest, and I was wondering how closely you work with-how many acres will be covered in your Great 

Lakes assessment? 

Mr. UNGER. Let me ask if one of my staff has the sheet on that 

particular assessment handy and--

Mr. KILDEE. If you don't have that--

Mr. UNGER. We have it here, if you can wait just a moment. 

Mr. KILDEE. Sure. 

Mr. UNGER. Can I say in the meantime, if I may be pardoned of 

personal references, I have testified before you in this committee 

before. I have always wanted to mention that I am from Michigan 

too. 

Mr. KlLDEE. That is great. 

Several years ago I was chief sponsor of the Michigan wilderness 

bill that was signed into law by President Reagan, and it has 

worked very well. The wilderness is beautiful. I have been up there 

visiting it. The Forest Service has done a fine job. The Michigan 

Forest Service people are respected up there very well also, and 

there is harvesting taking place. The timber industry worked with 

me closely on that. 

It shows how you can accomplish several purposes within our 

U.S. forests and preserve the environment. The beauty of the 

92,000 acres is really pristine, enormous, awesome, yet we are also 

harvesting. The forest industry of Michigan is coming back. It was almost destroyed in about 1921-brought the last load of virgin timber from 

the Lower Peninsula into Traverse City in 1921. There was still 

some virgin timber left in the Upper Peninsula. We are making a 

great comeback in the forest industry. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. UNGER. In answer to your question about the size of the 

area, it is 98,000 square miles in northern Michigan, Wisconsin, 

and Minnesota. 

I don't see any answers in this particular piece of information to 

the other questions that you asked earlier, and we will have to provide that. 

Mr. KILDEE. Sure. If you can you supply that, I would appreciate 

it. 
210 

Mr. KILDEE. I have had many occasions to talk to your people in 

Michigan, particularly in the Upper Peninsula. They certainly are 

professional, sensitive, and are really doing an excellent job there. 

Mr. UNGER. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Kildee, how large is the wilderness area you 

have in Michigan? 

Mr. KILDEE. The Federal wilderness is 92,000 at:res. We didn't 

have much virgin timber left. We have about 92,000 acres. It was 

a good bipartisan bill. I can recall President Reagan signing the bill 

into law. 

In those days, it was great-most all the great environmental 

legislation on the Federal level has been bipartisan. The Hank Rivers bill was signed into law by President Bush. I think it is great 

when we can approach these things as you tried to, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. I need more of your folks on my bill. See what you 

can do on that, will you? 

Thank you, Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee. I do very much appreciate the opportunity to be able to sit 

with you on the committee. With some eight National Forests in 

my congressional district in California, this is very much an important issue to us. And, Mr. Unger, I appreciate you and your colleagues joining us 

this morning. 

The original legislation which outlined the purpose of this SNEP 

study intended that the SNEP report be prepared for Congress, 

and in a January 19, 1993, letter to the chief of the Forest Service 

from the then chairman of this committee, George Miller, subcommittee chairman Bruce Vento, and six of their colleagues, Congress .stated in the letter to the Forest Service that, quote, "This 

study should provide the Congress with the comprehensive data 

needed to make important policy decisions concerning future management of the Sierra Nevada Forest," closed quote. 

Mr. Unger, could you tell me, whether the Forest Service shares 

this view that this SNEP is a congressional study, or does it view 

SNEP as an administration study? 

Mr. UNGER. We view this as a congressional study. 

Mr. HERGER. Has it been the policy of the Forest Service to follow the directions for preparing a study as followed in H.R. 3016, the legislation outlining how the study was to proceed? 

Mr. UNGER. I believe so. I am going to ask Mr. Aune to comment 

further. He has been aware of all those steps that have been taken. 

Mr. AUNE. We utilize the information from H.R. 6013 plus the 

congressional letter from Congressman Volkmer and discussions 

with House staff in designing the total concept of the project, but 

the predominant force in the project is H.R. 6013. Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Aune. 

The Forest Service then views the SNEP report as a congressional study. My question to you, Mr. Unger, is, why didn't the 

agency prepare a draft report of the study in December 1994 as required by Congress in H.R. 6013?s 

Mr. UNGER. Let me ask Phil to respond to that. 
211 

Mr. AUNE. We unfortunately had a late start on the project, and 

we went through two science--two leaders actually, three science 

team leaders, and when we finally finished the proposal in the first 

year, we wrote a letter back to Congress stating that we anticipated the delivery date would be December 1995, and obviously we 

have not made that target, for a lot of reasons, primarily the extensive scientific peer review of all the documents that will be included in the final SNEP report. 

Mr. HERGER. Originally, it was due in December 1994. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. AUNE. It was never passed into legislation, and, as I stated, 

we had used it predominantly in terms of overall concept for SNEP. But we wrote a letter to Congress saying we anticipated it would 

be December 1995; we couldn't meet the comprehensive study in 

that short time period. 

Mr. HERGER. You were trying to go by the follow legislation; you 

could see you weren't going to make the December 1994, so you 

were trying to make the December of 1995. 

We didn't make the December of 1995 either, did we? 

Mr. AUNE. No, we did not. The reason for that we stated. We 

really have completed a very extensive peer review process, and 

that has taken longer than anticipated. We expect to deliver thereport to Congress on June 7. 

Mr. HERGER. So we will have that report, OK. 

My concern-and let me mention this; this is very importantthe purpose of the legislation, as was laid down even by the previous, Democratic leadership, of this Congress, was that we would 

have the background to be able to make decisions we need. 

My concern is that we did not make the 1994 deadline and that 

we then did not make the 1995 deadline. We are now May 21st of 

1996 and yet, we still don't have it. You indicate we are going to 

have it in about another month. 

I just want to emphasize how important it is that Congress have 

this information so that we, in turn, can make a decision based on 

science and with your input. In addition, it is also crucial that the 

administration not move forward before we have had a chance to 

be able to work on this. Mr. HANSEN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HERGER. Yes. Mr. HANSEN. Will that report be in draft or final form that is delivered on June 7? 

Mr. UNGER. That will be a final report. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 

Mr. HERGER. That will be a final report, and the Congress will 

receive it in June. 

Mr. UNGER. On June 7. Mr. HERGER. On June 7. 

Could you tell me whether the Forest Service plans to do anything with the SNEP report prior to submitting it to Congress and 

giving Congress the time to review it, accept it, and act upon it? 

Mr. AUNE. I think the key feature here is that the steering committee will deliver the report to Congress at the same time we will 

deliver to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and agency 

leadership. At that time, the Forest Service will have the oppor-
212 

tunity to review their report and make their own determinations 

of what they are going to do with the report. 

We have tried to keep this as a separate, independent panel of 

science, as Congress requested, and that means also that the Forest Service and main part of the Forest Service has not been involved in the process. 

Mr. HERGER. Just on this point, if I could mak«~ another comment. I see my time is up, but just on this, I would like to mention 

as a follow-up to the points that, if I heard you correctly, you stated 

twice I believe, that you do accept this legislation and, that you did 

attempt to follow it. You could see you weren't able to get it out 

on time. You were attempting to follow it. I would like to emphasize this. 

This legislation emphasized that SNEP was a study that was 

supposed to be a report to Congress and that even former Chairman Miller stated that the report was intended to give to Congress, 

as policymakers, any data needed to make policy decisions about 

the managing of the Sierra Nevada and further, that this Congress 

fully expects to be both the first to receive it and th«~ SNEP report, 

and the first to determine how it is used. 

And I want to emphasize, that this Congress, and certainly myself, would be very concerned if the administration attempted to 

move on this before the Congress has time to examine it and move 

on it. Mr. UNGER. I would assure the gentleman and the Congress that 

if the Congress puts forth plans and decides how it wants to use 

this information, there will be no action by the Forest Service that 

would precede what Congress decides to do on the subject. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Unger. And thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

I want to ask, what additional activities will be required subsequent to the assessment process-and I want to ask Mr. Blackwood 

this one-to bring existing land and resource management plans in 

line with decisions for the assessment plan process of the Columbia 

River Basin? 

Mr. BLACKWOOD. Maybe the best way to respond to that is to 

kind of talk about the time lines on when the assessment will be 

complete, and where we are with the draft environmental impact 

statements, and how that may relate to forest plan amendments, 

BLM plan amendments. 

Right now the assessment is just about complete. It is in its final 

editing mode, and we expect to send that to the printer here in 

mid-June, and that is about the same time schedult:l for the draft 

environmental impact statements. The draft environmental impact statements have been developed 

in parallel with the assessment such that EIS teams understand 

what was being developed in the assessments. Now, when the assessments are published, they will become 

final; there will be no more work on the assessments at this scale. 

The draft environmental impact statements will move forward in 

between the period of the draft final. 

What we expect to do is for each National Forest to take a look 

at their existing plan and see where they are in relation to if we 
213 

have a preferred alternative in the draft environmental impact 

statement, so they can start positioning themselves for any changes 

that would need to occur when finals are developed and records of 

decisions are signed. And the time line on that, we are expecting, 

is about a year from now, to have the final environmental impact 

statements complete and the records of decisions signed. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Blackwood. 

Mr. Van Sickle, I want to ask you basically the same thing. What 

additional activities will be required for the Southern Appalachian 

Assessment? 

Mr. VAN SICKLE. I guess I am somewhat lost. 

Mr. HANSEN. What additional activities will be required subsequent to the assessment process, to incorporate the information 

from the assessment into the forest plans for the Southern Appalachian Assessment? 

Mr. VAN SICKLE. I think I would prefer to ask my coleader, Forest Carpenter, to respond to that question inasmuch as you represented--

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Carpenter, I am sorry. Go ahead. I want to get 

the right person here. Mr. CARPENTER. Yes. Currently the planners on each National 

Forest are reviewing material that is in the assessment. When that 

is completed, the notice of intent is out and the Federal Register 

and management planning process can begin. I see that the information we have is data and inventories that will fit into the process in a very effective way. Mr. HANSEN. What do you have to say to that, Mr. Van Sickle? 

Just say amen. Mr. VAN SICKLE. Amen. 

Let me use this opportunity to comment. One of the features of 

the Southern Appalachian Assessment is that we expect the vast 

amount of data that has been put together for the Southern Appalachian Assessment to be useful for a lot of other applications as 

well. 

We do have a fairly detailed public information release plan. We 

expect to encourage colleges and universities, high schools, libraries, and other archives to use this information for a variety of purposes. We think it has considerable application in community and 

county planning. But that is up to those groups, to extract the information from the assessment that is useful to them. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Aune, do you want to go over the same thing, on what additional activities would be required to incorporate the information 

from the assessment to evaluate plans to make any necessary adjustments to those documents? 

Mr. AUNE. The National Forest--

Mr. HANSEN. Pull the mike a little closer, please. Mr. AUNE. In terms of the California Owl Report, the planning 

teams and regional forester will review the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project documents to see if there is any new information 

that is not described in the current environmental impact statement and record of decision and make a determination as to all 

new information under the National Environmental Policy Act, what appropriate changes and actions will be necessary. 
214 

So until such time as they have a chance to review that document, it is difficult to say exactly what they will have to do. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

When you have further light on it, would you let us know? 

Let me ask you an unrelated one before the red light goes on. 

When we say land, wilderness and forest-as you know, designated 

in Utah in 1984-I am beginning to wonder. I heard a man on the 

radio yesterday state that he felt that many of the forest fires that 

are seen all over the West are a result of forests that grow up and 

old growth and things such as that. Is there any validity in that 

argument? 

Mr. UNGER. As I think as Mr. Herger pointed out earlier, there 

are factors relating to the way we have managed the forest that are 

based on the information we have these days, and many of the 

kinds of facts that come out in these assessments increased some 

of the hazards of dangerous fire. The policy that we have followed for a great many years of suppressing fires to the maximum extent has been one of the elements 

leading to that-of the elements of management leading to that situation, and we, as you well know, are much more concerned today 

about finding ways to find the appropriate use of fire and ecosystem and in removing smaller material and fuel loads through 

thinning salvage and other means to reduce those risks. 

Mr. HANSEN. It makes you wonder. Having been part of every 

wilderness bill that has gone on around here for 15 years, I am just 

curious, what do we do in those areas? We don't do any cutting at 

all. We don't seem, contrary to--even the law states you can't put 

slaughter animals on this land. We have noticed this in the studies 

we have done that are out of the area. All of those tools are pretty 

well gone. Just let them go, and then the thing burns. I guess the 

same environmental concern is, just let it burn. I had trouble understanding him. 

Mr. UNGER. We do have the opportunity in the wilderness areas 

to use prescribed fire as a tool to try to create a more natural condition and a less hazardous condition. 

Mr. HANSEN. I know you do. We haven't retorted the idea. We 

haven't at all figured out how to do it. That is my own opinion. 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Unger, the GAO report of not long ago that the 

Forest Service is spending approximately $250 million a year in 

conducting environmental analyses, is that accurate, or is it more 

than that or less than that? 

Mr. UNGER. I would have to look at the report and look at the 

figures to be sure, Congressman. Mr. DUNCAN. In regard to the Southern Appalachian Assessment, do you think that assessment will satisfy the Fire Service, 

or do you think they will require this analysis every time they get 

involved in any project? 

Mr. UNGER. The idea of the assessment is to provide additionalthe best possible information for making our decisions either in forest plan amendments or in individual projects through the NEPA 

process. It should reduce the need for gathering as much information at that time as we can. 

Forest may want to respond to that. 
215 

Mr. CARPENTER. The Southern Appalachian Assessment is designed so we could have the best scientific information involved in 

the process, and then they could use this information in the 

NEPA-in the NEPA process, as Mr. Unger explained, yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Now you have testified, I understand, that the total 

Southern Appalachian Assessment is 37 million acres and it is only 

4.6 million of those acres are actually forest lands; is that correct? 

Mr. CARPENTER. That is correct. Mr. DUNCAN. Did any of you foresee the SAA being used in any 

way for potential regulations in any type with regard to private 

lands? 

Mr. UNGER. I will be happy to answer that, and the answer is 

no, we have no authority, and we do not seek any authority to affect or regulate private land. Mr. DUNCAN. Just the general overall question: How many acres 

does the Forest Service have now across the country, total? 

Mr. UNGER. 191 million. That is forest and grasslands or forest 

and rangelands. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Has that changed any? And I don't need the exact 

figures from, say, 20 years ago. If I had asked that question 20 

years ago, what would the total have been? About the same or--

Mr. UNGER. Slightly smaller. There have been gradual additions 

over the years but they are in proportion to the total, very small, 

filling out boundaries, straightening boundaries where they may 

exist, filling in pinholes where it is appropriate and where there is 

availability of that land. But the total is very close to what it was 

20 years ago. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. 

The gentlelady from Idaho. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blackwood apparently on the 8th of May, Mr. Steve Mealy 

from Libby, Montana, indicated that the writing of the final draft 

of the EIS for the Columbia Basin Project had stopped, the editing 

had begun, and the alternative would be picked on May lOth. 

May lOth has come and gone. He also said Jack Ward Thomas 

and Jim Lyons did not know what the final product would be, if 

there is a-are we still looking at a time line of knowing on June 

lOth what that final product might be? 

Mr. BLACKWOOD. Let me give you my best estimate. Please recognize that both Mr. Mealy and I just did staff work 

for the decisionmakers here, so the decisions on alternatives and 

time lines are within the realm of the State foresters on this. Where we are right now with the drafts is that we have just about 

completed all of the writing analysis, and as of yesterday we sent 

final review copies to our Executive Steering Committee, Regional 

Foresters, State BLM directors and Forestry directors. 

They received those documents yesterday for their final review, 

which we have a meeting with them at the end of this month to 

give us a green light, or a green light with caveats to go to printing. There is discussion among the executive steering committee 

now on how to proceed with that and what would be the role of others in that decision, in that process now. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Blackwood, as you know, I would like you 

to take note of this, let's address the 1712 line that requires you 
216 

work with local country officials. I will give you some names that 

I would like you to take down: Dr. Wayne Burkhart, Dr. Chad Gibson, Neal Ramby, Dr. Ken Sanders, and Chuck Jones. These people 

have been leaders in management in southern Idaho, and the last 

time I had spoken with them, none of them had been contacted. 

They are fabulous experts in the field. 

For the record, I would like to say that because of the require- ments under that portion of FLPMA, I would like very much if you 

would make an effort to contact them. I had heard figures bounced 

around within the Ecological Assessment Team in which they had 

said that as much as 60 percent of the ecosystems in the Columbia 

Basin Project are in chronically bad shape. 

Can you describe the parameters of what you mean by "in chronically bad shape" and what is the threshold of chronically bad 

shape? And knowing that the plan will deal with human activity, 

can you answer my question with regard to the fact that we have 

just come out of a 9-year drought 2 years ago? 

Mr. BLACKWOOD. We may have to follow up with additional information, so my response will be very brief here. We can do that if 

that is decided. 

When we look at ecosystems, we look at both the ecological aspects of the ecosystems as well as the social and economic. From 

the ecological aspects, we have found that there are some systems 

that are a little out of balance, especially leading to some of the forest health problems we have, spread of exotic weeds, those kinds 

of things. Also, we have found declines in fish stocks, not only 

salmon but other fish. Those things contribute to some of the problems that we found from the ecological standpoint. From the social and the economic side, some of the problems that 

you are probably well aware of are some of the ups and downs, our 

ability to supply various goods and services from the Federal lands, 

the uncertainty that gives to communities. So we find that there 

are certain numbers of communities as part of the ecosystem. Mrs. CHENOWETH. On another issue, one of my main concerns 

since I have been in Congress is making sure States maintain their 

sovereign right to manage or control their water. I am worried 

about this. I want you to know that. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time is almost up, but I was fascinated again with Congressman Herger's research and his reference to this. As you know, the SNEP law or bill was not debated 

even in this committee. It was read into the record by Congressman Miller and Congressman Vento, into this record. It was not a law that was passed even out of committee or by 

the entire Congress, and yet this hearing about an ecosystem 

project emerged out of this and massive amounts of money have 

been allocated for the expenditure of something that was read into 

the record by the Ranking Minority Member and Mr. Vento. I have to say that in the day and age when we are talking about 

downsizing the size of Federal Government, to see these plans 

growing outside of the forest boundaries and districts set up under 

FLPMA, we are seeing government expand instead of contract. My people also in Idaho are nervous, confused and frightened 

with this and they see that it will not only not resolve problems, 
217 

but only create more. Because there has never been a basis in law 

for the creation of these ecosystem management projects. I would hope that this Congress would continue to address these 

projects as it did in the appropriations bill that came out of Mr. 

Regula's committee. That is the only time that we have really addressed these. 

Therefore, we have to admit this whole project is built on a house 

of cards and we are taking money from the American people on a 

project that was read into the record. I find that terribly egregious. 

And the fact is that it indicates that the process is sick and we 

have-! also want to say for the record, I happen to know Mr. Mealy's work. He is one of the finest foresters in this Nation, and 

my respect for Mr. Blackwood is great. They have fine people working on a project that is built on a house of cards, and I hope that 

this Congress has the courage to do something about it. Mr. HANSEN. Read into the record, you mentioned that. I have 

a hard time following that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The SNEP law was introduced in this committee in 1993. It did not have hearings, did not have debate, did not 

have a vote. Mr. Miller and Mr. Vento read it into the committee 

record, and that is what this house of cards has been built on. That 

is what the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project was built on. Mr. HANSEN. You referred to the Ranking Member. They were 

then the Chairman and the subcommittee Chairman. Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is the only indication-that a project was 

even authorized. It was simply read into the committee record. It 

was never authorized--

Mr. HANSEN. It wasn't part of the bill? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. No. Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for missing the testimony of the panel. I was chairing 

another subcommittee and left to come here since I have such an 

interest. 

My district is greatly impacted by what these decisions will be 

pertaining to, both SNEP and CASPO. If this has been asked, I 

apologize for asking it again, but when is the CASPO report coming out. As I understand it, SNEP is going to be released June 7th? 

Mr. UNGER. That is correct. The California Owl Environmental 

Impact Statements and records of decision are expected to be released after the release of the SNEP report. Mr. DOOLITTLE. And any idea, roughly in terms of the timeframe-are we talking a month later, 2 months later? 

Mr. UNGER. I am not aware yet of any decision as to the exact 

timeframe. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is my understanding that we have not seen 

many if any benefits under the Emergency Salvage Timber law the 

Congress passed because of the constraints placed upon us under 

CASPO in those forests. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. UNGER. I am not specifically familiar with those particular 

forests. I do know that across the country, as a whole, we are moving forward as expeditiously as possible and expect to meet our 

goals for the salvage harvest. 

Phil, do you have further information? 
218 

Mr. AUNE. I have not been tracking that, so I do not. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is there anybody here that does have information? 

Mr. UNGER. I would be happy to provide that for the record. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. Herger and I have been concerned, we hav•~ both been involved in trying to bring that emergency salvage law about and 

then to see that our areas didn't benefit from it. If there is some 

benefit, I would like to know. 

I know in Tuolumne County they are importing logs from as far 

away as Colorado for their mills because the timber isn't available 

to be cut. It has been rather disappointing. SNEP had as one of its preliminary findings, I understand, recognition that managing the Sierra Nevadas in a way that the oldgrowth forests have been managed in the Pacific Northwest, that 

it would not be desirable because of the differences in forests. I think the report finding said the following; that they acknowledged the Sierra forests are much different than the forests of the 

Pacific Northwest in fire frequency and intensity. To what extent 

will the final SNEP report agree with that initial finding? 

Mr. UNGER. I have not been, nor have our other top-line officials 

been briefed on the SNEP findings in order to preserve the independence of the team that is preparing the report. Mr. Aune may 

have some information. Mr. AUNE. The findings on old-growth are also contained in the 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Report. You will be presented at least 

two options: strategy and possible strategy on management of the 

old-growth forests in the Sierra Nevada. There may be other op- tions such as the biological diversity management strategy, that 

you will have considerations on that; so you will have a full range 

of strategy policies and options presented to you when the report 

is released. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. This recognizes the differences and that it would 

be inappropriate to manage the Sierra as the Northwest has been 

managed. That is in the report that is coming, then? 

Mr. AUNE. Yes. That is a direct quote from Gary Franklin. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Herger. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It certainly is important, that Mr. Doolittle just brought up this 

point. I appreciate him quoting the fact that our forests, south of 

Washington and Oregon, receive less rainfall, and fires are more 

prevalent than in forests to the north of us. Because of denser forests we literally have catastrophic conditions in northern California 

and, in fact, in all of California at this time. 

I just want to reemphasize that and move back to another question that was asked by Mr. Doolittle and the Chainnan, having to 

do with the California Spotted Owl Study. I understand that the 

final Environmental Impact Statement for the California spotted 

owl is finished Mr. Unger and ready for release? Is this true? 

Mr. UNGER. That is true. Mr. HERGER. So it has been finished and is ready for release. 

Has this document been thoroughly peer reviewed? 

Mr. UNGER. That is my understanding. 
219 

Mr. HERGER. I understand that it is over a year behind schedule 

in completion. Is that accurate? 

Mr. UNGER. I believe that is. 

Mr. HERGER. Given that the study has taken 3 years to complete 

and has been thoroughly peer reviewed, is there any reason why 

it has not been released for final publication? 

Mr. UNGER. The reason that it has not been released, it is not 

to be released until after the SNEP report, we are very close to 

submission of the SNEP report to the Congress in a matter of a 

couple of weeks. There are questions about whether there is any 

new information in the SNEP report that would affect in any way 

the analysis or the decisions in the California Owl EIS and record 

of decision. So the decision is to wait that period of time to make 

an expeditious review of the SNEP report so that the regional forester can be aware of what it does contain and then proceed as 

quickly as possible with the issuance of the California Owl EIS and 

record of decision. 

Mr. HERGER. The California Spotted Owl Report has had extensive peer review? 

Mr. UNGER. That is correct. Mr. HERGER. Has the SNEP report had extensive peer review? 

Mr. AUNE. The California Owl EIS has had a technical review. 

It has not had an official scientific peer review. 

Mr. Unger is correct; it is a technical review and there is a difference between that and a peer review. The SNEP report has, 

each individual assessment, approximately 70 assessments, has 

had at least three peer reviews, each of the assessments, plus the 

major report peer review by policy-level peers. That contrast between the two is an important distinction. So yes, the answer is 

SNEP has had a very thorough scientific peer review. 

Mr. HERGER. I would like to state that, concerning the report 

that you give to the Congress, we would like to have the benefit 

of the California spotted owl review prior to that so we could compare them rather than issuing it after that report. In addition I 

would like to urge you, since we are already late in offering it, to 

offer it, as it is ready to go, and to publish it prior to the SNEP 

so that we can use the information from it in conjunction with the 

SNEP report, enabling us, in the Congress to make the best possible decisions. 

So my argument to you would be but to go ahead and release it 

at this time rather than waiting and releasing it after wards. 

Mr. UNGER. I understand your argument, and of course there 

have been many discussions and questions on either side of this 

issue of before and after. I will be happy to take your idea under 

consideration and discuss it with--

Mr. HERGER. Is there something that we have to hide. Are we 

ashamed of that report? Are we fearful of the scientific data or information that we have discovered? It sounds as though, since it 

is already ready to go, that for some reason the administration is 

choosing not to allow it to come out until afterwards. Is there something that the administration is hiding? 

Mr. UNGER. Absolutely not. 
220 

Mr. HERGER. If there isn't, can you again tell me what the reason 

is for not offering it so that we have all, and not just part of the 

available information. Mr. UNGER. The primary reason for delaying it until the SNEP 

report is out is that the SNEP report is a very carefully workedout and fully developed assessment, that the feeling is that it 

should be examined carefully to determine if there is any information that could affect the decision that we intend to make on the 

California owl. And that we then, after examining that information, 

proceed with, expeditiously with issuing the EIS and record of decision. 

Mr. HERGER. I again would like to conclude by saying I don't believe we are ever hurt by having too much information or by having too much scientific data from those who have expertise in given 

areas, which is certainly the case with our spotted owl report. It 

has been due for a year now. Since our other report is for Congress, I as a Member of Congress would like it out there to be able to 

compare them both. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Unger, we thank you and your associates for being with us. 

You will be getting written questions that we would appreciate response to. 

Mr. HANSEN. Panel 2 is Mr. Dan Dessecker, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Ruffed Grouse Society, Rice Lake, Wisconsin; Mr. James F. Loesel, Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, Roanoke, Virginia; 

and Mr. Bill Snyder, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Martell, California. 

STATEMENT OF DAN DESSECKER, FOREST WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY, RICE LAKE, WISCONSIN 

Mr. HANSEN. We will take your written statements. Please limit 

your written statement to 5 minutes. You see the lights in front of 

you. It is just like a traffic light. Don't run it when it gets red. 

Mr. Dessecker. 

Mr. DESSECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am a forest wildlife biologist with the Ruffed Grouse Society. The goal of the society 

is to promote forest stewardship through sound forest management. 

The ruffed grouse is a game species throughout much of the United 

States and it is a species that absolutely requires young forest and 

early-successional forest communities and thereby forest management. Due to the Ruffed Grouse Society's expertise in the ecology of 

early-successional forest communities, we have been invited to participate in the Southern Appalachian Assessment as a member of 

the scientific panel that worked in consultation with the terrestrial 

plant and animal team. 

My comments obviously pertain solely to the Southern Appalachian Assessment, as I have no experience with Sierra Nevada or Columbia River initiatives. It was very clear at the outset that the Forest Service intended 

the Southern Appalachian Assessment to function solely as an inventory and a data clearinghouse, not as a decisionmaking process. 
221 

The data provided through the Southern Appalachian Assessment 

will unquestionably aid in the revision of existing forest plans, 

thereby maintaining the decisionmaking process at the forest level, 

and that is indeed appropriate. 

Data contained within the assessments include the abundance, 

spatial distribution and trends of forest types, various wildlife species, and indeed the capabilities of various sites to produce target 

resources, be those resources commodity or noncommodity. 

Extensive public participation was built into the Southern Appalachian Assessment process. Informational meetings were held to 

solicit public input, and at some points it almost led to an informational overload with those publics who were not familiar with the 

agency's way of doing things. Preliminary data was reviewed by 

professionals who have demonstrated expertise in various fields, 

and indeed this external review increased the accuracy and the 

utility of the data contained within the assessment. 

The Forest Service very early on recognized that only 17 percent 

of the forest land base within the Southern Appalachian Assessment area was on National Forests and therefore they recognized 

the need to provide and collate the appropriate data for all ownerships. 

As resource professionals it is important to understand what resources exist on adjacent ownerships, what management activities 

are taking place on adjacent ownerships, and how best to ensure 

that Forest Service land management decisions are best com- plementary to those decisions that are impacting adjacent lands, 

particularly private lands. 

Regarding the future management direction of the National Forest within the Southern Appalachian Assessment area, it is clear 

that the Southern Appalachian Assessment in general is not a decisionmaking process. 

If I may, there is one exception that does concern the Ruffed 

Grouse Society, that being that through the Southern Appalachian 

Assessment the Forest Service identified and mapped 753,000 acres 

of potential roadless areas. This total includes 13 percent of the 

Forest Service land base where it is currently appropriate to manage habitat for those species that require young forest habitat such 

as ruffed grouse and a whole host of others. 

To their credit, the Forest Service has at various times stated 

that these potential roadless areas are not off limits to manage- ment activities. However, the agency has been reluctant to enter 

these areas due to concerns over potential conflict with certain 

publics. This reluctance has effectively rendered this limited portion of the Southern Appalachian Assessment as a de facto decisionmaking process. 

In summary, the Southern Appalachian Assessment is indeed a 

most worthwhile initiative. It will provide resource professionals 

with the opportunity to make management decisions on a relatively 

broad landscape, and if used appropriately will greatly aid in the 

planned revisions of existing forest plans without providing specific 

direction. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Loesel is recognized. 
222 

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. LOESEL, SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN 

FOREST COALITION, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 

Mr. LOESEL. Mr. Chainnan and Members of the subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to 

present comments on the Southern Appalachian Assessment. 

My name is James Loesel, and I am presenting testimony on behalf of the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition. I would like to 

give an overview of our written statement and then invite questions. 

Our testimony is in three parts. We first presented additional information on two of the questions which the subcommittee asked 

We have presented additional information about the role of the 

public in the process. I attended more than 45 of the meetings 

which were held by the various teams that were doing the work of 

the Southern Appalachian Assessment. I can certainly say that the 

public was invited to participate and was given an opportunity to 

participate effectively in this process. 

In addition to public involvement in the direct work of the teams, 

there were opportunities for members of the public to interact, 

other including technical review of the assessment products. The 

Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition provided experts that reviewed SAA technical report drafts. In our testimony we also provided information about the interaction between the Southern Appalachian Assessment and plan revisions. I have attended meetings held by the planners at the forest 

level. I have personally observed the attempts by the planners to 

sift through the Southern Appalachian Assessment reports to see 

what is relevant for purpose of the revision of the plan. 

However, we want to emphasize that there were many other aspects of the assessment that are not related directly to Forest planning or plan revision. In the final part of our testimony, we outline 

some of these useful aspects of the Southern Appalachian Assessment. It is important for policymakers to recognize the valuable 

contributions of the assessment even though they may not have 

been the primary focus when the assessment was undertaken. 

The Forest Service under took continuous evaluation during the 

life of the assessment, something I called "adaptive management." 

At the end of the SAA project, the Forest Service produced a questionnaire in which they asked agency people who had been involved 

and members of the public who had attended SAA meetings to 

evaluate the assessment. The Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition filled out that questionnaire, and we have attached it to our 

testimony. 

In this questionnaire the Forest Service evaluated the SAA process beyond the questions that this subcommittee has asked. We 

think a reading of our responses, would be helpful to this subcommittee in evaluating the Southern Appalachian assessment. It 

would provide additional infonnation for comparing the successes 

and also the weaknesses of the Southern Appalachian Assessment 

with other assessments. 

I certainly welcome any opportunity to respond to questions that 

you may have. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 
223 

[Prepared statement of Mr. James E. Loesel may be found at the 

end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF BILL SNYDER, CHIEF FORESTER, GEORGIA 

PACIFIC CORP., MARTELL, CA 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. The Chair would like to note, due to the temporary absence of the real Chairman, I have the pleasure of introducing a constituent of mine, Bill Snyder, who is Chief Forester for 

the Martell Operation of the Georgia-Pacific, Corporation. 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Chief Forester for Martell Operations, Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific is a 

fully integrated wood products company with fee timber landownership in the United States of over 6 million acres. 

Management of our Company's Natural Resources is guided by 

an 11-point environmental strategy specifically designed protect 

water quality, wildlife, recreational resources and promote research 

and development. Part of the strategy also commits us to promoting excellence in the management of all timberlands regardless of 

ownership, and we are here to look at Federals land within our operating circle. 

Since the mid-1980's, we have watched the Forest Service engage in a series of major planning efforts. The Forest Service in our 

region has suffered greatly in terms of public criticism and we face 

probably two immediate problems. The first problem is how to deal 

with threats by various groups to petition for the California spotted 

owl for listing under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or 

endangered, and the problem was how to deal with concerns over 

declining old-growth base within the Sierra Nevadas. In response to the first issue, the Forest Service developed a 

California spotted owl strategy which involves State and private interests within the State, and out of that came the CALOWL EIS 

that we discussed earlier. The response to the old-growth issue was 

dealt with in H.R. 6013, and after considerable debate that bill was 

defeated, but it did call for a comprehensive study of the Sierra Nevada ecosystems, and in a lot of ways had a large degree of support 

among a number of concerns. As a result, Representative Panetta, through an appropriations 

bill, included language that basically provided funding for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, and SNEP had its birth. 

Your questions that were posed in the letter obviously are too 

lengthy to get into a 5-minute discussion in terms of just magnitude and order of them, but I would like to highlight a couple 

that I had particular concerns with and reinforce some of Congressman Herger's concern with respect to the relationship between the 

CALOWL report and SNEP. 

First, with respect to SNEP; in essence, it was exempted from 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has not had the degree 

of public and political input that the CALOWL report has had over 

time. I think we are all frustrated to a certain degree with SNEP, 

in that it is both a congressional report and a scientific report that 

will be subject to peer review by scientists. Other than updates, 

newsletters and that type of information, I think the public and 

user groups have not had a clear picture of what is going on. 
224 

I thought it was interesting here, in earlier SNEP meetings we 

had discussed the possibility of seven to eight management scenarios for the Sierras. I am not sure whether I heard Mr. Aune 

right, but it seems like we have got to a point where we have about 

two or three management scenarios. I am concerned about that. It 

may be worth follow-up to figure out how many management scenarios we are talking about. Cost was of concern; the CBO estimated a study would cost about 

$2 million. I think to date the Forest Service and scientific committee spent $7 million. And they have produced a lot of documents, some of which are very scientific and complex. And from a policy 

standpoint, I am sure part of the reason we have suffered from 

having SNEP released in its final form, is that they are very difficult to assimilate into a policy document that has some degree of 

coherency. 

Relationship of the assessment to National Forest Service Plans 

I think is a totally appropriate question. We have just gone 

through a CALOWL process which has taken 3 years to complete 

and is now a year late. We know that SNEP relied on the 

CALOWL data base, the mapping that was involved and a lot of 

information with respect to vegetation types. From the outset it seemed like the CALOWL process as an ecosystem and landscape process and the SNEP process were following parallel courses. I am not sure where we are at the present 

time. It appears that the CALOWL report itself is being held in 

abeyance while the SNEP report is going to be submitted to the 

Congress. 

I find this extremely unfortunate. We have had an interim period 

of 2 years in which we have seen a number of sawmills close as 

the Forest Service struggles and seeks direction for land management. In summary, I would like to say, what do we do in terms of the 

next steps? I think the key issue here gets back to Congressman 

Herger's concern; what do we do with the CALOWL Environmental 

Impact Statement? 

I would like to encourage you to pursue the line of questioning 

you have with respect to the CALOWL EIS and urge that the Forest Service get on with that document and get on with land management under that document. It has had full public review, full 

public and political input, and I think it is time for it to move forward. 

The SNEP document, we all recognize, will become new science 

and probably will cause some reflection and look back at the 

CALOWL document, but I am confident that the science in support 

of the CALOWL document will in essence be supported by SNEP 

and I see no reason to put the two in relationship to one another. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I have included a 

lot of additional material, a copy of H.R. 6013, which originally authorized the SNEP report, along with correspondence. I have copies 

of our "Sustainable Forest" issues here which will give you some 

background of where Georgia-Pacific and the forest products industry is in the future. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bill Snyder may be found at the end 

of hearing.] 
225 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Snyder, if you know, now that they are holding up the CASPO report, which you refer to as CALOWL, is that 

the new term? I always called it CASPO. Mr. SNYDER. CASPO was the original report designed by a committee of the State of California, private interest groups and the 

Federal agencies to deal with the scientific and technical questions 

with respect to California spotted owls. That ended up in the 

CASPO report scientific recommendations which were put into interim guidelines which are, in effect, management within the California spotted owl range for the National Forests. The CALOWL 

EIS was a NEPA document that was to basically supplant the interim guidelines and put more permanent guidance in place with 

respect to habitat management for owls. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. In order to go from CASPO to CALOWL, in light 

of holding up CALOWL for the SNEP report, what is that going to 

do time-wise? 

Mr. SNYDER. The CALOWL report basically has taken 3 years 

since the time that the interim guidelines were put in place, and 

that is because of the complexity of the report and the desire by 

the agencies to make it an ecosystem management report. I am 

afraid that if we wait for SNEP to come out and have to revisit this 

whole question, we could be looking at another year or two of additional amendments to the plan, draft Environmental Impact Statements and a number of other things that would be put in place. Mr. DOOLITTLE. So we are going to go through a new round of 

Environmental Impact Statements as a result of SNEP coming out 

prior to the CALOWL being released? 

Mr. SNYDER. I think it depends how the report is used. Obviously, this was a report that was intended to be for congressional 

use. It sounds like that has been expanded to a certain degree and 

that the administration is holding it for their own policy use at this 

point in time. 

It looks to me like it is going to be a little bit of a wrestling 

match about whose report it is and how it gets used. I anticipate 

the administration probably will delay and cause more environmental analysis to be done. . Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Unger, you are sitting back there. Will you 

come up and comment on this, because we are sick to death of 

CASPO, and hearing that this could be delayed a year or two 

would be completely unacceptable. 

Mr. UNGER. I understand the committee's concern and Mr. Snyder's concern. The Forest Service is committed to move as rapidly 

as possible with the decision on the California owl. The purpose of 

this delay is to see if there is any significant new information in 

the SNEP report that would need to be taken into account. 

If it does need to be taken into account, there are a number of 

ways to proceed. One would be in the CALOWL process itself, another would be separate forest plan amendments, another would be 

modification of project decisions. 

There is no, certainly there are always concerns that things may 

take more time than we anticipate. From a Forest Service standpoint, we believe this can be done expeditiously and it would not 

require a lengthy period. 
226 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So take a stab at what expeditiously means in 

your mind? 

Mr. UNGER. In my mind, it would be that the re{,Yional forester 

immediately upon delivery of the SNEP report to the Congress 

would be briefed on the major findings of the SNEP r1eport and that 

he would then identify any questions or issues that he believes 

need further analysis, if any, and then proceed to move in the directions that are called for. 

I can't predict how long this would take because I don't know 

what he will find, but it is our hope that there will be little new 

information that would require holding this up for an extended period of time. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Once this process gets going, is it solely up to 

the regional forester or at any point can any individual or group 

out there decide to exercise its rights and drag this thing out? 

Mr. UNGER. The SNEP report is not a decision document. It is 

simply a matter of assessment of information. And therefore that 

information, once it is delivered to Congress, is in the public domain and people will read it and do with it what they wish. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I guess what I am asking you is not so much 

from the perspective of the SNEP report but from the perspective 

of the CALOWL Environmental Impact Statement, which now we 

are going to have supposedly new information coming out. 

Can anybody force a lengthy delay to amend the document or 

conduct further studies? I guess-what is this done pursuant to, 

NEPA? 

Mr. UNGER. The only way that I can see that others might take 

information that they consider to be significant and that we would 

not, would be to enter into the appeal process once our decision is 

announced or to enter into litigation, and those options are available to anybody at the present time. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was here last, I made some comments about the legislation that gave forth this SNEP program. I want to be very specific 

about the record. 

On September 30, 1992, in the 102nd Congress this was read 

into the record. It was not passed by this committee or by the Congress, and it directs the Secretary of Agriculture to manage this 

plan until December 31, 1996. In that 4-year interim period, logging was virtually totally stopped. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Snyder, do you know-! have had my staff 

busy running around seeing if there was a follow-up to this, to see 

if there was any congressional action or action by this committee 

that may have extended that December 31, 1996 deadline. If that 

December 31, 1996 deadline is still in effect, which I don't know 

how it could be when you just read something into the record, but 

apparently that is how they used to do things, and we are still 

building on it, and I think that is egregious. Do you know if there has been any other action that would extend that December 31, 1996 deadline? 

Mr. SNYDER. I don't. I was more concerned about the other elements of that particular sequence of events because originally 
227 

SNEP was to be presented to Congress as a draft report in 1994, 

and in 1995, a full year later, they were to have the final report 

done. I think that window would have provided an opportunity for 

public and political comment with respect to the contents. 

It is somewhat distressing to me at this point in time that we 

are finding that we are going to have the final report delivered to 

you in June without having an opportunity to review a draft document and give you the opportunity to indicate whether or not it 

met what you needed in terms of policy support. 

We had a similar situation develop with the CASPO guidelines 

in our State, in that the scientific team developed one alternative 

for management of California's spotted owl habitat. When you are 

faced with only one alternative, it doesn't give you very many 

choices to select from and we have suffered from that for the last 

3 or 4 years, and it sounds like we could suffer a little longer. So it is frustrating to me; being a member of the public and an 

informed member of the public, I think we have valuable inputs 

based on both study and experience that we could contribute to the 

process, but we haven't been able to do that. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Snyder, I think we were 

all shocked by the Supreme Court's decision on Sweethome and yet 

the Supreme Court probably had a point when Congress was not 

very, very specific as to how critical habitat would be handled on 

private lands, but yet we can carry that same reasoning forward 

here. 

Congress has not only not been specific, but in its lack of specificity it ends December 31, 1996, and yet we are building a whole program on this. At least SNEP existed for the Columbia River Basin 

Project. There isn't even a SNEP in the record. If it wasn't for the tenacity of people like you who have operated in spite of a law that is 

unclear and confusing, and continues to be moving its goalposts, 

where we can't rely on dates, we can't rely on laws that the Congress has passed, like the National Forest Management Practices 

Act, and the President signed into law, and all the acts that have 

gone before that, but we are in a day and age now where everything is moving, it is a moving target. 

I cannot understand how you can, even a company like GeorgiaPacific can manage in this day and age, and certainly the smaller 

companies we have seen what has happened to them. I usually like 

to take the benefit of your being here and ask cogent questions, but 

I am so unbelievably frustrated with the way this is operating, Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Snyder to respond. 

Mr. SNYDER. I share that. 

I basically worked for a medium-sized company in California that 

couldn't operate in that climate. The uncertainty was such that basically our corporate owners and stockholders decided that it was 

best to sell the timberlands to a larger corporation. So I fell victim 

to that. I felt it personally, from the 200 people who by virtue of 

that consolidation also lost their jobs. It is a frustrating process 

and the victims are real people. 

The frustrating thing about it is that there is a significant resource to be managed on these National Forests. I don't think any-
228 

body questions that. But the debate seems to be how we should 

best manage it for the greatest good, and I think that is where we 

have been falling short lately. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I just have to interject here. Did I understand 

we are not having a draft report like was always represented to us 

where Congress gets to comment on it and then there is a final report produced based on our input? Are you telling me now we are 

going to have a final report released before we ever get to see it? 

Mr. Unger, do you want to comment on that? 

Mr. UNGER. I would like Mr. Aune to comment. I believe that is 

the case. 

Mr. AUNE. That is absolutely the case. We requested a late-successional and an old-growth ecosystem study, H.R. 5503, and we attempted to deliver that. We used H.R. 6013 as guidance, we did not 

follow it absolutely. The bill that was passed that authorized the 

study was very straightforward and direct. In our draft report, interim progress report, we did not promise nor do we expect to deliver a draft report. You will get a final report on June 7th. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Every understanding that I have ever had, including conversations that would have been no more than 8 weeks 

ago with the head of SNEP, it was indicated to me we would have 

a chance to review that and modify it and then go to the final report. How did we get from there to this? 

Mr. AUNE. We have said on the record an interim progress report 

is what we would deliver. We said in 1994 we would deliver the 

final report to Congress. It called for a science assessment by an 

independent panel of scientists, and they were given, as we understood it, authorization to complete an independent study free from 

influence. 

What does the science say for the nature and condition of the Sierra Nevada? What are some opportunities for involvement? 

We did have an active and aggressive public involvement process 

with the development of SNEP, but the report is the sole property 

of science and is given to you for your disposition. There is no 

where that I know of that there is a promise for a draft other than 

the statement in H.R. 6013. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So are we going to get the report at the same 

time it is released to the public? Is that what you are telling us? 

Mr. AUNE. You will get it first. We will deliver it to C'<>ngress and 

the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior, as mentioned in H.R. 6013. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Herger is recognized. Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Snyder, it is my understanding that you have been a professional forester in the Sierra Nevadas for 24 years? 

Mr. SNYDER. That is correct. Mr. HERGER. Based on your 24 years of practical on-the-ground 

experience, is it your opinion that large unmanaged reserves are 

needed in the Sierra Nevada to protect old-growth ecosystems, and 

what, in your opinion, would be the result to forest fire risk if such 

reserves were created? 
229 

Mr. SNYDER. In many aspects, I think creation of large oldgrowth reserves would be detrimental to protection of old-growth 

habitats and large trees on the landscape. Given our climate, which 

is a Mediterranean climate, it means we have a long, dry summer 

period, and also our past history of management in these areas 

where we have had a long history of fire suppression, a lot of the 

larger old-growth stands that were here that are remnant to the 

Sierras have a well-established understory, a ladder of fuels which 

carries fuels and causes fires to burn in intensity that are great 

enough to kill these old-growth trees. So I think a large old-growth 

reserve system would actually be detrimental without some form of 

management of the fuels in the trees within those reserves to ensure that the fire regime and the loss to fire are minimized in 

terms of risks. 

I think we have all seen fires. We had a 150,000-acre fire on the 

Stanislaus National Forest that had no respect for old growth, 

young growth, brush or any of these types of things. I don't think 

we want to have a repetition of that throughout the Sierra landscape. 

Mr. HERGER. What you are commenting has also been my experience. I have seen some areas, such as the Cottonwood fire just 

north of Lake Tahoe which threatened to burn the Town of 

Loyalton a few years ago. It was in the news for two or three weeks 

as the fire raged. 

That fire was so intense that it not only burned all the trees but 

it seared the ground to an extent where nothing can grow there for 

several years. So it seems to me that what we are doing is the opposite. If we were to create old-growth reserves, we would, in essences be destroying that which we are saying we are trying to preserve. 

Let me ask another question. The company that you work for has 

owned and managed, I understand, 126,000 acres of land in the Sierra Nevada for over 100 years. Mr. Snyder, how healthy are these 

private forests, in your opinion, and how fire resistant are they? Do 

they support populations of California spotted owls and other wildlife that are normally associated with old-growth forests? 

Mr. SNYDER. To answer the last part of the question first, yes we 

do. The densities of owls that we are finding on our managed second-growth forests appear to be at levels that are on comparable 

to Forest Service lands. In other words, if you put all the dots on 

the map, you would notice little or no difference in density of owls 

between the managed timberlands which we have under our ownership and the Federal lands which are adjacent to us. 

The lands we manage are growing probably at a rate that is 50 

percent higher on a board foot basis, on the average, for the stocking that we have than on adjacent Federal lands. The fire resistance question is difficult even for us. The markets 

for the smaller material are starting to dry up a bit and we are 

concerned about that. We have to have some way to utilize this material and I imagine your constituents in the northern part of the 

State are suffering the same problems we are in terms of operationally how to deal with the material. 

From an infrastructure standpoint, the industry in California is 

well-established and is positioned well to utilize these small trees 
230 

for a number of purposes, primarily for generation of power. But 

that is a problem I think all land managers face, what to do with 

these small trees. 

Mr. HERGER. You mentioned that you are finding 50 percent 

higher growth than then in some of the federally managed forests. 

Also, you state that you are finding spotted owls in the same proportion that you do in others. Can this observation be documented? 

Has it been documented? 

Mr. SNYDER. We have had ongoing studies that began in the late 

1980's that have continued through this year. The work with the 

spotted owls is continually ongoing. They are a very territorial bird 

and return to the same nesting areas generally year after year, so 

we have a fairly extensive record to document the presence of the 

owls. 

If you wanted to come out, we could show you a few of them. You 

could pick the spot on the map, if you wish. The growth rates, typically what we are experiencing in the way of growth is 3.5 to 4 percent. If you look at comparable growth percentage figures on National Forests within the same area, they are 1.5 to !~ percent. 

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I find it incredible that, considering with the testimony we have just heard, we 

are actually finding the same amount of owls on these managed 

areas as we do on Forest Service land and that the growth rate is 

greater than it is. I have flown over some of these private areas, 

and I am specifically thinking about the area of Mount Shasta, a 

property managed by Sierra-Pacific, where you can see as straight 

as an arrow the section line where Federal forests begin and private property begin. There one can see healthy green forests where 

they have been managed by private but dead and dying, as much 

as 60 percent dead and dying in some area, in the Forest Service 

Lands. Yet we, have the Forest Service who picks and chooses what 

parts of this legislation it is going to follow. 

We have had science which has been so flawed to allow this to 

take place, and the repercussions of this, as Mr. Snyder mentioned, 

are closing mills. This month, the 30th mill in the last several 

years in my Second Congressional District that is closing. Thousands of families, especially children are affected by the unfounded 

policy that we have, we can also see it is literally leading to the 

burning down of our forests, the losing of the habitat rather than 

the other. Yet we cannot get information out to be able to comment 

on it. I find this abhorrent. I believe this situation must change immediately and that hopefully the findings of this hearing today will 

help ensure such a change. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

I join in your comments. It has been very frustrating to see this 

all happen. After all, it was admitted that this was a surrogate species, right, the spotted owl, the northern owl, they are talking 

about, and then we invented the CALOWL. 

I expect there is any number of other things out there, once this 

surrogate species has run its course, there are others. That is why 

we are trying to reform the Endangered Species Act. 

I think this problem with CASPO-is it FLPMA, Mrs. 

Chenoweth? It is a different act. 
231 

Is that the FLPMA Act that we are concerned with there, Mr. 

Snyder? 

Mr. SNYDER. I think it is the forest land management planning. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is a problem. 

Mr. SNYDER. I don't think it is any one act. They are all wellintended, but if you look at the cumulative effects of steering, planning through all the different acts that we have, that basically for 

the Forest Service becomes a morass. Mindboggling, how they even 

begin to try to comply with some of the things they have to do. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Mr. Herger alone has lost 30 mills in his district 

due to this nonsense, and I have lost a couple now in my district. 

If we look, 30 versus 2, I can tell you this has caused a lot of pain. 

Mr. Snyder knows because he was there with one of them, and we 

don't know how long that we will be affiicted with these CASPO 

guidelines which are causing this artificial shortage because of the 

delay in issuing the final EIS that may occur as a result of waiting 

for SNEP. 

So it is been very dismaying, and I guess with that we will thank 

the members of our second panel. I feel like we gave very short 

shrift to the other two issues on this, and for that I apologize. We 

had a bunch of Californians who were concerned with Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. 

At the time this hearing was called, we were supposed to have 

been in session today and you would have had a fuller committee, 

so I apologize to our witnesses. But your testimony is in the record; 

it will be taken into account. We will ask you, please, no doubt 

there will be a few other questions that we would like to submit 

in writing; and if you would all please respond as expeditiously as 

possible, we would appreciate it. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And with that--

Mr. LOESEL. Mr. Chairman, if I may add something for the 

record. In the testimony given by Mr. Dessecker, he indicated that 

there was a de facto or a tacit decision made in the Southern Appalachian Assessment that there would be no entry into roadless 

areas. I believe that he is under a wrong impression. I am sorry 

to say, there are in fact, timber projects, moving forward in some 

of these roadless areas. 

Forest Service has a list of projects that they plan to conduct in 

these roadless areas. I receive a stream of decision notices and opportunities for comment on scoping for these projects. I believe 

there is ample information available showing that projects are 

moving forward and that there is no de facto decision either in the 

Southern Appalachian Assessment, or elsewhere, to not enter 

roadless areas in the Southern Appalachians. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I don't want to redebate this issue. 

Do you want to respond, Mr. Dessecker? 

Mr. DESSECKER. Given that 13 percent of the suitable timber 

base is contained within those potential roadless areas, it is very 

easy matter to determine. Come back a year from now to find out 

if 13 percent of the timber sales are contained, within this land 

base. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Not to be pessimistic, but based on what happened in the past, I would be very surprised indeed if that doesn't 

turn out to be the case. But I won't bore you with my editorial com-
232 

mends on the Forest Service and the general State of affairs in our 

forests. 

So, with that, you are excused. Thank you very much. 

And we will call up Panel III. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to welcome Thomas Haislip from 

CH2M HILL in Boise and Dale McGreer, who is President of the 

Western Watershed Analysts, Lewiston, Idaho. Welcome to the 

panel. And I join Mr. Doolittle in saying that had they called for 

votes earlier this morning, most of our Members would not be flying in as we speak, but you are establishing a very, very important 

record, and I thank you very much for coming all the way across 

the country to add to the record very necessary and important information. I thank you very much. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to start with Mr. Haislip. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. HAISLIP, JR., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

CH2M HILL, BOISE, IDAHO 

Mr. HAISLIP. Thank you. Good morning, Mrs. Chairman. I thank 

you for the consideration of my comments. My name is Tom Haislip. I am a Senior Scientist and Project 

Manager for CH2M HILL, an international environmental engineering firm. I hold a B.S. d.egree in zoology and an M.S. degree 

in ecology. I lead a team of scientists and planners who participate 

in the open public process of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Our goal is to assure that relevant information and the best science are brought to the project and that 

appropriate planning processes are used. 

We have been involved in the project since its inception over 2 

years ago. The project was initiated to develop an ecosystem management program for Federal lands east of the Cascade Mountains 

in the Pacific Northwest. One of the major drivers was, and continues to be, rapidly deteriorating forest health conditions on National 

Forest and BLM lands. I believe this to be a very real problem and 

a threat that needs immediate and significant Federal action. This 

project offers the potential to resolve these issues, but the products 

need additional work to bring more focus to them. Two of the primary products of this project will be the Eastside EIS and the 

Upper Columbia Basin EIS. We have had a chance to review early 

drafts of these two documents, and I would like to share our analysis results with you. First, the writing quality is much improved 

over initial drafts. Much of the value-laden language that would 

perpetuate controversies has been removed, but work in this area 

remains. The descriptions of project needs are appropriate. 'These include, 

two issue, resolving forest health problems and supporting social 

and economic needs. However, the project purposes do not always 

relate directly to the Stated needs. There is little discussion in the 

impact analysis of two pieces of key information: One, forest health 

itself; and, two, the risks and tradeoffs that relate to achieving or 

not achieving project goals and objectives. These are critical for 

evaluating the ability of the alternatives to meet the project needs. 

The projected amounts of restoration and commodity output have 

been constrained by anticipated agency budgets, but the documents 

do not identify activity levels needed to fully restore ecosystem con-
233 

ditions to desirable or sustainable levels. The project needs to objectively assess how to achieve the goals in a timely and cost-effective manner. Commodity production could be an important means 

to offset restoration costs without sacrificing environmental quality. The wildlife sections focus heavily on endangered species and 

stressed species rather than those that characterize the 

ecosystems. This distorts the description of current conditions and 

the impact analysis. 

There is a continued bias in documents against the past and future roles of humans in managing natural resources. 

The project fails to recognize that the agencies have done a lotof 

things right and that improved best management practices are in 

place. Also, by inappropriately assuming that the healthiest environments are achieved by keeping people out restricts many potential uses and benefits. The DEISs contain poor analyses of social and economic impacts. 

There is almost no assessment of the effects of significantly re- duced timber harvests projected for all of the alternatives. 

It is important that this project provide sufficient support of cumulative effects to prevent legal challenges to individual projects 

during plan implementation. The DEISs appear inadequate to meet 

that need, but we have not had access to the science products, so 

we haven't drawn a firmer conclusion. The broad-scale modeling analyses are suspect. We have found 

several data compilations and analyses that are seriously misleading and could result in inappropriate management direction. 

Despite their serious nature, we think these problems are fixable. The project has had the potential to resolve forest health 

problems and provide sustainable values, but much work is needed. 

It should take enough time to make corrections, but at a rapid 

pace. 

The project should give broad but clear direction to future forest 

management. It should leave sufficient decision space for the individual forest plan amendment process to address local conditions. 

The project needs to provide leadership and support to forest managers in restoring foresthealth by encouraging local solutions rather than ultraconservative, politically safe management defaults. 

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Haislip. You came in right on 

time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Haislip may be found at the end of 

hearing.] 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Dale McGreer, the committee would like to 

hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF DALE J. MCGREER, PRESIDENT, WESTERN 

WATERSHED ANALYSTS, LEWISTON, IDAHO 

Mr. McGREER. My name is Dale McGreer. I am the principal hydrologist and President of Western Watershed Analysts, a consulting firm located in Lewiston, Idaho, that specializes in the analysis 

of land management effects on streams, and cumulative watershed 

effects. I have been doing this for over 20 years. For the past several years I have been involved with the development of aquatic and riparian management strategies and the 
234 

aquatic conservation strategies presently being considered by the 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project that are 

the subject of my testimony today. 

The project's aquatic conservation strategy goal is to maintain 

and restore ecological function of aquatic and riparian areas and to 

replace the interim direction for management of anadromous and 

resident fish, referred to as PACFISH and INFISH. But the Forest 

Service and BLM are struggling with both of these goals, and may 

fail to achieve either of them through the ICBEMP. The PACFISH approach needs replacement. It has been criticized 

as a one-size-fits-all measure that is not compatible with sound 

management of ecosystems. In at least three of the six alternatives 

considered by the project, PACFISH is replaced with a new set of 

interim strategies that are, in reality, just PACFISH. 

I believe that most Forest Service and BLM managers are trying 

to progress beyond the PACFISH strategies. However, they are 

finding it difficult because of the influence of the regulatory agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Wildlife 

Service, and even to some degree, the EPA. 

The Land Management agencies-the Forest Service and ELMhave the responsibility of ensuring that their actions and inactions 

are ecologically and economically responsible, and they have the 

land management expertise that can allow them to be successful. 

But the regulatory agencies don't share these same responsibilities 

and don't have land management expertise. The regulatory agencies are wedded to the notion that wide buffer strips along streams 

where management is seldom allowed is the best strategy for 

aquatic and riparian water preservation. They are wrong because 

they have ignored the natural ecosystem process of wildfire so 

prevalent within eastside forests. 

Eastside ecosystems are naturally dynamic systems; they are not 

static. Things change. And one of the principal elements of change 

is wildfire. Eastside forests have become unnaturally dense and 

often insect and disease infested, as we heard today, with the result that they are now subject to unnaturally widespread and intense wildfire. Riparian areas often burn and the results are often 

catastrophic. Entire watersheds have been devastated by unnatural 

fires, and it isn't over yet. 

My independent analysis demonstrates that at least 20 percent 

of the forest area in the Basin falls within the riparian areas in not 

less than five of the six action alternatives considered by the 

ICBEMP. 

Furthermore, effective management of the forest health problem 

within the riparian areas will not occur in at least some of these 

strategies, and perhaps in all of them. In my opinion, if the project 

management standards do not allow wildfire hazards to be effectively treated within entire watersheds, including riparian areas, 

they will all too often burn. 

The project must analyze how alternative management strategies 

will affect Basin ecosystems and resources. However, there has 

been inadequate verification of how resources are affected at the 

local level. For example, based on analysis of broadscale maps 

where only a fraction of all streams are shown, the project reported 
235 

that only 5 percent of the Basin lies within riparian areas as defined by the draft strategies. 

Estimates of the effects on resource management programs were 

based on this percentage within the draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. However, maps where all streams are shown reveal 

that 20 percent or more of the dry forest area lies within riparian 

management areas in dry forest environments, with as much as 70 

percent of total watershed area in wet forest environments. 

These fundamental problems with analytical scale-and I provided only one example-lead to unrealistic estimates of effects on 

resource management programs such as grazing, mining and timbering. Problems with scale in the analysis also limit the 

ICBEMP's ability to recognize management actions necessary for 

effective management of forest health and wildfire, and to provide 

management direction to the National Forests and BLM Districts, 

fundamental goals of the project. 

In conclusion, the Forest Service and BLM will not achieve necessary ecosystem management goals unless riparian management 

areas are realistically defined and actively, but cautiously, managed. If they are not managed, aquatic and riparian areas will continue to be devastated by unnaturally intense wildfire. 

Detailed impact analysis is needed. The effects predicted must be 

verified locally. The Forest Service and BLM will continue to be 

gridlocked and unable to take the necessary management actions 

with in many riparian management areas if their management authority responsibilities are not reaffirmed and elevated. 

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you this 

morning. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. McGreer. That was very interesting testimony. I am privileged to hear both of your very informative testimonies. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Haislip, can you define for me what 

ecosystems are? 

Mr. HAISLIP. Well, it depends on whether you are a biologist or 

not. As a biologist, when I grew up, ecosystems tended to be more 

biotic communities and the physical communities around them, but 

for the purposes of-for the purposes of this project, ecosystems 

have been expanded, and appropriately so I think, to include not 

only the biological systems and physical systems, but also the social systems. So it includes all three of those major components 

that make up the world around us. Mrs. CHENOWETH. You mentioned that the report was biased 

against humans-human impact on the land. 

Mr. HAISLIP. Yes. We are seeing language in there that would 

suggest that people have caused a lot of the problems in the past; 

and in some cases, they have, but in a lot of cases, they haven't. 

So we seem to see too much of that kind of language in the document, indicating that, you know, people are the cause of it. And 

that isn't always the case and people have part of the solution, we 

believe; and the documents-at least early ones we have seendon't seem to give full recognition of that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You mentioned also you did not have access 

to any of the scientific data. Can you elaborate on that? 
236 

Mr. HAISLIP. Yes. This project is actually producing four documents-actually five documents. It is producing two EISs. It is producing a scientific framework and two critical documents. One of 

them is called the scientific assessment and the other is the scientific evaluation of the alternatives. 

The project divided the teams into two teams, one of them is an 

EIS team an the other is the science team. The EIS team is the 

products we had access too. We have seen some early drafts of the 

EIS team, but not the science team, so the foundation of a lot of 

this material is not available to us. So we are seeing the executive 

summary, if you will, without seeing the meat behind it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Have you been assured that you have access 

to that scientific information? 

Mr. HAISLIP. Yes. The project will definitely put them out for 

public view. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to. We do have a 

FOIA request in to get a copy of those, but I am not sure it is going 

to get acted on. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You know, Mr. Haislip, I was sitting here 

musing about the National Forest Practices Act, and in that as you 

were testifying, in that act it states that over and above the green 

sale, the allowable sale in each forest, that the Forest Service must 

keep the diseased, insect-infested, wind-thrown and aged timber 

that has fallen to the forest floor out of the forest. 

In your opinion, if they had done that as the law required, do you 

think that we would have the problems that we have today in the 

forest? 

Mr. HAISLIP. I guess there is a-in my view, a difference between 

the directive in the law and having the perfect knowledge about 

how to make that come about. And we are still learning about how 

to manage forests, and we thought, I think, we were doing the 

right thing when we were keeping fires out. Now we are learning 

the terrible consequences of that policy, and so we are trying to readjust those policies to meet the letter of the law. And so we, as a Nation and the agencies, are struggling to try 

to make that happen. I think we need to support them in making 

that happen, too. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You just reminded me under the salvage section of the National Forest Practices Act they are also required to 

keep? So my concern is that we have come almost full circle where 

our hands-off policy is not allowing us to manage the forest so that 

the environmental problems that have not been anticipated are 

building at an exponential rate, far faster than we are able to handle. 

Mr. HAISLIP. I would also suggest we take a look at what is going 

on in the FEMAT situation to learn some things from these other 

ecosystem management practices. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. McGreer, I would like to ask you, how 

does the State manage the riparian areas? 

Mr. McGREER. Most of the Western States, in fact, all the Western States affected by this project, have forest practices acts. An 

example is the State of Oregon which recently took a couple of 

years to assess the science associated with, especially, the riparian 

areas and rewrote their forest practices act to better address those. 
237 

The outcome of all that effort is about-by our analysis, is that 

5 percent of the forested area in Oregon falls into riparian management areas. They then rigorously regulate activity within those 

areas, and those activities in the form of best management practices, rules within the Forest Practices Act are-become the approved best management practices under section 208 of the Clean 

Water Act, which means they have to be approved by the EPA. So 

the EPA approves-finds them to be adequate for stream protection. The Fish and Wildlife Service and Marine Fisheries Service 

don't necessarily have any direct say or comment on what the 

States do unless there is a direct endangered species issue. 

But I think we would find, if we were to examine all the details, 

that the forest practices rules are in place and are enforced effectively. The agencies are not having much trouble with regard to endangered species associated with those State forest practices rules. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. On the PACFISH program, can you tell me 

how much the PACFISH program would take in from the stream 

bed to--I mean, outside the stream bed-I guess it begins from 

high-water mark on out. 

Mr. McGREER. Yes, in simple terms, PACFISH for fish-bearing 

streams requires a minimum 300-foot buffer width for perennial 

streams which contain fish. It is about 150 feet wide-this is on 

each side the stream-and for perennial streams without fish, and 

50 to 100 for intermittent streams. 

I did an analysis about three years agv, and 31 percent of this 

particular wet forest watershed fell within the buffer strips of the 

riparian management areas under PACFISH. We recently did an 

analysis, and 21 percent of the total land area fell within these 

management zones in a dry forest type. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. McGreer, doesn't PACFISH also include 

that area that would be included in the 100-year flood plain. 

Mr. McGREER. Yes, it does, and there are two or three complicating considerations in the area covered by P ACFISH as there are in 

other strategies and they add to that basic area. It is a little harder 

to generalize and predict how much would be involved in any given 

watershed. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. McGreer, being from Lewiston were you 

able to see any reports as to how much of their allowable cut would 

be diminished if PACFISH went into place today? 

Mr. McGREER. I don't recall seeing any of those reports. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think it was about 60 percent, and that has 

a huge impact. 

How did PACFISH work out? 

Mr. McGREER. PACFISH, it is a long story, but basically 

PACFISH mirrors the riparian guidelines that came forth from 

FEMAT, from the western Oregon westside spotted owl forests; so 

the riparian zones, in my opinion, came out of the FEMAT, in large 

part strategies designed to protect spotted owls and terrestrial 

wildlife species. 

But what happened is, it got translated into a series of guidelines 

that were just to apply to anadromous fishery streams througho:.1t 

the Columbia River Basin systems; and then furthermore , tb r 

then got translated into INFISH, which is a system for re:: iden t 

fish species. 
238 

So we have gone from westside terrestrial to anadromous fish 

streams to resident fish streams and virtually all streams covered 

throughout the Columbia Basin. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. McGreer, was there a decision in the Federal district court with regards to FEMAT and its legitimacy? 

Mr. McGREER. I am sorry. I am having a little trouble hearing 

back here. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Was there a recent decision within the last 

two or three years out of the Federal district court with regards to 

FEMAT, that included PACFISH? 

Mr. McGREER. I don't recall if FEMAT actually formally incorporates PACFISH, but essentially the PACFISH guidelines-or not 

guidelines, requirements for riparian management area designation 

are imbedded within FEMAT. I am just not sure they call it 

PACFISH within FEMAT. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have just one final question then I am going 

to turn the committee back over to the Chairman. 

What kind of success have you had in reviewing the science of 

the EIS project in the Columbia River? 

Mr. McGREER. I have had excellent success in working with 

some of the people involved in the project, and I have been able to 

share information with them and that has worked back and forth. 

I have been frustrated in that I have not been able to obtain the 

scientific assessment or scientific evaluation of the alternatives for 

the area that I deal with, which is aquatics and riparian. That 

makes it pretty tough to read the first draft of an environmental 

impact statement and really understand the thinking that supports 

it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. McGreer, I think you probably share my 

feeling that they have some of the finest people on the project, it 

just doesn't make it a good project though, in my opinion. With that, I would like to turn the committee baek over to the 

Chairman, Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. [Presiding.] You will have to excuse us. We are in 

and out. We have about five other committees we are supposed to 

be at, and I apologize. We couldn't keep everybody here, as you 

know, on the Hill; I don't know anybody that can. 

Anything else you just have a burning desire to say that you feel 

you won't be complete if you don't get it out? 

Mr. McGREER. No, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. I am trying to stall because Mr. Radanovich wants 

to ask you some questions, and he isn't here, but we can't keep you 

here. 

I also want-I understand Mr. Cooley has some questions. If you 

two gentlemen would be agreeable, we would like to submit some 

questions to you, as well as the other panelists that were here, on 

things that we feel very strongly about. 

[The information may be found at the end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. I guess basically, as we look at this issue, we have 

had a lot of hearings. I am just wondering if the kind of money we 

are putting up for this-I am just counting up the dollars; it gets 

pretty expensive-about the ability to produce timber and other resources, keep the environment clean and correct. And do you think 
239 

it is worth, if you were going to give an off-the-cuff opinion, the 

kind of money you heard about today? 

Is it going to help the Forest Service's ability to do their job? 

What would you say? 

Mr. HAISLIP. I would say, I agree with that. I think it is worth 

it. I think it needs to be done. I think we need to take a holistic 

ecosystem view. 

I can't comment on whether we are spending the right amount 

of money in the study, but certainly the study itself is the right 

thing to do. My personal feeling, though, is that the cost of restoration, of fixing the forest health problem, is the one that we ought to be keeping our eye on. There is a lot of work to be done, and quite frankly, 

it won't get done with the existing budgets. I can't tell you what 

those are going to be, but they are a lot bigger than they are right 

now. 

Mr. HANSEN. As you know, the problem is, we could close our 

eyes-and I say this very respectfully-and be in any committee in 

the House or Senate and hear about the existing budget. In a way, 

you are going to have to turn some of that over to other people to 

do unless people in America want to come up with more money or 

think of creative ways to do it-as we are thinking in this committee, the people who use the land should pay for the land. 

In my 16 years in this committee, I have heard many, , many 

times about the below-cost timber sales. Then you bring in a bunch 

of witnesses here, that type of thing, but who else uses that land? 

We get, in that long litany, that it is used by people to hunt, fish, 

camp, use that forest. Until you start prorating that out among 

other people, maybe the "below cost" isn't there. 

On the other side, you hear environmental community folks say 

they are ripping us off. Those same folks are in the next meeting 

we are having on the cost of houses going up. How come in 1967 

a 2 by 4 was 87 cents; now it is $3.11, or whatever the figure was 

I heard the other day? The same thing we get on below-cost units, 

another relative question we get into. 

I was talking to some Canadian people the other day. They were 

taking slaughter animals and putting them in Canada to keep the 

grass down so they can keep this combustible material from going 

up. They are paying these people 5 bucks a head to keep the 

grasses down. And I don't remember his name-Jim something or 

other, from down in one of the colleges-! listened to him give a 

talk. He said, what people don't realize is, I don't care a hoot about 

the cattle, what I am worried about is using that as a tool. 

So it is kind of-it depends on what, where you are sitting. And 

you look out and find out what you are getting. So I have sat here 

and listened to people be very determined over the years. 

I appreciate your testimony, and I think Mr. Radanovich is just 

going to be in trouble; he is going to have to submit written questions to you folks, which I hope you do respond to. 

I want to thank Mr. Unger for coming, and your crew and the 

other folks. I apologize, I had a very important thing on Armed 

Services to take care of and hab to walk out of this meeting, which 

I don't like to do. 
240 

Thank you all for your testimony. This will conclude this meeting, and the committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned and 

the following was submitted for the record.] 
241 

S':'ATS:-!SNT OF DAV:~ G. C~GER. ASSOCIATE CHIE? 

FOR.SST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning 

Ecosystem Assessments 

Washington D.C . May 21, 1996 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss ecosystem assessments in 

the Forest Service, and in particular to discuss three 

assessments that are near completion, the Southern Appalachian 

Assessment (SAAl. the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project (ICBEMPl assessment, and the Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project (SNEPl assessment . I am accompanied today by 

Ph i lip Aune, Research Program Manager, Pacific Southwest Station; 

Jeff Blackwood, Project Manager of the Interior Columbia River 

Basin Ecosystem Prqject; R. Forrest Carpenter and Charles Van 

Sickle . Co-Chair Project Managers of the Southern Appalachian 

Assessment and Bill Sexton, of our Land Management Planning 

staff . 
242 

Background 

All three ecosystem assessments prese~:ed today are unique i n the 

size of the assessment area, issues addressed and procedures 

used . . Ecosystem analysis has been one of the agency ' s tools to 

address the increasing complexity and scope of issues which have 

broadened the context of resource considerations from the site 

and local level to the landscape and regional level. It has 

become evident that large scale assessments of the status and 

function of ecosystems or ecosystem components are sometimes 

needed to consolidate information to support resource management 

planning . 

It should be noted that a large number of ecosystem analyses 

occur at the smaller landscape level (tens of thousands -of acres 

:n s i ze) rather than the ecoregional level (millions of acres in 

s1~e 1. Examples of "landscape level" analyses include watershed 

assessments that are currently being used in the Northwest for 

project planning . Field managers determine the objectives for 

ecosystem analysis as well as the scale of analysis required 

based .on resource issues and future planning needs. 

All of these ecosystem assessments provide the framework or 

context for subsequent decision making. Information from these 

assessments can be used in Forest Plan and site-speci fic level 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl decision documents. 

Assessments are one way to collect and organize infoJ~tion that 

2 
U3 

may later be useful in supporting cumulative effects analysis 

requirements required by NEPA f~r proposed federal actions. 

Ecoregional assessments are processes to develop and summarize 

current, science-based information on the status of the 

biological, physical and human characteristics. These 

assessments are often triggered by issues that can not be 

effectively analyzed solely within National Forest boundaries, 

such as habitat needs for threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species, water quality or forest and rangeland health problems. 

In certain situations, an ecosystem-wide EIS and Record of 

Decision fRODI may be developed utilizing assessment 

info~tion. Decisions based on the EIS and documented the ROD's 

may amend appropriate forest plans and regional guides. This 

approach is planned for the Interior Columbia River Basin . 

Ecosystem assessments can save time and money in the long run in 

hel~:ng ~o mee~ the requirements o! the National Forest 

~~na~emen: Act :NFMAI, NEPA, the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the 

Endangered Species Act <ESAI and reducing the risks of 

lit:gation_ For instance, it is estimated that the Interior 

Columbia River Ecosystem Management Project (which includes the 

scientific assessment accompanied by two EIS's and a scientific 

evaluation of alternatives) will allow amendment of forest plans 

and regional guides a t a cos: that is less then the cost that 

would have occurred if separate environmental analyses were 

prepared for each forest plan . We also believe it will be less 
244 

time consuming to accomplish agency consultations ass~ciated with 

these ~~rest plan amendments. 

The need for these types of assessments is increasing and we are 

committed to learning better and more efficient ways to conduct 

these analyses. What we learn from our experience with the three 

regional assessments that are the subject of this hearing will be 

applied to future assessments . 

Assessment Comparison 

Although the Southern Appalachian Assessment, Interior Columbia 

River Basin Ecosystem Management Project assessment and Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project assessment are different in many ways, 

:hey all represent a common approach to analyze major issues of 

concern. They are all large in scale and cover a mix of land 

ownersh:?s and political boundaries. They are different in how 

:hey were chartered. in the amount of research data collected, 

and when and how the the assessments are to be used in the 

management of National Forest System lands.. Through mon:toring 

these processes, we will adapt any future assessments based on 

what we !earn. 

All three assessments are examples of interdisciplinary studies 

conducted to provide information on and enhance understanding of 

the physical, biological, social and economic aspects and 

4 
245 

interacti ons of an ecosystem. Information from the ICBEMP 

assessment may be used t o amend forest plans and regional guides 

:: ::: addre ss c c :!c er::s abo ut fares= a nd range l and heal::h and t o 

comply with environmental law requirements such as ESA 

requirements for pro tecting listed salmon. The information from 

SNEP and SAA also can be used for forest and site-specific 

project planning. 

Unlike !CBEMP and SAA, the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project 

assessment was requested by Congress. The Conference Report of 

the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal 

Year 1993 <P.L. 102 · 381 ) called for the • . .. scientific review of 

::he remaining old-growth in the national forests of the Sierra 

Nevada in California, and for a study of the entire Sierra Nevada 

ecosystem by an independent panel of scientists, with expertise 

~n ct:verse areas related to this issue.• The panel of scientists 

has held public meet i ngs and solicited information from the 

p~c :: c and gover~~ent agencies. This information is being used 

::: their assessment . In addition, the assessment has undergone 

sclenti!ic peer review . 

7he ICBEMP and SAA have extensively involved the public, federal 

government agencies, universities, Tribes, and local and state 

governments throughout the assessment process. The ICBEMP 

assessment also has undergone scientific peer review. 

The time and money to complete these three assessments have 

5 
246 

varied with the size of the assessment area, the research data 

collected and the level of documentation and analysis. 7he 

ICEEMP project (encompassing 144 million acres, c:~plex ESA and 

forest health issues, and many land use conflicts) which includes 

a scientific assessment, 2 EIS ' s and a scientific evaluation of 

alternatives, will take 4 years to complete at a cost of 33 

mi llion dollars to the Forest Service and the BLM . However, 74 

Forese Service and BLM land management plans may be amended, a 

long term conservation· strategy for the threatened and endangered 

salmon will be in place, a strategy to preclude the need to the 

list inland fish will be completed, a strategy to effectively 

deal with forest and rangeland health, and a consistent digital 

bas~n-wide database will be available for cumulative effect 

analyses for project and forest planning 

The SAA encompasses 37 million acres and the assessment is a 

broad scale, cooperative interagency analysis which will develop 

pr~nciples and consistent information (including a computerized 

da:abasel to be used during forest plan revision pursuant to the 

Na:~onal Forest Management Act. This assessment has cost less 

because it covers fewer acres and has not included costs for 

associated £IS's in addition to the scientific assessment. The 

Forest Service cost of this assessment is approximately 1.8 

million dollars. 

The SNEP assessment area encompasses 25.6 million acres. The 

assessment has cost 6.6 million dollars to pay for independent 

6 
247 

scientists (through research agreements) to complete and publish 

the study. The goals established by Congress for this study 

:~~lude= providi~g a soc~al ave~Jiew of :~e Sie~=a N:vada a~ea; 

determining old growth and late successional forest conditions 

including a special examination of Sequoia Groves; evaluating the 

health conditions and sustainability of the ecosystems within the 

Sierra Nevada; providing an evaluation of ecological processes; 

determining economic conditions of the current market and 

non-market economic indicators of historic, current and future 

management options for the area; and providing an assessment of 

the watersheds, including the condition of the aquatic 

ecosystems. In addition, there will be public access to the 

reports, computer databases, maps, and digitally-stored 

information created by the project. 

Status of Assessments 

All three assessments are near completion. The Interior Columbia 

River Basin Ecosystem Management Project assessment will be 

released early this summer . The related Draft EIS's are expected 

to be completed and available for public review in August. The 

final EIS's, from which forest plans will be amended to address 

ecosystem health concerns and to provide long term measures to 

replace interim direction !PACFISH, INFISH and East-side 

screens), are expected to be completed in May 1997. 

7 
248 

The Souther n Appalachian Assessment will be released to the 

publi c in June , and :he Si e==a Nevada Ecosystem Project will be 

del ered. t o Congress i n June . 

When these assessments are re l eased, Forest Servi ce personnel 

will be availabl e to brief Congress concerning the f indings of 

these scientific studies . 

Conclusion 

In FY 1997, the Forest Service will be completing three more 

ecoregional assessments : the Great Lakes Assessment, the. Ozark 

and Ouachita Highlands Assessment , and the Northern Great Plains 

Assessment . These assessments are separate, coordinated analyses 

and are anticipated to be less costly than the three I have just 

descri bed . Our ecosystem assessment process is evolving and we 

are l earni ng how we can be more efficient in gatheri ng 

nfc~tion we need for forest and project planning area . We are 

keep i ng assessment objectives to the minimum needed to address 

resource issues and planning demands, thus reducing costs. 

Ecosystems are incredibly complex, and although we ~1ill never 

understand them completely, to promote sustainability we must 

understand them as much as possible. 

Large scale ecosystem analyses like the Interior Columbia Basin 

8 
U9 

Ecosyscem Managemenc ?rojecc, So~~hern Appalachian Assessmenc, 

and Sierra Nevada E~~syscen Pro je=: ·· cha~ incorpcra:e 

physical, biological , social and economic aspects of an ecosystem 

are a good way tc promote the sus~ainability of ecosystems 

that the Federal Government manages . 

The more we know aboct these i~teractions, the wiser our 

management decisions will be. By better understanding these 

relationships through these broad assessments, we can make make 

decisions that better promote ecosystem integrity on lands for 

whi=h we have responsibility . 

'he benefits of these assessments are that they will: 

o Lead to resilient ecosystems and sustainable flows of goods 

and services from the public land with potential benefits to 

so~e local econonies. 

o Lead to more effective involvement of the public, Indian 

tribes, and state and local government in our planning and 

decision-making processes. 

o Provide information to support more effective analysis of 

cumulative effects. 

9 
2W 

o Provide informacion chac can be used to replace interim 

managemenc s:racegies such as INFISH, PACFISH, and Eascside 

screens. 

o Help provide more consiscenc and favorable results from 

consulcacions wich regulatory agencies on associaced foresc 

plan amendmencs. 

o Provide informacion chac may lead co Forest SE!rvice plan 

amendmencs for issues chac are broader chan national foresc 

boundaries. 

In che long run, this approach should lead to more Elffective 

management because we will better understand how fac:tors interact 

in a broader contexc and management decisions can be made with 

greacer consiscency. 

We are commicced co managing che Nacional Forescs in ways that 

are ecolog1cally responsible, economically viable, and socially 

accepcable for the benefit of both presenc and future 

generations. 

This concludes my scatement. I would be happy to answer your 

quescions. 

10 
251 

P REPARED STATEMENT Of' JAMES E . LoESEL 

Mr. Chainnan, members of the subcommitee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before this subcommittee to present comments on the Southern Appalachian Assessment. 

My name is James Loesel, and I am presenting testimony on behalf of the Southern 

Appalachian Forest Coalition. 

This coalition consists of national groups (Association ofForest Service Employees for 

Environmental Ethics, Sierra Club, and the Wilderness Society), regional groups 

(Chattooga River Watershed Coalition, Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project and the 

Southern Environmental Law Center), and Forest-wide groups (Georgia Forest Watch, 

Cherokee Voices, and the Citizens Task Force on National Forest Management). We 

fonned this coalition two years ago because the member organizations believe that the 

national forests in the Southern Appalachians need to be managed with a view toward 

protecting the natural heritage values of the eco-region as a whole, not merely on a forestby forest basis. We also saw that many of the decisions affecting the management of these 

Forests are made at a regional. level and it is, therefore, necessary to organize across the 

boundaries to have input on these decisions. Accordingly, the view I express today is 

derived from the experiences of member groups across the Southern Appalachians from 

Virginia through North and South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia to Alabama. 

We believe the Forest Service will provide basic infonnation to the six basic questions 

asked by the subcommitee. In our testimony we wiU concentrate on two of the questions 

about which we can provide additional infonnation. 

Question 3: the relationship of the assessment to the forest plans in the South and the 

applicability of the assessment to other lands. 

The Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition favors the expeditious revision of Forest 

Plans. Some of our members worked intensively on the revision of the George 

Washington National Forest Plan, completed three years ago and on the significant 

amendment ofthe Pisgah/Nantahala Plan, completed two years ago. Some of our 

members have participated in the initiation of revision for the Jefferson National Forest 

three years ago. We have urged the Forest Service to proceed revising the Plans for the 

Alabama, Chattahoochee, Cherokee, and Sumter National Forests. These Plans are a 

decade old, and under NFMA are ripe for revision. 

However, for a Forest Plan revision to succeed, there must be updated and relevant 

infonnation available to compile the Assessment of Management Situation, one of the 

early steps in the planning process. Planning is impossible without basic infonnation about 

the supply and demand for F ores! resources, updated F ores! resource inventories, status of 

Forest health, changing demographics ofForest users, condition of streams and air, and 

the distribution of rare and common plants and animals. The Forests in the Southern 

Appalachians did not have this infonnation base available and it did not appear likely they 

would have the resources available to compile this infonnation separately. 
252 

To fill this need, the Regional Office of the Forest Service initiated the Southern 

Appalachian Assessment. The Assessment will produce a series of "snapshots" of 

resource conditions in the Southern Appalachians. The Assessment will not produce 

decisions about how the National Forests should be managed, but it will produce 

necessary information on which quality Plan revisions can be based. Based on a reading of 

the SAA, the Forest planners are now listing the issues which should be included in the 

revision of the Forest plans. They are also incorporating into the Analys.is ofManagement 

Situation for each Forest those passages in the SAA which provide information relevant to 

an understanding of the Forest 

The managers of other public lands and owners of private lands may use the information 

from the SAA as they think appropriate. 

Question 4: how the public has been involved in the process. 

The Assessment is not a decision document, and therefore it is not subject to the 

procedural requirement ofNEPA. Nevertheless, the Forest Service and others 

cooperating agencies have made the Assessment process open to the public observation 

and participation. The Forest Service posted a Public Affairs Officer to each of the teams 

or subteam. They provided notice of the meetings through a variety of channels. The 

places of the meetings were moved to different locations throughout the SAA area to 

facilitate participation by local communities. 

I attended approximately 45-50 of the meetings held by the Assessment teams at various 

sites in the Southeast; other SAFC members attended additional meetings. These 

meetings were also attended by State agency representatives, academics, and by other 

members of the public. Forest Service staff members attended because they were 

interested in what was happening because they thought it had relevance for the revision of 

the Forest Plans; staff members from other Agencies attended because they thought 

something important was happening to which they might contribute or lt:am something. 

We believe the participation by the public made a significant contribution to improving the 

SAA. Through an initial set of meetings the public helped set the questions which would 

be addressed in the SAA. Members of the public who attended team meetings were able 

to ask questions and make suggestions during the meetings. Another way the public 

contributed to the SAA was to provide names of people with expertise to review the 

"products" which were created by the teams. 

The Forest Service recently conducted a review of the SAA. Members of the public who 

attended one or more of the meetings were also sent a questionnaire to solicit views about 

how the SAA was conducted. We have attached SAFC's response to this questionnaire to 

our testimony because we believe it provides additional perspectives about the SAA which 

the subcomrnitee may find useful. 

2 
253 

In addition we would offer the following observations about the SAA: 

1) We concur with the view of the Southern Regional Office of the Forest Service 

that there are ecological similarities among the National Forest in the Southern 

Appalachians and that Plans for these Forest should reflect these similarities. The 

Assessment is providing common information, consistent definitions, and standard formats 

for preparing revised Plans. The Assessment should provide a framework into which 

individual Plans will fit. The Plans of neighboring Forests should be readily understood by 

a reader familiar with one Forest Plan. 

2) The Assessment became an interagency effort. Other SAMAB agencies have 

joined with the Forest Service on the Assessment teams; they bring resources and 

perspectives which have improved this project. One of the side benefits of the Assessment 

is cooperation and communications among sister agencies. 

3) Cooperation within the Forest Service has been improved. Cooperation and 

communications have been fostered across Forest lines as well as up and down the 

District/Supervisor/Regional chain of command. 

4) This generation of revised Plans will use Geographical Information Systems 

(GIS) as a means of storing and displaying information about Forest resources. The 

Southern Appalachian Assessment is providing the leadership to make this happen by 

digitizing data, obtaining necessary hardware and software, training of personnel in the use 

of GIS, and making the data from the Assessment widely available to the public. 

5) Gathering information on a regional level about basic information needed for 

management of the Forests is far more efficient and economical if done at one time rather 

than relying on each Forest planning staff to gather the information. 

6) The SAA has created a process by which the public can review basic Forest 

Service data and provide corrections if necessary. At the outset the Forest Service saw 

the benefits of having the public review the data on which Forest plans and projects will be 

based. This constitutes a fundamental change from the older perspective of making public 

access to data difficult. The FS has just begun distribution of a set of five CD- ROMs 

which contain the basic information used in the SAA. In July the general public will have 

an opportunity to comment on the SAA information as part of the Notice oflntent. 

Updates on information will be available through the Forest Service home page on the 

Internet. 

7) The Assessment is an important training ground for future leaders within the 

Forest Service. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present our 

VIews. I welcome your questions about our testimony. 

3 
254 

Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition Answers to Southern Appalachian Assessment 

Questionnaire 

1. If another group were about to begin an integrated assessment like the SAA, what 

advice would you give them about 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROCESS 

A. Question: How do you feel about the development of the SAA Charter? Please 

suggest steps in the development process that you think would have helped to form a 

stronger, more effective charter for the project. 

Answer: There was no SAA Charter! There was a Charter developed by the 

Forest Service for the SAA, but that should not be confused with a chali.er agreed to by all 

agencies which worked on the SAA. The "SAMABizing" of the Assessment was an 

important and significant enlargement of the Assessment, but since the other agencies 

never had to buy into the project officially through signature to a charter, there was little 

leverage that could be exerted on agencies that chose to not cooperate at some stage of 

the assessment. On the other hand, it is doubtful that many of the other agencies would 

have participated had they been asked to make a full, equal partnership commitment at the 

outset. One of the strengths of the SAA was a commitment (at least by the Forest 

Service) to an adaptive management process. That was far more important than a charter. 

Organization 

B. Question: How well does the Policy Team!feam Leader/Team Member 

organization serve to accomplish the objectives of the assessment? Do you think the 

organizational structure of the Assessment should have been different? If so, how? 

Answer: Generally, the Policy Team did not provide policy oversight to the 

Assessment. The Policy Team did not function effectively because there was no official, 

formal commitment from the agencies to a Charter. A majority of the agencies which 

signed the SAA did not attend most Policy Team meetings. Policy oversight was 

exercised by skillful leadership and negotiations by a handful of representatives of agencies 

which provided the bulk of the money and personnel. 

The team leader structure worked well for the atmospheric team. Co-team leader 

structure did not function effectively for the aquatic team. The team leader/subteam 

leader organization structure for the other two "teams" was a failure. 

The organizational structure for any future assessment must be based on the specific aims 

of the assessment rather than copying the structure from the SAA or elsewhere. 
255 

C. Question: What qualities, in your team leaders, did you appreciate most that 

helped you and others accomplish their work. What criteria should be used' in selecting 

team leaders and team members? 

Answers: 

Technical competence in the subject matter and glutton for hard work. 

Technical competence in the subject matter and glutton for hard work. 

D. Question: What helped you and what hindered you, in terms of accomplishing 

Assessment work along with your regular duties? · 

Answers: 

Helped: scheduling a number ofSAA meetings in the same general location one following 

another. 

Hindered: assessment work was seen as an addition to regular work 

E. Question: Was funding of Assessment activities an issue? How should the budget 

and funding be handled in future assessments? 

Answers: Funding is always an issue. Had the Forest Service not received a 

budget windfall for ecosystem management which could be utilized for the assessment, the 

SAA would never have taken place. Other agencies did not have similar funding cushion 

to utilize for the SAA. Funding of private citizens to work on the assessment is also a 

problem. Specifically, public input is important, but many private citizens are not free to 

attend daytime meetings or able to travel long distances. Our technical input was made 

possible by coalition funds. This implies that partnerships may be needed with 

organizations which do not have the funding to participate but do have valuable 

knowledge or insight to contribute. 

F. Question: How do you think that communications could have been improved 

among the various teams? 

Answer: Hold more meetings that involved more than one team. There should 

have been a more definitive list of team members early in the study so team members 

could talk to one another informally. 

INTERAGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

G. Question: What is the most helpful thing you learned about how to make working 

with people from various agencies easier and more efficient? If you were responsible for 
256 

external collaboration for the next assessment, what r~uirements /processes would you 

put in place? 

Answers: Get them into the same room and at the same table. Then invite them 

to eat and to drink beer after the meetings end. (What is "external collaboration"? Is that 

dealing with the public? Or is it dealing with other agency people? If the question is how 

to get along with people from other agencies or with the public, it is important to allow 

for interacting at nonrneeting times.) 

H. Question: What criteria should be used in determining which agencies should 

participate in such an assessment? 

Answer: Are they willing to commit people and money; do they have 

information or a point of view that adds to the assessment. 

I. Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a SAMAB -type 

organization to coordinate multiple groups and agencies? 

Answer: At first we were skeptical that "SAMABizing" the assessment was a 

positive development. We now believe it was an extremely important step in facilitating 

the assessment. It provided a platform for interagency cooperation rather than a 

perception of direct agency-to-agency negotiations. This was very important where many 

of the agencies were not capable of making contributions of persoMel and money 

comparable to the Forest Service. 

J. Question: In terms of communicating/interacting/working with people from 

agencies other than your own, what worked and what didn't work? 

Answer: 

Worked: Interacting at the table. Personal contact. Conference calls. 

If they didn't show at the meetings, it didn't work. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

K. Question: In terms of communicating/interacting/working with the public, what 

worked and what didn't work? 

Answer: It was vital to get the public to the table. Moving the meetings around 

the Region helped, but effective public involvement required following the meetings from 

place to place. It helped to allow interaction at the table rather than limiting participation 

to listening and speaking at scheduled times. The internet helped provide a channel of 

communication. 
257 

L. Question: How did the presence and participation of the public at team meetings 

affect team discussion and accomplishments? 

Answer: We think it improved the discussion and accomplishments of the SAA. 

The Forest Service is more accustomed to working with the public than most of the other 

agen~ies . We hope that the experience of working with the public in the SAA will 

convince other agencies of the merits of public participation. 

PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENTS 

M. Question: Does the link between Forest Service needs for forest planning and 

integrated assessments work? Should they be somewhat distinct process and not 

connected to the same time frames, etc.? 

Answers: It is premature to judge whether or not the link works. The SAA is 

being scanned by planners to see that is relevant to the revision process. We believe the 

link works--barely. It could have been improved by incorporating more planners into the 

SAA process, particularly in framing the questions to be asked and the type of products to 

be developed to answer them. 

The second question is irrelevant to the SAA. The SAA was conceived as a way to 

generate information which should be useful to plan revision. Without this link the Forest 

Service would never have committed to the Assessment. Whether other assessments 

should be linked to planning should be detennined on a case-by-case basis. 

N. Question: In what ways do integrated assessments work as vehicles to facilitate 

collaboration between agencies and the public? 

Answer: BINGO I Collaboration among agencies and between agencies and the 

public is a crucial outcome of the SAA. In what ways is this fostered? By treating the 

members of the public as full partners in the work of the assessment. In general, 

cooperation is easier when the task is to gather information rather than make decisions 

about how land should be managed. Trust built during the assessment may be a basis for 

cooperation in other matters. 

0 . Question: What are your ideas about integrated assessments in general-- when and 

where will they serve us best and for what purposes? 

Answer: We think assessments are most useful when they are focused on giving 

a "set of snapshots" about resource conditions. They should be fairly short in duration, 

although a mechanism for updating would be important. Multi-agency cooperation is 

important, as is involvement of the public. They should focus on an identifiable region 
258 

such as the Southern Appalachians. The scope should include private as well as public 

land. There should be wide-spread interest in utilizing the information from the 

assessment. 

ISSUES ADDRESSED 

P. Question: How should the issues (or questions) be framed so that they can be 

answered in an integrated way? 

Answer: It is important to frame questions that people in the agencies and in 

the public have on their minds. It is important to get people with relevant expertise to 

answer the questions. We think the talk about "integrated" questions and/or "integrated" 

answers is largely "agencyspeak". 

There were some "synthesizing" analyses which were not done but would have been 

interesting and useful, e.g . overlays of key wildlife habitat with roads and population 

centers. It is likely that the cause for missing some of these opportunities was uncertainty 

about obtaining some of the data (such as TM scenes) and about methodology. 

Q. Question: How can data and information be integrated to address the issues (or 

questions) that are raised? 

Answer: You get competent people on the teams. You ask them to consider 

their own key findings in light of those of others, early on, i.e., you get the teams talking 

with one another to see if they have something to share. If they do, incorporate the 

information/perspective. At that point you can make plans to pursue synthesizing analysis 

If they don't have an analysis which. seems productive, move on. There isn't enough time 

to look at every theoretically possible "interface" . 

QUESTIONNAIRE 

R. Question: What are the "lessons learned" in acquiring, developing, updating the 

data needed to conduct an assessment? 

Answer: You need good people who know the data. This assessment would 

have been impossible without Karl Hermann, just to name one person. 

S. Question: What data and analysis tools would you consider essential to a 

successful assessment? 

Answer: No single set of data or set of analysis tools is absolutely necessary. 

However, had the SAA not been able to utilize GIS technology to display information, it 

would have been obsolete. 
259 

REPORT WRITING 

T. Question: Please suggest ground rules, direction, process that could make this part 

of the assessment process as efficient and workable as possible for authors, editors, and 

typists? 

Answer: A writer should be assigned to the team from the beginning. This 

person should be designated as the writer of the team report. The format should be 

determined early. 

U. Question: Would you advise holding a session for writers, editors, and typists 

before any writing begins (should the style used and reference requirements be 

communicated in a formal way very early in the process? 

Answer: Yes. 

PEER REVIEW 

V. Question: How well did the peer review process work? 

Answer: There was little peer review. Most review was "technical review" . 

This review was not adequate for some parts of the assessment. The policy review was 

also spotty--excellent on some points, but absent on others. 

W. Question: What changes would you suggest for future peer reviews? 

Answer: It should be conducted on the draft of the team reports, not just the 

"product" of individual team members. There needs to be enough time to do peer review, 

and enough time to incorporate the results. We also believe it would have been useful to 

have more general public comment on the draft reports in addition to peer and technical 

review. 

TIMELINES 

X. Question: What things should be considered when time-frames and deadlines are 

developed that could make your task easier and the assessment more valuable? 

Answer: If there had been more attention put on how the technical reports 

would be written, it would have been possible to avoid placing a crushing burden on some 
260 

of the team/subteam leaders when it became necessary to rewrite the reports. If some of 

these people do not suffer from bum-out, we would be surprised. 

Y. Question: How is the best way to address data quality and product quality when 

time is limited? 

Answer: There should have been some oversight provided for teams that were 

floundering in conceptualizing their work. We attempted to raise some of these concerns 

to SAA leaders after observing/participating in the team meetings, but little corrective 

action was taken. There should be some drafts required at various stagl~S of the the 

assessment, starting very early. Technical expertise is important in early reviews and 

oversight of an assessment. 

COORDINATION OF RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT 

Z. Question: How can Research and Management branches of agencies (such as 

Forest Service) work best together? 

Answer: Put them in the same room. We also think it is important for people 

from Districts, Supervisors' Offices, and Regional Office to work together on the same 

teams. A blending of organizational perspectives is important to make the assessment 

work. 

2. Question: If you could change things about this assessment, what would they be? 

Please prioritize. 

Answer: 

a) Get a better picture of what the reports would look like. 

b) Provide more direction to the teams about how to produce this kind of a report. 

c) Get more robust, critical peer review from outside professionals 

d) Eliminate subteams--they tended to lose focus on the questions and on creating a report 

for the whole team. 

e) Create a charter agreed to by all of the participating agencies. 

f) Provide more support for the team members (money, time relief, recognition). 

3. Question: With the SAA complete, what follow-up actions do you think should be 

taken and by whom? In other words--- what should be the next step? 
261 

Answer: 

a) All team members/leaders/writers should be required to review the list of issues & need 

for change in the draft Notice oflntent to ensure that the findings of the SAA have been 

incorporated into the NO I. 

b) The agencies should announce programs to provide training and access to hardware for 

members of the public (and agency people) to utilize the CD ROMs which will contain 

much of the information from the assessment. 

c) A home page should be maintained. 

d) A mechanism should be established for continued update and refinement of the SAA 

database. Refinement should be based in part on weaknesses identified with help from 

qualified outside professionals, in an organized effort to focus and develop the database 

and its synthetic analyses. 

4. Other comments: 

A key to the success of the SAA was ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT. The quality of 

leadership by a handful of people made all the difference. 

Just as important was the commitment of many team members. They believed Southern 

Appalachian Assessment was important and they refused to quit or fail. 
262 

Testimony of 

BILL SNYDER 

Georgia-Pacific Corporation 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

of the 

House of Representatives Committee on Resources 

May 21 , 1996 

Oversight of the USDA Forest Service Land Management Planning Process 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Snyder. I am the ChiefForester for Georgia-Pacific 

Corporation's Martell, California operations. Georgia-Pacific is a large fully integrated wood 

products corporation with fee timberland ownership in excess of 6 million acres in the United 

States. The Martell portion of the fee timberland base consist of 126,000 acres of highly 

productive Sierra Nevada timberlands , a medium sized sawmill, and a particlc:board plant. The 

timberlands owned by Georgia-Pacific in this area have been under continuous forest 

management by the company and it predecessors for over I 00 years. My 24 years of experience 

as a land manager has been gained exclusively in the Sierra Nevada and the forested ecosystems 

found on the west slopes. 

Sustainable forestry is at the heart of what Georgia-Pacific does on its timberlands and 

encourages others to do on their timberlands as well. We have supported and led the adoption of 

forest product's industry's "Sustainable Forestry Initiative". We promoted the national Seventh 
263 

Forest Congress as a means to elc,·atc the constant debate over naturll rcsom~es and the use of 

our forests to a solution oriented forum designed to reach agreement on lorest management 

direction for the 21st century. 

Management of our company's natural resources is guided by an eleven point 

environmental strategy specifically designed to protect water quality, wildlife, recreational 

resources, research and technical development, etc. This strategy also commits us to promoting 

excellence in the management of all timberlands regardless of ownership. Our neighbors include 

small non-industrial woodlot owners as well as national forest lands. Here at Martell, our 

timberlands are intermixed with national forest lands. Our ownership spans both the El Dorado 

and Stanislaus National Forests. Fortunately, we are largely independent of timber supply from 

either of these national forests. However, given the intermingled nature of the national forest 

ownership with our own, we have a great interest in their management activities in relationship to 

our timberlands. 

Since the mid-eighties we have watched the Forest Service engage in a series of major 

planning efforts to guide the management of the Sierra Nevada national forests. Initial efforts 

focused on development of Land and Resource Management Plans for each of the National 

Forests. This painful and expensive effort was largely completed in the early nineties. As with 

most of the planning efforts nationwide, most of the plans were challenged in one form or 

another. In California as in the Pacific Northwest, the debate over the forest plans focused on the 

spotted owl and old growth. At the same time land managers were beginning to recognize that a 

long period of fire exclusion, landscape disturbances and natural succession had created 

conditions in the Sierras which were leading to unacceptable fJJe losses and unhealthy forest 

conditions. 

In the Sierra Nevada it became apparent that the California spotted owl was not 

dependent on old growth. It was also apparent that the history oflogging within the Sierra 

Nevada was different than in the coastal pacific northwest forests. The Sierra Nevada had a 

history of selective logging as opposed to the clearcutting which had taken place in Oregon and 

Washington coastal Douglas-fir forests . 

. The Forest Service here in Region V faced two immediate problems which threatened the 

2 
264 

curr~nt land managem~nt planning process. The tirst probkm " ·as ho" w de·al \\ith threats b:· 

various groups to petition for listing of the California spotted owl as threatened or endangered if 

the Forest Service implemented the land management plans. The second problem was how to 

deal with old gro\V1h issues in a meaningful way. 

In response to the first issue the Forest Service developed a strategy for dealing with the 

management of Spotted owls in the Sierras. The first step was the development of interim 

guidelines which have been in effect while a full Environmental Impact Statement was being 

developed. The interim guidelines were originally designed to last for two years. We are 

presently in our third year, and can see the light at the end of the tunnel as the CALOWL EIS is 

ready for signature. 

The second issue was caught up in the debate over pacific northwest old growth when 

H.R. 4899 was amended to include California national forests outside the Klamath Province. As 

originally proposed the bill included the scientific study of old growth in the Sierras which 

became the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). Concern by several members of the 

House Agriculture Committee quickly surfaced that restricting the study to old growth alone 

would not povide sufficient information to recommend a comprehensive management strategy 

for the Sierras. The Agriculture Committee accepted a compromise bill H.R. 6013 which was 

designed to study all sera! stage ecosystems authored by Representative Panetta and California 

committee members, Representatives Dooley and Lehman. The bill passed the Agriculture 

Committee but failed in the Natural Resources Committee. Recognizing the importance of the 

study given the escalating debate over land management in the Sierras, Rep. Panetta in the 

Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill of 1993, included language that 

authorized the study portion ofH.R. 6013. SNEP was officially underway. 

Since the beginning SNEP has been a process with which we have had misgivings. It has 

not been subject to F ACA and as such, is not a process which has relied on public input. We 

welcome this oversight process as a means to raise concerns we have had with the process since 

its beginning. In response to your letter we will respond to the questions you. raised in your 

invitation letter of May 13, 1996 in order as follows: 

3 
265 

I) The scope of the project; 

As ori ginally planned specili c direction included the following elements with respect to the scope 

of the project. 

a) delineation of various ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada forests 

b) inventory of land and resources associated with each ecosystem 

c) evaluation of current health and trends 

d) identification of factors affecting health conditions and trends 

e) recommendations of alternative strategies with associated risks and economic analyses 

f) examination of the Mediated Settlement Agreement for the Sequoia National Forest 

The process for analysis is logical and one which was supported generally by the industry and 

state of California. However, there is general agreement that the SNEP team has gone beyond 

the intent of the original H.R. 6013. 

2) The current status and cost of the project; 

Initial plans for completion of the draft of the SNEP report called for completion by December 

1994 with a final report due by December of 1995. Our best information now indicates that the 

final document will be available sometime in late June of 1996. Unfortunately, by failing to 

produce a draft document, the SNEP team has effectively preempted public and political review. 

This is particularly frustrating given the FACA exemption and has led to considerable 

apprehension over the content of the document particularly in light of the advocacy positions a 

number of the scientists involved in the process have taken. This apprehension was heightened 

by leaks of the document to prominent newspapers. 

From a cost standpoint, original Congressional Budget Office estimates to complete the 

study indicated that the cost of H.R. 6013 would be $2 million. Estimates of the total cost of the 

report as undertaken by the SNEP group is over $7 million. Given the difference in the estimated 

cost and money which will actually be spent, questions need to be raised about why this 

magnitude of difference exists. 

3) The relationship of the assessment to the national forest plans; 

The relationship to the national forest plans is unclear. So is the relationship to the 

current CALOWL EIS. In many ways, the SNEP effort has duplicated the efforts of the 

4 
266 

CALO\\"L team. SNEP has relied heavi ly on the CALOWL database with respect to mapping 

and Geographic Information Systems support. From the outset, the CALOWL ElS emphasized 

ecosystem analysis on a watershed/landscape basis. The two efforts seem to be on largely 

parallel courses, although the NEPA process utilized through the ElS development clearly 

provided all segments of the public with opportunities for input that were not available through 

the SNEP process. At a cost of approximately $2 million the CALOWL effort seems to be a 

bargain. 

4) The applicability of the assessment to public and private lands; 

In the beginning, SNEP scientists actively sought information regarding private land 

management activities. Potential for impacts on private lands in the Sierra are high depending on 

the management strategies developed by the SNEP team. Unfortunately, while the SNEP team 

sought information from private landowners, we were not afforded the same courtesy with 

respect to answering questions regarding how the information would be used and what scenarios 

would be developed. lbis did little to raise our confidence in the SNEP process. 

5) How the public has been involved in the process; 

Public involvement in terms of ability to participate and comment on draft management 

scenarios has been limited. SNEP has held scoping sessions, briefing sessions and published 

newsleners to identify issues and keep the public informed on progress towards completing the 

report. SNEP has also published the scientific reports to be used as the basis for the assessment. 

However, the process has not developed a draft available for anything but scientific peer review. 

This has effectively eliminated public and political input. 

6) The type of decision and expected results; 

The SNEP document is not to be a decision document. It is a study being prepared for 

Congress. Our fear is that political infighting will result in reaching a decision on the CALOWL 

EIS while waiting for the SNEP report. Given that the SNEP report is not to be a decision 

document, delaying implementation of the CALOWL EIS and Record of Decision is clearly 

unwarranted. There is a clear and present need to begin managing the Sierra Nevada national 

forests to restore health and fire resistance to a number of ecosystems at risk. The 

implementation of the preferred alternative in the CALOWL EIS will be a m<uor step along this 

5 
267 

path. \\'e do not kno\\ \\hat th~ S?\EP scenarios are. We do kno\\ that the scenarios developed 

have not been subject to public and political review. Implementation of the SNEP strategies 

would need to go through the full NEPA process. This will likely take a number of years to 

complete and may not produce an ecosystem approach radically different than the preferred 

alternative under the CALOWL EIS. 

7) And the next steps. 

Once the SNEP report is received by Congress, public and political review will begin. In 

the interim it will be important to move forward with current ecosystem management plans as 

laid out in the CALOWL EIS. Also, if not yet accomplished, Congress should direct the SNEP 

team to evaluate the preferred alternative developed in the CALOWL EIS to allow comparison of 

the alternative to scenarios developed in the SNEP report. Once this comparison is made, it will 

be possible to evaluate whether additional planning is necessary and where additional focused 

analysis effort needs to be made. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Please let me know if you have any 

questions. 

For your reference we have attached a copy ofH.R. 6013 along with correspondence 

directed to the Chief of the Forest Service regarding Congressional intent on implementation of 

the SNEP project. Also enclosed is a copy of the American Forest & Paper Association's 

brochure outlining the principles and implementation guidelines for their "Sustainable Forestry" 

initiative. 

6 
268 

i\ ·'. R 1< A" I 0 ll L S T & I' r I I< A ,, < AT t 0 N ~ 

SusTAINABLE FoRESTRY .~'-

~ 
269 
270 

PRINCIPLES FOR 

SusTAINABLE FoRESTRY 

America's managed forests make a vital contribution to the nation and to the world by 

providing economic, consumer, environmental and aesthetic benefits indispensable to 

our quality of life. A vital forest-based economy provides wood and paper products, 

employment, and a viable tax base. Accomplishing sustainable forestry on private land 

requires a partnership among landowners, contractors, and the companies that pur-

. chase wood. 

AF&PA members, therefore, support on the forestland they manage-and will 

promote on other lands-,;ustainable forestry practices. Moreover, AF&PA members 

will support effons to protect private property rights and the ability of all private 

landowners to sustainably manage their forestland. This support stems from the 

AF&PA membership's belief that forest landowners have an important stewardship 

responsibility and commitment to society. In keeping with this responsibility, the 

members of the American Forest & Paper Association support the following 

principles: 

SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY 

To practice sustainable forestry to meet the needs of the present without compromising 

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by practicing a land stewardship ethic which integrates the reforestation managing, growing, nurturing, and 

harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water 

quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and aesthetics. 

REsPONSffiLE PRACTICES 

To use in its own forests, and promote among other forest landowners, sustainable 

forestry practia;s that are economically and environmentally responsible. 

FoREST HEALTH AND PRoouCfiVITY 

To protect forests from wildfire, pests, diseases, and other damaging agents in order to 

maintain and improve long-term forest health and productivity. 

PROTECTING SPECIAL SITES 

To manage its forests and lands of special significance (e.g., biologically, geologically, 

or historically significant) in a manner that rakes into account their unique qualities. 

CoNTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT 

To continuously improve the practice afforest management and also to monitor, 

measure and report the performance of our members in achieving our commitment to 

sustainable forestry. 

3 
271 

SusTAINABLE FoRESTRY 

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES 

The following guidelines are intended to provide measures for evaluating our 

membership's compliance with the AF&PA Sustainable Forestry Principles. By 

January I, 1995, all member companies must agree to adhere to the Sustainable 

Forestry Principles. During the implementation year of 1995, AF&PA members will 

develop the programs and practices necessary for adherence ro the objectives and 

measures identified below. By January I, 1996, compliance with the Sustainable 

Forestry Principles and Implementation Guidelines will be a condition of continued 

membership in AF&PA. 

The following performance measures are written in the future tense to reflect the 

underlying premise of the Sustainable Forestry Principles, which is continuous 

improvement. While AF&PA member companies are committed to continuous 

improvement and assessment, these principles and guidelines also recognize the 

sustainable forestry efforts that are underway today throughout the U.S. forest 

products .industry. 

Owing to the wide diversity of forest types and conditions, AF&PA members 

recognize that implementation guidelines will be most effective if they are tailored to 

the unique forest conditions at the regional, ownership, or site level. For this reason, 

AF&PA member companies will individually or collectively-at the sire, state, or 

regional level-adopt performance measures that are most appropriate for the given 

forest condition, even if they are different from those stared below, provided they are 

fully consistent with or exceed the spirit and intent of the objectives stated in this 

document. 

4 
.... 

.. 

,.. 

272 

I IMPLEMENI'ATION GUIDEUNES FOR 

SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY ON AF&PA MEMBERS' FORESTS 

OBJECTIVE 1. Broaden the practice of sustainable 

forestry by employing an array of scientifically, 

environmentally, and economically sound practices 

in the growth, harvest, and we of forests. 

Performance Measures: 

a. Each AF&PA member company will define irs 

own policies, programs, and plans to implemenc and 

achieve the AF&PA Sustainable Forestry Principles 

and Guidelines. 

b. AF&PA members will, individually, through 

cooperative efforts, or through AF&.PA, provide 

funding for forest research to improve the health, 

productivity, and managemem of all forests. 

OBJECTIVE 2. Prompdy reforest harvested areas 

tn ensun: long-term forest productivity and 

conservation of forest resources. 

Performance Measures: 

L AF&PA members will reforest after final harvest 

by planting or direct seeding within two years, or by 

planned natural regeneration methods within five 

years. 

AF&PA members will promote stare-level 

reporting of the overall rate of reforestation success. 

OBJECTIVE 3. Protect the water quality in streams, 

lahs, and other waterhodies by establishing 

riparian protection measures based on soil type, 

terrain, vegetation, and other applicable factors, 

and by wing EPA-approved Best Management 

Practices in all forest management operations. 

Performance Measures: 

a. AF&PA members will meet or exceed all established Best Management Practices (BMPs) approved 

by EPA, all applicable state water quality laws and 

regulations, and the requirements of the Clean Water 

Act for forestland. 

b. AF&PA members will establish and implement 

riparian protection measures for all perennial streams 

and lakes and involve a panel of ex pen s ar the stare 

level to help identify goals and objectives for riparian 

protection. 

c. AF&PA members will, individually, through 

cooperative efforcs, or through AF&PA, provide 

funding for water quali[)' research. 

OBJECTIVE 4. Enhance the quality of wildlife 

habitat by devdoping and implementing measures 

that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of plant and animal populations found in 

forest communities. 

Performance Measures: 

a. Each AF&PA member company will define its 

own policies, programs, and plans to promote habitat 

diversity. 

b. AF&PA members will, individually, through 

cooperative efforts or through AF&PA, provide 

funding for wildlife research. 

OBJECTIVE 5. Minimize the visual impact by 

designing harvests to blend into the terrain, by 

restricting clearcut size and/or by wing harvest 

methods, age classes, and judicious placement of 

harvest units to promote diversity in forest cover. 

Performance Measures: 

~ Each AF&PA member will define irs own policies, programs, and plans co minimize the impact of 

harvesting on visual quality. 
b. AF&PA members will develop and adopc, in each 

state where they operate, appropriate targets for 

managing the size of dearcuts. Where the average size 

of clearcut harvest areas exceeds 120 acres, AF&PA 

member companies will reduce the average size to no 

more than 120 acres, except when necessary to 

respond co forest health emergencies or mher natural 

catastrophes. 

c. AF&PA members will adopc a "green up" requirement, under which past clearcut harvest areas must 

have crees ac lease 3 years old or 5 feec high ac the 

desired level of stocking before adjacent areas can be 

clearcut, or companies may adopt other, more comprehensive methods that provide age, habitat and 

aesthetic diversity. 

OBJECTIVE 8. Manage company lands of ecologic, 

geologic, or historic significance in a manner that 

accounts for tbeir special qualities. 

Performance Measures: 

a. AF&PA members will identify special sices and 

manage them in a manner appropriate to their 

unique features. AF&PA members may involve 

organizations with expertise in protecting special 

places co suggesc how chese lands can best be managed 

to maintain cheit unique character. 

6 

273 

OBJEcnYE 7. Contribute to biodi..,rsity by 

enhancing landscape diversity and providing an 

array of habitats. 

Performance Measures: 

a. AF&PA members wiB increase their suppon for 

research to improve the science and understanding of 

landscape management, ecosystem functions, and the 

conservation of biological diversity. 

b. AF&PA members will cominually apply che 

knowledge gained chrough research, science, cechnology, and field experience for conserving biological 

diversity. 

OBJEcnYE 8. Contioue to improve forest utilization to help ensure tbe most efficient use of forest 

resowces. 

Performance Measures: 

a. AF&PA members will employ appropriace 

technology, processes, and practices to minimize waste 

and ensure efficient utilization of trees harvested. 

OBJEcnYE 8. Contioue tbe prudent use of forest 

chemicals to improve forest bealtb and growth 

while protecting employees, .neighbors, tbe pnhlic, 

and sensitive areas, including streamcourses and 

adjacent laods. 

Performance Measures: 

a. AF&PA members will meec or exceed all applicable label requirements, laws, and regulations 

concerning the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and other 

forest chemicals needed to protect forest health and 

increase growth. 
274 

I I IMPIDIEHTATION GuiDEUHES FOR SuSTAIIWIL£ FORESlRY BY AF&PA 

MEMBERS IN THE PRocuREMENT OF Wooo AND fiBER .._ loGGERS AND OTHER LANDOWNERS 

OBJECTIVE 10. Broaden the practice of sustainable 

forestry by further involving nonindustrial landowners, loggers, consulting foresters and company 

employees who are active in wood procurement 

and landowner assistance programs. 

Performance Measures: 

a. AF&PA members will encourage landowners who 

sell timber co reforest following harvest and to use 

Best Managemenc Practices by providing these 

landowners with informacion on the environmental 

and economic advantages of these practices. 

b. AF&PA members will work closely with logging 

and state forestry associations. appropriate agencies 

and others in the forestry commun ity to funher 

improve the professionalism of loggers by establishing 

state groups {where none exist) and by cooperating 

with existing state groups to promote the training and 

education of loggers in: 

• Awareness of AF&PA Sustainable Forestry 

Principles; 

• Besr Management Practices-including road 

construction and retirement, site preparation, 

streamside management, ere.; 

• Regeneration and forest resource conservation; 

• Awareness of responsibilities under the 

Endangered Species Act and ocher wildlife 

considerations; 

• Logging safety; 

• OSHA and wage and hour rules; 

• Transportation; and 

• Business management-including employee 

training, public relations, etc. 

7 

As a means of demonstrating AF&PA members' 

commitment to continuous improvement in sustainable 

fo restry, state groups will be encouraged to sponsor 

training and education programs for loggers, employees 

involved in procurement and landowner assistance, 

contractors, and suppliers by January 1, 1996. 

c. AF&PA will collect information from irs members, 

state groups, and other sources in order ro annually 

report: 

• the number of landowners who receive 

information about forest regeneration from 

comracrors, company employees, and others; 

• how many of these landowners made an 

informed decision ro apply BMPs and to 

regenerate the forest after harvest; 

• the number of loggers who completed each 

year's training and education programs; and 

• the percentage of wood delivered by loggers 

who have completed logger training and 

education programs. 

d. AF&PA members will ensure their commitment 

to the Sustainable Foresrry Principles is commun icated 

throughout all levels of their companies-particularly 

ro mill and woodland managers, wood procurement 

operations, and field foresters. 

e. AF&PA members will support and promote efforrs 

by consuhing foresters, state and federal agencies, 

state groups, and programs like the American Tree 

Farm System, to educate and assist nonindustrial 

landowners and to encourage them to apply principles 

of sustainable forest management on their lands. 

f. Each AF&PA member will clearly define and 

implement irs own policies, programs, and plans to 

ensure that mill invenmries and procurement practices 

do not compromise irs adherence to the Principles of 

Sustainable Forestry. 
275 

III IMPLEMENTAnON GUID£UNES FOR Af&.PA MEMBER COMPANIES FOR PuBUC 

REPORTING AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE PRAcncE OF SusTAINABLE FORESTRY 

OBJECnVE U. Publicly report AF&PA members' 

progress in fulfilling their commitment to 

sustainable forestry. 

Performance Measures: 

a. AF&PA members will report annually to AF&PA 

on their compliance with AF&PA Sustainable Forestry Principles and Implementation Guidelines. 

b. AF&PA will issue an annual report to the public 

on irs membership's performance regarding compliance with and progress on sustainable forestry, 

including a listing of all companies complying with 

the AF&PA Sustainable Forestry Principles and 

Implememation Guidelines. 

c. An advisory group of independent experts will 

assist in the preparation of the annual report, including validation of conclusions and the assessment of 

reported progress. 

8 

OBJECnvE 12. Provide opportunities for the 

public and the forestry community to participate 

in the AF&PA membership's commitment to 

sustainable forestry. 

Performance Measures: 

a. AF&PA members will support and promoce 

appropriate mechanisms for public outreach, education, and involvement related to forest management, 

such as: 800 numbers; environmenta1 education; and/ 

or private and public sector technica1 assistance 

programs. 

b. AF&PA members will establish an appropriate 

procedure at the state level to address concerns raised 

by loggers, consulting foresters, employees, or AF&~ 

members regarding practices that appear to be 

inconsistent with the AF&PA Sustainable Forestry 

Principles and Implementation Guidelines. 

c. AF&PA members will establish a national forum 

of loggers, landowners, and senior industry representatives, including CEO representation, that will meet 

at least twice annuaJiy to review progress toward the 

AF&PA Forestry Principles and Implementation 

Guidelines. The results of each meeting will be 

reported ro the Forest Resources Board of Directors. 
276 

N AFAPA Puauc: PoucY GoALs - SusTAINABLE FORESTRY 

ON AU. PRnM1E AND Puauc: LAND Ill liE UNnm STAlES 

1. lnc=se Forest Growth, Quality, Dnttsity and 

Productivity by Practicing Sustainable Foresuy. 

AF&PA members will support a natiorud goal of 

sustainable forestry which seeks to increase growth 

and timber quality of all forests, so that the volume 

and quality of domestic timber raoun:cs avaibble are 

adequate to meet public needs now and in the furore. 

To accomplish this goal, AF&PA members will 

cominue to: (a) increase the pnxluctiviry of the 

forests they own and manage; (b) encourage the 

establishment of forests on marginal agricultural lands 

that could more profitably be managed for for<:Stry; 

(c) work with the For<:St Service and state agencies to 

strengthen growth, productivity, and timber quality 

monitoring programs; and (d) support federal, state, 

and !neal programs and policies that encourage 

retention and expansion of the productive forestland 

base and promote long-term forestry invcsanent. 

2. Hdp to Implement Appropriate &osystcm 

Management on Federal Lands. AF&PA members 

will work with Congress and public agencies to 

appropriately define and implement active ecosystem 

management on all National For<:St System and 

Bureau of Land Management lands. This will 

improve the consistency of land management decision-making and hdp to accomplish land management goals. To be elfective, this eflim must include 

improved accountability for meeting gruds. Priority 

attention should be given to public lands with forest 

health problems. 

3. Reduce tbe Risk and Oa:una.oe ofWddfires. 

AF&PA members will support fo= fire protection 

programs to minimize losses liom wildfire. AF&PA 

members will use on their lands, and promote on all 

other lands, appropriate methods, including prescribed fire, to reduce forest fuels, improve regeneration success and wildlife habitat, and mi.nimiu: the 

potential for catastrophic wildfire. When prescribed 

fite is used, sound smoke management guiddines and 

regulations wllfbe followed. 

9 

4. Promok and Utilize Integrated Pest Management. 

AF&PA members will use on their lands, and promote on all other lands. the principles of integrated 

pest management in clte selection and implemencarion of pest control programs, including the selective 

and safe use of pesticides. 

5. Encourage Forest Health and Productivity 

Research. AF&PA members will support research to 

minimize wildfire, pests, diseases, and other damaging 

agents affecting U.S. forests. AF&PA members will 

encourage research and will monitor the work of other 

scientists studying the pocential impact of climate 

change, atmospheric pollution, and the cumulative 

effects on forest health and productivity. 

6. Encourage Continuing Education. AF&PA 

members will support continuing professional 

education in state-of-the-an techniques to integrate 

the management of all forest resources. AF&PA 

members will inform all employees involved in forest 

management of their company's plans, policies, and 

programs to implement the AF&PA Sustainable 

Forestry Principles and Implementation Guidelines. 

7. Recogniu Excellence. AF&PA members will 

recognize and promote excellence to improve environmental performance by those engaged in forestry 

operations. 

8. Protect the Ability of All Private Landowners to 

Manage their Forestland in a Sustainable Manner. 

AF&PA members will work with Congress, state 

legislatures, and federal, state, and local agencies to 

ensure that laws, regulations, rax structureS, and policies 

promote, rather than compromise, the ability of private 

landowners to sustainably manage their forestland.· 
DALE ROBERTSON, Chief, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

277 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATfVES, WASHINGTON, DC. Jan. 26, 1993. 

DEAR CHIEF ROBERTSON: We are writing to provide further direction to the Forest 

Service on the implementation of the independent scientific review of the Sierra Nevada Range Forests which was provided for in the fiscal year 1993 Department of 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Although we realize that the 

$150,000 allotted for the study is not adequate and will require further appropriation, we would like to put forth our view of the type of study on which the funding should be spent. As you know, on October 3, 1992, the House Committee on Agriculture approved 

H.R. 6013, a bill introduced by Representative Panetta and ourselves which stated 

clearly that the study should be a comprehensive ecosystem-wide study. This legislation was the product of long hours of negotiations and received bipartisan support. 

Although the bill fell victim to adjournment, it was clear during the consideration 

of the fiscal year 1993 Interior Appropriations bill that H.R. 6013 was to be the 

model for that study. Specifically, we envision the study to be conducted in the following way: The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, would establish an independent Sierra Nevada Forests Scientific Committee whose member would be drawn from a variety 

of disciplines delineated in H.R. 6013. The Committee would submit a draft report 

to the Secretaries and the appropriate congressional committees that would include: (1) a delineation of the various Sierra Nevada Forests ecosystems, (2) an inventory 

of each ecosystem's lands and resources, (3) an evaluation of each ecosystem's health 

conditions and trends and identification of affecting processes, activities, and other 

factors such as drought, fire, timber harvesting, and residential development, (4) 

recommendations for alternative management strategies, and (5) recommendations 

for Sequoia ecosystem management. Each report (draft and final) would be submitted to the National Academy of Sciences for peer review before submission to the 

Congress. 

We hope that this explanation is helpful as you begin to design the first stages 

of the study. Again, we realize that additional funding will be required in order to 

complete the study in the way outlined above however, we hope that you will 

achieve as many aspects of the H.R. 6013 study as possible this year. If you have any questions regarding his very important issue, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, 

Mr. Dale Robertson 

Chief, U.S. Forest Service 

Washington, DC. 

HAROLD VOLKMER, Member of Congress. RICHARD H . LEHMAN, 

Member of Congress. 

CAL DOOLEY, Member of Congress. WALLY HERGER, Member of Congress. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATfVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC. Jan. 19, 1993. 

DEAR CHIEF: We are writing to provide further direction to the Forest Service on the implementation of the independent scientific review of the Sierra Nevada range 

late successional old-growth forests required under the fiscal year 1993 Dep_artment 

of Interior and related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

This appropriation was requested to fund a scientific review of the remaining late 

successional old growth in the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada range and a study of the entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem by an independent panel of scientists. 
278 

These forests include the Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, lnyo, Toyiabe and Sequoia National Forests, and the area of the Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit contained in the State of California. We recognize that the 

$150,000 appropriation is not sufficient for meeting the requirements of a long-term 

study of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem and will continue to seek future funding to 

meet the long-term goals of this project. 

In the interim, it is our intention that the $150,000 appropriation be used to fund a six month independent study of the Sierra Nevada range as well as a written re- port describing alternative strategies for the protection of these ,ecosystems. As part 

of this exercise, the study should produce maps identifying the old-growth forest 

ecosystems and key watersheds on National Forest lands in the Sierra Nevada 

range and the/lant and animal species associated with those ecosystems. Furthermore, it shoul evaluate different alternatives for protecting the old-growth Sierra 

Nevada forests and key watersheds, including a determination as to whether there 

is a need to establish a reserve system to sustain a Sierra old-growth ecosystem and an identification of the areas that may warrant designation as old-growth forest or watershed reserves. Recommendations for the management of forest and range 

lands in and outside such reserves should also be included. 

Each suggested management alternative should be assessed to determine the risk 

to the ecosystem and associated species that would result from its implementation. 

--Likewise, the effect of each management alternative on timber harvest levels and 

other management activities in affected areas should also be provided. The study 

should be accompanied by an explanation of the assumptions used in considering 

each management alternative. 

In order for this effort to succeed and be credible, it is imperative that an independent panel of scientists with expertise in a variety of forest disciplines be appointed to work with the many knowledgeable experts within the Forest Service it- self. We would suggest that perhaps a half-dozen scientists recognized for their work 

in Sierran late successional old-growth forest ecosystems, wildlifi~ and fisheries biology and forest planning be selected. Each member of the panel should be a recog- nized expert in the field for which he or she is appointed and should be free of con- flict of interest. A number of scientists who would fulfill these qualifications, and 

whom we believe would be willing to serve on such a panel, have been suggested 

to us. We would be happy to discuss these appointments with you or your designee 

at any time. As this study will be conducted in a relatively short timeframe, we do not expect 

that the panel will be gathering data from the field, but will compile existing information from the number of agencies and organizations involved in forest research 

in the Sierra Nevada range. We would encourage the team to consider the maps, 

data, and recommendations generated by the California Spotted Owl Steering Committee, the Forest Service's Range and Resources Assessment Program and Recommendations for Managing Late Seral-Stage Forest and Riparian Habitats on the 

Tahoe National Forest, the State of California and Forest service's joint Sierra Nevada Vegetation Mapping Project, and the Sierran Biodiversity Institute. We anticipate and respectfully request support from Forest Service personnel in assisting the 

scientific panel. We will also be writing to the Secretary of Interior and representatives from the organizations noted above to request their cooperation in this effort as well. 

This study should provide the Congress with the comprehensive data needed to 

make important policy decisions concerning further management of the Sierra Nevada forests. It is our hope that by working cooperatively with the Forest Service 

and other State and Federal agencies, we can identify management alternatives 

that will assure the long-term health and sustainability of these forest ecosystems 

and their associated species. We are grateful for your support and cooperation in 

this effort and look forward to working with you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or if we can offer any assistance. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural 

Resources 

.KIKA DE LA GARZA, 

Chirman, Committee on Agriculture 

GERRY STUDDS, 

Chairman, Committee on Merchant 

Marine & Fisheries 

BRUCE VENTO, 
MR. JACK WARD THOMAS 

Chief, 

U.S. Forest Service, 

Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC. 

279 

Chairman, Committee on National 

Parks, Forests, & Public Lands 

GEORGE BROWN, 

Member of Congress 

SIDNEY R. YATES, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior 

& Related Agencies 

CHARLIE ROSE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Specialty Crops & Natural Resources 

LEON P. PANETTA, 

Member of Congress 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC. Feb. 7, 1995. 

DEAR CHIEF THOMAS: We are writing to express our concern about the direction 

of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. As you know, Congress appropriated 

$150,000 for this study as a part of the Fiscal Year 1994 Interior Appropriations 

bill (H.R. 5503). During debate on that bill, the Forest Service was instructed to follow the language contained in H.R. 6013. Since H.R. 6013 failed to become law, the 

direction of they study has been the subject of some uncertainty. 

It is our understanding that the scientific team is coming close to completing the 

study and we wanted to ensure that the final product can be a constructive tool in 

formulating policy to manage the Sierra Nevada Range. Specifically, we expect the study to includes: (1) a delineation of the various Sierra 

Nevada Forests Ecosystems; (2) an inventory of each ecosystem's land and re- sources; (3) and evaluation of each ecosystem's health conditions and trends and 

identification of affecting processes, activities and other factors such as drought, 

fire, timber harvesting, and residential development; (4) recommendations for alternative management strategies; and (5) recommendations for Sequoia ecosystem 

management. We do not expect the reports to include scientific mapping rec- ommendations. 

Of key concern to us is whether late successional reserves are necessary to maintain the health of the Sierra Nevada Forest ecosystems. The SNEP progress report 

issued in May 1994 stated, "Efforts to reduce catastrophic fire risk to late succes- sional forest stands, and to maintain key ecosystem processes and biodiversity, are much more likely to require active management in the Sierra Nevada." We expect 

development of alternative management strategies to be predicated upon that assessment. Alternative management strategies should include land reserves only if reserves are determined to be necessary for the maintenance of the health of the 

Sierra Nevada Forest ecosystem. 

Recognizing the possible problems regarding compliant with FACA, the authors 

of H.R. 6013 provided for an exemption. However, that bill did not become law and 

the exemption has not been legislated. Therefore, the study team must comply with 

FACA. 

We would also like to reiterate the intent of the Sponsors of H.R. 6013 that private land management strategies should not be made a part of the study. We 

strongly agree with that premise. 

Finally, we would appreciate as part of your response to this letter a status report 

on the study. It is possible that we will be requesting a briefing on the progress 

of the study, but would appreciate a written update. 

We hope that the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project provides Congress with sound 

science that can be used to establish a sensible management strategy for this important area. Thank you for your attention to this matter, 
280 

SIERRA NEVADA ECOSYSTEM PROJECT (SNEPl 

Study Objectives 

(As outlined in H.R. 6013) 

1. Delineate the various ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada Forests. 

2. Inventory the land and resources of each ecosystem. 

3. Evaluate the health conditions and trends of each ecosystem. 

4. Identify the factors affecting the health conditions and trends of each eco- system. 

5. Recommend alternative management strategies with associated risks and eco- nomic analyses. 

6. Examine the Mediated Settlement Agreement and recommend scientific mapping and management of sequoia groves. 

A draft report is due December 31, 1994, and a final report is due March 31, 1996; 

each requiring peer review. 

STUDY CONCERNS 

(Progress to date) 

1. It is the intention of the SNEP team to submit an interim report by April 15, 

1994, delineating only potentially late successional forests. The requirements of H.R. 

6013 do not include such an interim report, and require reports to be peer reviewed. 

2. The late-successional forest inventory process for the preliminary mapping and 

interim report was piloted on the Eldorado National Forest with the following con- cerns identified. a. The congressionally mandated, peer reviewed Forest Service definitions of old 

growth were not used. Instead, attributes were developed by the Eldorado National Forest ecologist. 

b. Using only orthophotos, a topographic map and memory, mappers were unable 

to identify most attributes. c. Maps represent the mappers' individual feelings and any two people will not 

produce comparable maps. 

d. The absence of a definition and failure to identify the attributes prohibit procedure replication, data stratification and field verification. e. Minimum size polygons are 50--100 acres located on a half-inc:h-to-the-mile scale 

map, or approximately 1/8" square. A range of nearly every attribute will be 

found in each polygon due to the forest diversity at the scale. 

3. Mapping will be expanded to all Sierra Nevada forests March 12-19 with the 

assistance of two map11ers from each district. Mapping will follow the same procedures outlined in the Eldorado pilot project, despite concerns of pilot project mappers and without ground-truthing or statistical sampling of the pilot project. a. Mappers were directed to come prepared to follow directions, not with a knowledge of the forest. 

b. Was the Eldorado project a pilot or demonstration? c. Will the results be science or feelings and guesses? 
281 

Testimony of 

Thomas W. Haislip Jr. 

Senior Scientist 

CH2MHILL 

Before the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee 

of the 

House Resources Committee 

May 21, 1996 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
282 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members. 

My name is Tom Haislip. I am a senior scientist and project manager for CH2M HILL, 

an international environmental engineering firm. I hold a B.S. degree in Zoology and a 

M.S. degree in Ecology. I lead a team of scientists and planners who participate in the 

open public process of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(ICBEMP). Our goal is to assure that relevant information and the best science are 

brought to the project, and that appropriate planning processes are used. We have been 

involved in the project since its inception over two years ago. 

The project was initiated to develop an ecosystem management program for federal lands 

east of the Cascade Mountains in the Pacific Northwest. One of the major drivers was 

and continues to be rapidly deteriorating forest health conditions on national forest and 

BLM lands. I believe this to be a very real problem and a threat that needs immediate 

and significant federal action. This project offers the potential to resolve these issues, but 

the products need additional work to bring more focus to them. 

General Comments 

Two of the primary products of the ICBEMP will be the Eastside EIS and the Upper 

Columbia Basin EIS. We have had a chance to review early drafts of these two 

documents and I would like to share our analysis results with you. 

I. The writing quality is much improved over initial drafts. Much of the value-laden 

language that would perpetuate controversies has been removed, but work in this area 

remains. 

2. The descriptions of project needs are appropriate. These include resolving forest 

health problems, and supporting social and economic needs. However, the project 

purposes do not always relate directly to the stated needs. 

3. There is little discussion in the impact analysis of two pieces ofk(:y information: 

(I) the effects on forest health, and (2) the risks and tradeoffs that relate to achieving 
283 

project goals and objectives. These are critical for evaluating the ability of the 

alternatives to meet the project needs. 

4. The projected amounts of restoration and commodity output have been 

constrained by anticipated agency budgets, but the documents do not identify activity 

levels needed to fully restore ecosystem conditions to desirable or sustainable levels. The 

project needs to objectively assess how to achieve the goals in a timely and cost effective 

manner. Commodity production could be an important means to offset restoration costs, 

without sacrificing environmental quality. 

5. The wildlife sections focus heavily on endangered and stressed species, rather 

than those that characterize the ecosystems. This distorts the description of current 

conditions and the impact analysis. 

6. There is a continued bias against the past and future roles of humans in managing 

natural resources. The project fails to recognize that the agencies have done a lot of 

things right and that improved best management practices are in place. Also, by 

inappropriately assuming that the healthiest environments are achieved by keeping people 

out restricts many potential uses and benefits. 

7. The DEIS's contain poor analyses of social and economic impacts. There is 

almost no assessment of the effects of significantly reduced timber harvests projected for 

all alternatives. 

8. It is important that this project provide sufficient knowledge of cumulative effects 

to prevent legal challenges to individual projects during plan implementation. The 

DEIS's appear inadequate to meet that need, but we have not had access to the science 

products yet to draw a firmer conclusion. 

2 
284 

9. The broad-scale modeling analyses are suspect. We have fotuJd several data 

compilations and analyses that are seriously misleading and could result in inappropriate 

management direction. 

Despite their serious nature, most of these problems are fixable. The project has the 

potential to resolve forest health problems and provide sustainable values, but much work 

is needed. Enough time should be taken to make corrections, but at a rapid pace. 

The project should give broad, but clear direction to future forest management. It should 

leave sufficient decision space for the individual forest and land management plan 

amendment process to address local conditions. There has been an attempt to maintain 

flexibility within the proposed strategies, but there is little guidance on how to use that 

flexibility. The project needs to provide leadership and support to forest managers in 

restoring forest health by encouraging local solutions rather than ultra-conservative, 

politically-safe management defaults. 
285 

SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. HAISLIP JR. 

I would now like to provide addition information about several of these points. 

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose and need section of any Environmental Impact Statement sets the 

standards against which each alternative will be measured. The DEIS's for the 

ICBEMP do a good job of describing needs, but list many purposes that are unrelated to these needs. For example, applications of adaptive management is a good 

management tool but hardly a purpose for this project. Similarly, identification of 

constraints and barriers to implementation of this project is a very important task, 

but again, not a purpose for the project. The purpose and need sections should be 

revised to clarify what will be used to judge the alternatives and to avoid potential 

legal challenges 

FOREST HEALTH 

There is little discussion in the impact analysis of the effects on forest health. The 

documents need to bring out several important points as described below. We also 

present some relevant findings of our own. O'Laughlin and others define forest health as a condition of fores ecosystems that 

sustains their complexity while providing for human needs (O'Laughlin, et al., 

1993). Forest health problems in the Columbia Basin have been extensively documented in such studies and reports as the Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assess- ment and Forest Health Conditions in Idaho, so I will not take this time to substantiate the known problems. As stated, the forest health problem also has human di- mensions. The loss of trees may ultimately reduce long-term timber supplies. Private lands and resources are being impacted by the spread of insects and wildfires. Municipal watersheds are at risk. Outdoor recreation values are threatened. People 

living in and around the forests are justifiably worried that their communities will 

lose economic viability. The preferred situation is a more diverse, heterogeneous 

landscape that is more consistent with historical range of variability, less susceptible to wide-area disturbances, and thus more easily sustainable (Sampson and 

Adams, 1994). 

According to Sampson and Adams, the forests of the Inland Northwest are not 

healthy over wide regions (Sampson and Adams, 1994). Remedial, restorative, and 

preventive treatment and management-particularly on Federal lands-is urgently 

needed. A brief window of opportunity exists of perhaps 15-30 years in length within which anticipatory and remedial treatments can be conducted. Without timely 

management intervention, the region is threatened by major ecological setbackspest epidemics and uncontrollable wildfires-that will damage resource values and 

convert large areas into new, even-aged forest systems that set the stage for a re- peat of the current problems far into the 21st century. 

Today's conditions in many Inland Northwest forests allow normal processes to 

become catastrophic events. Unless land conditions can be improved, these catastrophic changes seem certain to continue. On the Boise National Forest, for exam- ple wildfire consumed an average of 3,000 acres per year from 1955-1985. From 

1985-1992, the average annual wildfire acreage jumped to 56,000, including large area, intense, stand replacing wildfires in ponderosa pine forests, and indicating a major shift away from the type of fire regime these forests experienced in the presettlement era (Sampson and Adams, 1994). 

Restoring forest health is central and fundamental to the concept of ecosystem 

management. Forest health affects all the values we derive from our National For- ests: it affects wildlife, habitat, fisheries, recreation, grazing, timber outputs, and 

aesthetics. If we want ecosystem management to succeed in yielding us a sustainable balance of these values, we must aggressively address forest health problems While the draft EISs do recognize the existence of the forest health problems, they 

do not give these problems the prominence they deserve, especially in the impact 

analysis, nor do they propose the aggressive restoration steps that are called for to 

solve these problems in a timely manner. Before being published, the drafts should 

be revised to give more weight to the forest health problem, to propose adequate 

remedied to give more weight for this problem, and to discuss the consequences of 

inaction. 

One would think that a key feature of a forest ecosystem assessment would be 

to identify the types and locations of forests needing various types of silvicultural 

treatments or prescriptions. For example, the stand structures that offer the greatest opportunities for forest health risk reduction appear to be dense, intermediateaged forests with multiple canopy layers in the high and medium risk categories. 
286 

These are forests structures that provide the basic components for producing the 

older forest structures that are in relatively short supply. Through treatments to re- duce health risks, these intermediate structures advance more quickly into the more complex structures that are currently underrepresented. many of these intermediate 

structures offer commercial products as by products of forest health treatments, 

thereby increasing the operational and economic feasibility of the treatments. With 

knowledge of an accurate inventory of forest health conditions, various types of silvicultural can be applied to improve forest ecosystem health. Foresters and scientists have long contended that anticipatory management strat,egies would improve 

stand vigor and health. We developed a GIS-based hazard/risk rating system that, when combined with a forest ecosystem diversity matrix and portrayed on large scale maps, seems to be 

valid for (1) identifying the relative magnitude of integrated forest health hazards 

and risks, (2) revealing the types of forest at greatest risk, and (3) directing man- agement activities to locations where probabilities of health problems are greatest. In our analysis of the four Blue Mountains forests, we showed that high hazard/ 

risk forests ranged from 10 to 22 percent of all forests. When high and medium hazard/risk areas are combined, it appears that 59 to 72 percent of Blue Mountains forests would benefit from various types of anticipatory or remedial treatments to re- store or maintain forest health. Although these estimates present a sizable chal- lenge to resource managers, the estimated forest area undoubtedly would have been 

greater had tree mortality data and several years of insect and disease conditions 

reports been incorporated into the hazard/risk rating system. 

Our analysis shows that a significant proportion of the Blue Mountains forests 

contains medium or high hazards relating to forest health. Presumably, public policy 

decisions based on these analysis results would promote management levels in eco- system management strategies commensurate with achieving successful ecosystem 

restoration. Short- and long-term actions that incorporate forest health restoration 

strategies would include levels of management activity to address current problems 

and avoid future ones. Short-term management actions increase the likelihood of ex- isting high hazard forests eventually reaching desired ranges of future conditions 

specified in forest planning documents. Long-term strategies involve maintaining 

forest health hazard and risk levels within acceptable limits. 

Ironically, the levels of timber harvest proposed in ecosystem management strategies for federal lands in the Interior Columbia River Basin show reductions from 

past trends, yet increases are needed to address identified restoration needs. In fact, 

the proposed reductions for the Blue Mountains range from 27- 99 percent of levels 

allowable by existing forest management plans, on an area basis, depending on the 

selected strategy. This translates to roughly 60 to 23,000 acres per year of forest 

land managed for timber harvest. Proposed precommercial thinning and prescribed 

burning activities would only double or triple the area of forest treated to restore 

forest health. When compared to the 571,969 acres of forest dete.nnined by our study 

to be in the high hazard/risk category and the sizable forest urea in the medium 

hazard/risk category, one wonders whether restoration of forest and ecosystem 

health will receive the priority and level of activity that are needed to succeed. Can 

it be that management activity levels for forest ecosystem health will be regulated 

by arbitrary federal budget caps, not restoration opportunities and needs? 

RISKS AND TRADEOFFS 

For each management standard or guideline within the alternative ecosystem 

management strategies, there are identifiable and quantifiable risks of not achieving project goals and objectives. Also, where the implementation of management 

standards and guidelines is in conflict, there are likely to be tradeoffs in project performance and negative consequences for certain expected outcomes. These risks and 

tradeoffs have not been clearly or thoroughly exposed in the impact analysis, but 

the information is critical for evaluating the ability of the alternatives to meet the 

project needs. · For example, riparian and aquatic management standards and guidelines have 

potential to conflict with those of other programs, such as forest restoration and timber harvest activities. In part, this is a direct result of the ICBEMP's attempt to 

maintain management flexibility on the ground. But it is not clear how the impact 

analysis addresses the effects on project goals when only partial implementation of 

programs is performed. There are two additional areas of risk that may affect the achievement of project 

goals. One was alluded to earlier; that is, the risk of not achieving desired future 

ecosystem conditions if federal forest and land management programs are not fully 

funded. I suspect that risk analysis of proposed budget constraints on forest restora-
287 

tion activities to improve forest heath would reveal that the success of several proposed programs could be in jeopardy. The other area of rroject risk for which any 

analysis is absent is the risk of not implementing a fina management plan or administrative Record of Decision. I am concerned that management inaction, due to 

potential budget recisions, legal gridlock, or prolonged implementation delays could 

arise from the need for additional and subsequent fine-scale ecosystem assessments 

and the forest plan amendment process. For these reasons, I encourage members 

of this committee and other members of the House to support the completion of this 

project, the allocation of a one- to two-month period to correct current project deficiencies and refocus project emphases, and the smooth implementation of selected 

programs and activity levels. 

FISCAL STRATEGY AND FUNDING OPTIONS 

The selected ecosystem management strategy should provide optimal achievement 

of ecosystem management goals with the least cost. Under existing forest and land 

management plans, many federal programs, such as road maintenance and recre- ation development, and paid for through the sale of natural resource commodities. 

Where more than one strategy provides the same levels of benefits and services, the one with the least drain on taxpayers is best. Currently, there is no way to determine which proposed strategy is the most fiscally responsible. The preferred alternative should aim to achieve desire future conditions of federal lands for a cost that 

federal taxpayers are willing to pay. 

I am concerned about the budget cap that appears to limit proposed spending on various programs contained within alternatives. The notion of using a budget cap 

is problematic because it is based on old budget paradigms, not on current needs 

and opportunities. Without full funding of programs, the ability to successfully com- plete projects is in jeopardy. Using the forest health example, where aggressi9ve 

treatment are appropriate for restoring forest patterns and processes to reduce the 

potential for large or catastrophic wildfire, ecosystem goals may only be achieved 

under full funding. The project should identify the levels of activity needed and let 

policy makers and/or Congress decide how or whether to fully fund it. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

The DE IS's contain poor analyses of social and economic impacts. There is almost no assessment of the effects of significantly reduced timber harvests projected for 

all alternatives. It is very difficult to believe that economic considerations have been 

taken seriously in any alternative. It appears that ecological considerations are elevated above the needs of people. The amount of detail and number of specific eco- nomic and social programs within alternatives are out of balance with other programs. 

The assessment of the demand for recreation of federal land is inadequate for 

making informed recreation decisions. Yet there is a stated objective in proposed alternatives for increasing primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities. This 

focus appears to be out of step with the fact that most recreation demand is for developed facilities, many of which are managed by federal agencies other than the 

Forest Service and ELM. The demand for developed recreation and increased access to federal resources will undoubtedly in crease as the basin's population increases. One of the criteria for defining timber-dependent communities is high dependency on federal timber. There has been an attempt to reduce the number of communities 

classified as timber-dependent by reapplying the dependency criteria to today's 

gridlock situation when federal timber supplies are at a low and, by definition, 

fewer communities are able to get federal'timber. Rather than attemlting to eliminate communities, efforts should be made to truly identify all loca impacts, not 

mask them. In order to provide a reasonable analysis of impacts, all of the commu- nities identified in the W87 period should still be considered timber dependent un- less there is some compelling reason for excluding them. 

The project does not adequately address the economic and social impacts on local 

communities due to the stated reductions in federal timber availability within each 

of the proposed action alternatives. Depending on the alternative chosen, these re- ductions could range from 21 percent to 64 percent in the Eastside project and 24 

percent to 75 percent in the Upper Columbia River Basin. The extent of these reductions will clearly result in significant economic impacts, especially at the local level, 

and will likely cause the project to fail to meet its social and economic goals. The 

data to assess these impact has already been collected by the project, and needs to 

be incorporated into the plans. 

Concerning proposed economic goals and assistance programs to local and rural 

economies in transition, I believe that a well-honed ecosystem management plan can 
288 

provide for the production of commodities for sustaining local economies while avoiding elaborate transition strategies. I am concerned about the notion of mitigating 

impacts through assistance programs. My level of concern was raised after I became a award of a social and economic 

policy analysis prepared by Dr. Robert Lee at the Institute for Resources in Society 

(Robert G. Lee. 1995 Potential Social and Economic Contributions of Small Woodproducing Businesses in the Spotted Owl Region: A Policy Analysis. University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA). The study analyzed the potential for small businesses to 

revitalize rural communities whose economies were adversely affected by reduction 

in wood processing of federal lands within the Clinton Northwest Forest Plant 

(FEMAT) region. Among the conclusions were: (1) family-wage jobs in the wood 

products industry have been replaced by sub-family wage jobs largely in the service 

sector, (2) tourism is unlikely to help very many of the affected counties compensate 

for the loss in wood products jobs and income, (3) secondary manufacturing may provide some help to a few of the most heavily challenged counties, but will tend to 

concentrate near urban areas in proximity to transportation nodes and markets, (4) 

restoration work, along with associated retraining for new occupations, will do very 

little to substitute for loss of wood product jobs and income, and (5) small wood 

products businesses engaged in primary manufacturing provide the best opportunities for challenged counties to develop a stable and sustainable economic base. 

These early lessons from FEMAT should compel the ICBEMP to proceed cautiously 

when proposing policies that impact resource supplies and the communities dependent on them. It is clear to me that the reductions in federal timber supply proposed 

by the ICBEMP need to be reevaluated and avoided until the expected outcomes of 

social and economic mitigation and transition strategies are know with certainty. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

One of the contributors to the current timber sales gridlock is difficulties in con- ducting cumulative impact analyses as part of NEPA compliance on individual sales. These analyses need background material at the regional and watershed level to as- sess potential cumulative effects. It is hoped that the ICBEMP will provide that ma- terial in the DEIS's, the Scientific Evaluation of the Alternatives, and/or the Scientific Assessment. The project managers need to assess whether the documents 

will satisfy future NEPA requirements. Without sufficient backgTound material the 

gridlock will likely continue. 

BROAD SCALE MODELING ANALYSES 

We have conducted several studies to evaluate the ability of broad-scale ICBEMP 

forest inventory and GIS data to provide an assessment of forest conditions appro- priate for setting forest ecosystem restoration activity levels and for directing ac- tions where forest treatments are most needed. We conducted several exercises in 

which we compared data generated by the project, which to my knowledge has not 

been statistically validated, to a more detailed independent data set based on satellite imagery that was acquired from the Forest Service. The ICBEMP data set has 

limitations when applied spatially to finer scales of management such as those used 

at the National Forest or BLM district level, or those needed for amending forest 

and land management plans. Additionally, we have revealed concerns about the ac- curacy of the ICBEMP broad-scale forest inventory data, particularly its representa- tion of forest tree diameters and volumes, forest structural stages, spec1es compositions, and the portrayal of forest health. 

In comparing results from the two sets of data, conflicts between (1) forest man- agement infonnation derived from broad-scale assessment data and (2) inferred 

management needs and priorities from higher resolution and more accurate finescale inventory analysis were revealed. It appears that there is a disconnect between the ICBEMP's broad-scale forest ecosystem assessment and the fine-scale 

data needs of local managers for planning and implementing ecosystem management strategies. Fine-scale assessments similar to the ones described in our studies 

will be needed to refocus future manag<:lment direction subsequEmt to the ICBEMP. A process for resolving these conflicts is needed for seamless implementation of eco- system management strategies at all scales. Furthennore, it is unclear how the 

ICBEMP will use its Scientific Assessment to identify forest health hazards and 

risks as they relate to wildfire, insects, and disease potential, and that are expressed by forest vegetation conditions. I hope these comments are helpful to you in your review of the ICBEMP. Thank 

you for this opportunity. 

Insert 28 dylux here 
289 

Supplemental Testimony of 

Thomas W. Haislip Jr. 

Senior Scientist 

CH2MIDLL 

Before the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee 

of the 

House Resources Committee 

August 2, 1996 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 
290 

Question: 

What is your view of the level of restoration being proposed for the ICBEMP to 

restore forest ecosystem health? 

Response: 

In my opinion, none of the alternatives propose restoration activity levels that wiil 

achieve ecosystem health in a reasonable period of time. One of the measures of 

ecosystem health available from the project is the amount offorest lands classified 

as having various levels of integrity. One can then view restoration as the 

conversion oflow and moderate integrity lands to high integrity. Project data 

indicate only 15 million of the 40 million acres of federal forests are rated as high 

integrity. The primary silvicultural treatments available to make that conversion 

include pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning and harvest, and prc3cribed 

fire. Because of current high fuel loads in most forests, thinning will be required 

before prescribed fire can be safely applied. Thus, acres treated by each are largely 

the same, not additive. It is also important to consider that degradation of existing 

high integrity forests will continue with current fire policies. 

In order to assess the rate of restoration for each alternative, we have looked at the 

number of acres expected to be treated (except for prescribed fire) every ten years, 

the amount ofland with low and medium integrity, the total acres of forests, and 

the estimated ongoing rate of degradation. The figure below shows the results of 

our analysis. 

Etfeet:a of the AHeiT'IIItivea on Foreat Ecotogicallntegrtty: 

Eutslde ond UCRB Projects Combined 

~r-----------------------------------------·----~ 

Altemativ•1 . .. .:15 Pf'O<'-Ihe highMI. ....... cl --lly - - Historil;:;al 

--A/1.1 

-+-Ait. 2 

---tt--AI. 3 

~Ait 4 

I--A1t5 

--+-Att. e 

_...,_Alt. 7 

Formwa: 

lrtegrity~: 

Priofdeca:Se 

1SXD I .,_ + decaial 

'\OJmwt "'- : ~on area 

10000~---+--~:-+----+----+----~------~~--~--~----~ 19915 2006 2016 2026 2CD6 2048 2056 2006 2076 2(116 2006 factor ~~ 

v-
291 

The figure suggests that even the most aggressive alternatives will take 70 years to 

fully restore ecosystem health. Some of the alternatives never achieve full 

restoration. A 15-30 year period as suggested by Dr. Neil Sampson and others 

seems a reasonable period to restore our forests. One of the two basic needs 

described in the draft EISs is to restore ecosystem health. It is clear this need will 

not be met by any of the current proposals in that reasonable period. I urge the 

Forest Service and Congress to consider more aggressive levels of activity and 

appropriate funding mechanisms to restore our forest health in a timely manner. 
292 

THE PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL 

921 SW Mollison, Suite 531 • Portland, Oregon • 97205 

(503) 294-0786 • Fax (503) 294-1066 

Subcotrunittee on Parks, Forests, 

and Lands 

House Resources Cotrunittee 

U.S. House ofRepresentatives 

814 House Annex I 

WashingtonD.C. 20515 

Attn: Dawn Criste 

4 June 1996 

Re: Testimony of Pacific Rivers Council on Need for Ecosystem Planning Projects 

Dear Members of the Subcotrunittee: 

Please find enclosed a few remarks in support of regional ecosystem planning, most recently 

considered in an oversight hearing before your cotrunittee on May 21. In our ~iew, a sciencebased, landscape perspective is absolutely necessary to provide a rational, long··term planning 

framework for infonned management decisions on our federal lands. It is our understanding that 

the overwhelming weight of the testimony given at the hearings on this subject was also 

supportive of regional planning. 

Thank your for your favorable consideration. 

Sincerely yours, 

-- ...:..~~"'- ~-~-' " -------· ~k 

Enclosures 

New Visions to Restore America's Rivers and Watersheds oftieeoalooin E-. Seattle, S"""""""'to, Boseman and Woohington, D.C. 
293 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

Regarding ecosystem 

study projects in the 

Interior Columbia Basin 

Sierra Nevada & Appalachia 

Statement of Mary Scurlock 

Pacific Rivers Council 

921 S. W. Morrison St., Suite 531 

Portland, Oregon 97205 

503-294-0786 

The Pacific Rivers Council is vitally interested in the· issues being raised before this subcommittee. 

We have been active in following the development of two of the regional ecosystem planning 

projects now underway: the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Management Project and the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Our testimony focuses primarily on the 

Columbia Basin Project. 

We would like to touch on several issues which have been raised by members of Congress in 

relation to these and similar projects. First, there is no question whatsoever that the (ederal land 

management agencies are authorized to conduct these planning projects. f'Ne note that no 

testimony has been offered to support such a contention). Rather, protection, recovery and proper 

stewardship of natural resources is required by NFMA, FLPMA, ESA, CEA, and other federal 

law that mandateds the mission and responsibilities of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management. Secondly, while regional ecosystem planning may be more costly in the short-tenn, 

if properly conducted it should produce long-term savings. Third, rivers, streams and fisheries 

will continue to degrade without strong management direction at the regional level. Fourth, 

protection and recovery ofthe&e resources is critical to the maintenance of a strong economy. 

1. Regional ecosystem planning is the only rational, effective way for federal managers 

to meet their legal obligations to maintain and restore species and to protect and 

restore water quality. 

Federal lands managers not only are fully authorized to undertake the kinds of regional ecosystem 

planning efforts represented by the Interior Columbia Basin and Sierra Nevada projects, but we 

believe that they are obligated to do so. 

These projects were motivated largely by the realization that current management plans and 

policies were both legally and biologically inadequate on a regionwide basis. In fact, these plans 

were so deficient as to require amendment even before the regional planning projects could come. 

to fruition. In order to protect aquatic and old growth habitats from further degradation and 

destruction, as well as to avoid further legal challenges, a series of interim policies were enacted in 

the Interior Columbia Basin. These are commonly known as the eastside screens, (protecting 

riparian and old-growth habitats during timber harvest), PACFISH (protecting riparian areas in 

watersheds bearing anadromous fish from detrimental management activities on USFS and BLM 
294 

lands) and INFISH (protecting riparian habitat in watersheds on USFS lands bearing native fish, 

with particular emphasis on bull trout). 

Planning at the regional level is necessary to ensure that imperiled aquatic spec:ies, water supplies 

and aquatic ecosystems generally are protected adequately . Ideally, site-specific activities known 

to adversely affect listed species would be precluded or conditioned on regional and Forest Plans. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has stated its belief that existing forest plans do 

not reflect current science because a comprehensive, landscape level conservation strategy is 

lacking. (NMFS Biological Opinion on Eight Land and Resource Management Plans, March I, 

1995, at 45). Even as amended by PACFISH, current plans fail to "provide for a network of welldistributed watersheds containing high quality spawning and rearing and readily restorable habitats 

and reduce risks to these habitats;" "prioritize restoration;" "plan activities and conservation 

strategies after landscape-scale analysis," and; "conduct implementation monitoring and begin 

gathering data for effectiveness and validation monitoring." These issues must be fully addressed 

by regional guidance in order to ensure that ESA and other requirements are met. The ICBEMP 

process examines these issues with the spatial perspective needed to correct these identified 

deficiencies. 

The biological fact is that the needs of many imperiled species, like salmon, are affected by the 

combined impacts of activities which take place across a wide geographic range. Thus, habitat 

protection strategies must be implemented at a broader scale: 

"For example, potential broad-scale adverse effects include the effects of road 

construction and timber harvest in road less areas and other areas of remaining 

high-quality habitat on the availability and quality of habitat refugia for 

remaining subpopulations of listed salmon. The adequacy of remaining 

refugio cannot be determined by examining one action or even one 

watershed at a time. (NMFS Biological Opinion on PACFISH, at 26) 

(emphasis added). 

We have come to "ecosystem management" (sadly, through trial and lots of error) as the only 

rational way to manage for sustained yield of multiple uses. The fundamental principle of 

ecosystem management tells us that we must manage within the biophysical constraints of the 

land, water and air to support life and function together as ecosystems. But this model of 

management meets with opposition from those whose primary concern is the quantification of 

"outputs," as per the "ASQ," "AUM," "RVD" and other such measurements. Under an ecosystem 

model we use information developed through watershed and ecosystem analysis on the premise 

that good information about ecosystem capabilities should guide our "output" expectations. 

Moreover, regional planning is the only way to address the decline of wide-ranging species such 

as salmon and bull trout. These fish are of substantial economic value and priceless spiritual value 

to the northwest. With regard to the listed Snake River salmon, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service has found that unless the degradation of tributary habitats where salmon rear and spawn is 

halted and reversed, salmon populations will not recover to self-sustaining levels. The recovery 

2 
295 

plan specifically finds that a regional approach to federal lands management is necessary to 

address these concerns. 

All federal managers are required to prepare land management plans in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Without regional assessments and planning, it is 

unclear how federal managers will meet their duties to fully disclose the environmental impacts of 

its actions. These steps will ensure that the indirect and cumulative effects of past, existing, and 

proposed management on water quantity and quality, soil productivity and stability, riparian 

vegetation and fish and riparian-dependent species in the planning area will be adequately 

considered, analyzed and disclosed. 

Past planning approaches have permitted federal managers to adopt strategies (such as maximum 

dispersal of logging activities) that purported to minimize adverse impacts, but which actually 

increases overall risks to salmonid species and habitat by negatively impacting l!!.! sarnon 

populations throughout their range. (Frissell, 1991). We believe that the federal managers must 

undertake to conduct planning based on regional analysis in order in assure meaningful 

compliance with NEP A and other land planning laws requiring cumulative impacts analysis. 

:z. Regional planning, though costly at the front-end, is more efficient in the long-run. 

Regional planning makes sense both biologically and fiscally. Broad-scale decisions allow the 

agencies to deal programmatically with broad-scale problems. For example, the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project and the Sierra Nevada project are in a position 

to deal with the land use and allocation issues relevant to the protection and recovery of declining 

fisheries. Moreover, regional planning saves resources by providing a framework for developing 

projects which are more likely to meet NMF A, FLPMA, ESA and CWA from the outset. 

Although planning for projects like timber sales, mining and grazing still will have to involve 

environmental analysis, planning and evaluations will be much more difficultwithout benefit of a 

regional and forest-level management framework designed to meet legal and biological 

requirements. Without a broad-scale framework and set of management principles and land 

allocations within which to plan, each project will have to be scrutinized much more carefully to 

determine if the standards developed for that project are adequate, and implementation is more 

likely to be delayed pending this analysis. At the larger scale, the needs of species and common 

characteristics of certain types of actions, and their impacts on species, can be assessed early and 

consistently. 

All of this results in cost savings to the federal government. ·As you are aware, Forest Service 

Chief Thomas has estimated that the costs of amending federal management plans in the basin on 

an individual basis will be almost ten times more costly than will a single, regional amendment 

decision based on regional ecosystem planning. 

If we continue the failed approach of the past, we are certlin to cause further extinctions of 

salmon and native fish across the West and project implementation is likely to become increasingly 

contentious. Piecemeal analysis of environmental impacts has brought us to the point where our 

3 
296 

ecosystems are collapsing and our fish are going extinct. This approach has tailed to account for 

the combined effects offederal actions across large areas. Extinctions cost us dearly in economic, 

cultural and spiritual terms. 

3. Rivers, streams and fisheries will continue to degrade without str·ong management 

direction at every level. 

Under existing _management plans in the Interior Columbia Basin, aquatic systems were rapidly 

degrading and fisheries were declining. It was for these reasons that the drastic step of enacting 

"interim" management policies was taken. 

Sadly, habitat conditions have continued to degrade under the interim direction due to the lack of 

restoration mandate. This point is borne out in several ways. First, the massive slope failures 

witnessed this winter and spring across the region's managed portions of the: federal landscape 

bear testimony to the continuing degradation of salmon habitat within the range of the interim 

direction. Without an affirmative restoration mandate, inappropriately sited and/or poorly 

engineered roads and culverts continue to prove disastrous for many of the theoretically "key" 

anadromous watersheds. 

Management direction at the regional level is needed to adequately provide management direction 

and science-based criteria for determining the appropriate range of management alternatives 

which will meet the needs of aquatic systems and the species which depend upon them. 

4. The Regional Economy Depends on Regional Protection of Our Natural Amenities 

We now know that environmental protection is the driving force behind the short and long term 

economic health of rural~ urban communities in the Pacific Northwest: people and investments 

are attracted to communities due to their perceived quality-of-life and environmental quality is at 

the top of this list. We refer here not to tourism, but to the attraction o:f new people and 

investments that create permanent residents, new businesses and new jobs. See T.M. Power, 

University of Montana, "Economic Well-Being and Environmental Protection in the Pacific 

Northwest," December, 1995. 

Environmental protection is not the cause of job loss and economic distress in rural communities: 

regional, national and global economic forces such as mechanization are the dominant causes. 

This is not to say that environmental protection has no costs. Some in the region bear a 

disproportionate economic and social cost in the transition while others share a disproportionate 

share of the benefits. ·For the most part, the inequity is occurring, not because one group is 

maliciously taking advantage of another, but because of changes in the regional, national and 

global economies that are ongoing and unavoidable. Those who are prospering from the transition 

have an obligation to assist those who are bearing the costs. However, the pain of the jobs lost 

should not obscure the new jobs that are being created. We also must avoid steps that may 

degrade environmental quality in an attempt to return to the economy of the pa.st. If we degrade 

the environment today we destroy the economy of the future. 

4 
297 

The reality is that our natural landscapes are s)lifting from serving primarily as warehouses of 

commercially extractable resources to being the sources of a variety of valuable environmental 

services that are key to attracting and holding a mobile population and a diverse mix of new 

economic activities thai generate new jobs and incomes. No matter how much we may desire it, 

no one can bring back the economy of the past era. The new jobs and incomes that are vital to the 

region's economic future will depend more on the protection of the region's quality-of-life assets·-

of which environmental amenities and services are particularly important - than on their 

degradation. 

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of June, 1996. 

\ 

Mary Scurlock 

Policy Amilyst 

Pacific Rivers Council 

s 
298 

STATEMENT OF FRED KELLY G~~ 

Consultant to OWyhee County, Idaho Board of County 

Commissioners and Land use Planning Conunittee 

Presented to 

u.s. House of Representatives Committee on Resources 

May 30, 1996 
299 

INTRODUCTION 

On May 9, 1996, I suggested the following scenario to the 

Republican Round Table in Reno, Nevada: The Drafters of our Constitution were uncommonly wise men. They suffered 

mightily through the stifling heat of Philadelphia, denying 

to themselves the comfort of homes and families. If a person could have persuaded them that, under the very 

document they were fashioning, by 1996 we United States 

citizens would work from January 1 to May 7 of each calendar 

year just to support the cost of government, they would have 

packed their belongings and gone home without completing the 

document which is the basis for what has been called the 

"genius• of American politics. I also suggested, however, 

that more than likely a warning of such unlimited spread of 

taxation would have gone unheeded because the Drafters would 

have refused to believe that such uncontrolled federal 

government spending and taxation was possible under the 

document they were drafting. 

The men who participated in the "Miracle at Philadelphia" sacrificed in order to develop a do~ent which would · provide to a central government only those limited powers wh 

necessary for protection against foreign powers and 

necessary for commercial intercourse. They made sure that 

the main body of the Constitution specifically limited the 

powers of the central government . Then, the Ninth and Tenth 

Amendments were added as the final security for that 

limitation. I sincerely believe that the Drafters would 

have preferred a union of individually powerful states to an unlimited central government. 

I now voice to you the same scenario as to the process of 

Ecosystem Planning which this Committee has been 

considering. If the Drafters could have been persuaded that 

by 1996 a team of federal employees of the executive 

department, acting outside the scope of Congressional authority, would be putting together a plan for land use control for an entire state of the Union, with every intention of spreading that control through other states, 

they would have packed and gone h0111e . They were in ~hiladelphia to draft a aocument which would forever prevent such central control . 

But, this Committee is now considering the life expectancy of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Projects which accomplish such federal land control over an area stretching from the Cascade Mountains east to Montana, 

from Canada south to Nevada---with all of Idaho encompassed. 

The EIS which they propose spreads a spidery web of federal 

land planning never before condoned by a Congress of the 

United States. They are undoubtedly an integral part of a projected land use control which envisions control over 
300 

every portion of the United States. If you doulJt that, I 

draw your attention to a Government Accounting Office report 

entitled Ecosystem Management--Additional Actions Needed to 

Adequately Test a Promising Approach. That report: was issue.d as document GAO/RCED-94-lll in August, 1994 and was a report to Congress. Figure 3.3, at page 46, of that 

document presents a map by which the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service "has adopted tentative ecosystem boundaries 

based on watersheds to organize its activities nationwide 

and to set ecosystemwide goals and objectives." 1;hat map 

depicts an ecosystem covering every inch o! a map of the 

United States! A copy of that map is attached to this 

statement as Exhibit 1. :aut, the map is much morE! dramatic 

when you review your own copy of the report which was furnished for your benefit. 

Previously, proposals have been brought before Congress to 

establish federal land planning which would include planning 

impact on private property. Each time the proposals have 

been defeated. Primarily they have been defeated because of 

the interest of Congress in preserving private prc1perty 

rights, and because of the refusal of Congress to turn over its authority regarding the public lands to a centralized 

federal planning agency. 

The United States Senate refused to ratify the Bic,diversity 

Treaty. One of the primary reasons was the adverse impact on private property rights which would result. A second 

major reason was that the authority of the Congres:s would be 

subverted to centralized planners who could utiliz:e treaties 

and :!.nternational law to override national statutes whicll. now control the federal management agencies . 

But, .when the defeat of the Treaty was evident, a Memora~dum 

of Understanding was entered into by over twenty federa1 

agencies for the purpose of commencing and implemencing 

Ecosystem planning outside the confines of the statutes by 

which the Congress bas controlled the land management 

agencies. Even though the Congress had not appropriated funds for this widespread federal planning, the ag·encies moved ahead by siphoning off funds and personnel from public 

land MANAGEMENT duties and dedicating them to Ecosystem 

Planning. 

The Ecosystem teams claim to have commenced these projects 

under the alleged justification of pursuing "forest health" as called for by the President in his Forest Plan for the 

Northwest portion of our nation. The project started as the 

Eastside Project, to cover the eastern part of Washington and Oregon from the Cascade mountains. But in steady, swift 

movements, the land control effort spread to the point where 

it now includes all of Idaho under the umbrella of the Upper 

Columbia R.iver Basin Project. The focus has spread from concerns of forest health to a scheme by which a11 uses of 
301 

public lands--- grazing and recreation alike---can be 

controlled, regulated and restricted to the point of 

extinction. 

We who are involved in the struggle to maintain the economy and tradition of Owyhee County, Idaho, and to preserve the 

rights o! private property owners, express our pro!ound thanks' to Representative Helen Chenowith for requesting that we submit our views regarding the Ecosystem Project which is 

about to totally and finally engulf our County and our State . 

Those of us who are fighting for survival of a way of life 

in Owyhee County are encouraged by this Committee's action 

in reviewing the merits of the process by which a team of 

federal employees is moving toward a total evasion of the 

authority of this congress over the public lands which make 

up most of our County----and a critical part of our State. 

We know that we do not have the resources to fend off 

bureaucratic control without your help . 

we ask that you carefully review the arrogant manner in 

which the evasion of your authority has occurred. we urge 

you to direct some hard questions to the members of the 

Ecosystem Project teams regarding the scientific soundness 

of the draft Environmental Impact Statement which has been 

developed, the adverse economic impact the EIS and the 

subsequent administrative regulations will have on the 

people of our county, and regarding- tile lack of local public input into the development of the EIS. we believe that the 

SIS is fatally flawed by the evasion of Congressional authority which has occurred, by the lack of local publjc input and by the lack of scientific soundness evidenced by the preliminary documents. 

I . EVASION OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY' 

It was not by accident that Article I of the 

Constitution set forth the powers and limitations relevant 

to the LEGISLATIVE body of government--the Congress. Those 

among the dratters who favored a stronger congress than 

executive won the philosophical debates, and the Congress was created as the driving force of our central government. The rationale was simple enough---in the Congress the voice 

ot the people could be more easily heard and implemented. A 

member of Congress who had to return to his district, or his 

state, and hear from his constituents was far more likely to 

tend to the needs and desires of the people than was a lone 

executive isolated at the seat of the central government. 

In Article I, in Section 8, the Congress was empowered to 

"make all laws which shall be necessa-ry and proper for 
302 

carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other 

powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the 

United States, or in any department or officer thl~reof." 

Then, Article 4, Section 3 empowers ONLY THE CONGRESS "to 

dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations 

respecting the territory or other property belonging to the 

United States." The Executive was extended no po1~er, 

independent of Congress, regarding the United States lands. 

As a result of the combined impact of Article 1, Section 8 

and Article 4, Section 3, the Congress is empowerE~d to 

authorize the establishment of management agencie~; by enact,ing statutes to that effect. The Congress c<m also 

authorize such management agencies to issue rules and 

regulations to implement the authority loaned to l:he agency by the Congress in the statutes. BUT NO FEDERAL MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY EXCBED THB PARAMETERS OF THE 

AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CONGRESS BY STATUTE . 

So, Congress has the power to establish the manage!ment 

principles for the public lands by statute as it did with 

the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, the FederaJ. Land 

Policy and Management Act, the Public Range Imprmrement Act, 

and other statutes regarding the use of public range lands. 

Likewise, the Congress has enacted statutes establishing the 

principles of management for the public forest lands. In 

these statutes, the Congress has authorized the fe!deral 

management agencies to issue rules and regulation~' to 

implement the management principles established by the 

statutes. Those administrative regulations cannot; be 

inconsistent with the management principles established by 

Congress. 

The federal agencies who are involved in these projects of 

Ecosystem Planning have evaded the power extended to 

Congress by the Constitution in at least two critj.cal ways: (~) Congress did not authorize development: of 

ecosystem plans which would cut across management agency lines and which would develop one set of staodarde: and 

guidelines to be used for all forest lands, and fc>r all 

range lands, regardless of the differences existing among 

the public lands. The Congress did not authorize 

expenditures of millions of dollars in such a plarming 

effort. The Congress did not authorize the establishment of a "Czar of the public lands", yet under the Ecosye:tem 

projects (implemented in accord with other documents merging 

power or authority) the result can easily be that one executive, perhaps even Secretary of the Interior Babbitt, 

will have the capacity to become Lord of the Western Manor . 

When the Congress compromised and authorized an appropriation large enough to complete the draft HIS, but 

with the understanding that there would be no Recc>rd of 

Decision issued, the President vetoed the appropriation. 
303 

Even though the will of Congress as to planning management 

was made clear through the compromise, the Ecosystem planners moved full steam ahead with a process which will 

end with a Record of Decision. A staff member of the 

Project Team admitted at a meeting that they were aware of 

the intent of Congress, but were moving on to a Record of 

Decision anyway. 

(2) The ecosystem projects are being prepared 

outside the scope of federal management agency regulations. 

Within the authority granted statutorily by Congress, the 

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, have 

issued regulations implementing the management principles 

established by the Congress. Until release of the so-called 

Rangeland Reform regulations by Secretary Babbi tt last year, those regulations for the most part have been kept withi n the parameter of the authori ty granted by Congress. Rangeland Reform regulations are inconsistent with the . statutory mandates for grazing and multiple uses on the ' 

range lands, and in several instances usurp the power of 

Congress. But, perhaps encouraged by the success of 

Secretary Babbitt in ignoring the Congressional mandates and 

the Constitution, the developers of the ecosystem projects 

set a course just as unconstitutionally insidious as Rangeland Reform. 

Because the ecosystem projects are operated under the 

multiple agency Memorandum of Understanding, there is no one agency which governs development of the EIS and issuance of 

the Record of Decision . So, the EIS and Ecosystem alte·.-natives and Record of Decision can be established 

outside the parameters of regulations of any specific 

agency, and outside the oversight of Congress . No 

administrative regulations have to be issued to govern ( he 

development of and implementation of the BIS and Record of 

Decision. Yet, the BLM and the Forest Services will be 

boun6 to amend their site specific land management plans to come " into consistency with the ecosystem plan. Because the 

Ecosystem teams claim to have satisfied the NEFA mandate of 

public involvement, the BLM and Forest Services can amend 

their plans and incorporate the ecosystem plan without 

complying with the NEPA mandate or their own regulations . So, for example, while the Forest Service regulations require coordinating their planning activities such as plan amendments with local government, the Service will now be 

able to amend their plans outside those regulations by simply carrying across Ecosystem standards and guidelines into their Forest Plans. 

So, on both fronts, the ecosystem project teams will evade 

Congressional authority. On the one hand, Congress has not 

authorized the development of these widespread plans to the 

point to which they have been developed. On the other hand, 
304 

the plans will not even be subject to Congressional 

oversight as to the administrative regulation process. 

This administrative, executive arrogance exists not only at 

the top of the agencies, but also at:. the field lev·el. 

During the past four years OWyhee County has implement:.ed a land use planning process as provided for by the Federal ·· Land Policy and Management:. Act. During a Planning Committee 

meeting with BLM staff for the Owyhee Resource Area, the 

issuP. arose as to the authorir.y of the BLM to issue a regulat:.ion inconsistent with a st:.atute. The Manager of t:.he 

Resource Area made the following statement in a public meeting: "Statutes are for laryers." He then pointed c•1t 

that the BLM would continue to manage by its regulations, 

not ~Y statut:.ory terms. ! ' 

We call upon this Committee to stop the spread of ecosystem planning which has taken place outside the authority of this 

Congress. We call upon you to direct the Forest Service and 

BLM to follow the mandate of NBPA and their own regulations requiring public involvement prior to amendment of their 

specific forest and resource area plans. 

I I . LACK OF LOClLL INPUT, AND FAILURE OF THE ECOSYSTEM 

PROJECT TEAMS TO COMPLY WITa STATUTORY MANDATES OF 

COORDINATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED IN TH& LAND USE 

PLANNING PROCESS. 

We are aware of the t:.estimony which the Committee 

received as to t:.he countless local meetings which have been 

held by the Ecosystem Project Teams to gather local inpuc. We Ufge you to look beyond the recitation Of numbe:t'S of 

meetings which would have you believe that the EIS was actually driven by local input. Nothing could be turther 

from; the truth. 

First, the witnesses who assured you that they sou!;rht and 

listened to local input related to you the great number .of 

scoping meetings they held. "Seeping• meetings are not · local input meetings with regard to content of the planS which are developed. They are meetings where the federal 

teamS spread around a room an intimidatingly large number of 

maps': and indices, and then ask members of the public what 

they' think the issues are which should be pursued :i.n the 

planning. Hopefully there is no one on the Commit1:ee who 

truly believes that the agencies have not already honed in 

on the issues which they will pursue, the methOds by which 

they1 will pursue the issues, and the likely results of the 

pursuit of the issues by the time the "seeping" meetings are held. 
305 

Next, · the witnesses told you that members of county 

government have served on a coalition team which has been 

involved in the development of the EIS. Some members of 

that coalition have even told you how they have been invo~ved in the development of the BIS. I represent to you that 'the EIS draft is so complex and convoluted, so technically constructed with an almost imperceptible infrastructure, that no member of that coalition of counties 

could lead you through the EIS and answer the questions 

which we can pose as to the scientific basis for the 

contents of the draft. We urge each of you to direct that 

you be given a copy of the draft EIS. We urge you to trr to 

read through the draft and gain any sound understanding ~f 

its content. Then, we urge that you invite one of the 

coali tion members who testified here to return and explain 

to you the specific contents of the draft. Then, we urge 

you to ask the same or other coalition members to answer or respond to the issues of scientific unsoundness which we raise in Part 3 of this statement. 

We h~ve spoken to members of the coalition. We know that 

they had no meaningful input into development of the EIS and 

into ;analysis of the data upon which the EIS is allegedly 

based. Members of the coalition simply met on a regular 

basis, were presented with drafts which were explained by 

the federal employees serving as planning staff, were convinced that the object of ecosystem planning was sound, 

and approved the drafts. In short, they accepted the 

document on "trust" that forest health in particular would 

be served by an ecosystem approach . 

As to public meetings subsequent. to the "seeping" meetings, 

the technical nature of the draft, and its complexity, ~ould 

prevent any meaningful input. Steve Mealey, project team 

leader for the Upper Columbia River Basin Project, is 

reported to have admitted as much at a public meeting in 

Libby, Montana on May 8, 1996. James F. Rathbun, an environmental consultant in Forestry and Public Land Policy attended that meeting. He has reported that when Mealey was asked how easy it would be for the draft to be reviewed 

and commented upon by the public, Mr. Mealey acknowledged that , it would not he an easy document for the public to . review. Mr. Rathbun states that Mr. Mealey certainly implied that the public would take a look at the document 

and give up review and comment before they even started. 

Mr. Mealey stated that he had trouble reading the BIS and 

that: review will not be an easy task . That is perhaps one of the most serious understatements of fact, since a noted 

sports reporter stated, a few years ago, about Cal Ripken, 

Jr. of the Baltimore Orioles, "He's apt ~o become a pretty good ballplayer." 

Dr. Chad Gibson, a member of the University of Idaho 

agriculture extension service, is a veteran, skilled range 
306 

expere, known throughout the western states for his 

knowledge and his objectivity. He attempted to review the 

preliminary BIS and reported to me that it was •very nearly impossible" to follow and understand the convoluted, 

technical content of the document. I have attempted to read 

the draft. I am not exactly a novice at the art of reading 

technical documents, having devoted most of my adult life to 

either the practice of law or the related fields of legal 

and planning research. I have never seen a document 

designed for public use which is so technically and 

structurally convoluted. 

WHAT SHOULD BE IMPORTANT TO YOU IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID TO iOU 

BY PRIOR WITNESSES ABOUT LOCAL PUBLIC INPUT BUT WHAT WA~ NOT 

SAID TO YOU ABOUT LOCAL PUBLIC INPUT. 

(1} The Ecosystem teams did NOT seek input from, and participation in the planning process by, those 

counties which established and implemented land use planning 

processes for studying management of the public lands. In 

Idaho, for example, neither owyhee nor Lemhi counties were allowed to participate directly in the planning process .even though they are entitled to a coordinate planning status 

under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The 

Planning Commietees in these counties would have been able 

to provide planning data and information from a local 

management and observation standpoint . 

(2} The Ecosystem teams did NOT :seek input from, and participation in the planning process by, several 

distinguished range and land use experts who residl!! in t.he 

very areas under the planning scope. Dr. Gibson has alieady been mentioned. He was not consulted even though he has · vast knowledge of range management practices which have 

worked and not worked in the owyhee County area. l)r. N~iJ. 

Rel!lby and Dr. Ken Sanders, both also of ehe Univer1siey of 

Idaho, reside and practice in ehe area. Both are l1ighly qualified and both have vast knowledge of ehe area and its 

practices. Dr. Wayne Burkhart is a range expert who is 

known throughout the western states. He has partic:ipated in 

range conservation studies, has testified, and has prepared data including a highly informative slide presentation regarding range conditions in the area. He reside1; in 

Midvale, Idaho, right within the area subjected to the , ecosystem project. Drs. Remby, Sanders and BurlchaJ:-t were ignored by the ecosystem project teams . Mr. Meale~r knows 

each of these experts, yet called on none of them. 1 

As to recreation uses of the lands, ehey did not Cilll upon Adele Cook of the Blue Ribbon Coalition or other m~~mbers of 

that coalition of recreation users of the public lands. · 

(3) No ranchers were consulted by the . ecosystem project teams in the entirety of Owyhee County, even though the ranchers have managed the public l<mds 
307 

through the past fifty years and have put them in what even the BLM higher echelon has been forced to admit is the best 

condi'tion they have been in this century. I am sure you all 

will 'recall that fairly early in Secretary Babbitt's attack on the western states an internal Interior Department 

memorandum was leaked which stated that the public lands were •in such good condition generally that the Department 

must concentrate on only the riparian areas to achieve its 

purpose of restricting use. Then, suddenly, riparian 

planning became the watchword for the federal agencies--- even though range experts have paid attention to riparian improvement for years. 

So, members of the Committee, where did the project team3 

get their local input, particularly as to grazing and 

recreation use? They did not call upon the grazing experts. 

They did not call upon members of the Blue Ribbon Coalition 

with regard to recreation uses of the lands. Please ask 

them .to specify the local input they received---as to 

subject and as to the so-called scientific data which they 

used;in completing their draft. 

The preliminary draft of the EIS has simply not been 

prepared in compliance with federal statutory mandates as to 

local input and planning involvement. Throughout 

development of this draft there has been no coordination of 

planning with Owyhee County, a county involved in the la~d 

use planning process regarding the federally managed lands 

Participation of the Coalition of Counties in the proces~ 

does not substitute for coordination with individual 

counties which is required by federal law. 

From the very inception of the spread of the Eastside 

Ecosystem Project to Idaho in the form of the Upper Colunbia 

River Basin Project we in Owyhee County urged the federal 

"teams" to follow the mandates of federal law regarding 

coordination of land use plans with those county governments 

which are involved in the land use process. We wrote to the Secr~tary of Interior, to the relevant BLM administrators 

and to Steve Mealey, team leader for the Upper Columbia. 

We pointed out in specific terms that the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act mandated in 43 U.S.C. Sec. 

1712(c) (9) that the Secretary of Interior "SHALL" 

"coordinate the land use inventory, planning and managetl\ent activities ... with the land use planning and management , programs of other federal departments and agencies and of 

the State and LOCAL GOVERNMENTS within which the lands are located." Other sections of t:he Act require that local 

government officials be allowed "meaningful" participation 

in development of federal plans. We further pointed out 

that since the ecosystem planning was designed to be applied 

by the BLM, and since the BLM was an integral part of the 

ecosystem project, the t:erms of FLPMA were applicable. 
308 

In response to our letters, we were orally advise':i that 

there was indeed local coordination through ehe Eastside 

Bcosystem Coalition of Counties. We replied ehae this 

Coalition did not conseieute a substitute for OWyhee County . Our ~ounty has a local land use plan relating to management of the public lands. A copy of that plan was !u.rnishecl.. 

Copies of the plan had. already been furnished to the federal 

agencies. We pointed out that neither the Coalition nor ehe 

Association of Counties substituted. for owyhee county. •The 

Board of Commissioners of owyhee County are responsible to 

the taxpayers of our Couney to engage in local land use planning efforts which will preserve our tax base, our way of life, our very existence as a community. we P':>inted. out 

that .·· the coordination requirements of federal law could. be 

satisfied only through coordination of ecosystem ]~lanning 

WITH • OUR COUNTY. 

Fina+ly, we managed to get Mr. Mealey's attention 

sufficienty that he came to Murphy, the County seat, to meet 

with. the Board of Commissioners. In spite of our prior detailed. letters explaining the coord.ination requirements of 

federal law, he again stated that he aid. noe unde:t"stand our concerns. With Association of Idaho Counties personnel in 

attendance we carefully explained again the mandates of 

coordination set forth very clearly in federal law. Mr. 

Mealey then assured us that he would see to it that 

ecosystem efforts were coordinated with Owyhee County's land use planning process. 

To what length did Mr. Meal¥'s assurances take us? He 

attended one meeting of the Owyhee County Land Use Pl~ ing 

Committee, hurriedly skimmed through the first draft of the 

EIS ~hich he had seen, acknowledged that perhaps ~he grazing langilage appeared negative, assured us that :such was not; the 

intent of the planning team, said. that when the draft was ~inishecl. we could review it, and. left the meeting. He qid 

not leave us a copy of the draft. That ended the 

"coo;t:"dination" and meaningful participation in planning. 

on January l~, 1~~6. we received a notice regarding release 

of dra~t EIS "in late spring•. That notice asfN.red us that; counties had participated in the development of the 

prel·;iminary drafe, and that the preliminary draft had been 

released for •internal" review by agencies, counties and the trib~s. This notice was inaccurate and misleading. There 

had been no •county• participation in the development of the 

draft and no •county• review. There had been review only by 

the Coalition of Counties members, and they did not share 

the draft with Commissioners of our County. 

Morepver, the members Of the Coalition of Couneies were admonished not to share the draft with other persons. So, 

the members of the Coalition were instructed not to share 
309 

the p~eliminary drafts even with the counties which they 

supposedly represented. We were directly advised of this 

fact of secrecy by members of the Coalition. 

Obviously other parties were not so treated. A member of our Cbunty Planning Committee received a brochure from Boise Casca~e Corporation summarizing the preliminary draft. So, 

obviously some influential private corporations were treated 

differently than were the Counties involved in the land use planning process. Moreover, Mr. James Rathbun reports that 

Steve, Mealey told those in attendance at the recent meeting 

in Libby, Montana that there had been some hard negotiat~ons 

between federal agencies and that the Forest Service 

Employees for Environmental Ethics had made some statements 

of satisfaction or dissatisfaction as to the preliminary 

draft,. There is no statutory mandate of coordination with 

such groups as the Forest Service Employees for 

Environmental Ethics, yet they were apparently involved. 

There is statutory mandate, and administrative mandate in 

Forest Service Regulations, of coordination with land use planning county governments, yet the counties of Owyhee and 

Lemhi' which fit the category were not involved. That is not 

evidence of the •meaningful" participation required by the 

land ~se management statutes which Congress has enacted. 

Owyhee County Commissioner Dick Bass called one of the team 

members of the ecosystem project and voiced the Owyhee 

County Board's complaint about the failure to comply with 

the federal law. He further voiced our complaint about 

being prevented from even reviewing the preliminary drafc at 

the same time the coalition was reviewing it. The team 

member acknowledged that he was aware of the federal 

statvtory requirement ot coordination with county 

governments which had a land use planning process, and 

further acknowledged that there had been no such 

coordination. The team member stated that the team simply 

did not know how they could so coordinate development of a plan ,with 109 counties (referring to the total of counties 

in all the states covered by the Eastside and Upper Columbia; there are only 44 counties in Idaho and only a handful have a land use planning process set up under 

PLPMA). Commissioner Bass• answer was, as we have said to 

rederal agencies for the past four years: we are expected 

to rollow the law regardless or the inconvenience and cost. 

As federal personnel, the ecosystem teams should have 

followed the law to the letter with the same precision which 

they expect of us. 

The simple answer as to how to coordinate with those 

counties which have a land use planning process is "talk to 

them'1, "write to them", "allow them to provide meaningful input during the development stages or the federal plan." 

Allow our planning specialists and range experts to sit down 

with you at the planning table and analize the data 
310 

toget;ner. For personnel assigned the huge task c,f planning for ecosystem use through the vast and diverse Upper Columbia, that should not be an obstacle of overwhelming dimenlsions. The ecosystem teams were able to "cc,ordinate" thei~ efforts with personnel of the BLM, the same personnel who, py federal law, are required to "coordinate" with Owyh~e County. But, apparently, they were unable' to 

deterinine how to communicate with our County's Bc1ard or C~ttee. You know, and we know, that such is not the case. Our county, and other land use planning cc,unties, were ;deliberately eliminated from the planning pz·ocess. 

Why Jere we eliminated from the planning process? We 

believe we have the experience through the last four years 

of dealing with an arrogant federal bureaucracy to qualify us tti suggest the following reasons: {1) we were' eliminated 

because of the inherent intent on the part of the' ecosystem planners to portray natural resource uses, particularly grazing, in a negative light; (2) we were bette:r prepared 

than !non-planning counties to combat this negative portrayal 

of resource uses, such as grazing, which is designed to 

suppo,rt the efforts of secretary Babbitt to remov·e livestock 

from ':the public lands (just recently a member of the BLM 

Solicitor's office advised several Owyhee County permittees that the pressure to remove cattle from the public lands 

would increase during the next few years); and (3) because 

of our organized planning efforts, we were familiar enough with the condition of the public lands in our counties and were familiar enough with the Congressionally established 

structure of management of the public lands that we could 

present meaningful alternatives to the negative approach taken in the draft EIS. 

We firmly believe that it is clearly the intent of this 

fede:r:al planning group to usurp the function of C'ongresE with;regard to management of the public lands, to provide the means by which the management agencies such a.s the BLM can curtail natural resource uses such as grazing. In 

carrying out that intent they falsely represent that they have·coordinated their efforts with "counties". They have 

not done so. 

We, by letter, recencly reminded the Coalition of Countjes and the ecosystem project team of our repeated attempts to 

motivate the federal planners to follow the very clear 

mandates of federal law. We advised them that ou.r attempts had apparently failed, and that there was a preliminary draft which was not prepared in compliance with federal 

statutes. We also advised the Coalition that from the 

beginning our effort bad been simply to perform our mandated 

federal function of coordinating our planning with the 

federal plan development, but, that the federal teams have 

chosen to violate the requirements of federal law· which 

their personnel acknowledge they knew about. 
311 

We advised the Coalicion of Counties of our knowledge that 

the federal teams had even actempted to prevent members of 

the Coalition from sharing planning information with the 

Counties like Owyhee which have expended countless hours in 

che land use planning process. We advised that we believed 

that. their subterfuge must be exposed, and that we intended 

to legally resist adoption of the BIS as written until the 

federal agencies comply with the law. We advised that we would again urge members of the Congress to halt 

appropriations for ecosystem planning implementation until 

the federal agents have complied with the law and with the 

will, of Congress. 

After receipt of our letter, Mr. Mealey announced that he 

would meet with our Planning Committee to discuss meaningful part~cipation in the planning process. Our Committee went 

to Mr. Mealey's office in Boise, Idaho. He advised us that 

he khew that the grazing portions of the draft BIS were weak~ He told us that he felt confident in the forest 

health provisions because of his background in forest 

science. But he told us that because of the weakness in the 

grazing area, he welcomed our input. I 

We a'sked that Mr. Mealey share with us the data which had 

been used to develop the draft grazing portions of the EIS so that we could provide input as to the data analysis and 

evaluation. He told us that he could do that only if the 

Coalition would consider us to be a "Pilot County" to 

participate in the planning. We made the formal request for 

such status, and that request still has not been answered 

overl two months later. 

I 

Meantime, our Board instructed the County Prosecuting 

Attotney to begin preparation for litigation to challenge 

the trs process. The Prosecutor contacted Mr. Mealey reg~ding his position on meaningful participation by our County. Mr. Mealey then personally told me that if we would 

review che draft li:IS and provide input his staff would 

cons'ider it. I advised Mr. Mealey that Dr. Gibson and I were having a terrible time even wading through the inte~connecting portions of the technical jargon. I 

suggested chat we complete our review, then meet with Mr. 

Mealey's staff to have them explain their findings and conc~usions. He agreed to that proposal and said that we could then have input into the final writing of the EIS. 

' Before that could take place, however, funding was made 

avai;I.able by che Congress for the completion of the EIS prod~ss. During che May a, 1996 meeting in Montana, 

acco.rding to Dr. James Rathbun, Mr. Mealey announced that 

his writers had stopped writing and the editors were putting 

the ,finishing touches on the final product. So much for 

meaningful local input. 
312 

I have gone into detail in describing our experi1ance with 

the ecosystem project for a special reason. In 5rreat 

generalities you heard about local participation in the 

planning effort. You heard also from members of the 

Coalition of Counties about the participation of local 

government in the planning effort. However, our t!Xperience 

demonstrates the absolute refusal of the ecosystem project 

team' to allow participation by a county which hall in place a viable county land use plan and which has planning expertise as to the lands in our County. Our experience i11 detailed 

here for you so that there can be no accusation t;hat we 'are 

just generally complaining. The details are pro,rided sc that 'YOU can have specific information from whicll to 

question the representations which have been madE! to you 

that:there has been local input and that there hns been 

CO!ti'liance with the statutory requirements of coclrdination 

of planning with local governments. Our experience as to 

the lack of local input is consistent with the el~ression of 

Dr. Rathbun as to the lack of local participatiOil: 

During the period the science teams did their 

inventories, there was no general pubJ.ic involvement. They operated in a vacuum. Peclple 

throughout the area, including many sc:ientists 

working in the field, inside and outs:l.de of 

agencies, academics and researchers, iiLS well as the general public, have good idea.e; and 

information about the land and resourc:es throughout the area. They were excluded from 

the process because there was no public input. 

(Letter from Dr. James RathbUil dated May 9, 1996) 

3. THERE ARE CRITICAL, FATAL FLAWS AS TO ACCURACY OF THE 

CONTENTS OF THE GRAZING PORTIONS OF TRE BIS. 

I cannot detail here for you all the planning and 

accuracy flaws which have been detected in the Bl:S by our Committee and by other range experts who have no'llr had the 

opportunity to review the draft. But, I will re'll'iew for you 

just a few of the many flaws found in onlr one et•apter of 

the draft of the Upper Columbia River Bas n EIS: Chapter 2 

"Affected !nvironment•·-"Rangelands". 

(1) on page 6, the comments relate tcr the adve~se impact of graziilg on vegetation and soil dwelling 

spec:ies. The comments are all negative, and do not relate 

any of the scientific information which is available to.show 

thael livestock grazing, and ranchers• improving u~anage~nt 

skills, have had positive impact on improvement cr! vast 

port•ions of the rangelands in the west. There i111 an abundance of such positive evidence, and it is available in 
313 

the fbrm of writings, photographs and slides. Any one of 

the r,ange experts identified earlier in this statement could 

have, and would have, provided such information and data·had 

they been allowed to participate in the planning effort. 

(2) On page 9 the draft states that the 

populations of California Big horn sheep have decreased ;n 

the Owyhee County area. That is a false statement. The 

popul'ations of the Big horn sheep are so high that the Ic;laho 

Fish and Game Commission has captured some of the species 

and given them to other states to begin development of herds 

in those other states. That statement has been made 

publicly by the Director of the Fish and Game Department. 

(3) On page 17, the draft states that 

histdrically habitats were "not influenced greatly by large 

grazing animals until horses, and later cattle and sheep, were ,introduced less than 300 years ago." Dr. Wayne 

Burkhart has fossil records which clearly demonstrate that 

large grazing animals had impact and influence on the · habitat 10,000 years ago. His records and his knowledge 

could have been very helpful to a "science team" puttingtthe draft EIS together. At least, he could have helped with 

accuracy. 

(4) On page 20, the conclusion is reached tha~ 

"unlike wildlife species, livestock do not migrate. 

Livestock tend to stay in place as long as they have food, 

water, and other needs." That statement is unscientifically 

broad. If it were true, why has there been a need for 

installation of "drift fences" throughout the history of 

livestock grazing. 

(5) On page 21, the conclusion is stated that: 

"Adjustments in livestock grazing pressure or rest from 

livestock grazing can, however, result in improved soil 

stability, soil water levels, and nutrient levels ... " 

Within the negative structure of the grazing portions of the 

SIS, ·the implication of this statement is that ranchers ,do 

not make necessary adjustments of numbers. The implication is misleading and inaccurate. The ranchers in Owyhee CoUnty 

have made adjustments where necessary, and improvement in 

allotments has been evidenced. There is no data to 

demonstrate that excessive grazing has taken place 

throughout the Owyhee County allotments, yet the implication is that the entire county needs management action regarding 

adjustment of numbers. On the other hand, in the early 1940s there was not a spear of grass to be seen from the 

foothills of Marsing in Owyhee County to Lake View, Oregon, a strip of 300 miles. With improved management techniqUes, 

and with the private incentive to make the public land more productive for the benefit of the private herd, ranchers 

have improved this land to the point at which there is now grass everywhere through this strip. Yet, this draft ElS 
314 

makes no mention of this improvement, or the metllods by , whic~ grazing has been used to accomplish the improvemen't. 

( 6) On page 22, the comments as to d:rought artd 

the adverse impact of livestock grazing are directly 

contradicted by such scientific data as Dr. Lee Sharp's 

collection of slides representing 40 years of re1search. 

Those slides and the narration have been offered to the BLM 

staff in the past and they were not interested ill seeing 

them. The "science team" of the ecosystem proje~:t should 

have viewed them. The mel'llbers of the "science Ulam" may not 

even.know who Dr. Sharp is, but they would have :if they had coor~inated their planning effort with ours. 

Specifically, the statement is macie that !"By 

the time a drought is inevitable, livestock have been out on the range for months, and the ability for most l:Lvestock 

operators to round up their cattle and take them to another 

area' is limited." we have no, idea where the "sc:lence team" 

could have come up with this conclusion, but cert:ainly not 

from, any expert range consultant or rancher. Splring 

moisture gives che rancher early warning of drousrht or potential drought before the cattle are ever turned out 

The rancher then regulates his scock numbers in accordance 

with the conditions evident to him. Many of our ranchers 

have kept 30 to 40% of their stock off the range for 3-4 

weeks because of moisture conditions which were ~~vident to 

them. A good manager knows of prospective drought before 

his \stock ever hit the range. Research which hal; been 

conducted in the Dakotas and in Squaw Butte, Ore~~on 

demonstrates that moderate level grazing during cmd after 

drought periods is not adverse co the range. OUl:' ranchers use .only moderate grazing levels during such t:.il!IE~s. 

It is interesting that the negative and 

inaccurate conclusions seated in this section re~Jarding 

drought do not even attempt to define the term "cirought." 

Again, input by the experienced range consul tantl~ nameci, 

above could have supplied useful ciefinitions to t:he •sc;i.ence 

team•. 

(7) on page 22, the comment is madE~ that 

"Increaseci fire frequency has causeci a loss of shrub cover ... " The comment is misleading because it does not 

clearly demonstrate that it is referring only to lowlands 

where juniper has not invaded and driven out useJ:ul spe~ies. 

(8) on page 34, the comment is macle that,"The 

hydrological effects of western juniper increase are difficult to separate from those resulting from :Lmprope:r 

livestock grazing, but where improper livestock !~razing has 

contributed to the decline in understory vegetation it has 

probably contributed to increased runoff and ero1~ion. " . The 

draf.ters would have haci less difficulty separatillg the 
315 

effec.cs of juniper invasion from improper livestock grazing 

if they had consulted the local experts named above or e~en 

the ranchers who have experienced drying up of springs as a direct result ot juniper encroachment. Dr. Burkhart, with Tisd~le, has reported studies on juniper invasion which show 

that juniper encroachment destroys understory vegetation and 

saps the water from the area of encroachment. Local experts 

and ~anchers can specifically point to areas where the use of fire to burn invading juniper has resulted in re- emergence of springs that had been sapped by the juniper. 

The eight examples presented merely touch the surface of the 

contents of this draft which would ha"Y"e benefited frOlll l ·:)cal 

expert input. The draft is replete with conceptual flaws 

which detract from its planning value. 

As already mentioned, the draft is negative as to grazing, 

always emphasizing the adverse conditions which can result 

from overgrazing. It fails to recognize the positive 

results of grazing which include increased wildlife in and 

around public lands where livestock are grazed. It also 

fails to recognize the improvements in the public lands 

which have resulted since the Taylor Grazing Act required 

issuance of permits to individual ranchers who have a proprietary interest in improving the lands for perennial use. 

Chapter 1 "Purpose and Need" attempts to portray a totally 

declining ecosystem throughout the project area. Such : portrayal is not true. BLM's own internal records 

demonstrate that the public lands have vastly improved since 

the Taylor Grazing Act mandated permi~s and preference 

rights. Apparently not even the government's own records were utilized by ~he drafters. Again, local experts on .the 

range could have provided valuable improvement informat::.on 

to the drafters. It is ironic to note that the draft EIS repe~tedly emphasizes the negative aspects of grazing, and 

of recreation use, but does not discuss the management techpiques ~f ranchers which have improved the range and 

habitat for wildlife, and does not discuss the efforts by 

recreation users in Owyhee County to assist the BLM in 

varipus land maintenance operations. Local input would have prov~ded the •science teams" with information about these 

positive aspects of multiple use. 

Chapter 1 "Purpose and Need" also contends that forest 

heal.th has suffered because of "human activities and 

management practices• such as timber harvest, livestock 

grazing, fire exclusion, mining, road development and 

increased recreation use. While dwelling on the harm which can be caused to forest health by multiple uses, the draft doe~ not set forth the harm which is done by the 

obstructionist activities of some groups which have tried to 
316 

halt' timber salvage in the forests ot Idaho ravaged by fore~t fires . The experts from the Forest Service have 

testified before this Congress as to the desperate need for salv~ge operations to remove burned and damaged trees. 

Obstructionist activities such as lawsuits have delayed such 

salvage operations to the point at which they ma.y not be 

successful in saving valuable board feet or saving the 

forests from even more devastating for est fires this summer. 

In Chapter 2, the section on "Human U5es and Values", t qe drafters ignore a critical economic impact factor. They 

analize the number of jobs associated with Forest Servh:e and BLM managed lands, but they do not consider the doll ar i mpact which strikes surrounding communities when income 

from· the natural resource industries decreases . Dr. Neil 

Remby and Dr. Chad Gibson could have provided information to 

the drafters which would show that for every dollar of 

income which is lost because of reduced grazing, there ±s at 

least a five times higher impact in the surrounding 

communities. This adverse economic impact of reduced resource income is not considered in the draft. 

CONCLUSION: ALONG WITH ALL OTHER FLAWS, THE ECOSYSTEM EIS 

ENDANGERS PRIVATE PROPERTY. 

You have been assured by project personnel and members of 

the Coali tion of Counties that the ecosystem projects wi ll 

have no impact on private property. That assurance is as flawed as is the content ot the EIS as to grazing lands . 

In ~hee County, and in all the rangeland counties of 

Idaho, the land resembles a checkerboard when one colors in 

the mixture of private lands, federall y managed lands, and 

stat,e lands. In most of our county it is physically impossible to impact federally managed land without . impacting the private land which is adjacent and intermi xed. 

It i .s fact that a failure to clear away the fuel of dyi ng 

tree's on federal Forest lands increases the fire danger; and 

the ~ire does not stop at the boundary of adj acent private 

property . It is fact that a reduction of grazing on federally managed lands in an allotment to the degree that 

it becomes economically impossible to graze the allotment 

decreases the value of the private property which is the 

base property of the ranch . It is fact that habitat 

restrictions for purposes of protecting a species on federally managed lands cross boundaries and are applicable 

to private land. If there was doubt before the Sweeth~e 

decision, there is none now. 

The ·project leaders of the ecosystem teal!'s are not novi·:;:es in land use. They know that you cannot J.tnpact the publJ.C lands in Idaho without impacting private property which 
317 

adjo~s those lands. In one of ehe early drafts of the EIS 

the statement was made that the management of "prior existing rights such as mineral leases, rights of way, and 

minirlg claims" might require "reasonable changes". That. is a clear acknowledgement that the private property interests 

in such "prior exist.ing rights" will be impacted by the 

projects. 

If, in fact, the project teams did not intend impact on private lands, why were private property conditions included 

in t~e analysis of land conditions? Again, we were told in one of the earliest drafts of the EIS that "Information 

about. conditions and uses on private lands in the basin was included in the Scientific Assessment so that the EIS team 

could fully understand the entire landscape and adequately 

cons+der cumulative effects of the alternatives." Why wprry with·the condition of private property if the alternatives 

will have no effect on such property? Why would one even beli~ve that there would be "cumulative effects" if private 

property were not to be impacted? Suppose a private l~d 

owner has allowed his land to deteriorate while adjacent' 

federally managed land is in good condition. Suppose professional management of a forest. by a Forest Supervisor has greatly improved forest health, but adjacent private 

forest lands are in poor condition. Is it not clear th~t it 

distorts planning objectives for the federally managed land 

if the scientific data for that portion of the ecosystem 

includes data as to the poor private land? Logical answers to these questions would make it clear that the EIS and the 

ecosystem projects will impact private property. 

The Eastside document stated "Ecosystems do not stop at 

political or land ownership boundaries, yet the goal of 'the 

project is to improve the health of physical, biological, social and economic components of ecosystems through 

management of Forest Service and BLM-administered lands 

The extent of lands not under the authority of these 

agencies, and their role in ecosystem process and 

functioning is therefore a key consideration." If the 

cons-iderations as to the non-federal lands are considered 

"key.", doesn• t the EIS then present a fundamental planning 

flaw if in fact private lands are not to be impacted? 

Water rights in Idaho are realty rights. They are privately held. Yet, in Chapter l "Purpose and Need", the EIS draft 

states that "It. is the position of the United States that 

the right to use water for management of the public lands was ,reserved by the United States when the National Forests, 

BLM!Districts, Wildernesses, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

National Recreaeion Areas were created." The BIS does not 

bot.her to explain the opposing posit.ion, i.e., that the 

ranchers who graze and who have held constitutionally prior 

appropriation rights for over a century hold those wate~ 

rights. The EIS concludes that the United States claims are 
318 

subject to state adjudication proceedings and •are beyond 

the scope of this BIS", but then states •conditi·ons upon' which this document is based are predicated on the 

avai:+ability of instream flows sufficient" to provide fo'r 

the needs under which the Forests and BLM lands •were 

established". If the standards and guidelines established 

by this EIS are adopted, the impact on private water rights will be severe, because the federal government will have to 

increase its already foitllidable effort to take w.ater rights from private owners. 

Bven.though it is clear that impacts on federally managed lands will impact adjacent and often dependent p:r:ivate 

property, the IUS makes no allowance for protect.ion of 

private property rights. 

The EIS drafters recognize that the planning and 

implementation projected in the docUlllent are not based on authprity extended by Congress. One of the sections of 

Chapter 4 is entitled "Barriers to Implementation•. The 

following statement is made in that section: 

A related barrier is that ecosystem 

management is an internal policy shift 

rather than one based on new legislative direction. Because it is not anchored 

in legislation that redirects multiple use management into ecosystem management, 

ecosystem management is being implemented as a management response to changing conditions and new information under 

existing laws. THESE EXISTING LAWS 

DO NOT NECESSARILY CONTAIN CONSIS'rENT 

DIRECTION, AND CANNOT BE VIEWED AS 

REFLECTING A SOCIAL AGENDA TO PROCEED. 

(Barriers to Implementation, page 5) 

' Even recognizing that the statutes enacted by Congress are not .consistent with the ecosystem planning outlined in the 

EIS, the federal planners move ahead to implementation. This attitude demonstrates a bureaucratic arrogance which 

holds in little respect the constitutional authority of this 

body of Congress. 

We call upon you to set the project teams straight with 

regard to the authority to manage the public lands, and,with 

regard to the need of all executive agencies to follow the 

laws as written by the Congress. We urge you to rein in the~e projects at least until there has been compliance with 

statutory mandates of coordinated local planning and until 

there is created adequa~e protection of private property 

rights and interests. In short, we urge you to reclaim the 

authority to manage the public lands conveyed only to you by 

the .Constitution of the united States. 
319 

Figute 3.3: Aah and Wildlife Servtce Ecosystem Unit r.lap 

1. NomPI&allceo..t 

1.. KllmaltVC..ut8 PKIIk: Cout l. CMtraiValleyOI c:.IVorrUISan Frandlc:o la&y 4, Soutn PacHio C.OU. 

~Riwtt!SNin 

I , IN.IIIiar&aslnl 

7. L.owwColc:ft«tRMr a.GifafSAN'Io'atdloAh<ef 

•-san.-n 10 • .,.._VIdVoottJUoG~t1 11 . l...owtirf:UGGQC'ICM 12. P«01 Ar.w 

1:1. Ed'oftrdlllltat...., 

14..~Tnu 

''· TuuGulfCout , .. ~ .. RI¥ws 

17. \Jii)CI«Coloi'MIOAt.let 

IL l'iaM~KarUtR'-s 

PUERTO .ICO 

... ..-.~ '"' • - · A.2 VIRGIN I.SLANDS 

~W~I ~,o .·~: 

11.. Upper~~RMts 

20. MU'I Slelft MIMoUrl Alvllir 

21. U»weta.41Mour1Aivv 22-M..._..He .... ~Piaittl 

n.~~~Pralril 

........ ._ ... ,__ 

24.otlio~Www~ 

71. Lowlt ....... FWet 21. r...,_.. ..... r 

u . C.,..Gu!IWdellheck 30. l'lorid.IPVII&fdlw.waNdl 

'' ~Aiw:l5 32.P.,.._.,~ 

:Q..~MDM~ 

:t&.~~llutftiwt:B 

>S. c.-. 

So~Pee : FWS. 

•-.e•• 

n 

3&. ~RiftrJDelrNNI.COIIIIMa 

S1. HudlonRiwl~"fDDtc~ 

38.CoMec:ticuiAMD'l...ong~!Ouf'd 

31. fki~OI ....... IR~ 

.ao LW~ 

., ~IQ~Riwt 

Q.~iliatdl 

<13.~.-..-

44. ~AIUica 

_.,_ tntnrAIIIHa 

.U. Souflei.•LAIISU .7. Sa..i"'CeniiWAIUica 

... &riltO!lllly~Kedlk 

d. 'I"UUa:::l\ • KuMolcwlm o.lta SO. !MifSW~~ 

St ~SU. 

.52. lotOM PldlciGul OIAI&JIIa 

GAOJI.CED·H-111 &:os:rne• M&aacuaaat. 

/E'I.I-/1 ~ lr' I 
ISBN 0-16-053447-X 

90000