OPAL CREEK FORFST PRESERVE ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SrBC01DIITTEE OX XATION.AL PARKS, FORESTS 

AXD PrBLIC LAXDS 

OF THE 

COMNIITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION · 

ON 

H.R. 3905 

A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF 

THE OPAL CREEK FOREST PRESERVE IN THE STATE OF OREGON 

87-829 

AUGUST 2. 1994-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 103-112 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

hn :-.<l h.: hy the l.S. (iov...:rnmcnt Print n~ Or n~ 

St.pcri nt('iltklll of Donu ~nts. Congrc=-~ l Sak•s O ITict:. \Vashington. DC 20401 

ISBN 0- 16 -046783 -7 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

EN! F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J . BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska , 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican. Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON N ATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F . VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virgini a 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawa.ii 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

MAURICE HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

Ranking Republican Member 

ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, Ca lifornia 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

JAMES BitADLI::Y, Professional Staff Member 

CHARLI::NE SEAMENS, Clerk 

KURT CHRISTENSE:-:, Republican Consultant on Public Lands 

(!]) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held August 2, 1994 ............... '"................................................................. 1 

Text of H.R. 3905 ..................................................................................................... 37 

Statement of Members: 

Dickey, Hon. Jay, a U.S. Representative from Arkansas .............................. 52 

Kopetski, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Representative from Oregon ........................... 2 

Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota, and Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands ......... 1 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Atiyeh, George, Friends of Opal Creek, Lyons, OR ....................................... 21 

Mickey, Ross, Northwest Forestry Association ............................................. 21, 24 

Thomas, Jack Ward, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ...... 7 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 53 

Additional material supplied: 

Friends of Opal Creek, Elkhorn, Oregon: "Opal Creek Ancient ForestScientific and Educational Preserve" ............................... ........................... 61 

lilli 

OPAL CREEK FOREST PRESERVE ACT 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1994 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:11 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

[Text of H.R. 3905 may be found at end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on Parks, Forests, and Public 

Lands will come to order. This morning we are meeting trying to 

wind up our legislative hearings so we can work on the legislation. 

We are considering the Opal Creek Preserve Act of 1994. 

This is a measure introduced by Congressman Kopetski in February of this year and the Agriculture Committee has spent some 

time on it. The legislation designated about 22,000 acres, as 

amended by the Agriculture Committee, as the acres of the Willamette and Mount Hood National Forest in the Opal Creek area were 

designated as a preserve. This area contains one of the largest intact blocks of old growth forest in the Cascade Range and includes 

native steelhead trout and salmon runs and several threatened and 

endangered species such as the spotted owl. 

I have heard the virtues of Opal Creek for a long time from the 

Members from Oregon, least of which Congressman Kopetski. In 

the President's plan it is managed as a later successional forest reserve and Representative Kopetski has been a persistent advocate 

in bringing this important area to the subcommittee's attention. 

I appreciate the witnesses from Oregon being present on short 

notice as well, of course, the Forest Service Chief. I think it underlines the importance of this issue and the FEMAT process and this 

particular area. 

While there is still disagreement in regards to some of the plans 

under FEMAT as they are winding their way through the courts 

and finding their way into implementation, there is generally, I understand, agreement on this. So it shouldn't open up the entire 

issue at this late date in the process. 

(1) 
2 

Without objection, all of the statements and testimony of witnesses will be made part of the record in its entirety. Hearing no 

objection, so ordered. 

We are pleased to welcome Congressman Mike Kopetski and, 

Mike, please proceed and you don't have to put your entire statement, but if you want to, read it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE KOPETSKI, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will summarize my 

statement. I do want to thank you and the committee for holding 

this hearing today. Because of the short notice we had to prepare 

for hearing, some who we would like to be here today from Oregon 

could not make the trip. 

I do thank those who are able to attend, particularly George 

Atiyeh, who is a miner, but he is really a pioneer and one of the 

great empire builders in Oregon because he has devoted his entire 

life over the past two decades literally to try to preserve this very 

significant gift from God. 

I know that a complete record is important for consideration of 

this committee and I would like to help by providing whatever additional information you may need. In addition, Chairman de la 

Garza and Mr. Rose will make available the full record of the Agriculture Committee for the consideration of this bill. 

I want to start by giving a little bit of background on Opal Creek. 

It is in northwestern Oregon on the west slope of the Cascades and 

contains one of the largest intact stands of low elevation old growth 

in the Pacific Northwest. Walking through the forest, you cannot 

help but look up as the Douglas firs and the hemlocks tower 

around you. 

The forest lies almost entirely in one watershed and covers about 

22,000 acres. It is clearly one of Oregon's last uncut gems. The preserve lies entirely within my congressional district. 

There are many reasons to legislate the preserve, including its 

biological significance, the popular support for protecting it and the 

minimal economic impact of giving it permanent protection. 

Today's witnesses will speak to these reasons. But in addition to 

these policy arguments, it is my deeply held belief that Opal Creek 

is a special place that deserves to be set aside for people to enjoy 

today and forever. 

During my campaign for the House, I made the issue of preservation of Opal Creek a top priority. I tried to legislate the preserve 

back in 1991 as part of a compromise piece of legislation dealing 

with the Owl Forest in the Northwest. 

As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, I picked alternative eight of 

the gang of four report and actually got it out of the Agriculture 

Committee. Now, I am in my final months as a Member of Congress and I put Opal Creek on the top of my legislative agenda. 

We have worked hard to ensure that this bill is fair, that all 

stakeholders have been involved in the creation and decision-making process. Of course, with legislation you can't make everybody 

happy, but I think we have come a long way down that trail. The 

details of protection and management in this bill have been nego-
3 

tiated, written, rewritten and I am confident that the bill is good 

public policy. 

I have tried to accommodate the Forest Service specifically by addressing their concerns in sections on rights of way, cultural and 

historic preservation, administrative access, road improvements 

and environmental remediation and liability pursuit. 

I do want to say that the Forest Service will tell you, I hope, that 

they have had a good working relationship with me and my staff, 

Jennifer Pitt, as we have tried to draft the possible legislation. And 

I understand the Forest Service almost always takes the position 

that it has grave reservations about legislating in a piecemeal fashion. 

I do appreciate this perspective. The Forest Service, after all, is 

concerned about the management of millions and millions of acres, 

but the fact is, legislation is the only way that we can protect the 

Opal Creek Forest permanently. In fact, many of our national preserved lands are protected because in the past the Congress has 

used this very, very same piecemeal approach. 

I want to express that the President's plan for forests in the Pacific Northwest will designate th~ Opal Creek Forest as an old 

growth, late successional reserve. It is only through legislation that 

we can ensure permanency. Under the President's plan there will 

be very little logging at Opal Creek even without legislation. 

Let me also say that both the administration and industry representatives have conceded to me that it would be very surprising 

if Opal Creek were ever harvested given the likelihood that a sale 

in this area would be litigated. Our self-deceiving attitudes toward 

places like Opal Creek contributed to the unsustainable harvest 

levels of the 1980s because although there was a tacit recognition 

that Opal Creek would never be cut, the inclusion of Opal Creek's 

trees in the timber base falsely elevated the volume that could be 

harvested annually on a sustainable basis. I maintain that an act 

of Congress is absolutely necessary to ensure that permanent protection. 

Forest preservation, unfortunately, is tenuous as long as its security is based on the whims of succeeding administrations. Consistent policy objectives in this highly political and emotional arena of 

forest management are not guaranteed as long as America has 

four-year terms for the Presidency. 

I want to address the section of the bill that calls for cooperative 

management of the preserve. My objective in requiring a cooperative management plan for Opal Creek is twofold: It will allow 

stakeholders to be heard in the process of developing a management plan for the area, and it will remove some of the burden of 

implementation of work plans for the preserve from the Forest 

Service. 

This idea is neither original nor unprecedented. There are numerous examples of memoranda of understanding between the Forest Service and nonprofit organizations that formalize a role for 

extragovernmental management on national forest lands. There are 

two well-known examples on both coasts. 

The Appalachian Mountain Club runs cabins and huts along the 

Appalachian Mountain trail which traverses much of the East 

Coast. The club provides trail work, educational programs, and is 
4 

allowed to charge a fee for their overnight facilities. On the West 

Coast, the Pacific Crest Trail Association has a similar function. In 

Oregon, the Friends of Bagby Hot Springs, which is also in my district, have an agreement whereby volunteers maintain the hot 

springs and the Forest Service has managerial oversight and provides materials such as cleaning equipment and supplies. 

Although the bottom line in managing the preserve will still rest 

with the Forest Service, I believe that it is imperative that all interested parties should be at the table as a management plan is 

written. Opal Creek has been the focus of much contention in Oregon; the community, including the Forest Service has been polarized by the debate. It has been so high profile that a book has been 

written about it, David Seideman's "Showdown at Opal Creek." 

The only way that trust will be rebuilt is if the process of determining management in the area includes inviting all stakeholders 

to weigh in. Cooperative management is an essential part of the 

healing that needs to go on. 

Let me say that this legislation has been crafted in cooperation 

with the Forest Service, the environmentalists, and the industry. 

I have tried to accommodate the suggestions of everyone. I believe 

that we have reached a good compromise. The administration supports this legislation. This CBO has scored the bill at zero in recognition of the fact that the bill gives permanence to today's forest 

management plans and the reality that these forests will never be 

cut. The bill, in fact, will save the government the cost of the litigating any future sales offered in the Opal Creek Forest. 

I also want to say that this legislation protects one of the Northwest's most spectacular places where thousands of people every 

year can access it. I think the most telling testimony on this legislation was offered by Dr. Norm Johnson, one of the original gang 

of four, if you will, who testified before the Agriculture Committee 

and cannot be here today. He said this is the most significant stand 

of old growth trees in the Northwest including wilderness areas 

and clearly it should be preserved through legislation. 

I do also appreciate the fact, that my good friend and fellow eastern Oregonian, Jack Ward Thomas, is here today to talk about the 

Forest Service position and any concerns they may have with the 

legislation. 

I also understand that the Forest Service and various Interior 

Department agencies are worried about the F ACA problem. This is 

a very complex issue. I hope that general issue will be resolved 

shortly. It is not my intention to complicate this issue with this 

bill. It is my understanding that the White House Office of Environmental Policy has been working on ways to facilitate adaptive 

management groups like the Applegate Partnership created under 

option nine. One possibility is to have a partnership. In this case, 

the Forest Service and interested parties, report to federally chartered advisory committees such as the province teams that will be 

established in the Pacific Northwest. 

I have some documents from the administration that would spell 

this out. In essence, what we did through the Agriculture Committee was exempt this area from the FACA process, but if report language is necessary to spell out a different partnership arrange-
5 

ment, we are certainly willing to work with the committee on that 

kind of approach and language. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know time is short these 

days. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you, Mike. Obviously, you have been 

working on this for a long time. It is my own fault that I hadn't 

looked at the Agriculture substitute until this morning when your 

staff presented me with a copy of it. In looking at maps this morning of Opal Creek, the Friends of Opal Creek in their publication 

you distributed to me, indicates they had 35,000 acres that they 

are working on. You are choosing to take in this final version try- ing to separate it out in a watershed manner. You pointed out a 

little over 22,000 acres; is that correct. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So the remaining is the Little North Fork watershed 

and then the other portion is called the Santiam River. Mr. KOPETSKI. Santiam. 

Mr. VENTO. Santiam. Pardon me. Is Santiam not included in 

that? Opal Creek included the big private inholding so that portion 

is left out. But the anticipation is that it would fall under the administrative management plan developed by the administration 

under the FEMAT program? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. That is correct. And what that means in terms of 

harvesting the area is that there are some stands of trees that are 

less than 80 years old and they would be subject to some thinning 

operations to help develop the healthiness of those particular 

stands. 

Mr. VENTO. I hadn't looked over the entire rewrite of the Agri- culture Committee. I don't know that they have seen it. One of the 

difficulties is whenever you get into a new designation and in this 

you are using the word, "preserve." It could be any type of phrase 

you use but what we normally do is, of course, try to look at a management scheme that has some history and some track record to 

it. 

The concerns that I have, of course, are is that you are forced to 

articulate a lot more information and detail. Maybe we will be satisfied during the hearing by the Forest Service and others prior to 

our final action on this. 

As an example, one of the things, Mike, and maybe the chief will 

be able to respond to this better, too, is that you get into a planning process. Does this mean we are into the same Forest Management Practices Act where we are going to have appeals? Are we 

going to have those types of safeguards or not? I don't know. These 

are some of the concerns where you are asking for a plan to be developed. I think I understand what you want to do in terms of not having 

new roads built and not having roads used .that historically, in fact 

you had some that were closed in there. Maybe those elements are 

no longer necessary because you have removed some of those areas 

from the bill. But that is an example just in terms of the roads and 

road :3sue, not to take a position on it, but those are hefty issues 

in terms of what happens. 

And you have timber harvest that goes on in some areas. In 

other words, it is banned except for these certain reasons that you 
6 

have articulated in the initial bill. So if we do something, we need 

to be interfaced with the other procedures in the Forest Service if 

it is not already done in the bill that has come to you. Do you think 

that many of those issues have been resolved from the Agriculture 

bill? I see some are still outstanding here. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. I think we have come a long way. We have met 

a number of times with the Forest Service and the staffs of the various committees and individual Members and tried not to tie the 

hands of the Forest Service unduly. The bottom line is it is their 

decision on the management practices. We are asking for cooperation with the parties involved and our intent is to take the approach that we mentioned with the Bagby Hot Springs and the Pacific Crest Trail folks that work with the Forest Service and BLM 

on a cooperative basis. 

Part of this will result, Mr. Chairman, in the healing that really 

needs to go on in this specific area. A lot of the animosity, if you 

will, and emotionalism over the Owl Forest, interestingly, came 

from people on both sides who live in this area. And when we are 

talking about this cooperation, we are not just talking about the 

Forest Service and the environmentalists, but also between the 

people that are involved in the timber industry in that canyon as 

well. So I think that this will provide a mechanism for those on 

both sides of this highly emotional issue to get together and I believe that will help to heal this. 

Now, the Forest Service is here today and apparently they have 

three changes that areMr. VENTO. I would normally feel I was picking on you a little 

bit, but you have done enough work in forest management in some 

of these issues that this is really your bread and butter. So I am 

not really asking you questions that are questions, but I am just 

explaining, that I have got to resolve those questions in my mind 

right now. 

You have obviously worked this through and I need to see how 

all this fits together in terms of accomplishing the goals. I agree 

with you in terms of cooperative agreements or memoranda of understanding and clearly here the Forest Service is in the catbird 

seat in terms of making those decisions. You put some language in 

here that encourages them strongly, encourages them without necessarily identifying a select group over and above others to work 

with. 

I think that that will work. I understand what you are trying to 

do in terms of achieving a consensus type and cooperative and collaborative type of management. They would add qualitatively a 

positive difference, I assume, to this preserve. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. I think one evidence of how we addressed the Forest Service management concerns is that the changes that they are 

recommending in today's hearing don't deal with management directives in the bill. So they have looked at this and asked what is 

there after we made further compromises in Agriculture Committee 

and the answer is that we are satisfied with it in terms of management directives. You may want to spell that out in your questions 

to the chief. 

Mr. VENTO. Most of what I was thinking about in our initial reaction to this was should we really pick up a piece of the Pacific 
7 

Northwest FEMAT plan. That is, they say a piece that is very positive in terms of everyone agreeing is that this area should be conserved and preserved. It is always good to have a little vinegar with the sugar sometimes if you want to legislate. And here it seems like it is an easier 

piece to do than some of the other aspects of the FEMAT plan. 

That would be my own concern. Of course, this is very much in 

flux, but I am persuaded by you and the others in terms of the type 

of support that you have gained so that we can go forward and do 

this piece without it necessarily being interpreted as a pattern or 

getting complicated with other issues, so we will proceed. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. I appreciate that. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me get you off the seat and get the guy that is, 

as you said, your neighbor from eastern Oregon, Chief of the Forest 

Service, Jack Ward Thomas. Obviously, his presence here underlines the importance and sensitivity of this issue. So we are pleased 

to have him before the Committee. 

I daresay, Dr. Thomas, if some of my colleagues had known you 

were going to be here to talk about the Pacific Northwest, they 

would have been here. I think the sudden notice of this hearing in 

the early hour in the morning for some has probably saved you 

from having to answer a broader range of questions than region 6 

and environs. But your statement has been made part of the record 

and you know I am not going to be too hard on you. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF, FOREST 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Well, being in the office at 5:00 this morning 

to get ready to testify, I suppose there is something good about 

that. 

Thanks for the opportunity to offer our views. The Department 

of Agriculture agrees with the objectives of House Resolution 3905. 

Our earlier concerns have been addressed mostly and after reconsideration, the Department of Agriculture would support enactment. 

The preserve encompasses about 22,300 acres of national forest, 

State and private lands, about 256 acres located within the reserve. But they would not be part of the reserve unless we through the 

Secretary subsequently acquires the lands. The President's plan 

designates about 87 percent of the Federal land within the proposed Preserve as a late-successional reserve. The reserve encompasses Opal Creek, which is one portion of a late-successional reserve of about 7.430 million acres designated to maintain a late 

successional old-growth ecosystem. 

This bill provides for preservation of about 19,400 acres of this 

area. Plus, it protects an additional 2,870 acres. We still have some 

concerns. Section 5- B of the bill requires the Secretary develop a 

co-op management plan in consultation and would exempt any advisory committee from requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

The administration generally does not support provisions that establish new advisory committees or seek to exempt groups from requirements of FACA. We recommend that Section 5-B be amended 
8 

to provide simply that the Secretary develop a management plan 

for the Preserve with public participation. 

We recognize that protection of the Preserve is important, but 

would prefer to deal with issues of firewood and open fires and 

other details through public participation in the development of the 

Preserve Management Plan. Section 6-D prohibits, subject to valid 

existing rights, the use of motor vehicles on forest roads 2209, 290 

and 330, by anyone other than the agency, mining claimants, or 

owners of private property within the Preserve. 

Limiting public access on these roads raises concerns about appropriate public use. We recommend that Section 6-D be deleted. 

We prefer to deal with the subject of appropriate access with full 

participation, public participation, in the management plan. 

Public access to the Preserve is contingent on acquisition, at a 

minimum, of right-of-way over some of the inholdings. All but 60 

acres of the inholding are held by Friends of Opal Creek patented 

in 1991 and donated to the organization by the patentee. 

We are concerned about the potential cost of acquiring this land 

at fair market value and prefer that the bill be amended for the 

establishment of the Preserve upon the acquisition through donation of adequate rights-of-way over these inholdings. 

We would be happy to work with the subcommittee to develop 

mutually acceptable language to address these concerns. With that, 

I will stop and answer any questions you might have. 

[The statement of Mr. Jack Thomas may be found at end of hearing] 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, chief. 

Congressman Kopetski, if you want to join me up here to involve 

yourself in the discussion with the chief, you are welcome to do so. 

I have no objection to you asking a few questions. If you come on 

the Democratic side over here on my left, you will be all right. You 

have been around long enough that you probably would be recognized as being on the wrong side if you sat there. 

Chief, one of the issues, and I would yield to my colleague from 

Oregon, is that the intention is that all of the inholdings within the 

area be donated along those lines. I don't know what the time 

frame would be for that to be accomplished. I have no feeling. 

Congressman Kopetski I was wondering what the time frame for 

most of these donations might be. Will it be a couple of years if we, 

in fact, pass legislation working through the paperwork and getting 

the corporate groups and trust. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, there is no set time frame. 

Mr. VENTO. The reason I am asking that question is because I 

am wondering if perhaps it is possible to extinguish some of the 

problems here. I think one of the reasons that the chief has raised 

the issue of access rights-of-ways and so forth is because it is a 

complicated factor. Chief, do you want to comment further on that. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. I think, Mr. Chairman if those properties 

were indeed donated, that the issue clears entirely and does not 

throw us through an access and right-of-way type of situation until 

we get to the donation. We have been working with friends of Opal 

Creek on these matters. And I think we are making good progress, 

but it would probably just be cleaner if that occurred. 
9 

Mr. VENTO. Do you want to comment that they don't want to donate. They want to, in fact, convey it for the price that they paid 

for it? I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. The Friends don't want to sell and the bill does 

not require acquisition. Mr. VENTO. They want to keep it. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Right. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. We have, Mr. Chairman, some concerns in 

that direction. We have some legislation that already exists. If we 

were to acquire this, it would be at the patent cost. Our attorneys 

indicate to us that they think that that legislation is very apt to 

fail upon test and that if we did--

Mr. VENTO. The issue is, of course, you are under law required 

to pay fair market value. That is one of the problems. That is problem number one. Second, though, is they could donate an easement 

and still retain certain rights. They are in the drivers seat here 

and there is nothing forbidding you from accepting that particular 

easement, would there be? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. There is a special rule for any purchase, say 

of the Santiam number 1 tract, that has got some taking concerns. 

Section 7-B of the bill limits the amount the Secretary could pay 

if we elected to purchase the tract. 

The Secretary could only pay an amount equal to or not more 

than the sum amount paid by the original patentee and the cost 

of the improvements. The bill doesn't provide that we purchase the 

tract on a willing seller basis. So we would have the option of utilizing condemnation authority. If we acquire that land by condemnation, we are obligated to pay fair market value under the 

Fifth Amendment and the fair market value of Santiam number 1 

would likely far exceed the amount prescribed in the bill. Since the 

Secretary would be prohibited from paying more than the amount 

prescribed, it is probable that we would be in a process of doing a 

taking. 

Mr. VENTO. This is a fine situation you have put me in. Mr. KOPETSKI. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Sounds like I have been arguing the other side of 

this takings business. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. There are two issues involved here. One is there 

is the fact that in this one particular holding, this was a compromise because the bill was being criticized by, if you will, the 

Forest Service and people in the timber industry that these people 

might get a grand, unjust enrichment and the reason they were 

selling at fair market value. The reason they purchased this--

Mr. VENTO. I have heard this argument. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Yes. And it is sort of-and usually you are on the 

other side, but this time there is this agreement that they would 

sell it back at what they purchased it at so that there wouldn't be 

this unjust enrichment, if you will. The second issue is that there 

is language in the bill that the Forest Service couldn't condemn the 

land unless the land was being used contrary to theMr. VENTO. For inconsistent purposes with the preserve. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Yes. These people-these are the Friends of Opal 

Creek. They are not going to build a resort and they are not going 

to start cutting down trees. 
10 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know the language right now, but I would 

think that if they were to donate a covenant, there would be some 

certainty. Maybe they could donate a covenant or any other part 

of the land to the Forest Service and retain whatever use or rights 

they want now and we could set something like that up and that 

could be a triggering mechanism for the legislation. 

I would like the Forest Service to help achieve that so we would 

not end up with the dilemma as presented here. I think we have, 

right now got a problem someone is taking an adverse action and 

clearly they are not going to make it easy for the Forest Service 

down the road during implementation of the law. Perhaps donating 

some sort of a covenant over some of the features of it would satisfy the purposes of setting up the legislation. 

We shouldn't set up a situation that is ultimately in contrast to 

this fair market value payment for the land. We are on a very slippery slope when we begin defining what constitutes fair market 

value. This is, of course, exactly my argument with Mr. Tauzin. 

In other words, instructing the court and once we get on that, as 

I said, and insist it is a slippery slope, he disagrees with me, but 

this is a case where we would be doing it which would inure to the 

benefit of Forest Service as opposed to the individual property 

owner. I suspect that even though it comes this way in terms of 

the public good, it still presents the same problems to the courts 

that it would if it were defining the land value as higher in a sense 

so that is a problem. 

And I see your point now. I was under the impression that there 

was going to be just a donation, but they want to continue their 

role as friends of Opal Creek and that is understandable. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, there is a plan that is being negotiated already in terms of the donations to the Forest Service. Mr. 

Atiyeh may address that issue. 

Mr. VENTO. A donation of an easement, you mean. In other 

words, a qualified donation, a covenant. 

Mr. KOPETSKJ. Right, yes. I don't know if I should address the 

three proposed changes that I assume are from the Forest Service. 

One has to do with the management plan on Section 33. Where the 

term, "management plan," means the management plan for the 

preserve developed pursuant to Section 5-B. The key there is that 

the term, "cooperative," has been deleted. I don't have a problem 

with that. 

The second change is the preserve shall be established on publication after notice in the Federal Register by the Secretary of sufficient rights-of-way for certain roads that have been acquired for 

the U.S. by donation. This one I have some problems with because 

it holds up the whole notion and protection of the preserve until 

this publication and the question of what is sufficient rights-of-way, 

you know. 

It is up to interpretation and essentially it would be left to the 

Forest Service in determining what is sufficient. So with this one 

change, we are able to give total power to the Forest Service of 

whether or not there is going to be a preserve and what we are trying to do here is legislate this preserve. So that is sort of inconsistent with the purpose of legislating it. 
11 

And the third item is the development of the management plan. 

The Secretary shall prepare a conference of a management plan for 

the preserve; the preserve shall have public involvements. That is 

a nonsignificant amendment to the two National Forest Service Resource Management Plans. I don't have any problem with this. I 

think it actually could be report language that says this. I don't 

think we need to put that in the legislation. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think we could put some reasonable time limits on the development of the management plan in order to carry 

it out. I think the concern here is to find something that is suitable 

before you can begin to implement it. I would like to yield to the 

chief so he could explain the basis on the management plan or the 

other provisions or the other questions that Congressman Kopetski 

raised. Mr. JACK THOMAS. All right. There are two--or three that I 

heard in the discussion I would like to address. The first one is 

part of the problem is caused by some confusion, I think, that we 

could work out about condemnation authority as is mentioned in 

two different places. They seem to be a little contradictory. I think 

that could be worked out. 

In terms of the access, the Forest Service, as a general course of 

action in dealing with these sorts of things, would press for full 

public access to public property. And that is one of our contentions 

about negotiating access just to have access for Forest Service vehicles and for certain private vehicles. We would press very hard for 

a full public access on those roads to the preserve. 

There was one other point you asked. 

Mr. VENTO. The management plan. The issue of the management 

plan. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. As I am sure everybody in this room is aware 

that probably the biggest barrier to us moving ahead with nearly 

anything in the Pacific Northwest is F ACA. And we are very hesitant to enter into some piecemeal exemption from FACA or the 

mandate to have more advisory committees that we have to perform under FACA which is very, very difficult to do satisfactorily. 

So basically as a general principle, the Department of Agriculture 

is trying to get out of the myriad of advisory committees and we 

do have some concerns about the precedent of an exemption from 

FACA. 

Mr. VENTO. You know, I think that it was his section, if you look 

at your amendments on page 7, maybe I misunderstood this. I 

haven't read this before the hearing. Obviously, it says Section 5-

B you have a development of management plan to achieve the purposes of the act and the Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive 

management plan for the preserve. 

The plan should be prepared with public involvement as a 

nonsignificant. Your point here is this amendment simply eliminates the advisory committee. I think that Congressman Kopetski 

implied that the designation wouldn't take effect until the management plan had been concluded; is that correct. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. His question wasn't that I think he raised the question that he wanted the designation to occur. But that the management plan obviously would delay such designation; is that correct? 
12 

Mr. KOPETSKI. That is correct and also in terms of the establishment of the preserve under Section 4-A would be held in abeyance 

until sufficient rights-of-way for forest roads were done. Actually, 

we want to close the roads to vehicles eventually. We don't want 

to restrict pedestrian access. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand the chief is, of course, concerned about 

the general right-of-way of individuals, that they wouldn't be used 

exclusively for one group or another Do you want to articulate why 

you don't want the establishment or why the management plan is 

important. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. It is in terms of an advisory committee that 

we are concerned about. It is an administration position and Department of Agriculture position and we do not want a proliferation 

of advisory committees performing under FA CA. In fact, there has 

been an effort that has been continuing over the last number of 

years to eliminate as many designated advisory committees as we 

could. 

That is a matter of position. Just to clarify, the management 

plan completion wouldn't hold anything up. But the rights-of-way 

could hold things up. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Well, let me ask--

Mr. VENTO. Is it possible to get a time limitation resolved before 

for that chief? Would that be helpful? I mean you have to resolve 

it. Why is it so important to resolve it? Because you are asking for 

limited utilization of those roads for some groups or for some purposes. I would be happy to yield to Congressman Kopetski. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we can work this out 

before the bill becomes law, number one. And there is a meeting 

scheduled on this very issue, I think it wao; in the middle of August, but now that Mr. Atiyeh is here in Washington today perhaps 

they can work this out in the next day or two. 

In terms of the advisory commission and the F ACA issue, I am 

curious where we have special places, whether it is Bagby or 

whether it is the Pacific Crest Trails and the Appalachian Trails, 

certainly we are not going to get rid of those kinds of advisory committees, chief. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Again, let's differentiate between the specific 

issue over FACA and the issue of advisory committees in general, 

which are really quite separate. There has been a determined effort 

over the last decade to reduce the number of advisory committees 

and to very stringently limit the creation of new ones. 

F ACA merely exacerbates that problem. So basically there are 

really two issues. One is a general principle or policy and the other 

is the FACA question involving any new committee. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. So are you comfortable, then? It is the advisory 

committee that you are having problems with. It is not how we 

treat F ACA in this bill that you have a problem with. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. No, both of them. One of them is the creation 

of an additional advisory committee as a matter of policy. The second is if it is indeed done, we should do it in context of FACA rather than with an exemption form. We should do it as prescribed 

under the law. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me get back to some of the specifics here. There 

is considerable language in the bill dealing with the rights of 
13 

inholders. It is pretty clear from the reading both on roads and on 

issues, access to lands and mining claims. Now, do they mean 

claims or do you mean patented land? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. These would be patented. Mr. VENTO. Actually, I think that is helpful. I think maybe it is 

my question the way I wrote it. Are these provisions compatible 

with the existing Forest Service policy? In other words, where you 

have someone with an inholder for whatever purpose I guess the 

mining patent, these mines, first of all, are not active, I assume? 

They are nonactive mines so that is sort of helpful in terms of 

the fact we are doing a preserve here. So we are talking about the 

origin of the ownership, I guess, and the fact that they run into the 

mining laws. But is it compatible when we have a single inholder 

to provide access to them and not to provide access to others in a 

preserve? I take it this is one of the concerns that really is a road 

question, but there are other provisions in the same sense. 

I would yield to the chief. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. It is not uncommon for us to deal with 

inholdings. We have inholdings in wilderness. We have inholdings 

internal to national forests. Those people who have those holdings 

have access. 

Mr. VENTO. I mean the concern here is that you have got specific 

language in here whereas the Forest Service's general policy is in 

terms of the forests and it already deals with the problem; is that 

accurate to say that? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Well, basically, the language in this bill is 

compatible with the language of Section 1323 of ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. That guarantees 

inholders access as deemed adequate by the Secretary to give the 

owner reasonable use and enjoyment of their property. 

Mr. VENTO. So it is consistent with the ANILCA that, of course, 

is not for the lower 48. Otherwise, it applies to the lower 48, as 

well. So this is just a repeat of that language; is that correct? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. That is correct and ANILCA does apply to the 

lower 48 and it is consistent. 

Mr. VENTO. This is consistent and these do represent a problem. 

This language is a repeat, then, of something that may not be absolutely essential because in the absence of language here, you would 

follow what is in the generic law; is that correct? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. The problem is if there is ever any change to the generic law, there may or may not be a change here as problems 

occur. But that is a question I guess of construction. The ownership 

of the inholdings I guess is well known, the Friends of Opal Creek. 

It is the State owns a parcel. And I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. At some point I want to go ba; k to the F ACA issue. 

Mr. VENTO. I want to go back to that. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me proceed on the road issue. I have one more 

question. 

The bill closes three roads to the general public that are open 

today. But not to the inholder, which is the Friends of Opal Creek. 

Is there a problem with that--
14 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, they are not open to the general 

public today. 

Mr. VENTO. Those roads are not open formally, but informally. 

They are used by the general public. Mr. KOPETSKI. No. 

Mr. VENTO. They are not. I think the concern would be if they 

were that you would be dealing with trying to differentiate and it 

might be difficult to do. If the roads had been open to the general 

public, are there any laws or rules in construction that apply to 

them in terms of their continued use, Chief Thomas? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. There are rights, existing rights that are very 

common. For example, rights to access to inholdings that would not 

be our concern. Those roads are not now open, and they are not 

open because Friends has a gate across the road. We don't have 

right-of-way and our primary concern is that when we are looking 

at that right-of-way, that with an unlimited right-of-way we can 

control public access one way or the other. And then we contend 

that the public planning process ought to determine what that road 

use is. And, of course, Friends would be a part of that process. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me just ask another question. Congressman 

Kopetski would like to go back to talk about the FACA issue. The 

latest boundary for Opal Creek adopted by the Agriculture Committee is different from the boundary from the late successional 

forest preserve in the administration's plan. It includes this private 

inholding and quite a bit of land about six or seven thousand acres 

to the South. Are there any problems with this new boundary? 

Have you examined the boundary, chief, or have been advised to 

the changes as to how it fits in? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Yes, we have. In terms of the boundary, the 

new boundary, most of it, is on very clearly definable geographical 

features. However, there are few sections of it that run on quarter 

section and half section lines that would have to be surveyed and 

that is a little expensive, but, of course, it can be done. 

Mr. VENTO. But this is, of course, part of your own work in terms 

of watersheds, in terms of those section lines. Congressman 

Kopetski mentioned to me that the effort here was to stick within 

the watershed. I had commented about the fact that it recommended a little North Fork watershed. 

The other point I would make out is that apparently the substitute from agriculture didn't have the date on the map, which is 

important. I think, one of the concerns that arise in the committee 

here especially among staff is when they don't have a date on the 

map, so we do have a dated map at the Forest Service now, I presume; I guess without violating the watershed concept, you ought 

to talk about whether you want these sections in or out. I mean 

that most of them may violate the watershed, but it may be from 

a standpoint of expense here, no reason for us to be--

Mr. JACK THOMAS. No. Just as a matter of correction, I believe 

that at Mr. Kopetski's request, we didn't date the maps. We can 

date the maps whenever we decide to do that. Mr. VENTO. Well, when we get--

Mr. J ACK THOMAS. My point only was, Congressman, that where 

the boundaries run on geographic features, that is a fairly simple 

thing to do. Where they run on half sections and quarter sections, 
15 

it will require us to use a ground crew to survey them and that 

runs about $20,000 a mile. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that is something to think about in 

terms of running them into the sections. I didn't know. I expect 

that the reason you didn't date the maps is because you thought 

that somebody might fiddle with them over here. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. That is right. But it is my understanding also 

that on the new boundary lines, that where there is no watershed 

ridge, that these are existing Forest Service boundaries. 

Mr. VENTO. Congressman Hansen has joined us. I wish you good 

morning, Chief. In any case, it is a pleasure to have you here. 

Congressman Kopetski, without objection, I would recognize him 

so he can continue his testimony. Have we concluded the issue with 

the map and the boundaries now? Are there any more comments 

on that? 

Congressman Kopetski had a question. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, as I had mentioned, we had a 

number of meetings with the Forest Service. I am going back to the 

F ACA issue, the language that we put in the bill which states in 

the event the Secretary decides to establish a committee to advise 

on the development of the proper management plan, such committee shall not be subjected to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This was language that the Forest Service 

asked us to put in the bill. So-and--

Mr. VENTO. Now they want to change it some more? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Right. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Let's be perfectly clear. The Department of 

Agriculture, speaking for the administration, says what I just said. 

Is that clear enough? 

Mr. VENTO. If we are going to put something in, this is workable. 

I think you have this little matter on the Federal Advisory. I guess 

I would look at the Advisory Committee as something that probably would be established informally. 

This really gets back to some of my overall questions on the preserve and how it is going to be managed, and this is obviously 

where the conflicts will arise. 

Do you want to proceed to--

Mr. KOPETSKI. Just to say, Mr. Chairman, that, you know, we 

keep going through this line by line in the bill, and with all due 

deference to the Chief, the Department of Agriculture and the administration support the bill as reported out of the Agriculture 

Committee. So that, to me, says that they have looked at all of 

these sections and they are willing to make the exception for F ACA 

and the management scheme that is developed in the bill. So I am 

sort of--

Mr. VENTO. Okay. Well, I think I heard what the Chief said and 

so I think you should rest easy on that point. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. I get very nervous, sorry. 

Mr. VENTO. We are not an advisory committee. I think it gets 

back to the issue, though, that is raised here through my staff providing me with some questions. 

Chief, how would Opal Creek be managed as a late successional 

forest preserve under the President's current plan? 
16 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. If it were managed under the President's current plan, it would allow for salvage in case of catastrophic events, 

subject to approval of the review committee set up to do that. 

It would also allow thinning of stands up to age 80 in order to 

accelerate, if deemed necessary or acceptable to accelerate, those 

stands toward old growth condition. This bill is more restrictive 

than that, and neither of those things are allowed. 

Mr. VENTO. So the point really is that the salvage would not be 

allowed. The thinning up to age 80 would not be allowed. What is 

the status of the President's plan as it affects Opal Creek? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. It has been put into action and we are still 

waiting for some court decisions, but that is our plan. It is under 

way. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me ask this: It seemed to me in the early bill, 

and Mike, you can correct me if I am wrong because, as you say, 

you have gone over it line by line. 

I just gave the substitute from Agriculture a cursory review, but 

are there existing timber sales in this area at all now? There are 

none? There are no existing timber sales? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Is this part of the Forest Service base, what we 

would call a base in terms of some board feet produced, Chief 

Thomas? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Yes, sir. There is 1,433 acres within the preserve boundaries that were in the timber base. 

Mr. VENTO. This is the current boundary on the 22,000 acres 

your staff indicates is the current base. So it is a small amount of 

the total, but in board feet it might be more significant. But it is 

a very small amount. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I may note that in the original bill 

that I introduced, there is about 3,400 acres that was in the base 

and now it is 14-

Mr. VENTO. Were there some sales? There seemed to be some 

language in the original bill on sales. 

What about the research language in this particular bill, Chief? 

It says nondestructive research. I wasn't aware that this research 

was always so destructive, but I guess it can be. I am just curious 

what the nature of the research at Opal Creek is. 

Is it private research? Is it Forest Service research? I know Congressman Kopetski has placed in particular definitions and restrictions, and they are in the substitute too. 

So if you cannot explain it, I will yield to my colleague to give 

me further reason for that language. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. I think Mr. Atiyeh can address this better than 

I. This is a very accessible area to people in the valley that-any 

tourists for that matter, and because there has been some harvesting in this area and there is some regeneration of trees going on, 

and this is a place where people can come learn. However, the kind 

of research we don't want is, to see how clear cuts, for exampleMr. VENTO. Cut down the trees to see how--

Mr. KOPETSKI. So that is what we mean by nondestructive and 

activities not inconsistent with the purpose of the act. 
17 

Mr. VENTO. But there is some specific provisions in here that go 

into some detail in terms of nondestructive research, and I was just 

wondering the utility of it. 

Maybe Mr. Atiyeh wants it in the bill, I don't know what its 

function is. If we are going to have something in there, there ought 

to be a purpose. There ought to be a problem. It ought to be solving 

something or it ought to be out of there because I don't think we 

want language that we don't need. 

For another provision, the bill prohibits campfires in the preserve. And I note that language still remains in there. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Except in designated areas. 

Mr. VENTO. These are not prescribed burns, are they? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. No. 

Mr. VENTO. Is that language necessary in the bill, Chief? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. In our opinion, no. I think that we have been 

managing land for a long time with the idea in mind of not burning 

it up unintentionally. We would prefer that that type of prescriptive language be removed and merely let us decideMr. VENTO. I guess you didn't mention the issue of the research 

language either. Do you have any comments on that or has your 

staff advised you on this at all? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Yes, sir. I have no objection to the language. 

I essentially don't think that it is necessary. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have a policy with regards to cooperation or 

other types of research? Generally is there anything in this bill objectionable? Whenever we get into some nomenclature here in 

terms of talking about a preserve, I don't know what it necessarily 

means. 

One of the concerns I have is this seems to set it aside from the 

general forest practices and various laws that apply to the Forest 

Service. We are not doing a national recreation area or a special 

management area which have some track record as far as I know. 

How many preserves do we have in the Forest Service? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. I don't know. 

Mr. VENTO. There may be one down in Oklahoma or something 

that we named specially. I am just wondering, because it seems to 

me that we ought to at least have something that suggests that if 

we don't reference something as in the preserve, that then the general forest powers prevail, you know, some sort of catch-all that it 

would fall into. I would feel more comfortable myself, I guess. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. I have two general statements. One is, I know 

no reason why research could not continue being done in such an 

area if it were not precluded. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, that would be my observation. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. That would be the first one. And the other 

one is, the bill would be cleaner in our opinion and our management job easier if those sorts of prescriptive things were not there. 

Just tell us to do the job. 

Mr. VENTO. If there is a reason for these being in the bill, if they 

are necessary, I understand. The Forest Service always wants all 

the flexibility and whatever money they can get, so they don't like 

to be told by us what to do. So basically, whenever we put in a preserve or we do something, I am on your side here. 
18 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Right. Mr. Chairman, if you examine the bill that 

was introduced and the version that came out of the Agriculture 

Committee, you will see that we have made significant deletions of 

micromanaging the Forest Service, but there is still some of these 

items in there, such as making certain that the management plan 

addresses the issue of campfires. The reason for this and many others is because this bill is a compromise and with all due deference 

to my good friend, the Chief here, there is an element of trust, and 

like it or not, the environmental community in many areas does 

not trust the Forest Service. In crafting this legislation, we were 

very mindful of that, and there were just some things that the environmental community were willing to do on one hand and they 

weren't on another and I think we accommodated the Forest Service and their general policy of letting us manage the lands. 

Well, the fact is, a lot of the environmental community doesn't 

appreciate how the Forest Service has managed some of the lands, 

and that is why you see some of these items still in there. It was 

part of this compromise, if you will. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, if there is a purpose for them being there I understand that having more prescriptive language in legislation 

makes it clearer. I guess I would prefer to---

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Just without belaboring the point, think of 

what that says about fire . Not only does it tell you we are going 

to have fires in fire rings, not only where and under what circumstances, but in fire rings. That seems a bit--

Mr. VENTO. I mean, from the standpoint of wilderness, they don't 

want to be able to see any fire rings. They don't want those sort 

of scars. They put down an asbestos blanket, burn on that, and 

when you get done, there is no trace. 

So the point is that the Forest Service may well describe this 

from a standpoint of a conservation or wilderness point of view, is 

actually in conflict. I don't know if you are saying you don't want 

it managed as wilderness with respect to campfires, or you are saying you don't want the Forest Service doing prescriptive burning, 

or you don't want an arbitrary location of campsites. 

If you are talking about campsite location and not a proliferation 

of them, I don't know that this does it. I don't see anything in here 

about that. It is a small point, but I think it points out the issue 

that I am trying to make, and the Chief, I think, is going to say 

the same thing. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. I think Mr. Atiyeh can address some of these issues as well. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, if they are, there ought to be a reason. If you 

are doing nondestructive research and you are putting it in there. 

Clearly, if we are suggesting that research that t akes place ought 

to be compatible with the purposes of the act, I understand that. 

But that is on a general basis, and then I think we would be giving some direction. But if we are saying nondestructive research, 

this to me doesn't seem to have the clarity that I would need if I 

were going to manage it. I mean, it is not my job, but it seems to 

me it has the same sort of result here in the Forest Service, if I 

am not misspeaking, Chief. 
19 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. No. I understand what Congressman Kopetski 

is saying, but I don't know that we have ever lost any particular 

trust in where we allow fires and don't allow fires. 

There are standard processes and procedures for that and many 

of these things should be worked out in the plan that we are going 

to develop for the area, rather than being told to do it in the bill. 

That is why we have forest management plans, or in this case, this 

is why we would have a plan for Opal Creek for which all the public, all the public, would be allowed to participate in the process. 

Mr. VENTO. Isn't this preserve more akin to a special management area under the rubric of the Forest Service? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Yes, but it would still have a plan, and that 

plan would occur fully under the requirements of the National Forest Management Act in terms of public participation and fully in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act in terms 

of.--

Mr. VENTO. You interpret this to be under the Forest Management Practices Act, whatever the plan is devised here; is that correct? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. I determine that everything we have to do on 

the lands that are under our jurisdiction are carried out under 

NEPA, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. So that would still apply. That is the intention. You 

understand that would be the result of this? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. So there is no ambiguity concerning it. Well, my concern really dealt with using the phrase whether you wanted to use 

that phrase, and if we don't use it. I understand there is a certain 

attractiveness in terms of identifying it, in fact, in terms of writing 

legislation. We had used it in the Pacific Northwest ourselves on 

occasion. Should this be recognized as the proper nomenclature or 

should we be talking about a special management area which will 

be known as the Opal Creek preserve? 

I have no objection to having it known as such, but whether or 

not we want to use that term here, I mean, I note that, for instance, we went through quite a contest with the Forest Service before we did the first scenic area, which was Mono Lake, and that 

was not. So I am just talking about the nomenclature used here 

and whether or not the Forest Service wanted to put this tag on 

and identify it. 

Once we get down the road utilizing it, it makes it very difficult. 

Then we will have other proposals. Do we really want to speak of 

this as a special management area and try to recognize it? 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. I have a personal preference in the sense that 

it is a management area and the fact that we are going to manage 

it for particular purposes and under particular constraints and 

under particular guidelines set out in the plan that we would develop as opposed to a preserve as such. In essence, the statement 

is very clear about what it should be and what should occur there, 

but basically it is an area of special management emphasis. 

Mr. VENTO. We could, without changing the name of the area, 

refer to it as the Opal Creek Preserve or whatever they want to 

call it. We will get into this in a little bit, but at least from the 

viewpoint of the Forest Service, it should be a management area. 
20 

I don't know that we have any generic laws other than the basic 

provisions that the Chief articulated with regards to planning. We 

have never written a generic law with regard to special management areas. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. It is not something that, in the context of all 

the things we have discussed today, it is not one that rises to the 

surface of the most important, but my personal preference is that 

it be called a management area and is managed for very specific 

purposes. I think there is an unfortunate dichotomy in the language where some things are preserves and some things are managed, when in effect all things are managed unless we just walk 

off and say, nobody is going in there to do anything. So it is management, but it is management aimed at a specific purpose. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I understand. The concern we have is that people 

will pick this up and use it again. Whether it is wilderness, a recreation area, or a management area, and preserve. The Mono Lake 

scenic area as we referred to it is one that we have used out there 

for a couple of years. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. Just to make a point, the constraints on this 

particular area are more stringent than those in the Wilderness 

Act. 

Mr. VENTO. That is interesting. No, I am sure that Congressman 

Kopetski did not intend that, motorized use here for one thing. 

Mr. JACK THOMAS. It is not only motorized use. For example, I 

told you how this compared with the President's plan. The Wilderness Act allows active entry into the wilderness to deal with such 

things as insect infestation or fireMr. KOPETSKL Those kinds of activities are very rarely used, and 

I think we have addressed the insect issue. 

Mr. VENTO. You want to reference the Wilderness Act here? 

Mr. KOPETSKL No. Actually, Mr. Chairman, this area was-when 

they did Boulder Woods, there is a huge controversy over whether 

this particular area should be part of Boulder Woods, which they 

want to talk about as well, and then at the last minute this area 

was dropped from the woods. 

Mr. VENTO. What did you say? 

Mr. KOPETSKL Boulder Woods Wilderness Area. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. That is a wilderness area. Well, I don't want 

to spend an entire life talking about nomenclature, but I think just 

like the recreation area, we don't have any generic language for 

that, and that would be helpful because we try to be consistent. 

Management areas are much more flexible. 

We have all sorts of restrictions, but there are some differences 

here with the Wilderness Act, and obviously Congressman Kopetski 

is trying to point those out. 

Well, Chief, I have no further questions. We could go on for quite 

a time, but it is obvious that we have to do some work on this. 

Hopefully it will be done in an expeditious manner, and we appreciate very much your presence and that of your assistant. Thank 

you. 
21 

STATEMENTS OF GEORGE ATIYEH, FRIENDS OF OPAL CREEK, 

LYONS, OR, AND ROSS MICKEY, NORTHWEST FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OR 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome the next panel here, of 

course, are George Atiyeh, Friends of Opal Creek, Lyons, Oregon, 

and Mr. Ross Mickey, Northwest Forestry Association, Portland, 

Oregon. 

We appreciate your presence and appearance on short notice 

here this morning, and trying to get through or conclude most of 

our hearing work; Congressman Kopetski has been very persistent, 

his advocacy of this, no doubt being motivated by his constituents 

that are here this morning. Did you have any special words of welcome to your witnesses, Mr. Kopetski? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Well, certainly I do appreciate George coming out 

here. I think he spent four or five hours in New York to get here, 

and he was willing to come at last minute notice literally. It is because of his commitment to this special area that he is here this 

morning. 

I think all of America will appreciate his efforts these past few 

decades, if we are successful with this legislation. I certainly appreciate Mr. Mickey coming from the association as well. I know also 

this was last minute and schedules had to be changed. These are 

very busy people and I do appreciate them coming out here. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks for being here. Your statements will be 

made part of the record when we receive them. You can proceed 

now with your oral statements, Mr. Atiyeh, George. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE ATIYEH 

Mr. ATIYEH. Chairman Vento and Congressman Kopetski, thank 

you for having me here, even though it is a long flight, it is always 

nice to get back here and at least deal with Opal Creek. 

I am going to just kind of summarize my testimony because I noticed when-when you had questions for the Chief, there were a lot 

of questions in there that I could probably answer for you. The battle for Opal Creek has raged for over 25 years and this battle has 

gone from confrontation and political action to now hopefully cooperation in an effort to resolve this magnificent forest. 

Most of the threat of logging Opal Creek was removed by Option 

9. In a lot of ways, maybe the new threats that we are facing in 

protection of this ecosystem is looking at how recreation is going 

to impact it, and maybe the people that are coming up there are 

going to at some point love it to death, and that is one of the reasons we need a set of rules and some regulations in order to work 

with the Forest Service on how this is managed in the future. 

Opal Creek has been the conservation community's flagship during the ancient forest debate, and it is now time for us to remake 

the Opal Creek flagship into a model for cooperation between old 

adversaries. The proposal to create the Opal Creek Preserve just 

recognizes what is right now, and sets up a framework and set of 

rules for all interested parties. And by that, I mean everybody in 

that community and that canyon should have a stake in whatever 

property management plan is developed. 
22 

I believe the result would create a world class scientific and educational facility, and the facility will be an example of cooperation 

rather than confrontation. 

The group I represent, Friends of Opal Creek, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and our mission is to provide stewardship and management 

in cooperation with the Forest Service on the Opal Creek ancient 

forest and to further understanding of old growth ecosystems 

through education and scientific research. The organization is also dedicated to bringing individuals with 

diverse opinions on environmental issues to Opal Creek to meet 

and stay together at the facility in an effort to foster understanding, establish common ground to resolve future environmental 

problems. 

Opal Creek is probably the most scenic piece of forest in the 

United States. It is estimated that worldwide over 220 million people have seen Opal Creek either on their television sets or read 

about it in books, magazines. It has been on the front page of the 

New York Times travel section, Smithsonian, Boston Globe, U.S. 

News and World Report, Time Magazine, all the local newspapers. 

There has been four major national documentaries done on this 

particular place. Friends of Opal Creek was very fortunate in December of 1970-or 1992 to receive a gift of this land from Shiny 

Rock Mining, which is a subsidiary of Pursess Corporation. We believe it is probably the largest gift; it was valued at $2.6 million. 

Most of that value was in the value of timber and mineral interests 

there, plus the entire mining camp. We ended up with a whole 

town that is set up to be able to do research and education. 

I am sure you have heard what a magnificent forest it is and we 

have the figures from the Forest Service on size and how much private lands that are in there. The two major in-holders at this point 

are Times-Mirror Corporation and Friends of Opal Creek, and 

Friends of Opal Creek really would like to hold on to most of its 

lands in order to run its programs, but is more than willing to 

work with the Forest Service and cooperate in doing easements, 

whatever it is. Our whole goal here is to cooperate with the agency 

so we can have a really mutually beneficial preserve when this legislation passes. 

We have a lot of support from the scientific community. Dr. 

Franklin, Dr. Trappi at Oregon State, Sara Green at the Ranger 

Experiment Station, Dr. Joy Belsky, Natural Resources Council, 

Dr. Spoonmaker, Ecotrust, Dr. Evan Stone, who is a plant physiologist, all have expressed they think this area should be set aside 

and used for scientific study. 

We also have a lot of programs that are already up and running 

at Opal Creek. We work with a lot of school groups, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry was just up there and they bring 

groups of kids up. We have the Oregon Governor's School. We work 

with the Chemehueyi Indian School, and high school groups and 

grade school groups come in all summer long. 

The other thing we do is we have educator retreats where we 

bring in teachers from all over the State, they are starting to come 

from all over the country. It is accredited through Lewis and 

Clarke and this educators' retreat brings on speakers on both sides 

of all environmental issues. 
23 

We have had some of our fiercest opposition in the timber industry invited up and sat on panels so we could sit and make sure the 

teachers get a full understanding of all these issues, and we found 

that it has also been very productive for the opposing sides to sit 

down and get to know each other, and find out that we spend a 

lot of time vilifying each other and each side, and when we sit 

around and have dinner together in a place like Opal Creek, a lot 

of the issues and common ground comes to light that we didn't 

really realize was there. 

I am going to skip over here. What this bill does is recognize 

what is happening at the preserve and sets up a format to resolve 

conflicts between the forest plan that we have now and the new 

forest plan that we have under Option 9, and the reality of what 

is going on on the ground. 

We just want a set of rules. We want a set of regulations and 

a common understanding with the agency so we can both be going 

the same direction and we all have a clear understanding of where 

we are going. 

As far as the nondestructive research, we want to see that happen. That is the basis. We have a watershed. We are losing watershed boundaries on most of the preserve and by nondestructive research, what we were asking for and talking about, we don't want 

to do what we have at H.J. Andrews where we have research which 

is sometimes destructive, where they do clear cuts, thinning, certain types of road building and look on the impact on the land. 

We are looking at the forest as it is now rather than actually manipulating it, and that is what we are talking about, doing research 

without actually manipulating the forest, but just looking at how 

the forest is functioning at this point in time. 

We have research projects going on right now. Actually they are 

now going to go under permit. We are working with the Forest 

Service to put these projects into permit. One of them is with Dr. 

Trappi of Oregon State who is doing research and has been doing 

it for the last few years up there, and he was actually featured in 

the January issue of Smithsonian, and we are working with Dr. 

Tricstein and talked to the Forest Service, and we would like to do 

canopy research up there and actually build research facilities in 

the canopy, and we are doing some of the preliminary planning 

which of course will go by the Forest Service and be permitted, and 

look at the best and safest way to do that. 

As far as the educational programs, half the student population 

of Oregon is within 60 miles of Opal Creek, and it is a place where 

students can get hands-on experience and education right there, 

and that is why we have such a large amount of buses, school 

buses coming up to the facility and hiking, and we have an interpretative tour program where we put laymen with these groups 

and give them a guided hike that talks about forest and 

ecosystems, but also about the history of the area, going back to 

some of the aboriginal history. 

I think the best thing about this legislation though is the Federal 

Government can take advantage, through cooperative agreements, 

of the ability to expand the science and education programs with 

minimal investment by the taxpayers. Much of the groundwork has 
24 

already been done by the nonprofits. Much of the infrastructure is 

in place. 

By expanding the Federal Government's ability to work with the 

nonprofits, you create tme synergy. By working together with the 

public, we will also get a lot more-the public will get a lot more 

for every dollar invested by either group going it alone. 

The proposal also fits with the new draft paper recently issued 

by the Forest Service called Reinventing the Forest Service. This 

paper encourages exactly the kind of cooperation that this-with 

programs that this bill provides for. So we encourage the House 

committee to pass 3905 and protect the Opal Creek Forest once 

and for all. It really deserves no less, and doing so will really create 

a win/win for all the parties involved. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks for your oral statement, Mr. Atiyeh. 

[The material submitted may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome Ross Mickey. Mr. Mickey, 

please proceed with your comments. 

STATEMENT OF ROSS MICKEY 

Mr. MICKEY. Yes. Thank you very much, Chairman Vento and 

Congressman Kopetski, for allowing me to come and share some of 

my insights and concerns about the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute to H.R. 3905 as offered by Congressman Volkmer. 

My name is Ross Mickey. I am Western Oregon Manager of the 

Northwest Forestry Association, a regional trade association which 

represents the majority of the primary wood manufacturers in Oregon and Washington. 

I would like to start my testimony briefly reviewing the current 

situation in the Pacific Northwest, which should be intimately familiar with Chairman Vento, but just as a review, the present forest plan has been adopted by the Forest Service and will soon be 

adopted by the Bureau of Land Management. 

This plan was specifically developed to protect and restore old 

growth ecosystems and the species which rely upon them and those 

who enjoy them for their beauty and aesthetic values. A 7.431 million acre network of old growth reserves were added to the already 

existing 7.321 million acre wilderness park system, and the 1.477 

million acre special interest areas to form the basis for a permanent old growth ecosystem complex. 

To augment this and link this system together, a 2.628 million 

acre-acres associated with riparian ecosystems was added. Most of 

the 1.522 million acres within the adaptive management areas can 

only be managed if such management would enhance the development of old growth. 

All told, over 20 million acres of the 24 million acres owned by 

the Federal Government has been set aside for the sole purpose of 

either protecting or enhancing old growth ecosystems. Over 85 percent of the existing old growth in the Pacific Northwest is protected 

by the President's plan. 

According to the administration, this plan received extensive 

peer review and was found by the scientific community to meet the 

highest evaluation standards for the protection of the old growth 

ecosystem. With such an extensive old growth preservation system 
25 

in place, I am at a loss to understa:nd why this bill is even being 

considered. 

The values expressed in the first five findings of the bill are all 

being provided for within the 20 million acre reserve system which 

already exists within the President's plan. The majority of the old 

growth within the area under consideration in this bill is, in fact, 

already being protected. 

Any management concerns interested publics have regarding this 

area will more than be adequately addressed through the FMA 

process required by the President's plan before management can 

happen in this area. A written plan must be done already before 

anything occurs in late successional reserves, and within these 

management plans, as it is written today, any management that is 

considered in this area can only be done if it is found to enhance 

the old growth characteristics of the area. So even though some 

people say that salvage can be done and thinning can be done, it 

can only be done if it is found by-through the process of a management plan to enhance old growth ecosystems. 

The last five findings listed in the bill are based on the assumption that the old growth found in Opal Creek is somehow different 

than that which lies within the 20 million acre reserve which already exists, which encompasses over 6 million acres of old growth. I submit that if this committee had the time to visit the old 

growth already protected by the plan, it would not be able to distinguish the Opal Creek old growth from it. Currently it is not, Con- gressman Vento, in the timber base. The old growth existing in 

Opal Creek is not in the timber base of the Forest Service. 

The second major assumption on which this bill is based is that 

the Pacific Northwest lacks old growth areas available for scientific 

and educational research. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Within a 50-mile radius of Opal Creek are eight wilderness areas 

totaling 327,000 acres, 60 percent of which are old growth forests. There are also 63,000 acres dedicated to research natural areas, including the world famous H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, who 

do nondestructive research in many of their research projects. It is 

just a matter of the form in which they do it. 

The limiting factor to increasing research and education programs in old growth ecosystems in the Northwest is funding. Protected ecosystems abound, but funding for research is limited. If 

the committee desires to increase research and educational programs in old growth ecosystems, one way to do this is to support 

more funding for the research branch of the Forest Service. 

One of the most disturbing aspects of the bill, however, is the 

special relationship it establishes with the Friends of Opal Creek. These are Federal lands owned by and for the American people. Why should one special interest group receive special privileges to 

utilize this area as no other group can? 

The Memorandums of Understanding which have been mentioned earlier in this hearing all have been done, or most of them 

have been done without any help of legislation by Congress. Memorandums of Understanding are reached every day almost with the 

Forest Service and interested parties who are already performing 

a service which the Forest Service deems val,1able. This can continue to do so under the current situation. 
2o 

I believe setting up this type of special relationship in legislation 

is bad policy, bad precedence, and should be avoided at all cost. Let 

me end by stating that the forest products community stands ready 

to work with you, other committees, and the administration in 

crafting a plan which will protect necessary elements of old growth 

in a protected system. 

If this area is truly special, I think that it should be added to 

the wilderness system as some have indicated here. I believe that 

this is the proper process by which to protect an area if it is so special. We are eager to enter into a dialogue and would be-that 

would result in a scientifically justified system which protects the 

valuable old growth ecosystems in the Northwest, as well as the 

economic and cultural heritage of the timber dependent communities of the Northwest. 

I believe if this area is an exception to the President's plan, that 

we can open up this dialogue to include other areas in the forest 

plan that may not be as special and maybe relieve them from the 

old growth reserve system and do some minor changes. 

With that, I thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. Why not put it in a park, Mr. Mickey? 

Mr. MICKEY. That would be another example. Boulder Woods 

Wilderness is right next door. Mr. VENTO. Different department problem there. So your suggestion is that you don't favor the type of special management area 

being designed for this. 

One of the concerns of course is that if something is in a rule or 

regulation and not in law, it can be changed down the road to a 

different type of utilization. Wouldn't that be a basis? Unless there 

isn't some conflict. You said this wasn't in the timber base. The 

Chief said about 1,000 acres of it is. 

Mr. MICKEY. Right now I don't see anything--

Mr. VENTO. You are not quibbling about the 1,000 acres, I guess. 

Mr. MICKEY. The majority of it isn't, no. But the things I am 

looking at is I don't see anything in this bill that can't occur under 

the current situation. Mr. VENTO. Except I think the permanency in terms of having 

something in law so you don't have a moving target. 

This raises a question with me, Mr. Atiyeh there is sort of this 

presumption I think, as I stated before, that because we acquire 

new information or insights with regards to, for instance, late successional old growth areas, that we have set in place a policy five, 

six years ago. And all of a sudden, the Dr. Franklins and Johnsons 

and Thomases come to us and say, well, you know, we did our best 

at that time. We tried to use the best information we had, but now 

we have learned something more about the related species. It isn't 

even the owl. 

I always said I thought it was a mistake to pile too big a load 

on an owl. They can't get lift if they have too big a load. But the 

problem is that we have acquired new information and then we 

have to change the forest management practices and the plans and 

so forth to, in fact, utilize and put that information into effect. And so one of the concerns I have here , do you think that this 

act, by putting this in law, we in fact are taking the best information we have in 1994, but it may not be applicable in the year 
27 

2000? We are in a real growth area here with regards to understanding more about the biota and flora in this area. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Our whole purpose in setting up this bill is to develop more information, and make this place available in order to 

develop the very information that you are talking about, like Mr. 

Franklin had developed in the past. 

We wrote the specific guidelines, the primary guidelines of the 

bill broad enough so that as things change, we are really not doing 

much other than saying, these are a set of priorities. One will be 

the protection of the ecosystem. Two to do research in this area, 

and third, to do education, and fourth, to do recreation, but with 

the protection of the ecosystem being the primary. 

We have some specific guidelines as far as-I mean, we don't 

know enough, for example, about biodynamics, so we gave the Forest Service the ability to put out a fire if they need to put out fire 

in this particular area. But what we want to do is let nature take 

its course in this preserve and look at what happens and try to 

learn from that. And that is why we wrote it as broad as we have. 

The management plan, I don't see any reason why this management plan can't be revised over time. I look at it as being part of 

the NEPA process and that is how it should be, and maybe it 

should be revised like it is part of the forest planning cycle. I don't 

see a management plan being developed that is set in stone for all 

time afterwards. 

The idea is not to legislate the plan, but just set the legislative 

process in order so the plan can actually happen. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, I think that the intent of some of the provisions in the bill may have ramifications in terms of limitation. 

But it is not your intent to limit the integration of new information 

and scientific understandings with regards to the life forms and the 

responsiveness of this area in terms of using that information, putting it into effect. 

Now, I know what the goal is, but it is something we have been 

accused of here as policy-makers. I would like to do some of the scientific research, but I have a different job here. So what I have to 

do is take that information and try to use it the best I can. 

So we really are just taking what comes to us or at least we 

should be. I understand that not all science is political. 

Mr. ATIYEH. I would be pleased to discuss any specific thing in 

the legislation that you felt would be maybe limiting and for the 

future create some problem because it is certainly not our intent, 

and we are trying to make it as open as possible. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the shortcomings are clear, certainly with regard to the fire issue. 

Mr. ATIYEH. The fires, campfires came about because there is 

real concern about man-made fires would increase. We had 14,000 

people visit the preserve last year, and it looks like we are going 

to have about up to 18,000 this year. 

A lot of these people are camping and all this recreation going 

on out there, and we are starting to see that impact and we were 

trying to limit that impact in the forest, and so we didn't have 

campfires all over. We went to the Forest Service, said, can we 

limit, is there a way to limit campfires in this particular area? And 
28 

they said, we don't-the whole forest, the way it is under the plan 

is open, and we can't do it, we don't have the regulations. 

We talked to the recreation planners and that is why this got put 

in because of in our discussion with the Forest Service, they 

thought this would actually help us get a handle on some of these 

things. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know. I would have to look at it more closely, 

but I think you might want to give them direction to limit the number of campsites and fires. 

Mr. ATIYEH. It says designated campfires and that was put in because there are some designated Forest Service campgrounds within the preserve boundaries, and they wanted to make accommodation for those that already had the concrete blocks with the little 

grills over the top of them. We didn't want to limit people from 

being able to use those. 

Mr. VENTO. I think it is probably possible to address it in terms 

of the constructed areas and maybe then suggesting that they attempt to put in place no impact type of fire activity in other areas 

and that they be limited. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Our goal is just to be able to accommodate as many 

people as possible and have a pristine experience by having lowimpact camping. 

Mr. VENTO. It is possible to use no-trace type of activities and 

not have impact, if you can get folks tc do it. But even when you 

go into wilderness, even though they have those rules, you see the 

fire rings all over. 

Mr. ATIYEH. We just need a set of rules in order to do anything 

with it. 

Mr. VENTO. How many visitors a year do you have go through 

the Opal Creek area now? You are doing it your foundation. Do you 

have any ideas? You have teachers, you have classes, you have 

some university research graduate, undergraduate students I 

guess. Do you have any idea? Can you know. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Yes. I left that part out of my testimony. 

Mr. VENTO. I was just wondering in terms of numbers, because 

if we are going to set this apart as a special management area, you 

talked about impact and I was going to get--

Mr. ATIYEH . Most of our impact is fairly well localized at the---

Mr. VENTO. So we talked about the education school groups and 

so forth. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Year-to-date , we had in the high school groups, we 

have had 235 adults and 549 students. We have also provided interpretative tours for about 358 people. The 14,000 figure-number 

of visitors, that is general public that are visiting the preserve, and 

the way we keep track of that is we have a people counter, and 

that is really the area on this road that we would like to remain 

closed, 2209, because it is being used as a major hiking trail, and 

the whole goal has been to limit the traffic. 

Mr. VENTO. Keep the cars out of there? 

Mr. ATIYEH. Right. And we self-limit-like on the heavy days, we 

actually close it to ourselves during the periods where the most 

people are going to be on that roads so we are not driving. 

Mr. VENTO. You used to have a piece of it that you are looking 

at. Obviously the use of this area would be probably greater for the 
29 

overall general forest with people camping and doing other activities. Are there any formal campgrounds that the Forest Service---

Mr. ATIYEH. There is one formal campground at Shady Cove, 

which is at the west end of the preserve. 

Mr. VENTO. How many campsites are there? 

Mr. ATIYEH. I am just guessing, probably about 20, 25. Not a 

large number. There could be more developed campgrounds, which 

we wouldn't really have a problem. It depends on where it is and 

what the road access is whether we were going to develop more. 

I think that should come out with the management plan. 

Mr. VENTO. That is popular area to camp in, I presume. 

Mr. ATIYEH. I think that-and I am not sure of the Forest Service figures, but my guess is it is probably the second or third most 

heavily used area on the Detroit Ranger District behind the Detroit 

Reservoir and probably some parts of the Jefferson Wilderness. 

Mr. VENTO. So what arrangements do you have now with scientists? You obviously are seeking permits, you said, that scientists 

are seeking permits to use the forest and do certain type of research work. 

Obviously Dr. Franklin has been foremost in articulating in my 

mind anyway. I mean, I don't have the whole picture. I am trying 

to inventory the entire invertebrate and other types of populations 

that are hardly recognized now or not well recognized as being part 

of the fauna or flora in the old growth areas. 

In other words, we know a lot about some of these sort of spectacular species like the owl or the marbled murrelet or the Douglas 

firs, but we don't know about some of the less conspicuous elements 

that are there, and so he is interested in doing a lot of work like 

this. 

I assume some of this research work that you mentioned cantouch on these less conspicuous elements. For instance, they found 

in Washington, Oregon States, the largest living thallus organism 

was a fungus that actually was interrelated and connected, so it 

ended up being the largest living organism that they had identified. They thought they had found a big one in Michigan but then 

Oregon and Washington took the prize. 

You know, I guess as a thallus, the body of this was very, very 

large. It occupied hundreds of acres, as I recall, but what is the nature of the research contracts or agreements? You have obviously 

set up a format. Do you give grants? 

Mr. ATIYEH. Yes, what we have been working with is when somebody comes to us with a research project, if they can self-fund, that 

is the best of all worlds, if they have already got some funding, 

through Oregon State or if they have got themselves a grant. If 

they don't, we try to help them, work with them cooperatively and 

see if we can secure grants for their work. 

Our primary mission is just to provide infrastructure there 

where they have-there is cabin facilities, places for them to stay 

in the forest while they are doing the research, then we expect 

them to go out there, get the permits from the Forest Service to 

do the project. 

We would like to look at the project and what they are doing. We 

have-and then try to help them as much as possible. But it is 
30 

really going to be the scientists' research projects and we are more 

in a support role in doing that. 

There is one research project that we would like to take on ourselves, and we would like to have the area do a baseline study of 

how the area is now as far as where it is ecologically and the impact of camping to this State and recreation and then from that 

baseline, be able to measure as visitor use increases and make sure 

that there is not real significant impacts to the ecosystem in the 

future, and give us a handle on that, and we have got grants out 

to be able to do some baseline research just on the riparian corridors and the hearings that are starting to be impacted right now. 

Mr. VENTO. You don't have any other problems there? There is 

no grazing in this area? 

Mr. ATIYEH. No, there is no grazing. There is really-right now 

it is pretty much pristine. It has had some past impacts from mining and some logging, but the way the basin is now, it is pretty 

much stable, and we would like to just find out where we are at. 

Mr. VENTO. Congressman Kopetski, do you have any questions of 

your witnesses? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a question for Mr. Mickey. 

To summarize your testimony, first, its opposition is based on 

philosophy, if you will. We have got enough lands preserved in this 

Nation and we don't need to add 22,000 more acres. 

Second, that it is really a governance structure. If we are going 

to do this, why not make it a wilderness or make it a national 

park? That is a governance question. For some reason you object 

to a preserve. 

And the third, which was really your first, is that this area is 

governed under the President's forest plan, Option 9, so why even 

do it? That tells me, that you want to see Option 9 put into implementation. 

Mr. MICKEY. Well, I didn't say that, no. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Well, you said that. 

Mr. MICKEY. Under the current plan, this is the situation. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. So why do it, we don't need to. So that means that 

you support Option 9? 

Mr. MICKEY. I didn't say that, no. I said if for some reason Option 9 changes, maybe the situation will change in terms of needing 

this, in which case we can look at the whole system and see how 

this area fits in with the bigger system of old growth protection 

and ecosystem management. 

You know, this whole thing of forest management I think should 

be done in a holistic manner, looking at all of the parts and how 

they interrelate. This is what I understand that the FEMAT people 

did. They left this area out of that system. 

You know, they have created a 20 million acre old growth ecosystem plan and for some reason they left this out. Well, if they 

made a mistake, then let's go back and look at that old growth ecosystem plan in its entirety and see if this needs to be put in and 

other areas taken out. 

I don't believe that this area should be taken out and treated 

special without going back and relooking at the whole plan, if the 

plan is in error. 
31 

Mr. KOPETSKI. It is not left out, number one. But number two, 

let's go back. What you are saying therefore is, A, you don't support 

Option 9, and therefore I assume that you would like to see it 

changed. I assume to allow for more harvesting of timber; is that 

correct? 

Mr. MICKEY. Yes. In general, yes. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. And what you are saying also is that even if that 

situation can change and this ought to be rereviewed at some future date, which is my point, is that in reality there is no permanent protection for Opal Creek area under the President's plan. 

Will you agree with that? 

Mr. MICKEY. That there is no permanent protection? 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Permanent protection. 

Mr. MICKEY. I would say there is no permanent protection. My 

retort to that is do we really want that? As Chairman Vento pointed out, the study and research that is going on in old growth 

ecosystems, ecosystems as a whole and really as they relate is really at its infancy and is it wise to use the information we have today 

to make something quote, unquote, "permanent"? 

Maybe those situations will change in the future and people will 

not feel the same way about it in 10 years. If it is going to be protected for the next 10 years, then we can reevaluate the situation 

at that time. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Do you think we ought to do that with wilderness 

areas? 

Mr. MICKEY. I am not advocating that, no. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Why wouldn't we evaluate the worthiness of a wilderness area every 10 years? 

Mr. MICKEY. We should consider it in the entire functioning of 

the ecosystem. The wilderness areas were done, under great compromise, a lot of debate and everything, and they were set aside. 

I believe there is a place for a permanent set aside that is not 

touched by human hands. I believe in that system. I believe that 

we have one. Also, though, in reviewing the whole how an ecosystem functions, I do not believe that we have to ignore them. 

I believe in terms of looking at how ecosystems function and all 

that, we should look at the wilderness areas, not to consider whether we should harvest in them or not, but to see what their relationship in terms of the total ecosystem is, what is their contribution 

to the whole thing, how is the interaction, how do they interrelate 

to the other lands. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. So you do believe in the concept of a wilderness 

area? 

Mr. MICKEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. And with that the concept of a permanent preservation of land? 

Mr. MICKEY. And it is in place. 

Mr. KOPETSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. But it is suffering a lot, I will tell you. Even the wilderness areas are being impacted by air quality, for instance. I 

think in my own boundary waters, I think of it as being mine, but 

it is really ours. 

Mr. VENTO. And it is getting mercury and other types of problems to the point where I can't eat as many fish as I catch and I 
32 

am not that good a fisherman. So we have all sorts of these pristine areas and, of course, that is a factor that needs to be monitored. I think there is a high degree of certainty. I am certain that 

Mr. Mickey wouldn't advocate timber harvests in Opal Creek, 

would you? 

Mr. MICKEY. I would not advocate doing it today. I would say 

that you know we should look at it. The President's plan calls for 

a management plan to be created today to look at that system--

Mr. VENTO. That is where you part, I guess, everyone saying it 

shouldn't be done today and Mr. Atiyeh and Mr. Kopetski, my colleague, Mr. Congressman Kopetski, is saying it needs to be set 

aside. This is important enough and distinctive enough there 

shouldn't be a debate about that. It should be taken off the table. 

You are saying it shouldn't be taken off the table. It should be 

managed with the other lands at this moment. 

Mr. MICKEY. Or, you know, one of the things I don't understand, 

if it was so special, you know, why wasn't it designated so in the 

plan in terms of a special thing? You know there are mechanisms 

that exist today in the wilderness-not wilderness, within the 

FEMAT or within the Forest Service document. They have ways in 

which they can do like Chief Thomas said, a special management 

area in which they dedicate or manage specified different standards and deadlines. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the plan was probably trying to deal with the 

existing problems of late successional old growth and they didn't 

want to. You don't solve a problem by expanding it, by putting in 

more definitions and so forth. 

As far as I know, they didn't. They did what we call adaptive 

management areas, not special management areas which are a different matter. Then they had the late successional old growth areas 

which were set aside. So in essence it is my understanding this received the highest degree of protection that was accorded in the 

overall plan; is that correct, Mr. Mickey. 

Mr. MICKEY. It is, but there is still opportunity as there was with 

the Willamette National Forest Plan within the record of decision 

and this could have been done in the record of decision of the 

FSEIS and could actually be done as an amendment today as to 

is that record of decision? 

Mr. VENTO. This has the highest degree of protection. 

Mr. MICKEY. There could be special language as there was in the 

Willamette National Forest, which specifies different standards and 

guidelines for the Opal Creek area than any other place in the Willamette National Forest. It could still happen within the record of 

decision of the mechanism-my point is I think the--

Mr. VENTO. There are some administrative mechanisms that 

should be exhausted. Your feeling is that they should be exhausted 

before we do anything else. 

Mr. MICKEY. Absolutely. I believe that the mechanisms exist to 

do what it says in here without going through legislation. And the 

only question is this permanency issue which I think is a-is open 

for debate in terms of scientific community. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think it is. Obviously, I raised the issue about 

how to manage it and what we do in terms of whether we provide 

for an ability to be responsive. And Mr. Atiyeh has testified that 
33 

he is fully cognizant of the fact that the management plan may 

well have to change and he doesn't mean, at least his testimony is 

that he doesn't mean, to limit the efforts to not be able to integrate 

new knowledge into the system. This is a real dilemma for most of us as the policymakers or as 

people that use the forest when we have new information trying to 

integrate it into the system because very often that message has 

been not a pleasant one in terms of those that are dependent upon 

the raw materials and resource issues, but we are left with arguments and to some extent some scientists. And as I said they are 

not apolitical. They also include some value judgments, which I am 

well aware of. 

You have how much land? Let me just get off of that for a moment and not editorialize any further on my colleague's comments. 

How much acreage does the Friends of Opal Creek have and manage today through whatever means that you have acquired it, Mr. 

Atiyeh? 

Mr. ATIYEH. Friends of Opal Creek now owns approximately 155 

acres and we also own 133 mining claims that cover about 2,660 

acres and then we have a mineral leasehold interest on 80 acres 

that Times-Mirror owns in fee. 

Mr. VENTO. So less than 3,000 acres. You have some interest in 

something like a little less than 3,000 acres. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Less then 3,000. As far as the mining claims, the 

mining claims are held by the nonprofit primarily because the land 

has not been withdrawn for mineral entry and there is some major 

concerns there are minerals there and we were concerned other 

mining claimants. 

Mr. VENTO. What were the nature of the minerals? I am not familiar with that. 

Mr. ATIYEH. There are a variety of lead, zinc, copper, and silver. 

Mr. VENTO. So they are--

Mr. ATIYEH. They are base metals. 

Mr. VENTO [continuing]. Types of metals or at least mining that 

I am familiar with, some that can cause environmental damage. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Yes, and more than that, we were concerned about 

having a lot of different mining claimants pick up the land and 

then create in a lot of ways an administrative nightmare for both 

the Forest Service and ourselves in order to try to protect this area. 

Mr. VENTO. From the standpoint of the Forest Service, you have 

done the legwork on this. You have control of most of the mining 

patented lands, right. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Yes. In the core part of the drainage we have pretty 

much all of it. 

Mr. VENTO. What is the case with claims? Are there any claims 

outstanding that have not--

Mr. ATIYEH. That we don't own? 

Mr. VENTO. Or that you know about. 

Mr. ATIYEH. There are some other mining claimants outside of 

the core area. Most of them are recreation-type miners. There was 

a mining project on the south end of the preserve called the Bornite 

Project and that project is now out of the preserve with the change 

in the boundaries so---

Mr. VENTO. You have some unpatented claims as well. 
34 

Mr. ATIYEH. Yes. Like I said, we had 133 unpatented mining 

claims. Mr. VENTO. I'm sorry. I missed that. 

Mr. ATIYEH. What we would like to do when the area is withdrawn is give them back to you. 

Mr. VENTO. Right. Resolve in the favor of the Forest Service to 

yield those claims. I guess you can do that. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Absolutely. 

Mr. VENTO. You have this problem with fair market value, you 

know. The actions of the people against a government, a Federal 

Government, is a well-known trait representing our Constitution 

and in our laws. So we protect ourselves from it and that is the 

concern as you heard the chief talk about this fair market value 

issue. Donation, I guess, is all right, but if we are going to get into 

purchase, it raises some special problems. 

Mr. ATIYEH. As far as the mining claims, the unpatented mining 

claims, we don't have a problem with just giving them back to the 

government. We don't-we aren't asking for anything. We already 

did that. We gave 100 back to the government in the wilderness 

area in cooperation with Congressman Kopetski and Senator Hatfield and that is our intent when the rest of the area is withdrawn. 

Mr. VENTO. We went through quite a discussion on roads here 

so I won't belabor that point unless you want to add a comment. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Other than the fact that we are very-I have a 

meeting with the forest supervisor and the district ranger on the 

18th. We have been discussing issues as far as right-of-way. It is 

not our intent to prevent the Forest Service from having right-ofway across our lands. 

In fact, we have never denied them or the public access across 

the land. We do not want to see the road opened up to the vehicular traffic and it is primarily from an ecological perspective and 

also conflicts with recreation. We just don't think it is an appropriate road. It is very steep. 

Mr. VENTO. Again, I think any type of property right, any type 

of ownership you have is a question of whether or not appropriate 

covenants could be donated to the Forest Service in order to retain 

what utilization you need and then yield the management to the 

Forest Service. I think this would clarify the issue, but I am not 

in your shoes and I don't know the full breadth of what uses there 

are in this situation. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Congressman, I think we are very close. Passage of 

this bill will give us a lot more comfort in giving the Forest Service 

access across some of those lands, because this bill sets out the parameters how the management and priority of management would 

be in the future. The-we would be less comfortable without the 

passage of this bill because in a way it is kind of the leverage that 

we have used in working with the Forest Service in order to hopefully have the kind of management that we as an organization , we 

envision. Mr. VENTO. We want to do what we have to do in the legislation 

in order to build the type of assurances that are necessary. But obviou sly if we go too far, then we get into dealing with details that 

do not allow the flexibility from your perspective or the Forest 

Service to arrive at common sense management decisions. 
35 

And so we end up with a sort of skewed result. Do you intend 

to build new structures or facilities on your lands? 

Mr. ATIYEH. There is a possibility we would put some new structures on the area at Jawbone Flats. We have looked at doing additional facilities in order to work on programs. We don't have the 

funding right now and so I think the camp gets filled up. When we 

have, for example, 80 kids from the Governor's School, it is just too 

tight and we would like to have additional sleeping facilities for 

some of the programs, but primarily right now what we are doing 

is looking at remodeling the existing structures that we have and 

doing that. 

I don't see any huge expanse to what we have. I think we arethe amount of land that we even have available is limited. There 

is also another proposal that we have talked to the Forest Service 

about of possibly building some type of a cabin out there on the 

Santiam 1 claim and hopefully manning it with a Forest Service 

employee to act as kind of a wilderness guard or somebody who 

could deal with the public and talk to the public and we have been 

talking about doing some cooperative arrangement like that, but 

that is pretty much the extent of it. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you know if there are any guards from some of 

these former mining claims you talked about. I think that you 

talked about one particular town. You picked up an old mining 

town and the archeological or the historic or cultural values that 

are inherent in that particular community. How old is it? 

Mr. ATIYEH. It was built in 1930, between 1930 and 1933. It took 

three years to build it. 

Mr. VENTO. It is sitting there and is it something that gives the 

attraction for folks looking to knock the windows out with rocks as 

they walk by, or what is the status? 

Mr. ATIYEH. Actually, people have been very respectful and it has 

been very well-maintained and they realize it is not a ghost town. 

Mr. VENTO. This is property you now are in ownership of. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Right, this is actually the center of the facility that 

we use for research and educational programs. 

Mr. VENTO. So the buildings are being used, then, and right now 

they are being maintained in terms of their historic character. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Absolutely. 

Mr. VENTO. You are doing what we call an adaptive use. Mr. ATIYEH. Yes. And it has also been declared eligible for the 

National Historic Register. We have literally thousand and thousands of hikers hike right through the center of the camp there. 

Mr. VENTO. How many buildings are there? 

Mr. ATIYEH. I should know that off the top of my head. I guess 

there is probably about 20. 

Mr. VENTO. Twenty buildings. So you keep them up and keep the 

roofs on them. 

Mr. ATIYEH. Roofs on and we are redoing foundations and constantly fixing them. They are ongoing. Mr. VENTO. You are using them. Okay. Are you aware of any environmental problems stemming from these such as hazardous or 

other types of materials. Mr. ATIYEH. Prior to getting the property, we were working with 

the Nature Conservancy and we had the mining company do an en-
36 

vironmental audit of the entire property. They looked at the property and said, yes, there was some environmental problems. One of 

them was some mine tailings that were left over from the Shiny 

Rock mining operation. And they made a decision to go ahead and 

clean this up. 

They also had some tanks that had leaked over time and had 

some diesel leakage into the soil. They took the mine tailings, 

mixed it with some ash and cement and made blocks out of it and 

shipped all of that out and removed all the mine tailings. 

Mr. VENTO. To someplace, I guess. 

Mr. ATIYEH. They cleaned the entire area. They dug up all the 

diesel. It is going through bioremediation right now and they spent 

about a million-and-a-half dollars doing the cleanup and it should 

be completed. It is under the Volunteer Cleanup Program of the 

Department of Environmental Quality in Oregon and we believe it 

should all be done this fall. 

The only other outstanding environmental issue on the property 

is a place call the amalgamated mine site. That was owned by one 

of the predecessors in title to Shiny Rock mining. They never actually operated it and the Forest Service is now doing a study and 

they have an appropriation this year to look at what they are going 

to do. That is not on our property. 

In fact, we did not take that piece of property from Shiny Rock, 

but it is an outstanding environmental issue in the area, but I 

think it is to be fairly easily cleaned up once they figure out who 

is going to be responsible under CERCLA. 

Mr. VENTO. I notice there is release language in the bill on liability that limits the authority of the Secretary for responsibility of 

a party to address the questions of liability related to such cleanups. So, obviously, they are very careful about that. 

Mr. Kopetski, do you have any further questions of your witnesses. 

Mr. KOPETSKl. Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

our witnesses for taking the time to come here. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much for your effort. I regret what 

happened, but I am sure they won't charge you anything for your 

visit to New York; at least LaGuardia is still there. Sorry you had 

that experience, Mr. Mickey. Thanks for your comments and input 

and with no further questions, the meeting stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
37 

103n CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R.3905 

To provide for the establishment and management of the Opal Creek Forest 

Preserve in the State of Oregon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 1994 

Mr. K OPETSKI introduced the follO\\;ng bill; which was referred jointly to the 

Committees on l\atural Resources and Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for the establishment and management of the 

Opal Creek Forest Preserve in the State of Oregon. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and !louse of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) SnoRT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the 

5 "Opal Creek Forest Preserve Act of 1994". 

6 (b) TABLE OF COl\TEl\TS.-The table of contents for 

7 this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Findings and purpose. 

Sec. 3. Definitions. 

Sec. 4. Opal Creek Forest Preserve. 

Sec. 5. Administration of the Preserve. 

Sec. 6. Prohibitions regarding the management of the Preserve. 

Sec. 7. Access to and acquisition of non-Federal land. 

Sec. 8. Bomite Project Area. 
38 

2 

Sec. 9. Authority of the Secretary and responsible parties to conduct environmental response actions or pursue liability. 

Sec. 10. Grandfather clause. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

2 (a) FINDH\GS.-The Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) Old-growth forests are unique ecosystems 

4 that serve as critical habitat for hundreds of verte5 brate and invertebrate animals, plants, and fungi. 

6 (2) Old-gro>vth forests provide clean and plenti7 ful water and support streams and rivers containing 

8 runs of anadromous and resident cold water fish, 

9 which are wholly dependent on high quantity and 

10 quality water for migration, spawning, rearing, and 

11 cover. 

12 (3) The high quantity and quality of water in 

13 streams and rivers in old-growth forests can only be 

14 maintained by protecting the watersheds of these 

15 streams and rivers. 

16 (4) Old-growth forests provide unique and out17 standing opportunities for educational study, sci18 entific research, and recreation. 

19 ( 5) The establishment of a watershed and forest 

20 preserve to protect areas of old-grO\vth forests and 

21 surface waters can contribute significantly to the 

22 quality of life for the residents of the State of Or23 egon through education, recreation, and a protected 

24 water supply. 
39 

3 

1 (6) The area known as the Opal Creek Forest, 

2 located on the upper I~ittle North Fork of the 

3 Santiam River in the State of Oregon, contains one 

4 of the largest remaining intact old-grmvth forest 

5 ecosystems in the Western Oregon Cascades. Al6 though the landscape mosaic in the Opal Creek For7 est may reflect some past logging, young stands of 

8 trees in the area mainly owe their existence to natu9 ral disturbances, chiefly wildfire. 

10 (7) The Opal Creek Forest contains outstand11 mg geological and botanical features and contains 

12 attributes of historic and prehistoric importance. 

13 (8) The recreational use of the Opal Creek For14 est, typically in the form of hiking, sightseeing, and 

15 the general enjoyment of the outdoor environment, is 

16 significant and likely to increase. 

17 (9) It is desirable to limit the human-related 

18 disturbances and development of the Opal Creek 

19 Forest in order to protect fully the special features 

20 of the forest and maintain the full potential of its 

21 watershed for scientific, educational, and non22 destructive research purposes. 

23 (10) Preservation of the Opal Creek Forest pro24 vides outstanding opportunities for scientists to con25 duct nondestructive research regarding old-grmvth 
40 

4 

forests and for educators to provide scientifically 

2 credible information to the public. 

3 (b) PURPOSES.-The purposes of this Act are4 (1) to protect and preserve the forests and wa5 tersheds contained in the Opal Creek Forest Pre6 serve; 

7 (2) consistent with paragraph (1 ), to promote 

8 and conduct9 (A) nondestructive research in the Preserve 

10 regarding old-grm\th forests; and 

11 (B) educational programs in the Preserve 

12 regarding old-grm\th forests and cultural and 

13 historic re&ourccs in the Preserve; and 

14 (3) consistent with parab'Taphs (1) and (2), to 

15 permit and regulate recreation in the Preserve. 

16 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

17 For purposes of this Act: 

18 (1) PHESER\'E.-The term "Preserve" means 

19 the Opal Creek Forest Preserve established in sec20 tion 4(a). 

21 (2) ~0:\DESTRl!CTH'E RESEARCII.-The term 

22 "nondestructive research" means research conducted 

23 in the Preserve that docs not involve the harvesting 

24 of timber or othen\ise damage the ecosystem. 
41 

5 

(3) COOPERATIVE :\lAl\'AGE:\IEKT PLAK.-The 

2 term "cooperative management plan" means the 

3 management plan for the Preserve developed pursu4 ant to section 5(b). 

5 (4) BOR:\ITE PROJECT AREA.-The term 

6 "Bornite Project Area" means the area known as 

7 the Bornite Project Area, which is excluded from the 

8 Preserve as depicted on the map described in section 

9 4(b). 

10 (5) SECHETARY.-The term "Secretary" means 

11 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

12 SEC. 4. OPAL CREEK FOREST PRESERVE. 

13 (a) Esr .. musmrEKT OF PHES'F.R\"E.-There is here14 by established the Opa l Creek Forest Preserve in order 

15 to protect and preserve the forests and watersheds in the 

16 PreserYC and to promote t he r esearch , edll(•ationa l, and 

17 rrercational purposes of this Ad. 

18 (b) DESCHII'TION OF PHESEH\'E.-The Preserve shall 

19 c-onsist of thosr l<'ecleral lands loeated in the Willamette 

20 a nd :\ft. Hood .\'ational Forests in the State of Oregon 

21 that are generally depicted on the map dated October 10, 

22 1 !l9:~ , and entitlPd the "Opal Creek Preserve Area " . The 

23 PrC'se rYe shall also inelude sueh lands as 111<1~ · be added 

24 U))(ler scetion 7 or 8 of this Aet. The map referred to in 

25 this subsection shall be kept on fil e and made available 
42 

6 

for public inspection in the Office of the Chief of the For2 est Service, Department of Agriculture. 

3 SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PRESERVE. 

4 (a) IN GE;>;ERAL.-The Secretary shall administer 

5 the Preserve in accordance with this Aet and \\ith the 

6 laws, rules, and regulations applicable to National Forest 

7 System lands in a manner that will further the purposes 

8 of this Aet. 

9 (b) DEVELOPl\IEKT OF COOPERATIVE .:\lAKAGEl\IEKT 

10 PLAN.-The Secretary, acting through the Forest Sen ice, 

11 shall develop a cooperative management plan for the Prc12 serve that is consistent with the requirements specified in 

13 this Act and other Jmys applic·able to the Prescnre. The 

14 cooperative maHagt·ment pla11 shall be JH·epared in eon -

15 sultation ''ith, and with sib'lliti<~ant input from, interested 

16 individuals and organizations. The Secretary is strongly 

17 cneouraged to ('liter into lll<'lllonmcla of understanding 

18 \\ith interested parties to ae<:omplish the purposes of this 

19 Act. 

20 (c) PROTECTIOK ~ Ct'L1TRAL A.'-'0 IliSTORIC RE21 SO!:RCES.-X ot later than one year after the date of the 

22 enaetment of this Ad, the Sc('rctary shall n~,·icw and re23 \ise the inventoi-:-· of the cultural and historie resourt<'S 

24 in the area con~ rPd by the Pn·serw, \Yhieh was originall:· 

25 developed pur:mant to the Orq.!,·on WilcleriH'ss Ad of 198-l 
43 

7 

1 (Public Law 98-328; 16 U.S.C. 1131 note). The Secretary 

2 shall submit a report to Congress describing the results 

3 of the review of such inventory. 

4 (d) WITHDRAWAL.-Subject to valid existing rights, 

5 Federal lands in the Preserve are hereby withdrawn from 

6 disposition under the public land laws, from location, 

7 entry, and patent under the mining laws of the United 

8 States, from the operation of the mineral leasing la\\-'S of 

9 the United States, and from operation of the Geothermal 

10 Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). The with11 drawal provided by this subsection shall also apply to any 

12 Federal lands added to the Preserve after the date of the 

13 enactment of this Act, including lands in the Bornite 

14 Project Area added to the Preserve pursuant to section 

15 8, except that the withdrawal shall apply to such lands 

16 only upon addition to the Preserve. 

17 (e) PRIVATE lNHOLDINGS.-The Secretary shall co18 operate with, and provide technical assistance to, private 

19 landowners, organizations, and other entities holding pri20 vate lands within the boundaries of the Preserve to pro21 mote the usc and management of such lands in a manner 

22 consistent with the purposes of this Act. 
44 

8 

SEC. 6. PROHilliTIONS REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF 

2 THE PRESERVE. 

3 (a) PROIIIBITIOK ON LOGGIKG OR OTHER TmBER 

4 HARVESTING.-

5 (1) PROHIBITION.-Except as provided in para6 graph (2), the cutting of trees in the Preserve is 

7 prohibited. 

8 (2) EXCEPTIONS.-The prohibition contained in 

9 paragraph ( 1) shall not apply to the e::--'tent that the 

10 Secretary determines that the cutting of specific 

11 trees in the Preserve is necessary12 (A) for public safety, such as to control the 

13 spread of a forest fire in actual existence in the 

14 Preserve or on lands adjacent to the Preserve; 

15 (B) for administrative use related to activi16 ties permitted in the Preserve; or 

17 (C) for collection of dead and downed wood 

18 to be used for firewood in the Preserve. 

19 (3) LDIITATIOX ON EXCEPTION.-The cutting 

20 of trees authorized under paragraph (2) may not in21 elude salvage sales or harvests of commercial quan22 tities of timber in the Preserve. 

23 (b) PROIIIBITION ON OPEN FIRES.-The Secretary 

24 shall prohibit open fires in the Preserve except in des25 ignated fire rings. 
45 

9 

(c) PROIIIBITIOK OK OFF RoAD ~IOTORIZED TRAV2 EL.-

3 (1) PROHIBITION.-Except as provided in para4 graph (2) and subject to valid existing rights, the 

5 use of motor vehicles off or outside of the estab6 lished roadbed of roads in the Preserve is prohibited. 

7 (2) EXCEPTIOX.-The prohibition contained in 

8 paragraph (1) shall not apply to the extent that the 

9 Secretar.v determines that the use of a motor vehicle 

10 off or outside of the established roadbed of a road 

11 in the Preserve is necessary to respond to an emer12 gency. 

13 (d) PROIIIBITIOK OX USE OF CERTAIX ROADS.-

14 (1) PnommTION.-Except as prO\ided in para15 graph (2) and subject to valid existing rights, the 

16 use of motor vehicles is prohibited 011 the following 

17 roads located in the Preserve: 

18 (A) Forest road 2209 from the gate in ex19 istenee on the date of the enactment of this Act 

20 eastward to the intcrscetion of the road ''ith 

21 the \\ilderness boundary. 

22 (B) Forest roads 290 and 330, which are 

23 spur roads to the road described in subpara24 graph (A). 
46 

10 

(2) EXCEPTIOJ\:S.-The prohibition contained in 

2 paragraph ( 1) shall not apply to the extent that the 

3 Secretary determines that the use of the roads de4 scribed in such paragraph is necessary for adminis5 trative purposes or to respond to an emergency. 

6 (3) Rl"LE OF COJ'\STRUCTION.-~othing in this 

7 subseetion shall be construed to prohibit inholders 

8 and the possessors of valid claims from using the 

9 roads described in paragraph (1) for ingress and 

I 0 egTCss to their inholdings or in connection "With the 

11 exercise of their valid claims, subject to such reason12 able terms and conditions, consistent \\ith the pur13 poses of this Act, as the Secretary may prescribe. 

14 :'\othing in this subseetion shall be constn1ed to pro-

! 5 hi bit motor w hicle traffic on other roads established 

16 in the PreseJTC. 

17 (e) PROJfiBITIO:\" OJ'\ RoAD COK'STRFCTION.-

18 (1) PROHIBITIOJ\:.-Exccpt as provided in para19 graph (2) and section 8(d), and subject to valid ex20 isting rights. the construction of new roads is pro21 hibitecl in the Presen·e. 

22 (2) EXCEPTIO:\"S.-The prohibition contained in 

23 para~11·aph (1) shall not appl,v to the e~ient that the 

24 Sf'erctary determines that the construction of new 

25 roads in the Preserve is necessary to accomplish the 
47 

11 

purposes of this Act or to provide access to 

2 inholdings. The Secretary may maintain or improve 

3 roads in the Preserve to the extent the Secretary de4 termines that such maintenance or improvements 

5 are necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Act, 

6 to provide for the protection of the natural resources 

7 of the Preserve, or to provide for public safety. 

8 (3) JJTJ\!ITATION OK EXCEPTION.-The con9 struction or improvement of roads in the Preserve 

10 pursuant to paragraph (2) may not include paving. 

11 SEC. 7. ACCESS TO AND ACQUISITION OF NON-FEDERAL 

12 LAND. 

13 (a) ll\\'El'\TORY Al'\D ACQCTSITIO:\ OF ~0!\'-FEDERAJ, 

14 lJ.lliDS.-The Sec retary shall conduct an inventory of all 

15 non-F'edcrallandc; and interests in lands within the bound16 aries of the Prescnre. The Secretary may acquire such 

17 inventoried lands (or interests in such lands) for inclusion 

18 in the Preserve by purchase at not more than fair market 

19 value, by donation, or by exchange. The Serrcta~' may 

20 not acquire, for inclusion in the Preserve, any lands or 

21 interests in lands within the boundaries of the Prcse1·ve 

22 without the consent of the owner, unless the Secretary de23 termines that the land is being developed or managed (or 

24 is proposed to be developed or managed) in a manner in25 consistent "ith the purposes of this Act. 
48 

12 

(b) SPECIAL RuLE FOR SAKTIMI No. 1 LODE ::\II:t-:-

2 ING CLADI.-Notwithstanding subsection (a), the parcel 

3 of real property located ·within the boundaries of the Pre4 serve that is known as the Santiam No. 1 lode mining 

5 claim and identified in section 8140 of the Department 

6 of Defense Appropriations Act, 1992 (Public ~aw 102-

7 172; 105 Stat. 121 3), may be acquired by the Secretary 

8 only9 ( 1) by purchase for an amount equal to not 

10 more t han the sum of11 (A) the amount that the original patentee 

12 of the parcel paid for the parcel; and 

13 (B) the cost of any improvements made to 

14 thr parer! by the patentee; or 

15 (2) by donation. 

16 (e) RIGIITS-OF-\\'xr.-::\othing in this section shall 

17 be eonstnwd to affeet the authority of the Secretary to 

18 acquire road am\ t1·ail rights-of-,,·ay on lands in the Pre19 S('J"H' under existing authorities. 

20 (d) An'ESS .-\:\D l}TILITTES TO l l\HOLDJ:t-:GS.-

21 ( 1) 1:\ GE:\ERA.L.-ln the ease of private 

22 inholdings located \\ithin the boundaries of the Pre23 sen·e. the Seeretary shall authorize the use of F ed24 era! land in the Prese>n ·e by the holder of the 
49 

13 

inholding to assure adequate access to the inholding 

2 under applicable law. 

3 (2) JAWBO!'\E FL.ATS.-With resped to the 

4 inholding known as t he Jawbone Flats area, tiH.> See5 retary shall authorize the usc of Federal Janel in the 

6 Preserve by the organization known as the Fric·nds 

7 of Opal Creek to provide for access and utilities fur 

8 a facility in the inholding if the Sccr(•tary determines 

9 that the facility (and use of the facility) is eonsistt>nt 

10 v\ith the purposes of this Act. 

11 (3) TER:\IS A:-\0 CO:\"DITIOKS.-The nse of Fed12 eral land in the Prescrw under this subseetion shall 

13 be subject to such reasonable terms and conditions, 

14 consistent with the puqJoses of this Act, as the Sec15 retary may prescribe. 

16 SEC. 8. BORNITE PROJECT AREA 

17 (a) ADDITIO!'\ OF BORKITE PROJECT .. \HEA.-l,a nds 

18 that are located within the Bornite Projcet Area shall be 

19 added to the P1·ese1-ve upon the occurrenee of either of 

20 the following events: 

21 (1) The determination by the Director of the 

22 Bureau of J,and }Ianagement that the mining elaims 

23 on the lands are no longer valid and the conclusion 

24 of all appeals, if any, resulting from the determina25 tion. 

•HR 3905 IH 
50 

14 

{2) The determination by the Director of the 

2 Bureau of Land :\lanagement that all eA-ploration, 

3 mmmg, and rec-lamation activities, including the re4 lease of all reclamation bonds, on the mining claims 

5 on the lands are completed. 

6 (b) PROIIIBITIO:\ 0:\ PATE:\TS.-After the date of 

7 the enactment of this Aet, and subject to valid existing 

8 rig·hts, no patent shall he issued for any mining elaim lo9 eated under the general mining laws within the Bornite 

10 Projeet Area. 

11 (e) SPECIAL lTSE PE!DIITS.-:'\othing in this Act 

12 shall be constmed to interfere with the ability of the See13 rctary to issm• a speeial use permit in connection "ith ex14 ploration, mining, ami mining-related activities in the 

15 Bumitc Projec·t Area. 

16 (d) HOADS, STHtTTCHES, A:\D UTILITIES.-Hoads, 

17 structures, and utilities (im·lnding power lines and water 

18 lines) shall be allowed inside the Preserve to serve acti\i19 ties eondneted 011 land within the Bornite Project Area. 

20 (e) EFFECT 0:\ EXIST!:\(; AC'TIYITIES.-:'\othing in 

21 this Act shall be c~onstnwd to interfere v\ith any explo22 ration, mining, or mining-related aeti\ity in the Bornite 

23 Project An•a e(mduetcd in aeeordanee \\ith applicable 

24 !mrs. 

•HR 3905 IH 
51 

15 

1 SEC. 9. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY AND RESPONSIBLE 

2 PARTIES TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL RE· 

3 SPONSE ACTIONS OR PURSUE LIABILITY. 

4 (a) RE~IEDIATION ACTIVITIES.-Nothing in this Aet 

5 shall be construed to limit the authority of the Seeretary 

6 or a responsible party to conduet environmental remedi7 ation activities in the Preserve or the Bornite Projeet Area 

8 in connection with the release, threatened release, or clean 

9 up of any hazardous substance or pollutant or contami10 nant, including response actions eonducted pursuant to 

11 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cornpensa12 tion, and I.-iability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.). 

13 (b) LIABILITY.-Nothing in this Act shall be eon14 strued to limit the authority of the Secretary or a respon15 sible party to address questions of liability related to the 

16 release, threatened release, or clean up of any hazardous 

17 substance or pollutant or contaminant in the Preserve or 

18 the Bornite Project Area. 

19 SEC. 10. GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. 

20 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affeet the 

21 operation of any timber sale contract entered into. or 

22 interfere with any activity for which a special use permit 

23 has been issued (and not revoked), before the date of the 

24 enactment of this Act, subject to the terms of the eontrad 

25 or permit. 

0 

•HR 39011 IH 
52 

OPENING STATEMENT 

0 f 

THE HONORABLE JAY DICKEY 

Fourth D1strict - Arkansas 

Reg arding 

National Park, Fore sts and Publ ic Lands Subcommittee 

Hearing on 

H.R. 3905 , Opal Creek Forest Preserve 

August 2. 1994 

Mr. Chairman , thanks for holding this hearing today. I am 

familiar with this legislation because it was reported by the House 

Committee on Agriculture on July 13, 1994. 

Even with the amendments adopted in the Agriculture 

Committee to reduce th e size of the proposed forest preserve on the 

Western side of the Oregon Cascades, I still have concerns about the 

prohibitions on logging of salvage timber such as infested , dead or 

dying trees. It seems to me the ability of the Forest Service to go in 

and cut at least those trees serves only to promote a healthy and 

more vigorous forest . which this legislation proposes to want to 

protect . 

To the extent any proposed amendments may reduce the size of 

the proposal and not affe ct private property inholding s, th at is a 

positive move. My hope is more consideration can be given to 

allowing at least salvage sales within the proposed forest preserve. 

I look forward to reviewing the testimony. 

### 
53 

STATEMENT OF 

JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning H.R. 3905. the 

"Opal Creek Forest Preserve Act of 1994" 

AUGUST 2, 1994 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITIEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on H.R. 3905, 

a bill "To provide for the establisl:unent and management of the 

Opal Creek Forest Preserve in the State of Oregon ." 

The Department of Agriculture agrees with the objectives of 

H.R. 3905 . The amendments ordered reported out by the 

Committee on Agriculture on July 12, 1994, have addressed our 

earlier concerns and after reconsideration we would support 

enactment of H.R. 3905. 

H.R. 3905 would legislate many of the goals and objectives that 

were established for the Opal Creek area in the President's 

Forest Plan for the Pacific Northwest. 

H.R. 3905 would establish the "Opal Creek Forest Preserve" on 

the Willamette and Mt. Hood National Forests in Oregon for the 
purposes of pro tecting and preserving the forests and 

watersheds, promoting non-destructive research and educational 

programs, and providing for recreation within the Preserve. 

The bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to: 

(1 ) devel op a coope rative management plan, (2) inventory 

cultural and histo ric resources, (3 ) inventory all non-Federal 

lands and interests in lands which would serve as a basis for 

the acquisition of these lands and interests in lands, and (4) 

autho rize the use by Friends of Opal Creek of Federal land for 

access and utilities for a facility in the area known as 

Jawbone Flats, if the Secretary determines that the facility is 

consistent with the purposes of the Act. 

The bill would also: (1 ) prohibit the cutting of trees within 

the Preserve except to provide for public safety, such as the 

control of a forest fire in actual existence, for 

administrative use related to activities permitted in the 

Pres e rve, or for collection of dead and downed wood for 

firewood, (2) withdraw the lands, subject to valid existing 

rights, from disposition under the public land laws, from entry 

location, and patent under the general mining laws and from 

operation of the mineral leasing laws and the Geothermal Steam 

Act, (3 ) prohibit the use by motor vehicles of a primary access 

road by the general public, (4) prohibit new road construction, 

with some exceptions, and (5) and authorize the Secretary to 

provide technical assistance to landowners, organizations, and 

other entities holding private lands within the boundaries of 

the Preserve. 

2 
55 

The Preserve would encompass approximately 22,300 acres of 

National Forest. State and private land totaling about 256 

acres would be loca ted within the Preserve boundaries, but 

wou ld not be part of t he Preserve unless the Secretary 

subsequently acquired the lands. 

The Opal Creek dra i nage, which is the heart of the proposed 

Preserve, has excellent natural resource attributes and 

protection of this area has long been an important regional 

issue. There are excellent examples of low elevation 

old-growth forest within the Preserve and the area provides 

habitat for the threatened northern spotted owl. The area 

includes a resident fishery and provides essential water 

quality for downstream anadromous salmon and steelhead 

fisheries. A wide array of outdoor recreation opportunities 

exist within the proposed Preserve. 

The President's Plan designates approximately 87 percent of the 

Federal land within the proposed Preserve as a 

Late-Successional Reserve. Late-Successional Reserves are 

managed to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional 

and old-growth forest ecosystems and thereby serve as habitat 

for late-successional and old-growth related species including 

the northern spotted owl. The reserve encompassing the Opal 

Creek area is one portion of a late-successional reserve system 

which contains 7,430,800 acres and is designed to maintain a 

functional, interacting, late-successional and old-growth 

3 
56 

forest ecosystems. H.R. 39 05 is designed to provide for 

preservation of about 19,400 acres of this area plus protect an 

additional 2,8 70 acres. 

Section S(b) of the bill would require that the Secretary 

develop a cooperative management plan for the Preserve in 

consultation with, and with significant input from, interested 

individuals and organizations and would exempt any committee 

established for the purpose of providing advise on the 

development of the plan from the requirements of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) . The bill clearly contemplates 

that the Secretary would utilize the advice and recommendations 

of the interested parties in developing a consensus plan for 

t he Preserve . To the extent that these parties would include 

non-Federal members and would provide advice on a regular 

basis, they would likely be considered to be advisory 

committees under FACA. 

The Administration generally does not support provisions that 

establish new advisory committees or seek to exempt groups from 

the requirements of FACA. We recommend that section S(b ) be 

amended to provide simply that the Secretary develop a 

management plan for the Preserve "with public participation . " 

Accordingly, the Secretary would receive input from interested 

parties through traditional public involvement mechanisms which 

rely on notice and provide for total public access. 

4 
57 

Sections 6(a) and (b) would restrict the use of fires and 

firewood within the preserve. We recognize the protection of 

the Preserve is important but we would prefer to deal with the 

issues of firewood and open fires through public participation 

in the development of the Preserve's management plan. 

Section 6(d) would prohibit, subject to valid existing rights, 

the use of motor vehicles on forest roads 2209, 290, and 330 by 

anyone other than the agency, mining claimants, and owners of 

private property within the Preserve. These roads would 

provide one of the primary means of access to the Preserve. 

They cross several tracts of private property. Limiting public 

access to the Preserve on these roads raises concerns about 

appropriate public use. We recommend that section 6(d) be 

deleted. We would prefer to deal with the subject of 

appropriate access with full public participation in the 

management plan. 

Further, the Federal government does not have rights- of-way 

over these properties. Although the bill would provide for the 

use of motor vehicles for administrative or emergency purposes 

and other limited access, motor vehicle and pedestrian use of 

the roads by the general public effectively would be 

prohibited. Public access to the Preserve is contingent on 

acquisition of, at a minimum, a right-of-way over these 

inholdings. The Friends of Opal Creek recognize the need for 

public rights-of-way across their lands and have indicated a 

willingness toward granting a limited right - of-way . 

5 
58 

Discussions between the Forest Service and Friends of Opal 

Creek are continuing on the subject of access and other matter: 

relating to Opal Creek. We would like to work with the 

Subcommittee to clarify the acquisition authority in 

section 7. All of the inholdings owned by Friends of Opal 

Creek were patented in 1991 and then donated to the 

organization by the patentee. We are concerned with the 

potential cost of acquiring the land at fair market value and 

would prefer that the bill be amended to provide for the 

establishment of the Preserve upon the acquisition through 

donation of the adequate rights-of-way over these inholdings. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the forest lands in question contain 

s ome of the premium old-growth areas of the Pacific Northwest, 

as well as other resource attributes, and they deserve 

protection. The President's plan for the Pacific Northwest 

provides administrative protection for Opal Creek and we would 

support legislated protection for the area. We would be happy 

to work with the Subcommittee to develop mutually acceptable 

language to address those concerns. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

answer the Subcommittee's questions. 

6 
59 

Supplemental Statement 

Recommended 

Amendments to 

H.R . 3905 as amended on July 12, 1994 

Section 3 (3) MANAGEMENT PLAN- - The term "management plan" means 

the management plan for the Preserve developed pursuant to 

section S(b ) . 

Section 4(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESERVE.--The Preserve shall be 

established upon publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register by the Secretary that sufficent rights- of-way for 

forest roads 2209, 290, and 330 have been acquired by the 

United States by donation . 

Section S(b) DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT PLAN.--To achieve the 

purposes of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare a 

comprehensive management plan for the Preserve. The plan shall 

be prepared with public involvement as a nonsignificant 

amendment to the Willamette and Mt. Hood Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plans. 

7 
60 

Supplemental Statement 

Comparison of 

President's Forest Plan Designation 

To H.R. 3905 as amended on July 12, 1994 

Total acres within the Proposed Preserve Boundary 22,542 

Private/ State Ownership 256 

Federal Ownership 22,286 

Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) 19 , 413 

Administratively Wi thdrawn Areas 1 440 

Matrix 1,433 

NOTE: These calculations are based on Forest Service GIS 

interpretation . 

8 
61 

OPAL CREEK ANCIENT FOREST 

Scientific and Educational Preserve 

Friends of Opal Creek 

Elkhorn, Oregon 

June 1993 

Larry Olson 
62 

OPAL CREEK ANCIENT FOREST SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL PRESERVE 

June 1993 

FRIENDS OF OPAL CREEK 

Friends of Opal Creek is a non-profit organization committed to the protection of 

the Opal Creek Ancient Forest through environmental education. Our primary 

objective is the protection of the 35,000 acre Western Cascades old growth forest 

ecosystem surrounding Opal Creek and the Little North Fork of the Santiam River. 

Larry Olson 

THE OPAL CREEK ANCIENT FOREST 

The 35,000 acre watershed of the Little North Fork of the Santiam River is known 

as the Opal Creek Ancient Forest. It is located approximately 42 miles east of Salem, 

Oregon. Within this watershed is the largest contiguous stand of old growth forest 

in the Western Cascades of the Pacific Northwest. This forest is a thriving example 

of low elevation Douglas fir/hemlock ecosystem with trees ranging from 350 to 

1,000 years old. 
63 

There are numerous clear streams, crystalline aqua pools, and cascading waterfalls 

making Opal Creek one of the most beautiful coniferous forests in the nation. 

Elevation within the watershed ranges from 1500 to 5000 feet. There are steep valley 

slopes, pristine riparian areas, glacial cirques, sub-alpine lakes, and high narrow ridge 

lines. 

Photos by Larry Olson 
64 

Common trees in the old growth Douglas fir/hemlock forest ecosystem include: 

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, Pacific yew, grand fir, big leaf 

maple, and red alder. The higher elevations are dominated by Pacific silver ftr and 

contain excellent examples of a number of rare plant communities. 

Trygue Steen 
65 

Larry Olson 

Most of this unique forest is within the Willamette National Forest and is managed 

by the United States Forest Service. Approximately 720 acres are in private 

ownership by two timber companies, Times Mirror and Roseboro Lumber. The Opal 

Creek Preserve now owns 155 acres of private forest land, the historical mining town 

of Jawbone Flats, 133 mining claims, and a lease-hold interest on 80 acres of the 

Times Mirror property. 

Friends of Opal Creek acquired the property through a donation by Shiny Rock 

Mining Company, a subsidiary of Persis Corporation. This is believed to be the 

largest gift to conservation by a private corporation in United States History. This 

gift originally included 265 mining claims which covered over 3200 acres. In 

coordination with The Nature Conservancy, Senator Hatfield and Congressman 

Kopetski, the Preserve gave 132 mining claims in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness 

Area back to the government. These returned claims are protected from mining 

development by the mineral withdrawal provision in the Wilderness Act. 
66 

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE 

The magnificent low elevation Douglas fir/hemlock forest located within the Opal 

Creek Ancient Forest is the largest remaining example of this forest type that is 

substantially undisturbed. It is of unique ecological significance because the entire 

watershed is as yet minimally impacted by logging, recreation, and road construction. Included within this forest are excellent examples of many Western Cascades 

forest types and a number of rare plant communities. The many first and second 

order streams within the watershed are unique in the nation because of the purity of 

the water. 

red-backed vole Chris Maser 

A number of wildlife species find optimal habitat in the old growth forest. These 

include goshawks, Vaux's swifts, red-backed voles, pileated-woodpeckers, Pacific 

giant salamanders and red-legged frogs. Critical habitat is provided for several 

species of rare plants and animals, including the Townsend's big-eared bat, California wolverine, northern spotted owl, tailed frog, and Gorman's Aster. The streams 

maintain native steelhead trout and salmon runs. The vast majority of species (85%) 

are insects and other invertebrates. The distribution, abundance, and rarity of these 

species has not been determined. 
67 

STATUS OF PROTECTION 

Efforts to preserve this pristine old growth forest have been on-going for the past 

twenty years. A new book titled Showdown at Opal Creek, the Battle for America 's 

Last Wilderness has recently been released describing the effort to save the Opal 

Creek Ancient Forest. Friends of Opal Creek has been successful in protecting this 

forest for the past five years. National and international attention has been drawn to 

the importance of saving this unique area resulting in the proposal of protective 

legislation in Congress. Friends of Opal Creek continues to advocate for the 

federally mandated designation of entire watershed as a scientific and educational 

preserve. The Opal Creek Ancient Forest is still unprotected. Sixty-four percent of 

the 35,000 acres could be cut under the current Forest Service management plans. 

Efforts are on-going to encourage the Forest Service to agree to stop plans for logging 

and reclassify the watershed as a protected area. Friends of Opal Creek is currently 

working with the Nature Conservancy to acquire the private forest lands within the 

Opal Creek Ancient Forest. 

T rygue Steen 
68 

THE OPAL CREEK ANCIENT FOREST PRESERVE 

The Opal Creek Ancient Forest Preserve is operated by Friends of Opal Creek. The 

Preserve provides protection for the Opal Creek Ancient Forest and advocates 

protection of the remaining native forest ecosystem in the Pacific Northwest through 

scientific research and environmental education. The Preserve believes that by 

sharing accurate knowledge about forest ecosystems we will be able to secure 

protection for virgin or relatively undisturbed forest ecosystems worldwide. 

Larry Olson 

Educational programs include: Docent Tours (interpretive group hikes); Volunteer 

Greeters (information for visitors about low impact wilderness use); an Educator's 

Retreat (curriculum training for teachers on forest and stream ecology); and an 

International Forest Exchange Program. Individualized presentations are provided 

forlocal or national leaders and for international guests. Flights over the Opal Creek 

Preserve and adjacent clearcuts provide a breathtaking illustration ofthe urgency of 

the need to preserve our forest heritage. A slide show on the Opal Preserve is 

available to schools, community groups, and businesses. The Opal Creek Preserve 

has a sister forest which is the Bosque Eterno de los Ninos (The Eternal Rain Forest 

of the Children) in Monteverde, Costa Rica. An exchange of high school students 

with the Monteverde community is being planned for 1994. 
69 

Scientific research programs are coordinated and funded through Oregon State 

University and the University of Oregon. Current research projects include the study 

of the symbiotic relationships of mycorrhizal fungi by Dr. John Trappe from Oregon 

State University. Projects planned for 1993-1994 will include canopy work and 

species inventory. Research is only allowed which is non-destructive and has low 

impact on the ecology of the watershed. 

Cheri Lovre 

JAWBONE FLATS 

Friends of Opal Creek owns the historical mining town of Jawbone Flats, located in 

the heart of the Opal Creek Ancient Forest. This property provides an unique 

location for environmental education programs and a base for scientific study of the 

surrounding forests. Jawbone Flats contains 22 buildings, including a lodge, dining 

area, and 11 cabins. The proximal areas of the an·cient forest and the nearby Little 

North Fork of the Santi am River create a living classroom, where young and old can 

witness the blueprint of life. When Jawbone Flats is not being used for Preserve 

programs, the facility is made available for conservation programs for schools and 

environmental groups. 
Gorman's aster 

UST OF RARE PLANTS 

Aster gormanii (Gorman's aster) 

Erigeron cascadensis (Cascade fleabane) 

Botrychium lunaria (moon wort) 

Lycopodium inundatum (bog clubmoss) 

liST OF RARE ANIMALS 

Strix occidental is (northern spotted owl) 

Gulo gulo luteus (California wolverine) 

Martes americana (pine martin) 

70 

Priscilla Easterman 

liST OF RARE COMMUNITY TYPES 

lst-3rd order stream segment West Cascades 

Sub-alpine lake 

Western hernlock/salal-rhododendron 

Western hemlock/rhododendron-Alaska huckleberry 

Western red cedar/dwarf Oregon grape/twinflower 

Silver fir/salal-Oregon grape 

Silver fir/rhododendron 

Silver fir/ Alaska huckleberry 

Silver fir/Devil's club 

Plecotus townsendii townsendii (Townsend's big-eared bat) 

Ascaphus truei (tailed frog) 
71 

HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The area designated as the Opal Creek Ancient Forest was a sacred ceremonial site 

and meeting area for Native Americans before the arrival of the settlers. Prehistoric 

sites have been discovered in a number of areas with lithic scatter dated at over 2,000 

years. 

Jawbone Flats is the last intact historical mining district in Oregon. The area 

has been declared eligible for the National Historical Regisrry 

Trygue Steen 

LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY 

To reach the Opal Creek Preserve, drive 22.8 miles east of Salem on Highway 22 to 

Mehama, turn left on the Little North Fork Road for 16 miles to Elkhorn. Continue 

1.5 miles on Road 2207, a rough Forest Service access road. Then keep left on Forest 

Service Road 2209 another 4.5 miles to a locked gate. Walk or bicycle three miles 

on a jeep trail along the Little North Fork of the Santiam River, past 700 year old 

Douglas Firs and interesting mining remnants to Jawbone Flats. There is a 3.5 mile 

trail along the Little North Fork of the Santiam River and along Opal Creek to Opal 

Pool. This trail passes by the magnificent stands of old growth forest, picturesque 

waterfalls and the crystalline aqua pools for which the stream is famous. For 

adventurous hikers, the rugged bear trail continues upstream towards Opal Lake. 

There is an arduous 4.5 mile trail up Whetstone Mountain from which there are 

excellent panoramic views. 

Equipment transport to Jawbone Flats is provided for program participants and 

scientists, during designated low use hours. Transportation is also provided for 

program participants who are physically unable to walk to Jawbone Flats. 
... 

-

• 

"' .. ~· .... (, 

~·· ... _ " ·~ ",., ·" 

72 

NATIONAL FORESTS and NATIONAL PARKS 

o• PACIFIC NORTHWE:ST 
73 

0 


ISBN 0-16-046783-7 

90000 

9 780160 467837