FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREAS/IIEW CANYON NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS 

INCLUDING HELLS CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

77-928 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 

Serial No. 103-51 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1994 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

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

ISBN 0-16-044097-1 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, ChaimUJn 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLE6LY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITrLE, California 

PETER A DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Calif01;nia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Stc.ff Direcror 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, Republican Stc.ff Director 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranking Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawa_ii JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Stc.ff Director 

JAMES BRADLEY, Professional Stc.ff Member 

CHARLENE SEAMENS, Cleric KURT CHRISTENSEN, Republican Consultc.nt on Public Lands 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: September 23, 1993 ........................................................................ . 

Member statements: 

Hon. Bruce F. Vento ........................................................................................ . Hon. Robert F. (Bob) Smith ............................................................................ . Hon. Larry LaRocco ......................................................................................... . Witness statements: George Leonard, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, accompanied by Bob Richmond, forest supervisor, Wallowa-Witman National Forest .............................................................. . Panel consisting of: 

Samuel N. Penney, chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, Lapwai, Idaho, accompanied by Silas Whitman, Tribe Member 

Brock Evans, vice president for national issues, National Audubon 

Society, Washington, DC ...................................................................... . Ric Bailey, executive director, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, 

Panel ~~~:fs~n~~f:on ...................................................................................... . 

Pat Wortman, commissioner, Wallowa County, Enterprise, Oregon ... . Skootch Pankonin, Washington representative, America Outdoors, representing Idaho Outfitter and Guides ........................................... . Sandra F. Mitchell, public affairs director, Northwest Powerboat and 

Western Whitewater Associations, Boise, Idaho ................................ . Material submitted for the hearing record from: Hon. Larry LaRocco: 

1. Joint Memorial No. 4, Idaho State Legislature ................................ . 2. Prepared statement of Hon. Cecil D. Andrus, Governor of Idaho ... . 3. Letters from concerned Idahoans ....................................................... . Brock Evans, National Audubon Society: 

1. Letter to the Hon. Bruce Vento dated September 23, 1993 ............. . 2. "Interim Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and 

Watersheds," otherwise known as the "Eastside Forest Scientific 

Society Panel Report" ....................................................................... . 3. Letter from Region Six Regional Forester John Lowe dated August 

12, 1993, regarding redefinition of "salvage" sale .......................... . 

APPENDIX 

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: Wallowa County Chamber of Commerce: Letter dated Se~mber 18, 

~~;;o~e~~~f~~!1 ~:k ~~~---~~~~-~~--~~~---~-~~~-~---~~~~~~- -~· ··~- ~~~-~ Hubert M. Murrill, Enterprise, Oregon: Letter dated September 18, 1993, 

regarding proposed name change ............................................................... . Robert H. Jackson, Joseph, Oregon: Letters regarding forest practices on the Hells Canyon NRA ........................................................................... . Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Joseph, Oregon: 

1. Letter to Chairman Vento dated September 24, 1993 ..................... . 2. Letter from Ric Bailey, executive director, to Chairman Vento 

dated September 30, 1993 and exhibits .................................... ...... . Northwest Timber Workers Resource Council: Letter from Mark Simmons 

to Chairman Vento dated September 16, 1993 ......................................... . Hon. Gordon H. Smith, Oregon State Senator: Letter to Chairman Vento 

dated September 21, 1993 ........................................................................... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

1 

2 

5 

36 

65 

73 

105 

153 

155 

169 

7 

9 

13 

77 

79 

93 

201 

203 

205 

208 

210 

218 

219 
IV 

Page 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from-Continued 

David T. Rainey, Summerville, Oregon: Letter to Chairman Vento dated 

September 16, 1993 ...................................................................................... 221 

Ivan and Agnes Roberts: Letter to Chairman Vento ..................................... 222 

Anthony Peiffer, Bellevue, Washington: Letter to Chairman Vento dated 

September 19, 1993 ...................................................................................... 223 

Chris Daggett, Elgin, Oregon: Letter to Chairman Vento ............................ 225 

Cassandra R. Botts, Joseph, Oregon: Letter to Chairman Vento dated 

September 21, 1993 ................... ........ .... .. ... .... .... ................. .. ......... ...... ........ 226 

Jeanette Burrage, Seattle, Washington: Letter to Rep. Smith dated Sep- tember 21, 1993 ............................................................................................. 227 

Vicki Fleshman, Joseph, Oregon: Letter to Chairman Vento with enclo- sures ...•..•...................••.......................................................................••.....•.... 228 
FOREST 

TIONAL 

HELLS 

AREA 

SERVICE MANAGEMENT O;F NARECREATION 

CANYON NATIONAL 

AREAS INCLUDING 

RECREATION 

THURSDA~SEPTEMBER23, 1~3 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF BON. BRUCE F~ VENTO 

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

Public Lands will be in order. 

This morning, as Members are aware, we will receive testimony 

on the Forest Service's management of special management areas. 

These are, of course, areas designated by Congress on national forest lands and include national recreation areas, scenic areas, and 

national monuments. Today there are 29 such areas totaling almost seven million acres, and the system continues to grow. There 

are numerous proposals now before Congress to establish new national recreation areas or other special management areas within 

the Forest Service. 

As recently as this year, Congress designated the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, a nearly 400,000-acre area in Nevada. Both the Idaho and Montana wilderness bills introduced by 

our colleagues on the subcommittee, Congressman LaRocco and 

Congressman Williams respectively, include several such designations. 

The management by the Forest Service of these areas is of interest to this subcommittee because we are, of course, the subcommittee that has the jurisdiction over these designations on the national 

forests. As a result, in 1988, I asked the U.S. General Accounting 

Office to conduct a study. They finally did finish that report in 

1990. The report raised several concerns and indicated that special 

management areas were not receiving the special management intended by the legislation that designated such areas. 

The GAO discovered that management plans had been prepared 

but not implemented; that camp grounds, visitor centers, information stations, and road improvements had been planned but not 

(1) 
2 

built; that maintenance levels on existing facilities had been reduced, causing deterioration; that visitor information and interpretive services were inadequate and declining; and that resource 

damage was occurring from lack of management attention. 

A primary purpose of this hearing, of course, is to investigate 

how well the Forest Service has responded to this report and 

whether or not it has addressed the concerns that the report 

raised. 

Our other ·purpose today is to focus specifically on the management of Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Of course, it is a national treasure, rugged and 

remote. It is the deepest canyon in North America, and I will leave 

the description of the details of its splendor to those that will be 

testifying before the committee and certainly Congressman 

LaRocco in whose State this particular resource exists. 

In recent years, however, the subcommittee has received numerous complaints about the management of Hells Canyon. The concerns raised included an outdated management plan, the die-off of 

bighorn sheep from diseases transmitted by domestic livestock, cattle, cattle feedlots on the banks of the designated wild and scenic 

rivers within the area, the misuse or abuse of motorized jet boats 

permitted on wild segments of the Snake River, beach erosionagain, another problem in riverine systems that we see in various 

areas, not unique certainly to this area, we have it right in the 

Saint Croix area between Minnesota and Wisconsin; timber sales, 

ASQ's assigned to this national recreation area only. In fact, some 

point to clearcuts in a national recreation area when they believe 

that only selected cuts should be permitted or are intended. 

There are, of course, other problems which indicate a lack of per- sonnel, and a priority by the Forest Service, such as vandalism to 

petroglyphs, lack of special regulation. I remember the report that 

we received from GAO indicated really little commitment in terms 

of personnel to these sites. 

That in itself, spe'aks volumes as to the priority given to these 

sites and the need to change that priority within the Forest Service, and I will be eager to place these questions before the Forest 

Service and try to elicit their response with regard to Hells Canyon 

and the other special management areas. 

We have Congressman Smith present. 

Did you have an opening statement, Bob? 

STATEMENT OF BON. ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Than:K you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think I thank 

you for holding this hearing. 

However, there is no question that with this hearing, Mr. Chairman, maybe we can excite the Forest Service to implement some 

of their plans ·in that area that have not been implemented, and 

we all realize that money has been a factor, but there is certainly 

some work to do in the NRA, and we look forward to that, and 

maybe this hearing can help; I hope so. 

This area has been managed by the Forest Service since the es~ 

tablishment of the national recreation area and should continue to 

be managed by the Forest Service. I might point out, 79 percent 

of the NRA is in my district in Oregon and the remainder is in 
3 

Idaho in Mr. LaRocco's area, and I am delighted to see him here 

today. Interestingly, we seldom have a plebiscite or knowledge of how 

people feel about some of these issues as we decide them here in 

Washington. That is not true in this case. There was a vote recently on a resolution in Wallowa County, which is the county that 

houses most of the NRA. That vote turned out 94 percent of the 

people opposed to even a study of a national park in this area. Interesting that they would have such a strong feeling, and interesting that we could have the benefit of their vote while we determine 

what occurs with the NRA. 

I am not going to speculate on Congresswoman Maloney's motivation for the introduction of this study. I just wanted to point out 

that I am not sure she has ever been to Oregon or to Hells Canyon-maybe she has-but you have to reach a long way from Oregon and Idaho to New York to find someone to introduce the bill. 

Interesting, isn't it? 

I mentioned that Hells Canyon has not had the funding in the 

past that would make it a very desirable national recreation area 

and needs assistance, and we will be listening to the Forest Service 

today to find out exactly what their plans are for improving the 

NRA. But I might just quote-the Forest Service should follow 

these directions. In 1975, the then Secretary of Agriculture, commenting, on the NRA-and I quoteIt was agreed that the NRA designation was not intended to exclude other uses of resources within the area, and the Secretary of Agriculture is to manage the area to permit ongoing activities, such as timber harvesting, grazing, and others. 

These activities are not incompatible with the management of a 

national recreation area, and I am delighted that we have some 

people here from Wallowa County in the case, a commissioner of 

Wallowa County, Pat Wortman, who lives there and is very knowledgeable, has lived there all his life, and is knowledgeable about 

the area. 

As I pointed out many times, Mr. Chairman, the problems with 

designations of parks by this committee in past years have overreached our ability to pay for them, and we all know the numbers. 

I have a chart here. 

[The' chart follows:] 
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BUDGET SH

PROGRAM 

LAND ACQUISmON 

SHO

$1 

MAJOR FACILITY REPAIR/CONSTRUCTION $6 BI

ANNUAL PARK OPERATIONS $375M

TOTAL SHORTFALL $7.4 • $9.4 BILLION 
5 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, we are behind in 

land acquisition on authorized nation&l parks by $1-3 billion, we 

are behind in major facility repair and construction by $6 billion, 

and we are behind in appropriations on annual park operations by 

$375 million. That is a total shortfall of somewhere between $7.4 

and $9.4 billion at a time when we are reaching for every dollar 

to try to balance this budget and reduce the deficit. 

So before we begin expanding our National Park System, it 

seems to me we ought to take care of what we have authorized and 

what is there already and do a better job with the existing national 

parks. · Thank you. 

Mt. VENTO. We will have, I am sure, more discussion of this 

issue and the chart and the issue of park designation as we go 

through, but I won't editorialize at this point. 

Mr. LaRocco. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY LaROCCO 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing today on Hells Canyon and other national recr~ation areas. I want to welcome the witnesses as well, especially those who have come across the country 

from Idaho and Oregon on short notice. Between 1965 and ~988, the Congress designated 25 areas within the National Forest System in need of special management. 

These areas offered ·outstanding scenery and varied recreation opportunities on Forest Service lands. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, Idaho has two large national recreation areas, the Sawtooth NRA and Hells Canyon NRA. Today, I 

will focus onthe Hells Canyon National Recreation Area which was 

designated on December 31, 1975, through legislation sponsored by 

my former boss, Senator Frank Church. This very special NRA contains the deepest canyon in the United States, even deeper than 

the Grand Canyon. Elevations range from 9,393 feet to 800 feet 

where the Snake River leaves the NRA. 

Hells Canyon is located about four hours from Boise and contains 

over 900 miles of trails for hiking, horseback riding, mountain 

biking, and other uses. Elk, bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain goats, 

deer, black bear, cougar, wolverine, and bobcat live within the 

214,000-acre Hells Canyon wilderness. 

The Snake River flows north through the 652,000-acre area, 

forming the boundary between Idaho and Oregon. The 67.5 miles 

of river have wild or scenic designations under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act and contain a number of world-class white water rapids. 

Access to Hells Canyon is not easy. Approximately 79 percent of 

the area is roadless and undeveloped or is classified as wilderness. 

Only two unimproved roads in the NRA offer access to the Snake 

River. Fishing.hunting, sightseeing, rafting, jet boating, and hiking 

are long established pursuits in Hells Canyon. 

The area also contains many sites relevant to the Nez Perce 

Tribe. Nearly 1,500 prehistoric sites have been identified, including 

rock shelters, pictographs, and pithouse villages, some of them 

7,000 years old. 
6 

Visitation to Hells Canyon has steadily ~own threefold during 

the past decade. Local and State organization's have joined the Forest Service in rural economic development strategies. According to 

the Forest Service, the NRA now generates more recreation-related 

jobs than any other forest industry. 

The public law creating the area included as objectives providing 

public outdoor recreation, protecting the free-flowing nature of the 

rivers, cconserving scenic wilderness, cultural and scientific values, 

and \Ising natural resources such as timber, mineral, and rangeland in a manner compatible with the other objectives. 

The law allowed five years for completion of the area plan, which 

was approved by the Chief of the Forest Service in May 1981, but 

the resolution of appeals delayed implementation of the plan until 

April1984. 

Mr. Chairman, in 1990 your request for a review of the Forest 

Service's management of national recreation areas focused attention on Hells Canyon. The General Accounting Office found that 

many NRA s fell short of the expectations established for them in 

their enabling legislation, Forest Service policy, or the individual 

area plans. 

Quoting from the GAO study, 

As provided for in the area plan, the NRA was to include a wide range of recre- ation activities, including driving, access to scenic overlooks of canyon, and boating on the Snake River below. 

When the area was designated in 1975, roads for reaching the 

canyon rim and the river were not in good condition. One of the 

key objectives of the area plan was to improve the road to these 

areas. The study concluded that funding shortfalls had led to a 

delay in development of roads and interpretive facilities at Hells 

Canyon. The GAO study reflected some of the concerns expressed by Idahoans, but my constituents have raised further questions about 

management of the domestic and wild sheep, recreation use on the 

river, forest health, timber harvest levels, and methods of protection of cultural resources, river access and road improvements, the 

adequacy of the current area plan, and interpretive services, and 

monitoring of use levels and resource conditions. 

Recently, the Forest Service released a draft environmental impact statement addressing management of recreational use of the 

Snake River and Hells Canyon. This EIS re-ignited the controversy 

about levels of use in the Snake River corridor, which I am sure 

we will hear about today. 

But today's hearing will address much broader issues than management of the river corridor. Mr. Chairman, as you know, there 

are some who have proposed that Hells Canyon become a national 

park. To date, no NRA has every become a national park, nor do 

I agree that Hells Canyon should become a park. 

Last year, I went on record with my colleague, Congressman Bob 

Smith, whose district borders Hells Canyon in Oregon, in opposition to national park status, and this year the Idaho State legislature passed House Joint Memorial No.4 opposing any proposal for 

a national park in the Hells Canyon area, which I would like to 

submit for the record. 

[The document follows:] 
7 

-·t 

HOUSE JOOO' .KbiOBW. !0. -i 

BY IIDIOUR<EI AND cOrraVADOI.OOMMI'lnZ 

A JOINT MDlOiliAL 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF . REPRJIDITATiml OF THE UNITED fll'ATES IN 

CONC~ ~LED, AND TO THE CONCWIONAL DELEGATION REP~NTINC THE fll'ATE .-·· - _- , 

OF IDAHO IN THE CONC~ OF THE UNITED. fll'ATES. 

We, your Memoriali.ta, the Houae of ReP-entativee aad . the Seute of the State of Idaho 

aaaembled in the Firat Regular Se.aion of the · Fifty-eecond Idalw Legul&ture, do hereby reapectfulJ.y 

repreaent that: 

WHEREAS, on Febrnary 4, 1992, the Natioi.al P~b aad Couemtion A.ociation and the HeU. 

Canyon Co11110rvation CouncJ jointly called for · opecial c~authon-1. atudy to evalnate 

proepecta for the propoeed Hella Canyon Natiiia.lJ>arii/Chief)~,,Natiolial P,...rve; aad 

WHEREAS, the propoeal ulu.d Concr• to do a atn~ to couider creati.Da a 1.52 mJlion acre 

complex of two national parb, a new recreation ana and a D&ticinaJ. pnarve; and 

. . ~- . :·i j • ;~ ; 

WHEREAS, Forest Service official., wJ.D c.m.tly mu~ the area, and agricnltural official. 

have the opinioa that if the propoeed land ~;,i;i' a ~ ... al pV' ~ it wonld be detrimeatal to 

the biodivenity of the area due to the far gft~~ ·am.,.,t' of ~le imputing the land; and '- ; -.~ :-:' *• : :~ . ;. 

WHEREAS, the National Parb S.rvicej~ ~ to adeqiately over.e aiating parb, let alone 

be able to fund a aew par~ to the eyatem; aad• .\/); •· . , ~!~ ': . ', • 

WHEREAS, multiple woe of the area -Jl• u ruc:hi.t,' ~ D~iJWi~; aad power 'boating hu . 

worlu.d well, we want to continne theee actin!Mi . woald ~'prohibited ii. a par~ aad ·· ~A ~:· ..c , •.••. ~. . 

WHEREAS, there are large anu of t.nei ~cJ"Sb di..U. infoated and prohibiting 

theae areu from management would create a ~ haaard f«\..rildfireo; &lld 

~_. :/· :* < ·' :~; ' > . 

WHEREAS, increaaed toari.m ..Jl n"' 'DUJ.. aji for the loi. of 11atVal rCIOllfCe job.. I t~~~ . . . >::: ' ,,: . -·: --- . 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REroLVID.:Ir; the. membeft Of the F'mt Resular Se.ion of the 

Fifty10C0ad Idaho l.egi.lature, the Houae of · Rejit.i..ata&m. aad the Seute coaclll'l'inc therein, so oa 

record u being apiaat any propooal for: .• ~ pHriil'tlii'&U. C~ma. 

' :::~ '~-. ~~ .,-- ~-~~ ; .. ::· 3: _· _: ~:;~~ . . . BE IT FURTHER ~LVED that the CI.r~ of ti.I' Houe of R.e-tatm. be, and she 

is hereby authorUed and directed to forward ~ ofc&Lia M~ to the Preei.deat of the Senate 

and the Spe&br of the Ho- of Rep._'~ '• of , aad the CCJIIII'OIIional delegatio& 

rep,...ating the State of Idaho in the Co.gr.i of ~ Ulli:ited &ita · . .-.. :. ,.. . ... =:.~-~-
8 

Mr. LARocco. Mr. Chainnan, it is not that I do not recognize the 

problems in the management of the area, but I believe the Forest 

Service should correct those problems and retain their management 

authority. That is why I believe this congressional hearing on 

NRA's is appropriate because the time is right to address these 

concerns. 

I have another interest in national recreation areas, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I have introduced wilderness legislation for 

Idaho. During the many town meetings and hearings I have held 

across my district on my bill, my constituents express strong support for special management areas where some traditional uses 

could continue, especially where back country recreation would be 

the management emphasis. If effectively managed, national recreation areas have the potential to be custom made to address both 

the resource and recreation needs. 

Again, Mr. Chainnan, I appreciate this hearing, and I request 

that the testimony from Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus be made a 

part of the record as well as several letters from concerned Idahoans, and I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Without objection, Governor Andrus' testimony 

or statement and the letters that you will submit to the clerk, I assume on the topic of the Hells ·canyon site, will be made part of 

the record, and I would ask unanimous consent that all Members' 

statements and the statements of witnesses in their entirety be 

made part of the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

[The documents follow:] 
C:&CIL D. ANDitU. 

-

9 

OFFICE OP' THE GOVERNOR 

IIOIBE 8:&7.&0.1000 

Testimony of 

CBCIL D. ANDRUS 

Oovemar of Idaho 

HOUSB NATURAL RBS0tJRCBS SUBCOMMITI'BB on NATIONAL PAIXS, POllBSTS AND PUBIJ< LANDS 

farcbe 

OVERSIGHT HBARJNG ON HBLL'S CMYON 

AND OTHBll NATIONAL BECltBATION ;JlBAS 

340 Cumon Boule Office Buildiq 

Wubiqton, D.C. 

'I1mrlday. Seplember 23, 1993 

!O:OOa.m. 

caaeJ ...,1CIO 
10 

1 

I appreciate tho opportunity to pn:eent teatimony at toclal '• ovempt hearins ao 

the manaaement of the Hella Canyon N.tiOIIIl R.eczeation An:a it wu ncady twenty 

yean a,o that Washington Governor Dan BVInl and Oregon G :wcmor Tom McCIIl 

joiD.ed with me to recommclld the creation of a Hclll Canyon ~ ·aticaal Rc:crcation 

An:a. The legillatiou pusecl in 1975 wu the teiUlt of widolpr .t oooporation -0111 

the Northwest's Govomora and Conifl'lllionallcaders. 

Just this pat summer, I visited the Helb Canyon NRA \7ilh aevenl Forcat 

Service managers and had the opportuaity to tee with my own ':Je8 die c:halleoaa Uld 

problems faced in the management of tbia IIJlique bach:oantry. 

In my book, the term Wlique does indeed clesc:ribe a piaL e where anow, al~ 

and niD fell u we deacended the canyon on ~ and tht ;n were upoiCCI to 90-

desree heat in the bottom of the canyon, all ia one clay. Tbe c:l riJIIIdaUy ~ 

weadtcr pvo ua one mare picmrc of the dlvllllily of tbia uea. rt ia an area that 

reachea from a virtual deaert river to alpiue elevaliom, with atl:ep Uld rocky lfOUIId 

aupporUi forest and JrU8)and in between. 

We IIJo ohcved die ~D~D~gen~Cnt eJia&llp8 tblt are 11 ctiwne u tbe 

geography llld weather. Today I would IUe to lddrea two m:4or .reu: die need for 

a mare eomp~ve IIWIIgemellt approach to pro1e<:t the ana's resources, and the 

proper federal deaipation tmd federal aaency under wbicJt the Hella Canyon area 

ahould be lll&lllpl. 

I aupported a Nationalllccreation Area desipation OYe! wildemeu 10 that tbe 

Forest Service would have increued fk:Dbility in ils managem :nt of the area. Having 

said that, I believed lit the time and still believe that the remotu and UDlOided sccticms 

of the Seven Devil's Mountaina in Idaho was an approprla&e addition to the wildanaa 

syatem. 

A majority of the Hells Canyon NRA is on the Oroaon lide of the Snah: River. 

WUC3 have arisen on tbe west side in which Forest Service tiJi iber sales, permitt£d by 

the same act, appear to conflict with tho mandates to protcc;t d .c J'QIOUICC, Part of thia 

problem ia due to the placement of the boundaries, which included Ianda that were to 
11 

2 

be: IIWiapl for multiple-uae within the NRA. 

I believe the Forest Service needs to tab a Jlll.lliFIUDt approach chat Joob 11 

the J"C8CI1IICe8 in a more: connected faahion :rather than addn:ahg ilsuea lqllll!ely. 

For example, we are Clll"leNly in the middle of an environmental impact statemcm 

proceaa that 1oob only at manainl the ~ rccreadODal u 1e1 of the Sub ltiver. 

It does not take into account how activity on the river fiD into :otal recnllliollll use of 

the area, or the implcts to the :resources. Without a system-wi :le plasmiD& approach, 

tbe resources of He1ll Canyon will be in jeopardy. 

1be issuea with :recreatiollll usc of the river should be c: Jnaidcn:d along with 

use of tbo canycll. 11 wdl as with wildlife and pziug issue~. In particullr, there 

MCda to be study of the ~ anzina ailotmems and bow llh 301' al1otmontl may be 

affectin,g biJbam sheep popu1ati.ons throuah ctiJel8e tnn1miukn. Conareaa needs to 

mab this a fundi.na priority . .AD such ilruelllhould be COIIIided in a mce ayltemwidc planniJ!IIIppl'Oicll. 

I would also Jib to sec the Bolls CanyOn Naliollll Recr,,.Uon Area and other 

NRAs includius the Sawtooth, be recognized with separate Jint, item app'oprialiODI in 

the budget. This would j1IIJ"&IIb a specific level of funding a Bd visibility for tho 

NRA that it does not currently enjoy. 

Deapite these d1allenp and the UDfinished worlt, I still believe the Bella 

Canyon NRA Is better off unclor Po:rcat Sorvicc control. I oppose delipati.on of the 

He1b Canyon area u a Natioual Park. Such status would attn.ct much greater 

nwnbe:rs of peqp1e to a fnai1e environment and would furtbcr jeopardize the :reaourtee 

tbat park proponcntallao want to protect. National park atatw; would prevent h~. 

which is a major IIJid traditional use of the CIIDJOD. 

As neighbors to YelloWitone National Park, Idah01118 a e well aw:u:e of what 

Nalional Park desipation means for intensity of public use. I ublic opillion ill Idaho 

does not favor Hells C«Dyon for NatiODII Park status. 

National Pad deaianation is DOt a new issue for Hella < :anyon. In 1937 

Richard NeuberJer, who later became a U.S. Senator from Olegon, wrote about the 
12 

3 

DOtion of a Nasicmal Park in Hcl1a Canyon. 

"But lhould Hei1J Canyon be a NatiOIIIIl Part? Why .aotJeaw dlil bit of 

'IDIIr:Dmntlcenic llplendcr for dJQIO willq Co bo iDconm aled Co - it? 

Who WIIDia it cluac:rcd up with profi:llicmal tourittl, tift cl buliDea lllliD. 

janbtiq poHtlciam, lmlckknack peddlen, IIIII J1amoar aida aad boyt? 

Surely it meriD • hlppi« fide tMn that. 11Je ' iDitinct il 

powerful, but Bill RoUiq Ulll!ed me emph•ticaUy that be hal DO desire 

to tum his country store into a touriata hotel. Idaho hu Sun Vllley; 

Orep has the IUIIIptUOUI Timbodinc: Lodp wllidl.Mr. HqlkiJ!a' WPA 

built mr ille walthy; let lhele aorta tab cue of the dude rllldleD aad 

tbc li&Jatseon and the TyroJean-dad ski artilll. Why lll>t Jcae the SDUc 

River ancl ils chum for thiiiC who would ~eo tho West eliDOit u it wu 

when Lowia aud Clark mived?" 

Th010, I nbmit, .Mr. ChairmaD, ue wordl far the 1F11 

-die ead-
IH : 1!!11~ f!11J!' Iii ~ 

I ~~~~~ ·}"rll'llJifji ll{ 

! •luhi ;; i1 lt'1rf11 1 '

, k' ~~ r· t·t·' -~~ 

l. l_)r(iit r!lhi i ·~~~ tJ! 

~ tJI v t•''J~ (l• II I nu l~:11 ! ·_ ; i "t ~ ;· rr! 1l ~ I 

II ll!i iUiH il!ii i j~jii ~i t' 

IM -IJ 1 h l ~'I I II! Ifb~ I f![i Fl(lfr~ fr 

h . };I 1 1~ rf,J ~f 

Ul 
14 

-The trumilslon of altrlln of P. '-lytictl from a lJi&boln en c:ap11nc1 

&an 

~ 

• .he IIJIIIlll herd ..r Clla1lla, Idaho to bar ~ D IDd IIIOCbar -·· Iambe at 6 weeb of 1P wu vodtled b) DNA fill&aprintiJ!&. 

'l1lia ltrlln ot P. 1ttwnolyticG cau.d P""'._ta Ill lbe lambs whk:ll - a11o 

iDfatecl by lun&W0l1111 truamiued from tbc ewes to their lamba prlar to birth • 

.l..uDporma eau101uD& damaae and lower msialaDI:e to ba ;leda1 pla'monla 

• Domeltlc ·lheep were found 011 ttu. tJiPoni habilal IiLII In NeYida. DNA 

ftllprpdadna of blctcda from lbe clomeltk1 aad tho bJ&:Ik m lheep at eacb life 

~ n-calrJa of P. IIMinolyllal. A P. hllemol~dc4ltrlin wblch llu 

DOt boaB loand in usodadon willl dl.uo In eilber 1J111C1a i JU isolated from bodl 

blabmn ud ~ 3beep at one lite. ~. tranm Juloo from domellic 

ID bipam lbeep Will DOC clernorlllllted. . . 

-l!ldler tbla yar we pllcect bJabama in a JJ1D IJCijlllliiU ID a pen holdiDc clameldc 

abeep. Peed and Wiler were siiiJed bateeo die two p~ aod 111111-.,..._ 

contact Will~. PDeumoala CICCIIlftJd In both lfOUJil .Wtlq iD lbe deldll 

ot two doallltlc and two lriabom Deep. A P. ~ llmill which •!law 

JJOt pnvkJaaly tOIIIId In oldler llleep l(leCia - flnt detlCtlld in lbe doallltlc 

lbeep and lllblequeody iD llle bipom abeep in lhialtlldy. • r1le 1'tl.rlftrG14 1tr1in 

jnc;rhn!IJI!Od U the c:auJII of dlo deltba ill botb JIOilPI WU Oi ll.y lrllllieDily pnllllt 

in dJe lbelp popalatkxla. Tbls lludy Jl llil1 In PfOil eu IIIII tile IIIIa Jl 

pnlimillary. BoweYer, no10-to-ao10 contact Ia tbe 11101 t proll8hle - of 

tralllmJalon between sheep liDoe tbe blc:tmia lave boaB loll nd to IUMve tor only 

lbortpadoda Oil teed lllderla1 and Ill water. AdbeleDce 10 1992·BUof pidDiina 

fOr .dollllltic: abeep ll1lllqiiiiCIII la bJa:bom sheep hlldtlll would preyalt 

condi&iona llllder wblc:h uanamlulon of suc:b oqanilmlma y occur. 
15 

,.., lldJiD llanmtaD hi your oftlco ildlclled lblt ..-. .cJil of. qllllliaDI wlllcll11011d 

bdac ou& intJnnadnn c:litiQl far your OCIIIIIIIittee 1IIOIIkl be of Yll.-. I IUbmil 1M fciDowlq: 

• WbU caaclullvo IIYidalco, --dlllltlllt p~ lbove, t xlllllbr ..... mi .... 

of cliaiD hal domesdc 1o 1riPom abeep7 Would dill eYidalce Iliad up hi 

coad7 

• Codlcdnc ...-ot IMIIIlYiYII of bJaham 111eep 111 Billa c::u:,a. ~Me been 

JUdo. · Alt mr lpiCific ftiCOl'dl which wm llldlclll 1M •llllllln ....-um 111e 

Clllyall llld Oil die CIIIJCIG lim . 

• Wlllt Iaiiie papulatloa cllllllly olllllmailtlllt pay .. blpGn lllllp Ill ... 1111111 c.,.. _, Alt lbr .... lbuwiDi lpiCiiftc dllll of I'VIIDidciD, 

}DIIIfa' aamben, ad dlltdbudaa. 

If I Clll be of_, ......_,.Ill apd 1D tllil iliua, plellt call melt (208) 454-165'7. 

Sllanlly, 

~e.~~ 

Abaa C. S. Ward, PIID 

Pmtalor at Aallllllllld Vlllllldmly Sdeace 

ACSW/dJ 

CC: Emt Chri_,..., 

Commitllae of :NIIiaM1 -- Pax ~) 226-2301 
Congressman Larry LaRocco 

1117 Longworth Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman LaRocco: 

16 

m:CEIVED 

S3 SE.P 21 Pll12:23 

.: . .,.::t:.sW:b'c \~~i·s1.f · 

3321--iGth Street 

Lewiston, ID 83501 

September 21, 1993 

This letter is in response to your invitation of September 

14 to comment about Hells Canyon NRA for the oversight 

hearings to be held this Thursday. 

~irst a little background about my involvement and 

experience of Hells Canyon. 

Most recently I was a member of the LAC Task ~orce that 

developed a river management plan. I represented 

conservation interests--namely the Sierra Club. 

My first interest goes back to about 1967 as one of the 

original members of the Hells Canyon Preservation Council. 

Sinc e then I have done 12 raft trips, a couple of jet boat 

trips, some hiking, and visited Hat Point twi e. 

I believe the problems in the NRA stem from an inadequate 

budget, other budget problems, and the lack of a strong 

committment to manage to protect the natural values as set 

forth in the enabling legislation. 

It is obvious to me that the ~orest Service has never budgeted enough money to manage the NRA. 1 feel the 

Wallowa-Whitman National ~orest has chosen to underfund the 

NRA in order to get the timber cut out. It is true that 

Congress could provide more funds for the NRA, especially if 

these funds were earmarked for the NRA instead of for the 

~orest. This would be a great help. 

The other budget problem is that the NRA often goes through 

half a year before it knows what its budget is! Ed Cole, 

ranger for the NRA told me this in the spring of 1992. With 

this dragged out system it is impossible .to manage Hells 

Canyon properly. I know from personal experience that there 

are people working in the NRA that want to do a ·better job, 

but their hands are tied by these constraints. 

The natural values of Hells Canyon--a world c lass treasure--

are being degraded by cattle grazing, sheep grazing whi c h 

has transmitted a disease k illing transplanted Rocky Mt. 

sheep, e xcessive timber cutting, the threat of·. allowing jet 

skiis and other new motorized toys on the river, inequity 

between floaters and private jet boats, the effects of jet 
17 

boat wakes. on beaches and aquatic life, and the lack of 

enough personnel to educate and oversee users during the 

high use seasc•n. 

1 appreciate this opportunity to give you my observations 

and I thank you for having this hearing. I support your 

efforts to help improve the management of Hells Canyon. 

Congress can provide direction and more adequate funds and 

this will make a big difference and improvement. 

Sincerely yours, 

-~~ Ron Wise 
S~embar 18, 1993 

Tbe Honorable Larry LaRocco 

House of Repreeentative• 

Waehinaton D.C. 20515 

Dear Sir 

18 

-~MI' l~'\ 

x· am wz-iting in reaard to a hearina the National ·parks, Boreete, 

anc1 Publ:Lc L&Dde Collllli ttee will be holdina Septeuber 23 on the 

status of the Hell• Canvon National Recreation Al .. a in Oreaon and 

Idaho. 

~ Hell• Caupon National Recreation Area should ~in under the 

~t of the roroat Service. There ie alrea·~ in place a plan, beina ~lemented by the ~oreet Sorvioe dev eloped with the 

a'U!PPOl't of local oraanized labor, ci tizems, and l{overDMnt 

bodies, to i.lll:prcrve aoo•- and showcase the HCNRA. 

We are ab80lutel.,- opposed to ~ National Park ol· Park 

f..-ibilit.,- atu<b- that 111ipt ~ undertaken in tb:.e part of Oreson or .Idaho. The lfationol Park Service iB al.ree<b- ill a deficit 

•itwlt.ion and doe• not need any additional land 1;o manaae. 

A:il1( deviation ft'Olll current manqeMnt and direct:.on ie COJIIPletel-y 

wmeoeeeary. The HCNRA, under current manaaaaaent , is available 

'for the an.;loJ'IIISnt o'f any who wi•h to uaa the arat •. 

Pleaee eee that my oo111111ent8 are included in the 1·eoord for the 

upcoming National. Park=, l!'oreiJti!S, and Public L&n<le Collllllittea 

hearina. Thank You. · 

uz:::· 

H&rit Simmons 

Representative, Northwest Timber Workera Reeourcl Council 

9.0s·. 21st Street 

Blliin, Oregon 97827 
19 

Toa Ccn;r••~ Larry LaRocco 

u.s. Hou .. of Representatives 

W&ahington 1 D. C. FAX (202 - 2 ~6- 121;5) 

Thank yc:~u for the invitat:l.c:~n to tHttfy. c - ur1able to 

attend the ovarsight hearings on the Hells Cany.ln NRA. l 

wCYld like yau tc tiUbnit this testimony far the rec:or-d • .._auld you let me know how len; the hearing rec:o;·d will recqin 

open 1 and if I can provide addi U anAl tnt1CDOny, 

:t Ul prov:lcU.n; 4or your 1nform&tion & .,_ ~de&s on man&gllftltil'lt of the NRA and an eiC&mple of financi.ll 

:l.ncot~petence. (J#'-- J'6 1. Ft-- the in:lt:Lal deya ctf action to protec:t ·:he are& now ~ QJ called the H~Al no person in the movement t1:1 tlrotec:t t1"111 \~ . HCNRA thought the status cf the HCNRA Nculd end up as a " 

\).· ,ran;...- d:latr:lct on a naticnal far-t. That is ·:he action 

that the U8FS i:OCik. Thill train of thought WCIC.Ild have us 

travel to the • Vellowll1:ane Ranger District." "'he USF8 

is not able to plan, direct, operate, or fund tl1e Jllltl\, Why? 

The USFS has reofused tc cl"lange the standard structure. The 

central reascn .for this lack of creative ~~&nagentlnt l.s 

Timber. If there are ten tr-• in an NFtA we ar•~ vo:lng to 

have a District Ranger running the NRA, who rept~ts tc a Forest Supervisor. This approach to m~ag.ment is so arcane, 

that 1~ the NRA N&s not b•ing destroyed, it wou:d be th• meat 

of a fine c011edy, 

The tJOlution to this prCibln is at hand, a11d only 

requir .. a bit of creative skill, ( Hi;h CCM.Lntr~· NeW• - Ed 

Marston- S•pt. 20, 19~.>, thill skill and simi:•r m&na;ement 

./"•• •IIPl eyed by Tam l<oval1cky on the Salti:ooth NI:A in the 

(l,r. 1970 ••• B1ve us • Hells Canyon NRA that is man<.;aed by a ,.: ~ ! lin• offic•r r•portlng directly to th• Re;lonal fare•t•r• .;J-"·' i With such a pa111t1cn WCM.Llc:l c:Ciflle a direct lin• budget far J : the NRA. T•k• tn• HCNRA back fr-otn Enterpri .. , !Iaker, and 

'--Portland. The•e paople h&.Vtl almost. delltroy•d thll HCNRA durinQ 

their y•ars of 111ana;ement. Plac:• th• nii!W SUpr, ·isor of th• 

HCNRA in Lewiston, Branvevil1• 1 or Rt;;lns from where h• will 
20 

2 

report directly to the RO in Miseoula. The qu••tion of 

duplication of st.aH will ar!-. The n•w WtNRA should ba 

organized so staff support, ext engineering, COJld b• 

obtained from other For .. ts, rather than duplic~ted. Th•r• are people in the USFB that know how to take th is action• 

You will find the ones in the USFB in mid - man~gamant 

positions. You can f i nd quite a few that are nl longer with 

the USFS. At the tan year anniversary cere111e1ny for the 

[ 

cr-eation of the HCNRA I told Senator Packwood " I could have 

done a better- Job of management of the HCNRA fa· th• past t.n ~ years with~ 5tranger& picked at random ' fram thJ •treats of 

Portland. n I stand by that statacnant. The HCNRA n-ds niiW 

mana;ement statu• and financial control of it's d .. tiny that cam .. with that niiW status. 

2, The HCNRA and the Nallawa - Whitman National Forest spend 

tax dollars 1n foolish and highly questionable t.ays. The 

HCNRA 1 in lata sUIIIIIItlr' Of 1992 1 wanted to llilke a seri •• of 

videos for u- in the new cantr at Halls Canyo,l Dam. They came to the Educational Technology Center at L.etds - Clrk 

St.ate College, The proJect, at a praJec:tlld cos·; of 

:f:54 1 000.00 was dl.cus!Sf!d, The USFS repr.-ntat vas admittlld 

they had no idea how t.o bid a proJect of this k:;nd. Ftath•r 

than bid, and allow the private sector a chance go the 

pr-oJec:t, they •ntared a •partn.rsnip aor-••ment• for the 

pr'ojac:t. I question this a• a legal. eet:hod to .lVald 'the bid 

precess? The HCNRA an w-w ataff bungled this pt·oJec:t fr011 

day one, Their r•sponalbility was to tell LCBC - ETC what 

they wantl!d in the- videas, and to maka sure t11111 scripts delivered th• information. They missed appa:l.nt ~nts, missed 

deadlin .. , could net make daci~ions. They even mad• racial 

slur• about Dan IC&neJ the producer of the proJ••:t. l'lr. Kan• 

is a IIIRmtntl" of the Nez Pree Tr-ibe. The projec:\: has been 

terminated, and the HCNRA still ow.s *8000.00 t ,, L.w:la -clark 

State College. I have included a copy af the l at-t billing 

fram Tom Matney, Dir-ector- of the LCSC I ETC tc llr. Fine. 

Mr. Matney would love to d:l.cuss· the HCNRA raci <~ l all.&rs, 

incompetence on planing, and· poor financial managatMtnt at any time. The HCNRA has entered into a nttW a;r .. man\: far" an additignal f!54 1 000.00 with the University of Id«ha - I<UID far" 

the sam•' v:ldaa pl"odw:t.ion. The praJec:t could bo finished -far one third of that price if the HCNRA - W/W te&ft cauld get their act to;ether at LCSC - ETtr~ HCNRA .- W/W ,,_ not bid 

this new proJect, and continua to ignore the pr: vata sector. 

The HCNRA- W/111 has bean contacted by privata Vi dea 

production firms w11Jhing to bid on the project 1.nd those 
21 

?irlltl have been ignorad. 

Thank You far ~he oppartuni~y to pre .. nt t1e .. ideas and 

:l.nfarmatlon. I am available at any time to mee: with your !ltaff 1 ta d:f.IICUS. f.S!IUe!lo 

Sf.nc.,-ely1 _ ~i.JI /1 J/-:;;::.> -~/ 

v-~/M-.17-r-- ~-- John A. K. Barker 

2124 Brelle 

Lew:l.stan, Idaha 8~1 

208 74~-74M 

Enc:/ L.etter MatniiY to Fine 

H:t.gh Country N-11 
August 20, 1993 

Ur. Woody Fine 

2535 Riverside Dr. 

P.O. 699 

Clart<ston, WA 99403 

Dear Ur. Fine, 

22 

The Educational Technology Center provided the Forest Service with over 

741 hours of staff time in the design, development and ,,roductlon on 1he 

Hens Canyon project. Nineteen video tapes were shot i;t the field In fall 

1992. winter and spring 93. The E.T.C. completed nine cays in the field. 

The project Involved LCSC, KUID in Moscow, KAID In Bo se, local theater 

groups, the Northweet Power Boaters Association and I Joel outfitter&. 

The following Is an Itemized liSt of cost Incurred from August 15, 1992 

through August 1, 1993 for the Hens Canyon VIdeo Projoct. 

Tom Matney, Project Director 

183.33 hrs.@ $30 an hr. $ 5,500 00 

Responsible for acheduDng, project continuity, project research, 

consulting to the U.S. Forest service and overall d rectlon of all 

project activities. 
23 

Tom Hennigan, Script Writing 

~ hnl. 0 S25 an II". $ s,2oo.oo 

WorQd with the Forest Servtce In the deelgn and development of all 

ecripts. Tom wu taken off the project at the request of Jane 

Rohli11SJ and all scriptwrftlng became the .respone iblllty of the Forest 

Service. 

Dan Kane Pnxlucar 

134 hrs. 0 $.30 an hr. $ 4,02CJ.00 

In charge of aD field prodUCtion actlvftles. 

Dates In the field shooting; 

September 25, 26, 27; Mardi 26, 27; May 10, 18, 19, 20 

Dwight Eckert 

94.5 hrs. 0 $22.50 an hr. $ 2, 12~ .00 

Produellon ualebant for all field actiVIties. 

Dat88 In lhe field: 

Sep18mber 25. 28, Zl; March 28, Zl; May 10, 18, 19, 20 

Liza Luke 

38 hrs. 0$10.00 an hr. , $ sec.oo 

lnvolvad in the fall shooting u production uels11 Rt. 

Datea In the field: 

September 25. as, 27 

Heidi Wilkins 

36 hrB. 0 $10.00 an hr. $ 380.00 

Involved in the fall shooting as production asslsta!lt 

Daf8s in tha field: · 

September 25, 26, 27 

Jason Goldammer 

50 hra. @ $10.00 an hr. $ 500 00 

Hired In May to provide technical support for the sJmm&r production 

schedule. 

John Koetitz - Project Consulting $ 848. oo 

Hired as a videographer and project consultant 
Personnel chargee to the FonMSt Service are approximately 50% lea than 

the ETC rate card for oft-campus grants and contracts. 

KUID 1V - Equipment Rental . $ 1,027.8(J 

KUID - Video Acquisition $ 300.0(. 

Travel 

(Travel, Jet Boat Rental, car Rental) $ 3,035.0( 

VIdeo 1lp88 $ ase.oc 

Field Equipment Rental $ 1,219.4( 

IDIAL eo9T rtelJRIIED IZt.II!I.IQ 

The E. T.C. ndually agr&e~ that th~ partnerwh~ should be t3rmlnamd. 

All I'8I8IIICh noiBI, Yld8o footaGe, 1ape SIDCk and pertlnen:: project 

Information will be tumlld ovw to the FoNCt Sorvlce _,.,, reimbureemant 

for sa.W. randered by the college Ill raconcfled. In order to have a 

smooth transition or for project clarification, I am aVIIIIIIble tD conautt 

with you or the new producllon taam. Please do not hesib rte 1D call. 

Best R.gards, 

Tam Matney 

Dlreotor 

Educallonal · Technology center 

Lewf.Cialk swa College 

500 8th Avenue 

Lewiston, ID 83501 

{208) 799-2228 
25 

House Collmittee on Interior 

Garden Creek 

Snake River Rt. 

Lewiston, ID 83501 

(509) 243-4055 

september 16, 1993 

Subcolllll1 ttee on National Parks and Public Iands 

Hells Canyat National Recreation Area Management oversight Hearing 

Greetings; 

My name . is Edward F. watters. From the Spring of 1987 I through 

April 1992, I lived at Sheep creek on the snake River. Sheep creek is 

90 miles upstream of Lewiston in the Hells . canyat National Recreation 

Area, adjacent to the Idaho Portion· of the Hells canyon Wilderness. I was eaploye4 by the Special Uee Permittee that holds the permit on the 

M:.Glffee-Barton Hcmestead. I vas the Caretaker/COok/OUtfitter host. I 

held ·that position throughout the year during that time. I also worked 

as a Forest Service Volunteer. I spent a minilaml of 345 days and nights a year at or near that site. · In May of 1992, I started won as a Preserve Assistant/Ranch Hand 

at '1ba Nature OonserYancy's Garden creek Preserve on the Snalat River at 

the R::NRA North Boundary. I am still eaploye4 in that position. My 

testillony here is ba8ed on lilY own observations, oorresponderlce with 

Govermllant officials, md Official IlocQDants. This vas prepared em lilY 

own tile, and should DOt .be COII8trued as the positiCil of lilY eaployera, 

:PUt or praeent 

'1bare are several aspects of the wallowa-Whitman National Forest's 

illlanagall!llt, or better said, lack of management of the R::NRA that trouble 

•· I 110Ul.d go eo far to say that the W-W NF is in violaticm Of Public 

1.av 94-199, the .Act establishing the Halls Canyat Natiooal RecreatiCil .Area. 

'1ba W-W NF clearly failed to follow its own ~ive 

Manageaant Plan Cll the II:NRA. In the following I will illustrate hov 

this failure led to a disaster that ccmtinuee to affect Wildlife, 

Recreaticm, Grazing, and Veget.aticn in the canyat. 

~ page 20 of tbe He11a canycn. NRA Otwprehensive Managament Plan 

(CH') under tbe J.ading of "Managaal!!lt DireetiCil" it states, "Establish 

and llll!iltsure ccmdi tiCil and trend transects Cll all allotments to IIIOili tor 

range ccmditions by 1985." On page 53 of the - doclment, it states, 

"All existing range md concSitiCil transects will be .nNld md evaluated 

by 1985 and each five years thereafter. Additional transects will be 

establiahed as nec:eesary. Riparian zones will be mapped and conditicm 

and trend transects eetablished by 1985." 

At the present time, this 110t1t has DOt yet been done Cll the Sheep 

creek or TaDperance creek Sheep md Goat Allotments. It hasn't even 

been started. It vas finished 1ut year Cll the Pittsburg Cattle and 

Horse Allotment, (the Tl)P'S is nov woning em an Allotment Management 

Plan through the tm'A process for th8 Pittsburg Allotment). 

In June of 1990, I asked the W-W NF for informatiCil regarding the 

conditiCil of the Sheep Creek Allot.nt. In a letter dated NoYaDber 28, 

1990 from (then), Area Assistant Ranger Art seamans, I read, "I would 
26 

2 

suspect the last transects were done in the early 1970's. The allotment 

management folders at both Slate creek and Grangeville disappeared in 

1974, so there is no way to retrieve that information." 

In 1989, the HCNRA issued a ten year term grazing permit for the 

Sheep Creek Allotment to Ben Havard. He was permitted 2400 sheep on the 

allotment for 10 months a year. These sheep winter along the river and 

the lower portions of its tributaries. According to recent Annual 

Operating Plans, these sheep leave the Canyon about March lOth. 

'l!lat portion of the Sheep Creek Allotment upriver of Myers Creek 

held a population of Rocky Mountain Big Hom Sheep. Many wildlife 

Bio~ogists and Veterinarians are of the opinion that mixing wild and 

daaestic sheep oo the range usually reSUlts in the loss of the wild 

sheep. (see enclosed reports). '1be probable cause of the loss is a 

bacteria known as Pasteurella haemolytica. Domestic sheep often carry 

this bacteria, yet will not shaw any signs of infection. 'lbey are also 

implicated in the spread of parasites such as scabies mites, lungworm, 

etc., and viruses such as Bovine virus diarrhea, PI3 (shipping fever), 

etc. 

Passage of the Pasteurella bacteria frail domestic ~P to wild 

sheep can CX!ly occur by nose to nose, or mouth to nose contact between 

the two species of sheep. The Allotment Operating Plan contained SCIIIe 

guidelines to prevent transmission of disease. They include: "1) 

removal of lame or sick sheep frail the allotment, 2) not leaving sheep 

behind when moving through the Allotment, 3) strays to be illlllediately 

removed or disposed of, 4) sheep herders required to report bighorn 

sighting& to the Forest Service, ••• " 

'lboae guidelines look good oo a piece of paper, but were a 

~lete failure in the field. '!bat portion of Hells Canyon is 

extremely rugged, is far removed fra11 roads (Sheep Creek is 16 miles 

:from the nearest roadhead located at Pittsburg Landing) ,or 

COIIIIlUilications, and is being utilized as domestic sheep range during the 

darkest part of winter (the Canyon rims make for even shorter days) • 

'1be rugged terrain combined with poor range conditioo resulted 

with many domestic sheep going stray. It also resulted with the loss of 

a substantial llUIIIber of domestic sheep. In the winter of '89-'90, the 

permittee started oo the winter range with 1200 sheep. He left the 

winter range with 900. Many of those carcasses were visible fraa the 

river and trails. ·Not all of those missing sheep died. 

The permittee was to have his sheep off the winter range by March 

10. I reported weekly, by the Forest Service portable radio the was left at Sheep Creek, the presence of the strays. On June 20, 1990, I 

saw a two year old Big Horn ram with two of the stray sheep. .In the 

Journal of Wildlife Diseases (Vol. 24, No 4, october 1988 page 666; 

enclosed) it mentions that the necessary contact for transmission rarely 

occurs in the wild, "except when young bighorn ram seek out daaestic 

ewes. " 

'1be Forest Service office was closed by the time I got back to the 

radio. On June 21, 1990, 103 days after the sheep were to be off the 

Allotment, I again informed the HCNRA staff that strays were still a 

problem and that I needed to contact a wildlife biologist. I was 

informed that no one was available. 

I then attempted to herd the two strays to a location were I would 

be able to corral them. After several hours in 90 degree heat, the 

strays holed up in a tight brushy draw and I was unable to drive them 
2'1 

3 

any further. I again tried to ccntact a wildlife biologist and' again, no one was available. At 3:45 PM, I "iumediately otherwise disposed of" 

the strays. 'Ibe young Bighorn ram then left the il!lllediate area. 

Late september of that same year, .I found the very decomposed 

remains of a young Bighorn ram about four miles avay frcm ~ site I 

"otherwise disposed of" the strays. There vas no way to determine the cause of death. He was found near water, and I could rule out predatioo 

by a Cougar. (Cougars will cover what is left of their kills after 

eating their fill). 

The following year, ( '90-'91), the domestic sheep returned. 'lhat 

year . the Allotment was stocked with fewer sheep. When the herders 

arrived oo Decelllber 9, 169 sheep (told to me by the herder) , "Wre behind 

them oo the Allotment. They had recovered 70 of these sheep by December 

13. 

On the evening of December 19, a snowstorm hit the Canyon. About 

400 sheep vent upslope and over the divide between Sheep Creek: and the 

Snake River at Stickney Heights. 'lbe herders "Wre unable to recover these sheep due to the weather and the icy slope. There was not enough 

forage available oo Johnsoo Bar to graze the remaining sheep while 

recovery efforts were being made, so the remaining herd want oo upstream 

to Billa Creek:. 

The Sheepherders and· the ah8ep passed by Sheep Creek oo their way 

dovnstreaJD to Pine Bar an Jan. 12, 1991. They again returned to SMep 

Creek l:ecause there was not 8'10Ugh suitable forage to Jceep the sheep 

there as they tried to recover the sheep that wnt stray iii Decelllber. 

By this time some of the Dcmestic sheep were shCJring eigne of 

respiratory distress. Salle. had to be carried by horsebaclc and 80118 were destroyed. Others shtlly wheezed and coughed while being trailed behind 

the rest of the herd. It took about four weelai to recover the sheep 

that had gone astray. 

On March 25, 1991, I found a dead five year old Bighorn ram about 

a mile up Little Granite Creek. He had been dead less than a week. 

There were no signs of predation. His coat and body tale were good. He 

was found within 15 feet of water. I also saw other bighorns that were 

visibly ill. 

In the afternoon of April 5, MUlti-Agency Biologists and 

veterinarians arrived to investigate. They took nasal swabs, blood and 

fecal ~lee frcm two visibly ill Bighorn Ewes at Granite Creek: and one 

stray Domestic Ewe at Sheep Creek. 

The investigation team came back oo May 2. Samples were taken 

frcm a Bighorn ewe at Granite Creek and a Bighorn ram at Bills Creek. 

Another team of university of Idaho veterinarians frcm the field station 

at caldwell were at 'l'eqlerance Creek to investigate, at the permittee's 

request, the cause(s), of substantial losses in his sheep herd. 

I have enclosed copies of the reports. 

'lbe official statements frcm the HCNRA state that domestic sheep 

did not leave the grazing allotment lx:>undaries. On May 23, I pointed 

out stray domestic sheep two miles outside the allotment to a Forest 

service LEO IV (Law Enforcement Officer level 4). 

The Grazing Permittee vas billed $1.12 per head/month for the two 

strays that were at Sheep CI:eek for the months of February and March. I 

really cannot see how this provides any inCentive to prevent problems 

with strays oo the Allotment. A Bighorn ram vas seen with these strays. 
28 

4 

'lbe Bighorn population in the upper reaches of the Snake River has 

crashed dramatically. The Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game used to issue two 

permits to hunt Bighorn Rams in Unit 18. As of last year, they no longer issue any. This year, the Department was able to sell at auction 

a Bighorn tag. They also permitted a sportsman's group to raffle off a 

tag. The funds generated by these sales were to be used to enhance 

populations of Bighorns in the State. The tag that went at auction went 

for over $31,000-. The purchaser of that tag hired an outfitter and was 

able to harvest a ram Cll unit 11. 

The HamA adopted a Bighorn/Domestic Sheep ManagaDent Strategy in 

October '91. This plan has exactly the same guidelines to avoid contact 

betWeen the two Species of Sheep as were in place Cll the · Sheep Creek 

Allotment before the Bighorn Die-off. These guidelines simply didn't 

work. They had tragic cxmsequences for the Bighorns. · 

Among the primary reasons this strategy has failed and will 

continue to fail is the fact that the land Managers have no Idea of what 

forage is available m these allotments. 'lbe Managers require the 

permittee to put an arbitrary number of sheep a1 the Allotment. That 

number is 2400 sheep. They came up with that JUllllber by stating in the 

HCNRA that the Allotment will be stocked at 1981 levels. 

Since there had been problEIIIS a1 this Allotment since the mid 

'70's, without having investigated the condition and carrying capacity 

of the range, the J~B~~aging agency failed ~ it's obligations to the 

Public and the land. 

The current permittees m both the Sheep Creek and Telllperance 

Creek Allotments utilize foreign nationals, here under a wor1t permit, as 

sheep herders. There is .really nothing vra~g with this except for a 

natural reluctance m the part of the herders to deetroy their Patron's 

property as called for mder the guidelines. With 8I.ICh distances to 

cover m these allotments, the ally effective way to remove sick or lame 

sheep is to destroy them. 

Due to the poor range conditions and the diffiCUlt terrain, strays 

will continue to be a problem m these allotments, specially with the 

unrealistic numbers of animals being stocked m the Allotment. The 

terrain makes it extremely diffiCUlt to recover theee strays. Finding 

them is the real difficulty. There is no reason for the operator to 

atteq>t this when the Agency charges $1.12 head/111011th in excess grazing 

fees for a Sllli!l.ll percentage of the strays reported to, or even witnessed 

by the agency. 

There is little reason for the operator to report Bighorn 

sightings to the agency. Even if there vas, there is no way to do so. 

As I said earlier, it is 16 miles to the nearest road, but it is another 

17 miles to the nearest phone. During the season of '89-'90 there were 

no contacts by the agency to the herders. During the '90-'91 season 

there were two field ea1tacts. 

I've repeatedly mentioned poor range Caldition. Of the five 

Condition and Trend transects done on the Telllperance Creek Allotment in 

1976, two were rated "fair", me was rated "poor", and two were rated 

"very poor". 'lbese are the last transects done m that Allotment. 

My experience at Sheep Creek indicates that the primary vegetation 

there consists of Cheat Grass (Brarus tectoiUII), Red Three Awn (Aristide 

longiseta) (Which according to the USDA USFS Range Plant Handbook is 

considered to be of little forage value, and that the awns can cause 

injury to the stock forced to utilize it), and Pepperweed (Lepidim 
29 

5 

various species). 

'nlere is sane Sand Dropseed (Sporobolis cryptandrus), but not near 

as much as could or should be there. The same holds true for Soft Brane 

(Branus brizaeformis). A related Brane, Rip-Gut (Branus rigidus) is en 

the increase. What used to be the primary grass in this stretch of the 

Canyen, Bluebunch 'Wheatgrass (Agropyron spicat\ill), is all but ponexistant. It can now only be found on sane isolated ledges en this 

section of the Allotment. 

Seeing as though this is being utilized as mid-winter range, there 

isn't very much available to the livestoCk. Never mind the Wildlife. 

The . Livestock operators have had continuing problems with malnutrition 

related causes. Enclosed is a report by Dr. Marie Bulgin of the 

university of Idaho caldwell Research Station regarding the analysis of 

necropsied sheep's 1"\lllel\ contents. This may be the best way to gauge 

what is available for the livestock to utilize. What was there was not 

enough to carry the pregnant ewes through the winter. What holds true 

for Domestic sheep in this case may also hold true for the Bighorns and 

other wildlife. 

In october 1991, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest issued a report en MUle Deer oo the Forest. on page 4 of that report, it states, 

" ••• but over most of the Forest, I believe the winter range liOUl.d be 

rated in poor condition for mule deer." 

'nle current situation is not doing the LivestoCk operators any 

favors either. It is my understanding that if the Permittee does not 

stock the Allotment with the full number of animals permitted, he will 

be in non-use. He may cnly haw to have the full number en the 

Allotment for cne day to avoid this ·status, but where would he place the 

excess stock? The FS cnly allC!WS three years of non-use en any permit 

before the permit may be withdrawn. The effect being that the Agency is 

Blackmailing the permittee to overgraze his allotment with losses to him 

and the public. on the Sheep Creek Allotment, the permittee tried 

stoCking it with half the peilllitted number of stock and still had 

significant losses. 

I am not necessarily against grazing en public lands. I see 

grazing as a land management tool. 'lbe key word here is managanent. In 

Hells Canyoo, there has been very little management. 

on another subject, raw Enforcement, these efforts have been, more often than not, misdirected. In July of 1990, there was an incident at 

Steep Creek where a jet boat party was using spotlights to ill1.1111inate 

bats which they were shooting at with shotguns. .The agency has posted on a few occasions sign that read, "No Shooting. It is unlawful to 

discharge firearms fran or into campsites, near buildings or livestock, across roadways or bodies of water or where people may be." With such 

signage, I am led to believe there are laws or regUlations providing 

sanctions against folks that ignore the restrictions. 

. This Party was shooting fran the back of their boat tied to a 

fairly popular campsite. They were shooting over the river after dark. 

There are sane bats that are eligible to be, or already listed as 

Threatened or Endangered, the Townsend& Big Eared Bat (Plecotus 

townsendii), that are known to be in this area. 

The Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game attempted to prosecute this party. 

unfortunately, there are no State statutes covering the partiCUlars of 

this case and it was ultimately dismissed. There was no FS prosecution, 

77-928 0 - 94 - 2 
30 

not even for littering for all the spent shotgun shells that were left 

behind. 

6 

In the s1.111111er of 1990, I wrote a letter to F. Dale Robertson 

mentioning this and other incidents of gunplay in the Canyon. several 

weeks later I received a response frCIII his office. I was thanked for 

"dOCl.lliE!nting incidents of illegal discharge of fireaimS ••• in the Hells 

canyon National Recreation Area" • He went on to say, "Since the 

protection of public safety is of the highest importance, we have asked 

Regional Forester John F. Butruille in Portland, OR to look into the 

matter. He or a llll!lllber of his staff will respond to YQ.l directly." 

'lbat letter was postmarked washington, DC, Sept. 26, 1990. I haven't 

heard anything since regarding this matter. 

Then in April 1991, this same party did the same thing while 

caJII)ing at. the KirltYood Historical Museum. Again, there was no FS 

prosecution. 'lbere have been other witnesses to these events and they 

were all willing to testify. 

I have no problem with the responsible use of firearms in the 

HCNRA. I have spent countless enjoyable hours hunting birds and deer in 

the Canyon and do not want to see that activity prohibited in the 

Canyon. 

I was the subject of at least one law El\forCE!IIII!nt Investigaticm. 

In the SUIIIIIer of 1991, a National Guard helicopter dropped eight 

caJII)flaged and armed law enforcement officers near the head of one of 

the drainages leading to where I was residing. 'lhis was a JDUlti-agency 

operation with State, Federal, County, and Forest service officers. 

one of DIY guests saw the officers on her way to use the Qlthouse. 

The officers withdrew into the brush frightening DIY guest. She came bade to the main hoUse and ~armed me. I watt Qlt to see the eight 

officers marching through the yard. I hailed thall and an officer I 

recognized as a Forest service L1!0 IV dropped Qlt to speak to me. By 

this time I pretty much realized what was going on and I jokingly asked 

if he vas able to find my plantation. His response, in all seriousness, 

was, "No, we need 100re manpower and better equipaent.", and left. 

Walking up the creek a few minutes later, I found what may have 

been their intended target. There was a patch of Canada 'lhistle 

( Cirsium arvense )(a noxious weed) , that had been attacked vi th 

machetes. 'lhat wouldn't have been so bad if the thistle wasn't in the 

"downy" stage. 'lhat action scattered thistle seed to Hells Canyon and 

beyond. 

The Drug Warriors did finally find some Marijuana. It was found 

40 miles downriver and em the Oregon side. But at what cost? What loss 

of resQ.lrces available to the Canyon? And hoW many other noxious weeds 

were spread? 

I did ask the agency for an apology. I was upset that they would 

treat a volunteer with such suspicion and contempt. I never received 

any acknowledgment of that request. 

The trails in Hells Canyon have been suffering fr011 neglect. This 

situation is now in an ~roving trend. Part of this problem also 

relates to livestock grazing in the Canyon. The only access to grazing 

areas in the Canyon is by recreational trail. The sheep will often step 

off the trail, cross-cutting switch-backs, making "step-outs" and 

otherwise degrading the trail tread. The funds to make the repairs on these damaged trails canes rut of the Recreation O&M budget and not the 
31 

7 

Grazing (Range) budget. 

'!he rtgency has also come to rely on contractors ·to do 111.1ch of this 

trail work. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this practice, 

the rtgency has failed to adequately supervise the work in progress. 

This had led to the damage to Archeological sites (as at Saddle Creek 

during the winter of '91-'92) and the reaDVal of trees fran caJ~P&ites as 

fuel wood. '!bey are about to initiate another bout of trai.}. 

reconstruction. sane of this work will be near Archeological sites and 

habitats of known sensitive Species populations. WithoUt adequate 

supervision while the projects are in progress, these sites may be in 

jeopardy. 

The capital Investment Program may cause more problems in the 

future. One of the things that make Hells Canyon, Hells Canyon, is the 

remoteness and the difficulty in getting there. If it was easy to get 

to, it wouldn't be Hells canyon, and it would have already been well 

developed. 

Making it easier for more people to access Hells Canyon When the 

managers have been unable to address current problems is ally going to 

set resource management even further behind. Management of Hells Canyoo 

currently COUld be called •crisis management •. They •ve ooly been able 

to respond to a situation ·when the situatioo bec:<:'8le8 critical. 'Ibey've 

been unable to head off problems before they becaDe problEIIIB. 

'nle Grazing situation is ally ooe example. Another will be the 

trails. With the new developed caq>sites at Pittsburg, 1110re and more 

people will be hiking into Ki.rJtvcod. I don'.t have IIIUCh problem with 

that, except the last bit of trail aloog the switchbadcs dawn to 

Kirkwood. These are quite hazardous, the grade excessive and the 

surface does not provide safe footing. The trail has a hard surface 

underlaying 3;a• minus gravel. 'ftlat gravel has the same effect as ball 

bearings for a hiker proceeding dawil-hill. I vas there ally two days 

this Spring, and I heard reports of two injuries to hikers. '!be 

additioo of at least two more switchbacks oo that stretch should be an 

immediate priority. 

The increased traffic oo the roads will also be a factor in the 

spread of noxious weeds unless this problem is mooitored very closely. 

Roads are ooe of the primary vectors in the spread of noxious weeds. 

'nle Access road fran Whitebird, m, already has a severe infestation of 

Yellow Star 'lhistle (Centaurea solstitialis). There are already spot 

infestations of this weed within the ~. Whitetop (Cardaria sp) is a problem along the access road to Hells Canyon Dam. Again, there are some infestations of this weed in the HCNRA. These weeds are very 

aggressive and difficult to control. SUch problems likely exist at 

other roaded access points to the HCNRA. 

'!here has already been a case of vandalism at the Petroglyphs at 

Pittsburg tanding now that access to the Petroglyphs has been improved. 

When capital Improvement Projects are authorized, it is imperative that 

funds be allocated to maintain the projects and to mooitor and mitigate 

the changes they bring. 

It should be noted that the HCNRA was ooly able to put one powered 

patrol boat on the river for most of the busy (regulated) seasoo. It is 

my understanding that ooly one certified boat pilot was responsible and 

available to patrol the entire 71 miles of the Snake River included in 
32 

8 

the ft:NRA. 'Ibis was one of the busiest years for private 

powerboating in the Canyon's history. 

'!be HCNRA also seems to have an over reliance on Volunteers. '!be 

volunteer corps that the HCNRA has recruited may be acme of the best in 

the system, (especially now that I •m no longer dragging than down). 

It's absolutely wonderful that former residents of the Canyon can give 

visitors a sense of what life was like in the canyon before it became a 

playground. 'lbe unfortunate thing is that these people are now aging. 

'lbese volunteers have quite a following and provide acme 

continuity in interpretive programs at Kirkwood. unfortunately, they 

also have the responsibility to maintain the site, even when equipaent 

breaks down. '!bey get little support fran the Agency for their 

efforts. In an ideal situation, KirkWOod should have a full time year 

'round caretaker/maintenance person who will also be available to assist 

the river patrol ranger and cover for him on days off, do other work in 

the Upper Corridor, and free up the volunteer or paid staff to provide 

interpretation at Kirkwood. With the completion of the work at 

Pittsburg, KirkwOod's visitation rate will only increase. 

one of the recurring explanations I receive fran the agency for 

their failure to monitor Range Condition, and other activities and 

objectives in their ec:.pr8bensive Management Plan is that, "such work is 

dependent on flmding." In the GAO's Report to the Chairman, SUbcalmitee on National Parks and Public lands, House of Representatives, mtitled 

National Forests: Special Recreation Areas Not Meeting Established 

Objectives, dated February 1990, on page 23, I read, 

"An effective monitoring and information reporting system on the 

status of the special recreation areas does not erlst. As a result, 

information on progress lllllde, defer:ments, and future resource needs for 

the special recreation areas has generally not been deVeloped and 

reported. 

"To determine the progress made at special recreation areas coapared with planned objectives, we reviewed Forest SerVice budget 

sUbmissions to the Congress and found such information was not included 

in the sUbmissions(!)." 

'Ibis sounds very much like what hawenec! to range monitoring in the~ 

While there are many problems vi th the way the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area has been managed by the Forest Service, I do 

not l:elieve that Park Service management is any answer. It may even make matters worse. National Park status for the canyon will only 

create a stronger demand for visitation to the resource. Public Iaw 94-

199 will force the Park Service to alter ita general management 

practices to acccanodate the uses specified in the law. 'lbat wilf 

create pressure for the Park Service to consider such uses on other resources they manage. 

I see sane possible solutions to these problems. Things may 

improve if the HCNRA is removed fran Region VI and placed in Region I. 

Over the last 40 years or so, Region VI's primary concern has been 

Timber. Judging fran the last several budget allocations to the WallowaWhitman National Forest, I'd have to say that the W-Bar-W has received 

what is left over after the wet side Forests take the "Prime CUts". The 

HCNRA seems to get what is left over after the W-Bar-W has gnawed on the 
33 

9 

bones. It also seems that the Idaho Portion of the HCNRA is luclcy to 

chew on the hide and hooves 

Region I and especially the Nez Perce National Forest has a better 

record in dealing with a rore diverse Forest experience. They manage 

nearly as much wilderness area as all of Region VI. They also deal with 

grazing issues in a rore responsible manner, but that could be said of 

aliOOst tbeir entire program. 

But, that's not my favorite answer. Because most National 

Recreation Areas have a special mandate: to also provide for timber, 

grazing, etc. , a~ -'llell as to preserve, study and protect their resources and . to provide varied recreational opportunities to the Public, 

including hunting, I feel they should be given special status by the 

Forest Service structure. National Recreation Areas should becaDe a new Region within the Forest Service, with individual NRA's being 

independent Forests in that structure. At the very least, the NRA's 

should OOIIIbine and be Clle Forest, without regional supervision and the 

NRA'S be separate Ranger Districts. 

I Thank You all for your time, consideration and patience, and for 

the opportunity to address these CC~~~~~ents to this ~ttee. I will 

make JI!Y&elf available to answer any questions you my have. My 

tele);ilcae number is (509) · 243-4055. The best time to reach m is 7:00 

AM and PM Pacific time. I a11 ·serviced by a radio tel~ th,rough the 

Asotin Phone Ccqlany. The reception is very poor, I 'IICUl.d have to call 

you back: from a land line after receiving your request. It is a two 

hour trip to I.ewiston by road, J:ut there is a telephone at Heller Bar 

which I can reach by boat in ·the daylight within a half hour. 

or, I COUld respond by mil. Mail •rvice to this site is 

provided once a week by boat en Wednesdays. 'nlere will be 8CII8 time lag 

involved, it will take at least a week to get my response back: in the 

mail. Or, if it's iqlortant enough to you folks, I 110Ul.d be willing to 

go to washington, DC at Ill' expense to respond. '1be Canyon is at least 

that iqx>rtant to me. ~in, Thank You for your time and consideration. 

-Edward F. watters 
'l'Q: John O'Connor 

Temperance Creek Ranch 

Box 29!5 

ontario, OR 97914 

34 

FROM: Marie S. Bulqin, DVM~ 

DATE: June 20, 1991 

RE: Sheep problem 

~ ~ Universityotldaho ~ ~ ol V-irwy Sci1rc:e 

.00 WOI Regional Program 

Caine V-rwty Teaching 

and A-at Center 1020 E. Homedale Ao..:l 

Caldwell. Idaho 83605 

208-454-a657 

FAX 208-454-a659 

1. Severe loss of condition since September 1990 b! a significant percentage of sheep, particularly the yearlings. 

2. Ewes lambing without enough milk to raise twins. 

3 . Unexplained larqe number of ewe losses. 

OBSDVATio•sr 

Ranch visited April 6, 1991. Approxiaately 300 dry ewes still on valley floor and beinq ted low quality hay. 

Approximately 1/2 of the dry ewes appeared eaaciated while the 

other 1/2 appeared to be in fairly good shape. Of a nuaber of 

the very thin ewes examined, 90t or aore were yearlinqs. Teeth were qood, no abscesses or evidence of OPP pneumonia observed. 

The qrazinq appeared adequate for the ewes with laabs, 

however, many ewes were thin and their wool coat looked dull and 

unhealthy. Lambe looked healthy. Host ewee had modeet diarrhea 

both in the dry and lactatinq qroups. 

Two ewes were killed and necropsied. Rumen contents were taken for analysis from a ewe and wether on the ranqe. Blood and 

faces ware also taken for analyses. 

RBSULTS: 

NECROPSIES: In two emaciated aniaals the •••enteric lymph nodes were very enlarqed and iliuas appeared thickened. There was an increase in the aononuclear type call in the lining of the 

qut, but no evidence of acid fast bacilli (Johna's Disease). 

MINERAL ANALYSIS: Liver analysis dona on the 2 necropsied 

sheep !or copper, molybdenum and selenium were normal. 

Serum analysis done on 5 dry ewes and 5 lactatinq ewes for 

calcium, maqnesium and phosphorus were normal, zinc was deficient. 
J. o•connor Page 2 6-20-91 

35 

FORAGE ANALYSIS: Done on the combined rumen contents of a awe and wether qrazing the range with awes and lambs. This 

technique was chosen to best sample the forage actually eaten by .the animals. Crude protein on a dry matter basis was 19.H. 

Keep in mind that this protein contains as much as 1/3 rumen organism protein, so the forage itself in the rumen is probably 

somewhere in the vicinity of 13t protein. Ewes in their first 6-

8 weeks lactation need more protein than at any other time tor 

the production of milk. A rule of thumb value for ewes nursing singles is 1j-14t dietary protein while those nursing twins 

require around 1S-16t. This suggests that the protein in the 

forage that your ewes were eating was low tor any ewes with twins 

and barely adequate tor those with singles. 

The TON or total digestible nutrients (enerqy) in the rumen .contents was S2t . Again, lactating awes nursing singles or twins 

require somewhere around 6S:t. Rumen contents will be lower than 

the actual diet because anerqy is being absorbed out of the rumen continuAlly. so we don't know it the diet is adequate or not but 

chances are that· the diet is no mora than just barely adequate. 

That is one of the reasons that the awes don't look better than 

they do, but the lambs are looking okay. 

Another surprise was the high fiber content of the rumen content. Again, however, this value probably is significantly higher than the forage, as the highly digestible good stuff 

breaks down and passes through the rumen much more rapidly 

leaving the fibrous remains to build up. 

Mineral analysis on rumen content indicated that calcium, 

phosphous, copper, manganese and selenium were more than 

adequate. Magnesium was low. It was .03t dry matter and should 

be .16-.38t. Theoretically one might see qrass tetany on such 

low magnesium levels. Zinc, also, was low at 10 ppm. An 

adequate amount should be somewhere between 20-33 ppm. 

SEROLOGY: The blood samples from 11 animals, (6 dry awes, 4 

lactating awes and 1 ewe lamb) indicated that 2 of the dry ewes had high titres to Border Disease, which may have accounted for 

their lamb loss, but others, including the lactating ewes were either very low or negative. 

Three ewes, (2 lactating, 1 dry) had been exposed to Blue 

Tonque virus and S ewes (2 lactating, 3 drys) were positive to 

the Ovine Proqrasaive Pneumonia (OPP) virus. OPP virus causes, 

among other things, hard bag and it too, could possibly be 

responsible tor ewes losing lambs or not having enouqh milk. 
36 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Thomas, did you have a word this morning? 

Mr. THoMAS. No, sir, I don't. I am just interested in this as well. 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman's presence. 

We are pleased to welcome George Leonard, the associate chief 

of the Forest Service, from the Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. Leonard, welcome. Your statement has been made part of 

the record. You have one of your assistants accompanying you, and 

I would appreciate it if you would introduce him at this time. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE LEONARD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED. BY BOB RICHMOND, FOREST SUPERVISOR, 

WALLOWA-WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST 

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee on this important issue. 

I am accompanied by Bob Richmond. Bob is the forest supervisor 

of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in Oregon and has responsibility for management of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Mr. Chairman, the Congress has designated many special areas 

to be managed for recreation on the national forests-national 

recreation areas, national scenic areas, some national monuments, 

some national volcanic monuments. They represent many diverse 

settings-steep, rocky, snow-capped mountains, wide valleys, deep 

canyons, wide open spaces, spruce forests, pine forests, eastern 

hardwoods, and, again, many wide open spaces. They are among 

the most scenic areas of our Nation. They offer extremely diverse 

recreation opportunities from challenging white water rafting and 

mountain climbing to peaceful vistas and areas for contemplation. 

And the areas are diverse in tenns of the management direction 

which the Congress has given them. On all of them, recreation is 

a primary objective, but in many of them Congress has given us 

specific indication of the desirability of maintaining long-standing 

historic uses of these areas to the extent that they are compatible 

with that recreation objective, and it has made the job of managing 

these special areas particularly challenging. 

As noted by the GAO report, adequate funding has been a major 

problem in addressing the need, particularly for facilities and for 

maintenance of the areas. But the issues of conflict, both real and 

perceived, among historic uses and the recreational values of the 

area also represent significant management challenges. 

I am pleased to be able to report to the committee that we are 

doing better in funding the management of these special management areas, and recognizing the interest and direct support of this 

committee in achieving that objective. 

For example, recreation use funding for these special management areas has increased threefold in the period between 1986 and 

1992, starting when the GAO started their report, until 1992, and 

that emphasis has continued in 1993 and is included in the President's budget for 1994. 

Recreation construction directed to these special management 

areas has increased by nearly seven times during that period. 

This doesn't mean we are up to standard nor that we have all 

our facilities in, but we are making some progress. But use contin-
37 

ues to rise on these areas, creating new demands, and, as you 

noted in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, the Congress continues to increase the number of areas that are directed for this 

special emphasis. Particularly on our older management areas, the plans envisioned major investments in facilities, and these are the areas that 

we have had the most difficulty in providing the funding and investments. 

The more recent areas have been designed for more primitive, 

less developed recreation use, and we are coming much closer to 

our plans in implementing those. 

We are in the process of amending and revising the management 

plans, particularly for some of the older areas, and in that process 

we will be addressing these issues of conflicts between long-standing uses of the areas and achieving the recreation management emphasis and in addressing some of the other areas you cited, such 

as those in Hells Canyon like the conflict between domestic and 

wild sheep, over the way timber harvesting is handled, beach erosion, and some of those other issues. 

In many ways, the management of Hells Canyon epitomizes the 

issues throughout the special areas. We have not met the investment schedules envisioned in the original management plans, but 

in the last several years we have been making increased investments in the Hells Canyon area. For example, since fiscal year 

1989 we have completed exhibits at the Wallowa Mountains visitors center in Enterprise; we have constructed a small visitor information facility at the Hells Canyon dam; we have reconstructed 

boat launch facilities at Hells Canyon dam; we have completed the 

Hells Canyon overlook at the rim of Hells Canyon, including six 

and a half miles of paved access road to the viewpoint; we have 

completed upgrading 27 miles of existing road to Hat Point, a spectacular viewpoint into the canyon; extensive improvements at Hat 

Point observation site are nearing completion under a design contract; designation of the Hells Canyon Scenic Byway has linked 

these viewpoints together; we are completely upgrading the existing access road, a 24-unit campground, and a raft boat launching 

facility at Pittsburg Landing on the Idaho side of the river; we reconstructed approximately eight miles of trail and maintained some 

900 miles of trail during that period of time and made some improvements on buildings at the historic Kirkwood Ranch. So we 

have some accomplishments to report. 

Nevertheless, we do acknowledge that what we have done to date 

has not allowed these areas to provide the level of visitor service 

that we think is appropriate. We think these should be showcases 

for the National Forest System. We have not achieved that, except 

in a limited number of areas, nor has this provided the economic 

benefits to the local communities that could be derived if they had 

that level of achievement. 

As has been pointed out by several of the Members, the legislation establishing the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area clearly envisioned a continuation of various historic uses in the area to 

the extent compatible, but in many cases, controversies have arisen. The Forest Service is addressing some of those currently, as 

Mr. LaRocco noted, the EISon river use. 
38 

The Forest Service expects very shortly to begin a revision of the 

overall management plan for the area and will address the issues 

that have been cited by the Members in their opening statements. 

I think it is clear that as the Forest Service goes through that, 

it will be a controversial activity to resolve those issues, but they 

are determined to do so. 

We are also putting a lot of emphasis in developing the tourism 

potential of those areas which lend themselves to that, and as has 

been acknowledged, there is good ·cooperation with local governments and with the States in getting recognition of the contribution 

and in publicizing the contribution that these areas can make to 

local economies. 

Mr. Chairman, the managers of the Hells Canyon NRA have developed a vision statement which expresses their aspirations for 

management of that area, and that vision statement, I think, captures the overall vision of the Forest Service about management of 

these special areas, so I would like to read just this short statement. 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area is treasured for its natural beauty, 

historic, and archeological values. It is managed to enhance recreational and ecological values and opportunities for public enjoyment. From the deepest river gorge on Earth to high mountain peaks and grassland range, from boating through the Snake 

River corridor to the solitude of wilderness, this special place has much to offer residents of a work-weary world. We, the U.S. Forest Service, are proud to be the stewards of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. Our actions are caring statements to all visitors and others who cherish this national treasure. We invite others 

who share the dream of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area to join us in 

stewardship and in our commitment to preserve and protect this area for generations to come. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. We are pleased to respond to ·any 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:] 
39 

STATEMENT OF 

GEORGE LEONARD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning Management of Special Recreation Areas 

September 23, 1993 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

It is a pleasure to appear here today to discuss the Forest 

Service Special Recreation Areas program and the changes that 

have resulted since the 1990 GAO Report. 

We recognize and support the Congress' prerogative to legislate 

management direction for National Forest System lands. Systems 

such as those for National Wilderness Preservation, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, and National Recreation Areas were created by 

Congress in response to public demands. These distinctive 

systems are significant accomplishments and serve as models for 

the rest of world as others seek to conserve their natural 

heritage . 

We pay attention to the special emphasis that the Congress 

places on certain areas of the National Forest System. We 

strive to respond to this emphasis through on-the-ground 

management actions that carri out this intent. We believe that 

we can demonstrate increased responsiveness, that we are indeed 

•putting our money where our mouth is." 
40 

The National Forest System now includes 48 Congressionallydesignated Special Recreation Areas, consisting of over 

8.5 million acres. The first special areas were established in 

the 1960's on National Forest System lands. There were four 

areas designated in that decade and four more in the 1970's. 

During the decade of the 1980's, 20 more areas were designated; 

that number has already been matched in the 1990's. Clearly 

there is an increasing demand for these designations. 

Increasing interest in these special recreation areas prompted 

Chairman Vento to ask the GAO to conduct a study of special 

recreation management areas. GAO provided their findings in a 

report entitled "National Forest Special Recreation Areas Not 

Meeting Established Objectives• in February 1990 . 

Principle findings were that, in 10 of the 20 areas studied, 

planned projects such as campgrounds, road improvements, and 

information stations had been delayed or dropped altogether. 

Bight of the 10 areas that reported delaying or dropping 

projects were designated before 1980- Plans for these earlier 

designated areas had generally envisioned relatively 

large-scale facility development. 

In contrast, only 2 of the 12 areas designated since 1980 

reported delaying or dropping projects. Plans for more 

recently designated areas generally focused on preservation of 

natural resources and called for limited development compared 

to the earlier designations. 

2 
41 

Fifteen of the 20 study areas reported that visitor information 

or interpretive services were inadequate or that maintenance 

levels had been lowered. 

GAO linked these shortfalls to funding limitations during the 

period 1980 to 1986. Funding began to increase in 1986, but as 

of 1989 was still insufficient to meet planned needs . 

The GAO recommended that the Chief of the Forest Service 

develop information on special recreation areas and 

periodically prepare a status report to Congress. The Forest 

Service generally concurred with the GAO Report. 

In October 1992, we submitted our first report to the 

Chairman. The Report covered the years 1990, 1991, and 1992 

and covered all National Recreation Areas, Scenic Areas, and 

Monuments existing at the time. One conclusion wa·s that the 

money getting to the ground in special areas had significantly 

increased. 

Comparing GAO report figures for 1986 to our 1992 report 

figures shows the budget line item for recreation use has 

nearly tripled for special areas ($3.7 million to 

$11.1 million). 

During the same 1986-1992 period, while budgets tripled for 

special areas, the overall recreation use budget increased only 

3 
42 

2.2 times ($99~0 million to $216.2, million), reflecting a 

greater proportion going to special areas. 

Over the same period, the overall recreation construction 

budget increased 6.3 times ($10.9 million to $68.9 million) 

while budgets for this line item for special areas increased 

over seven times ($2.0 million to $14.1 million),·again 

reflecting a greater rate of growth in special area budgets 

than in overall national budgets. 

Finally, during the period covered in the Forest Service report 

(1990-1992), the total national budget for recreation increased 

by 60 percent. During the same period, total recreation 

budgets for special areas increased by 77 percent 

($15.7 million increased to $27.8 million), indicating that the 

growth of the special areas budget exceeded the total budget 

increases by 17 percent. 

We believe this review of recent budget trends reflects a 

strong commitment to managing special areas in a quality 

manner. 'The current budget requeat before the Congress 

continues to reflect this commitment. While the emphasis on 

funding special areas has resulted in significant increases, 

the budget needs identified in management plans for these areas 

have increased as well. 'These planned increases are due to 

such things as increased use, new facilities coming on line, 

aging facilities, new areas being designated, and general cost 

increases: 

4 
43 

For 1991 and 1992, funding of needs scheduled in management 

plans has been 55 percent and 67 percent respectively of the 

total estimated needs to implement plans. This -indicates much 

is still needed to bring these areas up to the showcase 

standard envisioned by Congress and described in management 

plans. 

Our instructions to field units for Fiscal Year 1994 contain 

specific direction to continue to emphasize special area 

management in budget allocation decisions. 

In addition to placing budget priority on special areas, we are 

also taking steps to change our policies to improve the 

management of special areas. We have established objectives to 

manage these areas in a •showcase• manner and are defining what 

this actually means on the ground in terms of kinds and 

condition of facilities, services provided, staff expertise and 

other important quality customer. services. This step is 

critical in coordinating management over the large areas and 

difficult geography of many of our special areas. 

In the past, we have generally opposed legislative 

establishment of new designations because they tend to. reduce 

management flexibility to respond to the changing needs of the 

American people. As a result, we had no guidance for special 

recreation areas in the forest planning process. That is 

changing. The policy changes we are proposing would provide a 

5 
44 

process for the Forest Service to study and recommend 

additional areas for Congressional considerati on . 

We are also addressing another major need, that of criteria to 

guide establishment of future designations. These criteria are 

being developed in response to questions raised by the public, 

congressional staff, and our own personnel. 

Special recreation areas have been designated by Congress 

because they are exceptional places to the American people . 

Over the long term, management of these areas depends upon the 

support of local communities. The recreational and other 

attributes of these areas make them major attractions for a 

variety of tourism opportunities. These opportunities hold the 

promise for diversification and gains in the economies of the 

rural communities within and adjacent to the National Forests, 

many of which are now under stress as a result of other natural 

resource decisions. We are working to create appropriate 

partnerships to take advantage of these opportunities. 

Our efforts include developing an information brochure that 

features the National Recreation Areas, National Scenic Areas, 

and National Monuments and distributing that brochure through 

tourism networks. We work with the States to insure that their 

information and marketing materials feature the National 

Forests and these special recreation areas. We also work with 

businesses to include similar information in their 

6 
45 

publications. I have brought along examples of publications 

that illustrate these efforts. 

Our efforts to develop sustainable tourism have been most 

rewarding in the many partnerships that have evolved and that 

continue to flourish. The efforts in Virginia's Blue Ridge 

Highlands Region that includes the Mt. Rogers National 

Recreation Area is one such example. 

In this case, the Jefferson National Forest and a regional 

tourism board cooperated in developing map information and 

other tourism marketing efforts. The result contributes to the 

health of the rural economy of the area. I have included an 

informational map that illustrates how that community has come 

together to tell their story of opportunities. 

What we see happening in these situations are people pulling 

together and accomplishing things that would have seemed 

impossible to communities that feel less empowered. 

I would like to shift focus now and talk about a specific area, 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) . The HCNRA 

encompasses one of the most spectacular areas in America. The 

Snake River Canyon contains some of the most primitive, rugged 

country in the National Forest System. It is also an area 

which has historically supported a wide range of uses and our 

management today seeks to recognize and maintain many of those 

uses. 

7 
46 

We recognize that we have not provided all the facilities 

needed for full public use of the NRA, nor for the NRA to fully 

realize its potential as a contributor to the economy of the 

area. Within '.budget constraints, we are working to correct 

this. 

A decade ago, the Management Plan for the HCNRA sought to find 

compromise and to resolve conflicts within the legislative 

framework established by the Congress. Given issues of forest 

health, local community dependency, historic uses and other 

concerns, resolving these issues has not been a simple 

process. 

We are now beginning the process to revise the management plan 

for the Area. Issues such as wildlife/livestock interactions, 

facility development, management of cultural resources such as 

the irreplaceable petroglyphs, beach erosion, timber harvest, 

and other issues will need to be addressed. 

I would like to close by noting that we have developed a •video 

report• in response to public inquiries that describe our 

programs for Hells Canyon. I have copies for the Committee 

that they can review at their pleasure. The video is 

accompanied by an information booklet that illustrates the 

presentations being developed by several of the more developed 

special recreation areas to communicate their programs. 

8 
47 

Also included with the video is a Hells Canyon brochure that 

was developed in partnership with the Idaho Travel Council, the 

Lewiston Chamber of Commerce, the Baker County Visitor and 

Convention Bureau, Clarkston Chamber of Commerce, the 

Lewis-Clark Bconomic Development Association and the Forest 

Service . This brochure is being translated in German and is 

being used in tourism marketing efforts both at home and 

abroad. 

I also invite the Subcommittee members and staff to come out 

and see for themselves what we are doing and talk to the people 

in the field who are doing the work. 

This concludes my prepared statement · and I would be ' pleased 

answer the ·Subcommittee•s questions. 

9 
48 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Chief Leonard, and we thank Bob Richmond, the supervisor from the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

I have learned to talk Pacific Northwest, I guess. I keep wanting 

to pronounce all the vowels. Mr. SMITH. How do you pronounce 0-R-E-G-0-N, Mr. Chairman? That is a clue. Many say it the "OreGON," Mr. Chairman. 

We always know they are strangers. 

Mr. VENTO. Well I think enough on that one. [Laughter.] 

In any case, I would just like to point out, first of all, the issue 

here today is to look at the NRA. Obviously, there is a lot of controversy about proposals in Congress dealing with substantial 

changes in terms of designation. 

In fact, my interest in this has been one, I think, shared on a 

pretty broad basis: The way that we proceed in terms of managing 

NRA's and the designation of them and what is happening on the 

ground. The concerns here, of course, have been expressed on not 

just this particular NRA but with the Sawtooth-Bitterroot area, the 

NRA on that area, and many others as we move forward. 

One of the points I would also like to make is that there .is more 

than one designation in this particular area. It isn't simply an NRA 

designation. In fact, the Snake River and its tributaries are designated wild and scenic. Is that correct, Mr. Leonard? 

Mr. LEONARD. A portion within the area, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. So I think the conflicts that I was referring to in this 

area relate to that issue in terms of jet boat use on those areasjet skis or whatever they are using there. So that is a concern. I 

just wanted to make that clear in terms of what is happening. 

Mr. Leonard, each one of these 28 that I talked about, you talked 

about 48 areas. You might want to explain the difference to the 

committee and to the chairman about what you included that I 

didn't. I am sure you know the nomenclature better than I. 

Each one of these that has been designated has a specific mandate, a specific law that guides them, and we don't have basically 

a generic act. I am not proposing at this point that we do, but I 

would be interested in the Forest Service's views with regard to 

that and the differential in the 28 versus the 48 that I identified 

and that you testified to. 

Mr. LEONARD. The difference is, I think, in counting. I count 29 

that I think are consistent with your 28 where we designated areas 

and the very nature of the name of the area implies its recreational 

values as well as the · others, and that would include the national 

recreation areas, the national scenic areas, and the national monuments. 

But then there are some other areas, congressionally designated 

areas, which Congress hasn't given a special name, but they have 

directed special management for a portion of that area, and it is 

very similar to some of the management prescriptions that Mr. 

LaRocco is talking about in his legislation on the Idaho wilderness 

bill. That would include such areas as the King's River special 

management area where special emphasis was given to protection 

of the King's River corridor between the Sierra and the Sequoia 

National Forest, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit which, 

while it has a recreation role, also was created very much to protect the water quality and pristine nature of that lake; and then 
49 

a large number of areas designated on the Tongass to cover special 

features on the Forest. 

I think there are 29 management units that clearly meet the concept of a national recreation area in terms of the kinds of management that are directed to that. 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate that. We will try to assess which one we 

excluded and you included in terms of my thought process, anyway. 

What about the second part of the question with regard to moving to a more consistent act that we could reference and simply 

identify the areas rather than writing the language specifically for 

each management area? 

Mr. LEONARD. We have been trying within our directive system 

to come up with descriptions of the areas and describe what would 

be included in a national recreation area that would distinguish it 

from a national scenic .area and why certain areas would be called 

national volcanic areas rather than just a national recreation. area 

or something of that sort. We are working on that. We have not 

quite completed that activity. 

I think it would be useful to share that with the committee and, 

if we had a kind of common vision to approach these, I don't know 

that there is a necessity to have them all named the same thing, 

but it seems to me that if we could have some kind of agreement 

on what attributes would drive it into one name .or the other, then 

we could move toward agreement on what the implications were of 

designating an area as a recreation area versus a scenic area versus a monument. 

Mr. VENTO. I am not so concerned about what they are named 

insofar as that is concerned. That is another sort of cosmetic concern. The issue I would be interested in is whether it has the attributes, for instance, in terms of visitation, recreational use, natural features, and so forth. That becomes a somewhat subjective 

question, although I think it is possible in terms and size and features and so forth, geologic or geographic, that are important. But 

the concern that I would have, more than that, is trying to set 

down what the management criteria are consistently. 

For instance, we have had suggestions to do things very dif- ferently in some NRAs than others, and the only authority I have 

is to say, well, on a precedential basis, we haven't done that on the 

other 28, but that is a pretty thin reed. 

For instance, in the last Congress, there was a name assigned to 

one of the recreation areas of one of my revered colleagues and 

friends, but that was not something that had been done, but I 

think it should raise the red flags on this particular issue, which 

is potentially very open to that sort of modification and criteria 

which, in fact, I think is not desirable. 

Mr. LEONARD. I would agree that it is not desirable, and I think 

it would be worthwhile to try and define what the attributes are 

so that we wouldn't have to have some of these debates on each 

bill, where people would know what the expectations are when an 

area was given specific designation. 

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, historically the Forest Service 

has tended to oppose special designations within the National Forest System because we wanted to maintain--
50 

Mr. VENTO. I think you have lost that particular battle and you 

ought to recognize that. When you are counting 48 and I am counting 28, we obviously have crossed that particular threshold. 

Mr. LEONARD. That is what I was going to observe, Mr. Chairman. We have crossed that threshold, and I would anticipate that 

in the future, as we redo some of our management plans, we would 

be proposing, we would be the advocates of special classification for 

some areas, it wouldn't all have to come from the Congressional 

side, and if we are going to do that, we need to have some guidance 

to our people as to what the attributes are that would be appropriate for them to make those kinds of recommendations. 

Mt. VENTO. Let me ask a couple of general questions and then 

recognize my colleagues, who are eager to talk, I expect, specifically 

about the Hells Canyon. 

The GAO reported a significant shortage of personnel on the 

ground in many of these NRAs in this report. Of course, it had only 

included 25 because we had designated three more since then, or 

four more. It stated that, for instance, ''This resulted in less attention at the campground"-you know, human waste was being 

dumped into rivers and even in some rivers, for instance, where 

salmon occurred, salmon spawning areas. In fact, Hells Canyon 

would be in that category. I don't remember specifically if they 

were referencing Hells Canyon. 

What has been the situation? Of course, this study began, I 

guess, in 1988 and 1989 through 1990. It was reported. What can 

you tell me about the on-the-ground personnel and specifically 

problems like this, a problem with campground lack of supervision 

and so forth in the NRAs? 

Mr. LEONARD. We have been successful, with the support of this 

committee, in getting increased funding both for the operations and 

maintenance, the on-the-ground use, and for investments to address some of those problems of inadequate facilities. 

That increase in funding has been significant, particularly when 

you recognize the period of budget constraint that we have been in, 

and that has enabled us to put more people on the ground and to 

do some of the things to correct the problems out there. As I indicated in my testimony, we are not there yet, but we are making 

some progress in this area. 

Mr. VENTO. You testified generally about Hells Canyon and some 

of the infrastructure. Some of that even becomes controversial, because if you build a road, you are modifying the natural resources 

in the area and you are obviously providing an access point to a 

camp site to overview. You are going to have visitation increase, 

and if you don't have the personnel there, you have actually 

compounded your problem in terms of the dispersal of people and 

in terms of modification of that natural resource. 

So some of these actually compound the problem, don't they? 

Mr. LEONARD. They certainly have the potential to compound the 

problem. Maybe Supervisor Richmond will want to comment further, but I would just observe that the roads that we have done in 

Hells Canyon have largely been the reconstruction of existing roads 

to provide for safe travel, to reduce the erosion and sediment off 

those roads, and then to provide sanitation, potable water, and 
51 

other facilities for the use of people. The people were there. The 

question was the quality of their experience. 

There is no question that as you bring more people into an area, 

the issue with regard to protection of cultural resources is there. 

We are trying to resolve that issue through educational programs, 

to get people who are using these resources to recognize the values 

that are out there in those historic things, such as the petroglyphs 

in Hells Canyon. We think that that probably offers the most correct way of providing a level of protection there, short of putting 

a big chain link fence around it and saying people can't go there 

at all. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the problems with the designation of such 

areas and the subsequent publication and identification to the public of that designation is that you have an increase in terms of visitor days, visitor incidence, to those sites. 

What type of numbers do we have in terms of increased visits to 

most of the NRAs in general? I know we have Hells Canyon specifically. Can you speak to that particular issue? We hear about significant increases in terms of other agencies, land management 

agencies, to their sites. 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes, we are getting increasing visits, and there is 

no question that these special designations become an attraction 

because they are well publicized across the country. That is why 

there is support for these very often by the local communities, because they want that economic development, and it, in fact, comes, 

and particularly as the facilities are there to give people a quality 

experience, then we do get the increased use. 

Frankly, one of the concerns that we have had-1 think we have 

expressed it to this committee, we certainly have to our appropriations committees-is that it has been easier to get investment 

funds, easier to get money for a facility, than it has been to get the 

money to maintain that facility and staff it, and we need to maintain a proper balance in our funding between the investments that 

somebody will go out and dedicate and the funding to make sure 

that we have the people to staff it and provide the level of care, 

including official presence, to deal with such things as potential 

damage, to protect those areas and carry out our responsibilities. 

Mr. VENTO. You would have more bill rehabilitation ribbon 

cuttings. 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Richmond, welcome to the other side of the moon. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Leonard. 

Mr. LEONARD. Good morning. 

Mr. SMITH. Gentlemen, I want to specifically discuss some issues 

within Hells Canyon itself. As you know, there is a disagreement 

within the scientific community as to whether domestic sheep are 

carriers of bacteria that cause bighorn sheep to die. 

We know there was an extensive study done by the University 

of Idaho that found 90 percent of the bighorns in Owyhee County 

were growing at healthy rates carrying strains of this same bacteria. Similar results were found in Nevada. 
52 

With that in mind, I am curious why the Forest Service briefing 

book on Hells Canyon dated March 1993 states that protective 

measures to minimize contact between domestic and bighorn sheep 

should be done; moreover, this may result in a reduction of domestic sheep raising within the NRA. 

If, indeed, there is question within the scientific community 

about this bacteria, are we jumping to conclusions? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Congressman, on May 10 of this year we hosted 

a meeting of the researchers who are working on the disease with 

domestic sheep and wild sheep, that whole question, including Dr. 

Ferrett of WSU. 

Mr. SMITH. Is that the Washington State biologist? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, and Dr. Al Ward from the Idaho Department of Agriculture, Dr. Dave Hunter from the Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game, and there are two camps in terms of conclusions. Dr. Ferrett will, as I understand, present his testimony 

today. He believes that he has conclusive evidence that there is disease transmission between domestic sheep and wild sheep. Dr. 

Alvin Ward does not believe that there is conclusive evidence. 

When we asked the researchers at that May 10 meeting what 

would be their advice in terms of mixing the two species, domestics 

and wild, both researchers answered that their advice would be to 

keep the species separate, including Dr. Ward, and so that has led 

us to the conclusion that we do need to take measures to make 

sure that the two species don't mix. 

Mr. SMITH. What would happen if timber management were 

stopped in the NRA regarding our difficult problems with forest 

health in the area, in your opinion? 

Mr. RICHMOND. I think we need to continue to manage the vege- tation in the NRA. The history of that vegetation is a history born 

of fire, and we have evidence, of course, in 1986, in 1988, and 1989 

that when conditions are right there will be stand replacement 

fires, rather large stand replacement fires, that we certainly experienced in those years. 

So if we don't manage the vegetation in the NRA in an ecologically correct way, we will continue to face those kinds of situations where about all man can do is get out of the way until fire 

conditions die down to a point where you can go in there and mop 

it up. 

Mr. $MITH. Is there clearcutting in the NRA? 

Mr. RICHMOND. There is no clearcutting in the NRA. Mr. SMITH. ' I have 'b.een informed by NRA staff that the range 

conditions in the allotments within the Hells .Canyon NRA are in 

good to excellent condition and that trend is improving. ·Is that correct? 

Mr. RICHMOND. That is correct. Of all the district units on the 

Wallowa-Whitman Forest, the NRA has very good range conditions, 

and particularly related to riparian areas, and of course the NRA 

is in Snake River salmon habitat country, and I am very pleased 

with the cooperation of the livestock industry, the permittees, and 

the NRA staff in doing a top quality range management job. In 

fact, I would like to add that a recent effort in Wallowa County 

that I believe we will hear more about today, the salmon recovery 

plan developed by Wallowa County and cooperating with the Nez 
53 

Perce Tribe and agencies like the Forest Service, we think that 

that salmon recovery plan is the state-of-the-art way to go, and we 

are taking that to the National Marine Fisheries Service as part 

of the consultation on salmon recovery. 

Mr. SMITH. Could either one of you, if you have, it with you, track 

for me the funding levels in the recent past for the NRA? Just give 

me a thumbnail for the last four or five years. 

Mr. LEONARD. I guess we don't \lave it here. We will furnish that 

for the record. 

Mr. SMITH. A!l right. In your memory, has it been rather level, 

or has it increased substantially. 

Mr. LEONARD. We just found it. 

Mr. SMITH. Oh, good. 

Mr. LEONARD. Okay, this is the recreation use funding which covers the operation and maintenance. For fiscal year 1990, it was 

$592,000; 1991, $798,000; 1992, $792,000. That is as far as our 

records go there. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And in 1993, $896,000. 

Mr. SMITH. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Leonard, welcome, and it is nice to see you, Supervisor Richmond. 

As Congressman Smith has mentioned, there is a move afoot to 

set precedent in the United States and change the management of 

this area. I think you said that you are opposed to it. I am opposed 

to it. I think if something is broke, we have got to fix it. So we have 

got to put a little spotlight on here, and I don't think that is threatening. 

You know, we hear a lot from our constituents on many things. 

My colleague has just brought up issues that concern me too on 

grazing and timber harvest and historical, traditional activities. But now we are looking at a new plan, a comprehensive plan, and 

I think it is recognized that it is needed. 

My concerns are, has the use increased to a point and has the 

use outstripped the plan? Are we coming in too late? And what are 

we going to do about that? How do we catch up to all of the promotional materials that you have submitted to the committee? And 

all of a sudden, do we have an adequate plan to deal with the increased use? 

The House passed the 1994 Interior appropriations bill, and it included language to direct the Forest Service to halt further development in the NRA until a new comprehensive management plan 

is prepared with full public involvement, of course. 

What are the Agency's views on this measure? Do you absolutely 

feel that the current plan is outdated? And what are the plans to 

move ahead? 

You had talked about the tourism potential, Mr. Leonard: I am 

concerned that things might be outstripping this on how we move 

ahead. So could you comment on the Interior appropriations? 

Mr. LEONARD. Well, first, we think the investments proposed in 

all of the NRAs, and particularly Hells Canyon, in the President's 
54 

1994 budget are very legitimate expenditures that are going to be 

consistent with any revision of the plan. 

There is no question that both uses revealed real conflicts among 

uses make it timely to begin to revise that management plan, and 

I will let Supervisor Richmond comment on the nature of some of 

those changes. But we very much think that the investments for 

1994 are appropriate investments, and we would like to be able to 

go ahead with those. 

Mr. LARocco. You know, the House-passed Interior appropriations bill further directs the Forest Service to use the $190,000 included in the budget for Dug Bar recreation development for developing the new plan. Do you have any comments on that as well? 

Mr. RICHMOND. I am prepared to begin the process of opening 

the plan for revision. 

Mr. LARocco. What is the time line on that? 

Mr. RICHMOND. We will begin that this fall, in Fiscal Year 1994. 

We will complete by next spring the decision on boating use on the 

Snake River, in the Snake River corridor, and that is one of the key 

issues that needs to be addressed in the canyon. 

There are four issues, I think, that are in the forefront on the 

management of Hells Canyon NRA that we need to take a look at. 

Mr. LARocco. In the new plan? 

Mr. RICHMOND. In the new plan. 

We will have one of those issues solved, I believe, as I say, by 

next spring, and that is boating on the Snake River. 

Mr. LARocco. Are you optimistic just because the Israelis and 

the Palestinians have resolved their differences, or what leads you 

to this optimism? 

Mr. RICHMOND. By my nature, Congressman, I am an optimist. 

When I started in this job, I was six foot four and had a full head 

of curly hair, but I am still optimistic that we will find a common 

ground between the float boaters and the power boaters. 

I was on the road all last week attending the public meetings in 

Boise, Riggins, Clarkston, and Portland relative to the proposed 

plan for the Snake River, and what I heard people saying was, 

"Don't segregate us. We have proposed an on/off strategy where we 

would have power boating one week and float boating the next 

week through the summer period," and what I heard last weekand it will be interesting for me to see the written comments come 

back-is, "Don't segregate us, we have lived together on the Snake 

River for a long time, and we want to continue to live together." 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. So that is number one. 

Mr. RICHMOND. That is number one. 

Number two is the issue of timber management on the NRA and 

how we ought to go about that and whether or not an ASQ should 

be assigned to a national recreation area. 

Number three is the issue of grazing of domestic sheep and wild 

sheep in the same country, and we are going to begin looking at 

that, again, as I say, right after the start of the new fiscal year, 

which is just a few weeks away. 

The last point, in my estimation, is what level of development 

should we have in a large, reJnote, kind of hard-to-get-to area, a 

beautiful area when you get into it, but it is kind of difficult to get 

there. I think those are the four issues as I see them. 
55 

Mr. LARocco. I think cultural resources need to be addressed as 

well, but let me ask a question of Mr. Leonard. Have you considered at all a restructuring of the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area from a management standpoint? Are you 

satisfied with the management currently out of the Wallowa-Whitman Forest, or have you considered changing that to any other site, 

any other forest? 

Mr. LEONARD. We had some very, very general discussions 

among the responsible regional foresters, but I certainly wouldn't 

characterize it as a study or a proposal or anything. We have had 

some discussions. 

I think that that might very well flow out of the revision of the 

management plan because obviously what you plan to do with the 

area could very well suggest how you would organize to do that. 

At the present time there are no proposals or anything on the 

table. Mr. LARocco. I want to focus just for a minute on road building, 

if I can. I just want to pass down to the chairman and Mr. Smith 

some photographs that have been given to me, and I understand 

that this is difficult, but I have a duplication of one that maybe 

could be given of a defaced pictograph here. The Nez Perce Tribe 

has written to me about this. I don't know where the pictures came 

from exactly. But there is a road that goes right to those pictographs there, and they are defaced. 

Then I have got pictures here, that I will pass down to the chairman, of erosion on the road to Pittsburg Landing, I mean cavernous type erosion. I understand that the road to the petroglyphs just 

gives total access to the public without any protection of the cultural resources down there. I am wondering why thif~ is. I am concerned about this. You know, we must have some way to assure the 

preservation ofthe cultural resources. 

Could you comment on the vandalism? What is being done right 

now to address this? You didn't make it one of your four points, but 

is there anything that is being done right now to address this problem? . Mr. RICHMOND. There is no doubt that the cultural resources in 

Hells Canyon NRA are one of the outstanding resources. We lmow 

currently of over 1,500 sites in the canyon, of which 536 of. those 

sites are within the National Historic District in the canyon corridor itself. 

The first time I was shown the petroglyphs at Pittsburg Landing, 

I was driven to the site on the old road that was part of the old 

Circle C ~ch that the Forest Service purchased years ago, and 

that access road has probably been there since right after the tum 

of the century. 

The surfacing of the road to the upper landing as part of the improvement of the Pittsburg end of the road facilities actually resulted in a movement. The new road is a bit further away from the 

petroglyphs than the old road was, and so that site has been 

accessed both by road and by trail from the river for years and 

years and years. 

The best advice that I have been given is that the way you protect, other than chain link, no climb, cyclone fence, sites like that 
56 

is to educate the public to the value of those kinds of marvelous 

resources. And that is what we are doing. 

Mr. SMITH. How are you doing that? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, for one thing, we now have uniformed presence at Pittsburg Landing at the end of the road, the first time 

that we have had that since the NRA was created, and we will continue to have that presence there. 

We are also going to make it clear to the public that we will furnish a $5,000 reward for evidence that we might receive on defacing of any of the cultural resources in Hells Canyon NRA. Through 

our interpretation at the site, we will also add another--

Mr. LARocco. I think you know where I am headed here, that 

as we revise the plan, you have to, as the manager of that area, 

respond to these situations. 

How about on the erosion there, Mr. Richmond? That is on the 

road to Pittsburg Landing. . _ Mr. RICHMOND. Prior to the construction work done on that road 

this year, beginning and just recently completed, there were hardly 

any culverts in the existing road all across the road. That road has 

been owned since 1902 by the Deer Creek Road District. It is a 

road that we can only do work on-the Forest Service can only do 

work on it with approval and full cooperation of the Deer Creek 

Road District. 

I can't give you the number of culverts that were installed, but 

it is 30 to 40 culverts installed as a result of the construction, and 

they should certainly help prevent erosion like this that there is no 

doubt has gone on for many years as a result of the poor road that 

was there. 

Mr. LARocco. With regard to timber harvests, I have heard concerns on salvage sales. We have a forest health problem in theregion, obviously. I have addressed that through legislation and actually worked with Mr. Leonard, who has my thanks for helping me 

develop what I think is a reasonable proposal that we are always 

attempting to fine tune. 

But part of the criticism I hear is that salvage sales are used as 

excuses just to bring green timber out under the allotment for salvage. Can I hear a commitment that we are going to just take salvage out of there and not any green timber? Do you know of any 

problems in that regard? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Most of the timber removed from the NRA since 

I have been the Forest supervisor there over the past six years has 

been salvage timber. 

For example, on the Tepee Butte fire that burned over 60,000 

acres in 1988, we estimated that there was 171 million feet of 

standing dead volume as a result of that fire. We sold a bit over 

31 million feet in that sale, and the volume sold on the NRA in the 

past three year, including fiscal year 1993, has averaged a half a 

million a year. The long-term volume sold since the NRA was created has been 7.8 million feet. 

The average volumes sold on the lands that comprise the NRA 

prior-15 years prior to the classification as an NRA was 17.1 million. It gives you the relationship. 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. That speaks to volume. How about green 

timber? That is my concern. 
57 

Mr. LEONARD. Mr. LaRocco, let me address that question. If we 

call a salvage sale a salvage sale, it ought to be predominantly a 

salvage sale. However, the issue of forest health in eastern Oregon 

and Idaho, and western Montana is a function of overstocked 

stands, too many trees. 

Mr. LARocco. High density. 

Mr. LEONARD. High densities. 

If we are restricted to only removing dead trees, we will never 

solve the forest health problem in that part of the world. We need 

to cut green trees. We need to reduce the density of the stands. 

So we need to be clear whether we are having a salvage sale or 

a green sale, but sometimes if you are out there cutting a few trees, 

rather than making a separate entry to come back and reduce the 

stocking of that area, the density of the trees, it makes more sense 

while you are there to leave that stand that you are treating in 

shape to be a healthy stand. 

The public needs to understand what we are doing, and we 

shouldn't try to fool them in terms of our terminology, but if we are 

going to deal with the forest health problems in the western United 

States, we have got to cut green trees. 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. 

Well, I think we just have to be clear with the public. If it has 

made it all the way to this level, I am asking this question about 

whether green trees are coming out with the salvage sale. I mean, 

let's face it, there is a lot of distrust of what all of us do in our 

lives and our worlds, and I think if we have to be clear, then it 

ought to be clear in the sale documents, and so forth, what is going 

on, and I think it builds trust on the ground. 

Mr. LEONARD. I absolutely agree. 

Mr. LARocco. I just want to close, and I have used up more than 

my allotted time. 

As the GAO report documents, back in the sixties, the Forest 

Service policy and objectives for special recreation areas called for 

providing a showcase, and you used those terms. So there have 

been certain standards and guidelines for this showcase dating 

back a long time, and I would say that while we are working on 

the new plan that we keep this in mind with regard to the 

HCNRA, and I am willing to work with the chairman on funding 

so that we get things on the ground there to provide you with the 

dollars you need to realize the Congress's intent. 

It is my understanding that there are no user fees that are going 

to go to the NRA system, in general, based on the reconciliation 

bill. Is that right, Mr. Leonard? As Parks will have some increased 

abilities-National Parks-there is nothing that is going to flow 

down to you? 

Mr. LEONARD. That is correct. Money will have to be appropriated to us. 

Mr. LARocco. That is one thing. When you look at the budget, 

on the pictorials that Congressman Smith showed, there will be 

some money flowing to the Park System, but what you are going 

to receive is going to come through us. 

Mr. LEONARD. We are entitled to retain our cost of collection of 

user fees, but funding of activities would have to be appropriated 

funds. 
58 

Mr. LARocco. Well, good luck on the river corridor. Stick 

around. You will hear more about that, and there will be people 

who will give you some direct feedback, I think, during the course 

of this hearing. But I would say that we should all listen to them. 

The reason for this hearing is just to do the oversight that is 

proper by this committee and by the Congress, and we have a wonderful resource in the Canyon, as you know. It states that the 

HCNRA, for the portion that is in Idaho is the second largest in 

size in the Lower 48. The first one is in the Sawtooth. That is all 

in Idaho. 

So we are keenly aware of the problems, but we want to help resolve some of these issues and move us along to have showcases. 

We really do want to have that, and I just want to make sure that 

the interest in our HCNRA doesn't outstrip our management capability. So thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, and I might say that the questions on 

timber, I find it surprising that an ASQ would be assigned to any 

type of NRA, although I note the supervisor's comments that in the 

four or five years that he has been there, that has not been the 

practice, there has not been a practice of clearcutting in the area. 

But I do note that the area has some of the old growth Ponderosa 

Pines in these arborial dry type of forest conditions, which obviously are one of the bases of resources for the designation of this 

area. There may be a conflict between that and some of the problems associated with it, but I think we need to work that through. 

When we began talking about the green trees and landscape type 

of management and so forth, that is really at the cutting edge of 

where we are going. We haven't been there. We are talking about 

good intentions, not the track record, and as I looked at the road 

photos that Congressman LaRocco shared with the committee, he 

was concerned about the access, and I was thinking about what the 

impact is in terms of the spawning species, in terms of delivering 

that type of problem to the main tributaries, which of course are 

salmon spawning areas. We know how to deal with that, and you 

are going to have to deal with that. 

Mr. LEONARD. That is the specific issue that they were dealing 

with there, with Pittsburg Landing. You had a road that was causing problems for you. You acknowledged that when you improve 

the road, you make it easier for people and you may encourage increased use, but you can't tolerate a continued road presence there 

that creates the kinds of problems that are shown in these pictures. 

Mr. VENTO. No, and I think that it isn't just the cultural resources, but it is these other species, vertebrate fish species problems. I don't need to go into that for the benefit of the Forest Service. We have seen enough of that in Region VI to remind you that 

we need to get ahead of that, and we need to do it now, and certainly of all areas that we would be doing it in, it would be an 

NRA. 

On the livestock, I understand there are 48 allotments here but 

that full assessments in terms of those allotments, has only been 

completed on four or five of those allotments. Is that right, Mr. 

Richmond. 

Mr. RICHMOND. That is correct. 
59 

Mr. VENTO. The problem is, obviously, there is a controversy. I 

didn't know there was such a big controversy between domestic 

sheep an,d bighorn. I just thought it was pretty much an established fact that there was the disease transmission problem between them. _ I know the Forest Service in other jurisdictions has operated on 

that particular basis where we have had bighorn sheep. I guess 

there is a debate going on here about the fact of having to demonstrate that more definitively in this instance. 

Does the Forest Service accept the fact that die-off could be 

caused by this Pasteurela bacteria which is transmitted by domestic sheep or not? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, I certainly accept the fact that the advice 

from the researchers working on the problem is to keep the species 

separated. 

Mr. VENTO. If you have only done four or five of these assessments in terms of the full impact, are you prioritizing these in 

areas where there are interfaces between for instance-is this a 

priority? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Congressman, there are only two domestic sheep 

allotments in the canyon, and those are the focus of the debate in 

terms of wild sheep and domestic sheep. The rest of the allotments 

are cattle allotments. 

Mr. VENTO. I know, but my point was in terms of assessment. 

So those two haven't been assessed. 

I understand. I suppose the easy thing to do would be to try and 

restrict the allotments to cattle, but I guess that has its own problems in the sense that the habitat may not be suitable for that utilization. Would that be the problem? 

Mr. RICHMOND. The steepness of the breaks of Hells Canyon do 

make it difficult to graze cattle, and most of the cattle grazing is 

in the higher bench country in the NRA. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, the debate then would be to phase out those 

two allotments at some point. There is only, what, a 10-year renewable? What is the history or track record of those particular allotments, the two sheep allotments? 

Mr. RICHMOND. There has been a significant turnover in permittees on one of those allotments. The other has been a bit more stable. 

But I think you put your finger on the point that we need to figure out a way to move domestic sheep grazing out of Hells Canyon 

NRA. 

Mr. VENTO. I think that is right. Obviously, there is controversy 

about it. I understand it is harder on the ground to deal with folks, 

but this isn't the only problem. They have conflicts with grazing allotments, these 48 grazing allotments, in many respects. 

I was reading an analysis here. The Forest Service pointed out 

that there are a lot of problems even with campgrounds where 

cows are moving into campgrounds and you have got fences all over 

the place in this area. Here we are now, 17 or 18 years after the 

establishment of this particular NRA, and it doesn't sound like we 

are making any progress, that we have a lot of conflicts between 

campgrounds and other types of NRA uses where the cows were 
60 

even right in the campgrounds with all the cow products that are 

provided. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I did mention earlier that, on the whole, the allotments on the NRA are well managed. I didn't say that we don't 

have a few problems on the NRA, and there are several areas 

where there are some conflicts between recreation use and cattle, 

and we will address that in the revision of the plan with the public. 

Mr. VENTO. One other problem here as we are talking about nutrients being put into the river, the NRA Act requires' the Forest 

Service to regulate the use of privately-owned land and promulgate 

rules governing livestock grazing, not just the NRA Act but the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Here there is a regulation of activities 

on private land, cattle feedlots on private inholdings stretched for 

approximately 40 miles up and down the Imnaha River. Few of 

these are fenced. The cattle are routinely tramping riparian vegetation and of course providing nutrients into this wild and scenic 

river, which is one, of the most critical producers of native stocks 

of spring Chinook salmon in the Columbia Basin. What is being 

done to alleviate this? 

Mr. RICHMOND. There are feedlots on private ranches, particularly along the wild and scenic Imnaha River. We have completed 

the wild and scenic river plan for the Imnaha. The water quality 

in the Imnaha River does not indicate that the existing ranching 

along the river is causing adverse effects to water quality or salmon, and if they do, if the water quality does become affected, the 

Wallowa County Nez Perce Tribe salmon recovery plan as well as 

the wild and scenic river plan give us, I think, the teeth to work 

with private landowners to solve those problems in short order. 

Mr. VENTO. The point is, how much monitoring do you do of this 

river? Who does the monitoring? Does the Forest Service do it directly? Mr. RICHMOND. The Forest Service does some. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife does some, and the Nez Perce Tribe 

does some. 

Mr. VENTO. How many biologists do you have working in the National Recreation Area at this time? 

Mr. RICHMOND. The national recreation area has access to a fish, 

wildlife, and watershed zone in Enterprise. That zone serves the 

NRA as well as the Eagle Cap District and the Wallow a Valley District. 

At last count, there were 43 people working in that zone in wildlife, in fisheries, and in hydrology. 

Mr. VENTO. Are those Forest Service personnel? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Forest Service. 

Mr. VENTO. Forest Service personnel. There are no full-time assignments, in other words, specifically to the NRA for this particular purpose or to the wild and scenic river site. In other words, you 

have organized it differently than that. Is that correct? 

Mr. RICHMOND. That is right. 

Mr. VENTO. So are there fishery biologists in that group? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, there are. 

Mr. VENTO. And have they been consulted and expressed their 

views with regard to this particular phenomenon? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Absolutely. 
61 

Mr. VENTO. And they have not raised objections to this particular 

problem on the river. 

Mr. RICHMOND. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. In my view, it seems to me getting ahead of that particular problem would be important rather than waiting until there 

is a serious problem, because it seems to me that, given various 

weather conditions and other problems, that you could very well 

have serious problems with regard to that type of problem on the 

river, especially when you have the authority to, in fact, keep those 

cows out of the riparian areas and breaking down the banks and 

or the nutrients that are contributed through such lots in terms of 

working with the other State and other Federal agencies in this 

particular instance. 

It just seems to me that saying, well, it is not-we are diluting 

it enough so it isn't a problem, but it seems to me in terms of the 

whole mandate with regard to designation of the river. 

On the river, there are designated wild sections of the Snake 

River, and there are restrictions in terms of floaters, and there are 

proposals to limit jet boats, I guess. I had something about every 

other weekend or something. I saw a document here or an article 

in the paper. But why is motorized use being permitted on a wild 

and scenic river in the first place? 

Mr. RICHMOND. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act itself does not 

speak to power boating, it is silent on power boating. The historical 

use of power boating on the Snake River goes back, if my mind 

serves me right, to about 1865, over 100 years of use on the power, 

long before recreation floating use became popular. 

Mr. VENTO. Eighteen sixty-five. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Eighteen sixty-five, the year the Civil War 

ended, yes. So it is a long history of the use of power. In fact, 91 

percent of the visitor use on the Snake River is furnished by power 

boat. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you permit that and regulate the numbers? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Self-issuing pennits. 

Mr. VENTO. Pardon me? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Self-issuing permits. 

Mr. VENTO. Self-issuing permits. So what is happening in terms 

of use? 

Mr. RICHMOND. The use in power boating has doubled over the 

past six years, and that triggered us to establish limits of acceptable change, a planning process' several years ago led by the University of Idaho, and that has led us to the draft EIS that is currently on the street for public review. 

Mr. VENTO. Has floater use also increased? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Floater is capped during the summer use period 

by a permit system. 

Mr. VENTO. So you haven't capped the jet boat use in that sense? 

I mean if it has doubled, it hasn't been capped. 

Mr. RICHMOND. That is correct. The comprehensive plan, the 

original plan, did in fact call for a capping of power boat use, particularly in the wild part of the river. That plan was appealed, and 

the Chief and the assistant Secretary of Agriculture changed that 

decision and told us that we were to monitor power boat use, there 

would be no limit on it, to monitor it, and when we felt that the 

77-928 0 - 94 - 3 
62 

use had increased to a point where we thought it was affecting social value, et cetera, we needed to go to the public and begin the 

process of looking at that, and that is what we are doing now. 

Mr. VENTO. My understanding is that the basis for this is because the Snake River sites are most accessible. In other words, 

there are other areas that could be utilized but this happens to be 

most accessible to the general public. That is the opinion that I 

read, I guess from the news. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, the Snake River is one of the few big rivers 

in the West where power boating has been historically a use and 

continues to be so. 

Mr. VENTO. Of course, it isn't a historic use, it is obviously doubling in the six years. Mr. RICHMOND. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. It has nothing to do with history so much as it has 

to do with the new-found recreational tool called a jet boat, and 

with no restrictions or limitations obviously. 

When did this reversal by the Forest Service Chief occur. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Nineteen eighty-four. 

Mr. VENTO. Isn't that the same time you were re-doing the plan 

and you haven't redone the plan since then? Is that correct? 

Mr. RICHMOND. We have not revised that yet. 

Mr. VENTO. But you are revising it. You obviously do it on a 10-

year period. Usually you do it on a 10-year period. It sounds like 

on this one you are moving very aggressively, from your statements, to in fact revise the plan. Is that correct? 

Mr. RICHMOND. That is correct. 

Mr. LEONARD. In fact, this motor boat issue is being handled out 

ahead of the general revision of the comprehensive plan. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, these raise a lot of questions in my mind. They 

are uncomfortable decisions, telling people they can't do what they 

want to do, but I think in the process of not doing that we are seeing, really, a deterioration of the resource and the reason that Congress, in 1975, decided to designate this area. 

I am sure we will hear more about this from other witnesses, 

varying views, I assume. 

Mr. Smith, did you have another question? 

Mr. SMITH. Quick, just a quick point, Mr. Chairman, and I want 

this entered in the record. Since 1989, studies at the Cannick 

Teaching and Veterinary Research Center in Idaho have shown 

that the Pasteurela associated with bighorn die-off is of a different 

biotype than that found in domestic livestock. Further research has 

found that the biotype T. Pasteurela implicated in wild sheep dieoff is also carried by other ungulate species of wildlife, indicating 

that expanding elk, deer, and mountain goat may be responsible for 

bighorn die-offs. 

The point: If we are going to take some action in Hells Canyon 

with separation, let's do it on a scientific basis. 

Are you familiar at all with the studies that have been conducted 

in this research center in Idaho? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Yes, I am, Congressman. We were briefed by Dr. 

Alvin Ward and the researchers in May. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. So you know what they have done. Are their 

findings correct? 
63 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, as I stated earlier, there is disagreement 

in the two research camps, and the only agreement that I saw on 

May 10 was advice that we not mix the two species, and I'll take 

that advice. 

Mr. SMITH. So if you don't know, we separate them anyway. 

What does that mean when you separate them? You mean you 

eliminate the sheep permits? 

Mr. RICHMOND. It could mean that, yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Or how can they guarantee they are not mixed? Can 

you? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, that is the $64 question. 

Mr. VENTO. To eliminate the allotments would be--

Mr. SMITH. That is the point I am trying to get at. If we are 

going to eliminate the sheep permits, then I would hope we would 

follow scientific evidence to either conclude or not conclude that 

bighorn sheep, in fact, are contracting this particular Pasteurela 

from sheep and not from elk, because you aren't going to separate 

the elk from the sheep. 

Mr. VENTO. Domestic sheep could also be transmitting it to elk 

and to other types of big game species that then, in tum, while it 

is passive in them--

Mr. SMITH. Oh, I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. Now you are 

reaching. Now you are really reaching. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I remember a little bit of my bacteriology, but 

I won't entertain you today. 

Mr. SMITH. I knew you were a science teacher. I will give you 

that. 

Mr. VENTO. I won't entertain you today with that. 

Larry, did you have another question? 

Mr. LARocco. I just want to make a comment, Mr. Chairman, 

if I may. I think the conflicts between the floaters and the jet boats 

and so forth is understandable out in the West right now with the 

increased access to these areas. As Members of the House, we are 

always bragging about our districts and so forth, and I talk about 

the deepest gorge in North America up in Moscow and the Palouse. It is the pea and lentil capital of the world. 

Actually, Mr. Chairman, Lewiston is the jet boat manufacturing 

center of the world. It is a very popular sport on the Salmon River. 

A few days ago I floated the Salmon, and floated it for about a day 

and a half on an unregulated stretch of the river. About the second 

day, we met up with some jet boaters, and they are still delivering 

mail up there. So that indicates jet boats are a use there. 

The Forest Service has to deal with these conflicts all the time. With the increased population in the West, the agency deals with 

snowmobiles, ORV users, and trail machine folks that get up in the 

back country. 

Mr. VENTO. I agree, and I think there are a lot of questions that 

we don't have the ability to answer today, like the effect on beaches, river beaches. 

Mr. LARocco. Exactly. 

Mr, VENTO. The effect at certain times of the year in terms of 

salmon spawning. These boats vacuum up everything off the bottom and throw it out the back end. It may not be the best thing 

for developing salmon, you know. · 
64 

So there are some problems here, and I don't have all the answers, but clearly we want to avoid that. I think most people want 

to avoid it, but we have got to rely upon a thoughtful, deliberate 

plan that will deal with that. We are talking about the people conflicts here, but I think there are some other issues beyond them in 

terms of resource values that are important. 

Mr. LEONARD. If you look at the Snake River particularly, those 

issues were recognized 15 years ago when that original plan was 

made. Some judgments were made at that time based on the best 

information that was available there of how you made those things 

compatible with the primary objective. 

We are finding now that not all those decisions were right, that 

we still have some incompatibilities, we still have some scientific 

uncertainties, and that is why you have a process of making these 

decisions and then re-examining them. 

Mr. VENTO. I am not so worried about the recreationists, they 

can stand up for themselves, or some of the other groups that are 

concerned about cultural resources, but someone has to stand up 

for these natural resources in this area too, as you know. 

Mr. LEONARD. From my discussions with Supervisor Richmond, 

I think he fully understands that basic .stewardship responsibility 

is the first footstone on which he is going to base this revision of 

the plan. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield, I hope that this 

committee, which has held a hearing, for example, on the classification of the Lower Salmon River-as you know, Mr. Chairman, 

when we look at the language in that bill from last Congress, we 

recognize the traditional uses of the river. 

We have the choice here from a public policy standpoint of recognizing the uses or recognizing the use levels, and we have to 

make that call from where we sit here on this side of the dais, and 

to give the land management agencies some discretion in working 

with the public. 

Also, you know, we have had the development of jet skis. It has 

become very popular now, and on some of these rivers we are going 

to see jet ski use. Frank Church never talked to me about jet skis 

when he was involved in this legislation. 

Mr. VENTO. He is against them. [Laughter.] 

Mr. RICHMOND. I might add that my hate mail went up significantly several years ago when I ordered jet skis off of the Snake 

River. My gosh, you would have thought I was the Devil. 

Mr. VENTO. This is one of the problems where the Forest Service 

had made the right decision at that time. We always say you argue 

for flexibility, but you know insofar as we gave you some direction 

in terms of law on some of these points, it would be a lot better, 

because then you won't have the Forest Service Chief or the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture or someone coming in and changing it. 

Sometimes you can just go so far, and then you have to have the 

ability in terms of statute that it isn't subject to rule and regulation and sort out the local pressure that is understandable coming 

from my colleagues on both sides and their constituents to some extent, by setting in law what the policy ought to be here. 
65 

Mr. LEONARD. That goes right back to the earlier question of, 

what are the attributes, and what are the guidelines you protect 

on certain classifications. 

Mr. Chainnan, I think it is fully predictable that the revision of 

the comprehensive management plan for Hells Canyon area is 

going to come back to the attention of this committee. 

Mr. VENTO. Some people want to m;:~.ke it a park, as my colleague 

from Oregon reacted to earlier. 

Mr. LEONARD. One of the things that I would like to do is invite 

the committee, as a committee or as individuals, to come out and 

spend some time and take a look at that resource. It is a magnificent area. 

Mr. VENTO. I'll swim; they can ride. 

Mr. LARocco. Mr. Chainnan, you can do just about anything in 

that Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. We can put you on 

a horse, a dory, a jet boat. People in my district and Bob Smith's 

district really enjoy that area. It is just something we have got to 

monitor. 

Mr. VENTO. I am sure they would love to get me out there. 

[Laughter]. 

Mr. LARocco. A moonlight ride. 

Mr. VENTO. We had better leave it at this, Chief Leonard, Supervisor Richmond. Thank you very much for your participation and 

your help on this. 

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO: We are pleased to welcome on the first panel this 

morning Mr. Samuel Penney, the chainnan of the Nez Perce Tribal 

Executive Committee, and Mr. Brock Evans-although I don't 

know that I see Brock here-vice president of the National Audubon Society from Washington, and Mr. Ric Bailey, the executive director, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, from Joseph, Oregon. 

Your statements, by my previous request, have been made a part 

of the record, Mr. Penney, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Bailey, so we will 

proceed with your statements, and then we will get to some questioning, I am certain. Welcome. 

Do you want to introduce your associate, Mr. Penney? 

PANEL CONSISTING OF SAMUEL N. PENNEY, CHAIRMAN, NEZ 

PERCE TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMrM'EE, LAPWAI, ID, ACCOMPANIED BY SILAS WlflTMAN, TRIBE MEMBER; BROCK 

EVANS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL ISSUES, NATIONAL 

AUDUBON SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, DC; AND RIC BAILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HELLS CANYON PRESERVATION COUNCIL, JOSEPH, OR 

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL N. PENNEY 

Mr. PENNEY. Yes. I am happy to be here this morning. My name 

is Sam Penney, chainnan of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee. 

With me I have one of the managers of one of our departments, 

Mr. Silas Whitman. 

First of all, Chainnan Vento and members of this subcommittee, 

I would like to thank you for your support on the authorization of 
66 

the Nez Perce national historical parks bill. We are in the final 

stages of the commemoration activities which will be held October 

5 which ended the Nez Perce War of 1877. I thank you for your 

efforts on that authorization. 

Mr. VENTO. You are welcome. Thanks go to Mr. LaRocco and Bob 

Smith who were involved in that as well as, of course, Congressmen Pat Williams and AI Swift. So we appreciate your cooperation 

and work on it as well, Mr. Penney, and your group. . Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to request that the 

Nez Perce Tribe would like to submit additional detailed information regarding the subject. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I might mention to all that are concerned, I 

know that there are some scientists that could not be with us 

today, but they will be submitting dissertations or documents on 

the Pasteurela and the impact in relationship to domestic and 

mountain sheep, and the record will be open for 10 legislative days. 

So if you get it in a couple of weeks to us, we will be sure to add 

it. So that would be our request of you all. 

Mr. Penney, please proceed with today's statement. 

Mr. PENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Nez Perce 

Tribe aboriginal area of occupancy covered some 13 million acres 

of what is now southeastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, and 

north-central Idaho. The Hells Canyon Recreation Area currently 

covers much of that treaty territory under the Treaty of 1855. 

The Nez Perce people have always been dependent on wild game, 

native plants and berries, and fish for subsistence. This way of life 

has been altered by the various forces of the modern world. 

Although the Nez Perce Tribe was pressured into ceding much of 

the land base that was central to this way of life, there were some 

very important rights that were specifically retained during the 

treaty-making process: The right to hunt, and gather, and graze on 

all open and unclaimed lands, and the right to fish in all usual and 

accustomed places were two of the rights that the Nez Perce retained in treaties with the United States. These two provisions are 

why the areas surrounding our aboriginal area are so important to 

the Nez Perce Tribe. 

Another reason that the tribe is intent on protecting these treaty-retained resources is that our people have an interdependent relationship with the natural environment and all living creatures. 

We were the original stewards of the land, and we continue to take 

this role very seriously. In fact, the Nez Perce Tribe has developed 

cultural management plans for some areas that have been discussed. 

Also, the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area has been used 

by our people for very specific and essential purposes including 

worship, burial sites, and traditional use sites. The sacred sites 

that exist in the area we are often times unwilling to reveal, because those sites have been damaged or destroyed, and the Nez 

Perce Tribe has also done a cultural report on this issue. · The destruction of some of the petroglyphs at Pittsburg Landing 

occurred only after the area was provided easy road access for the 

users of that area. Obviously, the tribe is opposed to further human 
67 

encroachment on these significant areas because of the increased 

risk to our cultural resources. 

I have viewed some of these areas, and it is quite disturbing to 

see how these petroglyphs have been damaged, and we think that 

stronger management controls for the protection of these areas, as 

has been stated earlier, have been authorized by legislation and 

need to be followed through and implemented. 

One of the interesting facts that was revealed in the draft environmental impact statement that caught the eye of the tribe was 

that under the statement, it describes that one of the problems 

with increased recreational activity is artifact collection, and that 

is on page four of the draft environmental impact statement. In the 

Nez Perce Tribe's view, there is no other term to use to describe 

this activity but to call it artifact theft. 

There are also many plants, including roots and berries, located 

in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area which have been traditionally used by the Nez Perce people for subsistence and medicinal purposes. Traditional gathering areas will have negative effects 

on the availability to Tribal members of these important foods and 

medicines. We again oppose the objective of providing additional 

roads and opening more airstrips so that more recreational users 

may have access. What the tribe would support are alternatives 

that have the least impact on these areas. 

Also, on water quality, good water quality is a fundamental to 

the health and viability of the ecosystem. We believe that the impacts of the preferred alternative water quality have not been adequately addressed in this environmental impact statement. Although access to and from livestock ranches is addressed by the 

draft. environmental impact statement, no mention is made of the 

effects that unfenced cattle or overgrazing have on the water quality and riparian areas of the Snake and Imnaha Rivers. 

The negative impacts on the watershed from logging practices 

along the Imnaha River create very serious concerns for us. Timber 

harvesting is recognized in the Act establishing the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area as a traditional and valid use of the recreational area. 

Restoration of the Snake River sockeye salmon and the fall Chinook salmon will not occur without extensive measures to improve 

on the present practices utilizing the harvest of timber within the 

Imnaha watershed, which is a migration corridor for these salmon. 

I would like to note that the Nez Perce Tribe has been working 

with Wallowa County in particular, and we· have had some very 

positive developments. One would be the Wallowa County Salmon 

Recovery Plan and others that are trying to address the cultural 

resource issues. 

So we think that, along with the Forest Service and the local 

residents, that there can be some workable plans developed for 

these areas by the people that utilize these areas. 

It is yet to be found whether disturbances on the water affect the 

spawning of anadromous fish. However, our position is that the jet 

boat activity does have harmful effects on these fish and their,h.abitat. The U.S. Forest Service substantiates our concern over jet boat 

activity, citing studies which point to the hazards associated with 

surface water disturbance. Yet, in the draft environmental impact 
68 

statement, the water and those species that depend on it for survival are not adequately protected from the noise, vibration, and 

spillage from motorized boats. In fact, the preferred alternative creates one of higher risk of jeopardy to fall Chinook salmon which 

are petitioned under the Endangered Species Act. The Tribe feels 

that there could be stronger management control over some of 

these surface water disturbances. 

The Tribe also believes that some of these resources used to optimize the protection and access and use can be addressed within the 

areas described by the people that I mentioned earlier. The Tribe 

can accept no more than moderate impact alternatives in some of 

these areas that we are discussing and would support low-impact 

alternatives and the necessity to optimize protection and enforcement of cultural resources, which would include fisheries, wildlife, 

historical, archeological, some of the plants that I have mentioned, 

water quality, and even to the point that it could get into air quality. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my brief remarks by 

quoting one of the Nez Perce warriors that fought in the Nez Perce 

War, and I think this applies to everyone that is involved in this 

issue. In the Nez Perce culture, the grandfather or the creator says 

that the sun is the mother of all of us, the Earth is the mother of 

all of us. Man, as the children, man is the protector. All creatures, 

as the children of the Earth Mother, are created as one. We must 

share the quality and the burden of protection. 

This was from one of the warriors of the Nez Perce War that was 

a medicine man on the Snake River. Consequently, because of his 

strong beliefs, he was later thrown in prison by the U.S. Army for 

speaking out regarding responsibilities of protecting some of the 

areas of the Nez Perce Tribe. 

I would like to thank you for haviJ!g this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Penney follows:] 
69 

~~XECUTIVE COMMIITEE P.O. BOX 3<lS • LAPWAI, IDAHO 83540 • (208) &43-2253 

TESTIMONY OF 

SAMUEL N. PENNEY, CHAIRMAN 

NEZ PERCE TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

Before the 

National Parks, Foresls and Public Lands 

House Subrommittee 

Washington, DC 

September 23, 1993 

Hello. My name · is Samuel Penney and I am the Chairman of the 

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, the governing body of the Nez 

Perce Tribe of Idaho. 

Our aboriginal area of occupancy covered some thirteen million 

acres of what is now southeastern Washington, northeastern Oregon and 

north central Idaho. The Hells Canyon Recreational Area currently covers 

much of what used to be our Nez Perce homeland. Although our present 

day reservation is much smaller, these ceded areas are extremely 

important to us for several reasons. 

The Nez Perce people have always been dependent on wild game, 

native plants and berries, and fish for subsistence. This way of life, as you 

can imagine, has been altered by the various forces of the modem world, 

including the creation of the reservation system. Although the Nez Perce 

Tribe was pressured into ceding much of the land base that was essential 

to this way of life, there were some very important rights that were 

specifically retained during the treaty-making process. 

The right to hunt, gather, and graze on all open and unclaimed lands 

and the right to fish in all usual and accustomed places were two of the 

rights that the Nez Perce retained in the treaties with the United States. 

And these two provisions are why the areas surrounding our present-day 

reservation are important. Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions 

have upheld these reserved rights as valid and have also determined the 
70 

Tribe has the right to participate in the management of the resource and 

the supporting environment as well. 

Another reason the Nez Perce ·Tribe is intent on protecting these 

treaty-retained resources is that our people have an interdependent 

relationship with the natural environment and all living creatures. We 

were the original stewards of the land and we continue to take this role 

very seriously. When we look to solve environmental problems we look at 

the entire cycle of nature, rather than separating out one portion of a river 

or one species, or one particular use. Our interpretation of "Desired 

Future Conditions" is to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem for all 

creatures. There can be no price tag placed on the loss of a species or the 

destruction of habitat. 

This outlook does not seem to be shared by the Forest Service in their 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the management of the 

Snake Wild and Scenic River. All impacts on the environment are 

measured by the type and amount of recreational use in that area. Our 

aboriginal area, including the major portion of the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area (HCNRA), has been and is used by our people for very 

specific and essential purposes, including worship. Sacred sites exist in 

this area, the location of which we are unwilling to reveal because those 

sites which have already been discovered have the potential of being 

damaged or destroyed. 

The desecration of some of the petroglyphs at Pittsburg Landing 

occurred only after the Forest Service provided a new road for easy access 

for recreational users. Obviously, the Tribe is opposed to further human 

encroachment on these significant areas because of this increased risk to 

our cultural resources. Requiring users to utilize foot power, horses or 

float boats in this area would be improvement over the Forest Service's 

preferred alternative which increases numbers that would have access via 

motorized vehicles, vessels and airplanes. [By the way, it is interesting 

that the DEIS describes one the possible problems with increased 

recreational activity is "artifact collection:" (Page IV -DEIS). In our view 

there is no other term to use to describe this activity but artifact theft.} 

There are many plants, including roots and berries, located in the 

HCNRA, which have traditionally been used by the Nez Perce for 

subsistence and for medicinal purposes. Increased access to these 
71 

traditional gathering areas will have negative effects on the availability to 

tribal members of these important foods and medicines. We again oppose 

the objective of providing additional roads and opening more airstrips so 

that more recreational users may have access. 

Good water quality is of fundamental importance to the health and 

viability of any ecosystem. We believe the impacts of the preferred 

alternative water quality has not been adequately addressed in this 

Environmental Impact Statement. Although access to and from livestock 

ranches iS addressed by the DEIS, no mention is made of the effects that 

unfenced cattle or over grazing · have on the water quality and riparian 

areas of the Snake and Imnaha Rivers. The degradation of water quality 

and fish habitat in river systems bounded by large numbers of grazing 

livestock is well-documented. This issue must be addressed in any 

environmental analysis or management plan affecting this area. 

Likewise, the negative impacts on the watershed from logging 

practices along the Imnaha River create very serious concerns for us. 

Timber harvesting is recognized in the Act establishing the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area as a "traditional and valid use" of the 

recreational area. (89 Stat. 1117 at 1122.) How can this be, when it has 

been proven over and over again that land disturbing activities such as 

timber harvesting are detrimental to the quality of water and therefore to 

the fish that depend on that water for their survival? Further, the Forest 

Service has abused its authority to harvest timber in the Hells Canyon 

area by severely over logging some sites. 

Restoration of the Snake River sockeye salmon and the fall chinook 

salmon will not occur without extensive measures to improve on the 

present practices utilized in the harvest of timber within the Imnaha 

watershed which is a migration corridor for these salmon. 

It has yet to be found whether disturbances on the water - affect the 

spawning of anadromous fish. However, our position is that jet boat 

activity does have harmful effects on these fish and their habitat. The U.S. 

Forest Service substantiates our concern over jet boat activity, citing 

studies which point to the hazards associated with surface water 

disturbance. Yet in their DEIS- the water and those species that depend 

on it for survival are not adequately protected from the. noise, 

vibration,and spillage from motorized boats. In fact, the preferred 
72 

alternatives creates one of the higher risks of jeopardy to fall chinook 

salmon. 

Our way of life was to utilize the resources provided in nature and to 

give thanks for these gifts by doing our best to not disturb the ecosystem 

more than what was required for subsistence. We have seen a continual 

decline in the quantity and quality of such resources and this has caused us 

great concern. In planning for the management of recreational areas, it is 

essential that the destruction of any part of the ecosystem is kept to a 

minimum. Because of the necessity of looking at the entire system, it 

would be logical to have a management plan that is more comprehensive, 

so that all values are considered. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. We would 

be more than happy to provide our cultural expertise in the area of 

archaeological and cultural resources in the Hells Canyon area. 

I< =>I 
73 

Mr. VENTO. We would all be in jail today if we were being put 

there for ideas like that, I am afraid. Hopefully, we have made that 

the mainstream of thought rather than the unusual one, but we 

are still working on it. 

Mr. Evans, we are pleased to welcome you. I was reading about 

your history in law here as I was browsing. 

STATEMENT OF BROCK EVANS 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't recite that again. 

We will come back to it a little later. 

I intend to. summarize the last part of my testimony, and I am 

sure that both Mr. Bailey and I are going to have some responses 

to what the Forest Service testimony was as well, and I will come 

to that. 

I first want to thank you and your staff for putting on this very 

important hearing which deals with this really significant area. 

I especially want to thank you, Congressman LaRocco, and you, 

Congressman Smith, for coming here too and taking your time. We 

know you care a lot about the fate of the canyon, as we all do. 

I have to say that it is a near thing that we are here at all, Mr. 

Chairman. If there ever was a lost cause for those who value the 

free-flowing river-that is, the essence of Hells Canyon and the 

value there-it was this place in the mid-1960s. At that time, just 

about every political figure in the State of Oregon favored the 

hydro dams which basically would have flooded out all the rest of 

the remaining inner gorges of Hells Canyon. 

Only a few people inside the Forest Service at lower levels quietly opposed it, as they were ordered to be quiet, and, of course, most 

of the hunting and fishing community did. But it was really a done 

deal, and the only reason we are here now, as my testimony recites, is an opinion of the Supreme Court when Justice Douglas 

sent the whole issue back for a hearing on the issue of whether 

there should be a dam at all, and that was an unheard of thing for the time, and my testimony recites how I was able to intervene 

in the case, and we had maybe one of the first wild and scenic rivers cases put on in law. 

I only tell that story because it is important to understand the 

context and background against whiCh the statute of 1975 and its 

provisions were drafted and the feelings that we-and I was involved in this-and the committee staffs in the Senate and the 

House had when it was actually drafted, because our basic point 

that you are going to hear over and over again today is, there has 

been a gross failure of stewardship on the part of the Forest Service in carrying out not only the spirit of the law but also the letter 

of the law, and we will come back to that as well. 

The history is important also because it demonstrates that from 

the very beginning the issues surrounding the future management 

of the Hells Canyon region-! am down at the bottom of page 3 of 

my statement now-were going to include both the river and the 

surrounding country, and forever after it was going to be treated 

as the unity that it was in fact on the ground. 

While it was obvious and clear that the dams then in 1967 were 

the immediate threat, and if they were built, the wonder and wildness of the place would be mostly destroyed, it was also equally 
74 

clear to those of us who knew and loved Hells Canyon then that 

the plateaus, the side canyons, the splendid ancient forest, the 

creeks, the meadows, and the lakes also deserved the highest possible protection. 

Now I had the privilege, Mr. Chairman, of working with Senator 

Packwood to draw on one of the early maps, the boundaries of what 

later became the final form of the national recreation area. We did 

our best then to avoid potential conflicts such as mining and so on, 

but we felt then we could not compromise on two basic points: 

First, the river itself. The dams had to be forbidden so that this 

silver heart of the place and the sense of solitude and grandeur 

that so stirred Bonneville and every other person who has been 

there since would be retained. 

The practical meaning of this was, down on the river itself, the 

noisy jet boat, the power boat traffic, was to be regulated, if not 

phased out entirely, and that road access to it, especially at Johnson Bar and Dug Bar on both sides of the river, were to be kept 

primitive so as to preserve the existing character of the place. 

On the forests or plateaus above, while the existing and limited 

road network was to be retained and perhaps even some selective 

logging permitted, once again, the wild character of the place was 

its foremost value. 

There was never any thought among those of us in the environmental community, the committee staff, or Members of Congress 

such as Senator Packwood and Congressman AI Ullman, that the 

murmurs and silences of the inner gorge would be turned into a 

noisy circus of whizzing and increasing power boat traffic or their 

campgrounds into busy urban playgrounds, nor was there any 

thought, not even imagining, Mr. Chairman, that the ancient forests of the Oregon Breaks especially, were to be turned into logging 

areas. I think the statute is pretty clear on that. I am just going 

to read you the very first part, and I refer to other parts, and I 

commend it to your reading as well. 

It says here in the very first words of the statute that, ''To assure 

the natural beauty and historical and archeological values of the 

Hells Canyon area, our preserve for this and future generations, 

and that the recreation and ecological values and public enjoyment 

are thereby enhanced, there is hereby established" -and so on. In 

other words "and" is after "the preservation" and after "the natural 

beauty and history and archeology," and it makes very plain that 

public enjoyment is going to be enhanced because of the preservation. That is why I, as an attorney, say that we felt we were pretty 

plain on that point. 

Then when you read section 7 and section 10, which authorized 

the Secretary to make regulations, again it is pretty clear that they 

should not be doing clearcutting, as they are doing in Horse Creek, 

for example-and you will hear that in a minute-they should not 

be taking out big green Ponderosa Pine, as they are doing, as you 

will see, and they should surely be regulating the jet boat and the 

power boat traffic as well. 

Sadly, that is our problem, and that is why we are here right 

now. Yes, the river still does flow free, but the Forest Service has 

permitted a four- to five-fold increase in power boat traffic while 
75 

at the same time actually limiting the number of permits they will 

issue for the quieter float trips. In our view, it is not really so much a question of power boat use, 

per se, it is the amount of it, and that is a problem you alluded 

to earlier in your questioning, Mr. Chairman, and we should come 

back to all that. 

But basically what is happening here is that one use is driving 

out another. The Forest Service is everywhere building and paving 

and regrading roads down to the river and on the high plateaus almost as if to guarantee that the once quiet river bars will be 

jammed and overrun with far more traffic than the carrying capacities of these fragile places can possibly sustain. 

Given this deliberately lax and playground-oriented management 

style, the recent atrocity of the desecration of the ancient 

petroglyphs at Johnson Bar because the agency built and resurfaced a road-over our protests, by the way-very close to it, and 

assigned a parking lot next to it, it comes as no surprise, shocking 

as it is. 

How ironic, in view of this desecration and the future destruction 

of ancient sites that we believe is sure to come from these policies, 

to note section lO(b) and section 75, which I refer to here, which 

specifically directs the Secretary to protect these places, and this 

is not protection of these places. How further ironic to see the same management style--if that is 

the word-applied to the forested plateaus and their long and 

beautiful forested side drainage, especially Horse Creek and the 

Imnaha drainage. 

While it is true that section lO(c) of the Act permits some selective logging, none of us who were party to the drafting of it ever 

contemplated that the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest decisionmakers and managers would essentially treat these forests as a 

timber reserve to make up for the serious overcutting that is occurring elsewhere in the forests, and I use these terms advisedly, Mr. 

Chairman, because we think there is serious overcutting. 

None of us every contemplated, Mr. Chairman, that 75 to 150 

miles of logging roads would be built in these plateaus inside the 

recreation area boundaries, and you are going to see pictures a little bit later. To us, since the question of forest health was brought 

up, this is not an issue of forest health. Taking out the big green 

trees-and you will see pictures and documentation of that-is not 

really helping forest health. You are probably aware of the current 

scientific opinion that goes against the idea of logging the forest in 

order to save it any more. 

I would like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to submit for 

the record the six- or seven-page document of the panel of these 

scientists that just came out. It essentially recommended no more 

logging in roadless areas on the eastside, no more logging in riparian zones, no more logging of any Ponderosa Pine, and t~t is relevant because it applies to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have that document with you, Mr. Evans? 

Mr. EVANS. I don't have it with me, but I will bring it. 

Mr. VENTO. If you will provide it, we will put it in the record. 

I would like to see it. I think it obviously addresses a broader issue 

than just this. 
76 

Mr. EvANS. It does. It addresses the issue of what they call timber harvest and what we call logging big old trees in the recreation 

area, and it is important for the management, especially in view 

of this statute. 

I would further like to submit for the record--

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, it will be put into the record. I 

think we need to see some of those documents. 

Mr. EVANS. I think you do. I would appreciate that. 

The other document I would like to add is a two-page letter from 

Regional Forester John Lowe just last week or so, which redefines 

the question of salvage and they complain that when the Forest 

Service talks about salvage, they are only dead trees. That is very 

important, too, so we can get away from what Mr. Leonard said he 

wanted to avoid. 

Mr; VENTO. Without objection we will add that to the record. 

[The documentation follows:] 
77 

Natio~.~~dubon Society 

:rtf 

September 23, 1993 

Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands 

Washington, OC 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

666 Pennsylvania A~nue, SE 

Wuhin&ton, DC 20003 

(202) 547-9009 (202) 547-9022/ax 

At the oversight hearings conducted today by your subcommittee regarding the 

management of National Recreation Areas by the U.S. Forest Service in general and 

management of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in particular, I 

requested the committee's permission to submit for the record the following 

documents: 

1. ''Interim Protection for Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds," 

"National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington," otherwise 

known as the "East Side Forest Scientific Society Panel Report;" and 

2, Letter from Region Six Regional Forester John Lowe, dated August 12, 1993, to 

District Rangers regarding redefinition of what is a "salvage" sale and what is not. 

The subcommittee gracioualy granted its permission, and these documents are 

herewith offered for submission into the record of these hearings, as agreed. For 

brevity's sake, we have included only the Executive Summary of the Scientific 

Society Panel Report. 

The National Audubon Society believes that this information is directly relevant to 

the subject and controversy surrounding the manner in which the Forest Service 

has "managed" the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area for the past 18 years in 

two major respects: first, because nearly all of the timber volumes logged by the 

Forest Service within HCNRA over the years have been termed "salvage" sales, 

even though they have attained substantial portions of green trees, especially 

ponderosa pine which are desired by the local industry; and second, because they 

have involved logging sales and offerings in areas which are demonstrably valuable 

for fisheries, native wildlife, wilderness management, and natural beauty- the 

preservation of which are central to the purposes of the HCNRA. The Scientific 

Panel Report makes it quite plain that there should be Dll more logging of latesuccesaional old growth forests in Eastern Oregon and Washington, for exampl!!. 

And, we especially appreciate the efforts of Regional Forester Lowe to at last "tell it 

like it is" and at least slow down the all-too-prevalent practice of calling a sale a 

"salvage" sale, when in fact it is designed to log off perfectly healthy large old growth 

ponderosa pine. 
78 

One final comment about the timber management practices inside the HCNRA. 

Forest Service witnesses claimed to you that they are "not doing any clearcutting" 

inside the HCNRA during their testimony. Not only is this directly refuted by the 

photographs of the Horse Creek timber sale which HCPC witness Ric Bailey 

submitted for the record, but we believe that it is also contradicted by the Forest 

Services own definition of what is a clearcut and what is not. According to the 

Forest Service, all the trees within an area of up to two acres can be cut down - but 

that is still not defined as a clearcut (!). We observe that two acres is roughly 

equivalent to two football fields, and that is an awful lot of open space! If it walks 

like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it probably is a duck. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Brock Evans, 

Vice President for 

National Issues 
79 

Interim Protection for 

Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries, 

and Watersheds 

National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, 

Oregon and Washington 

A Report to the United States Congress and the President 

Executive Summary 

September 1993 

Euuide Foreau Scientific Society Panel 

AmericaD rubcria Society 

Dan Bottom 

Oregon Chapter 

P. 0. Box722 

Corvallis, OR 97339 

Sam Wright 

North Pacific International Chapter 

2800 Limited Lane IF-4 

Olympia, WA 98502 

American Omidaolopm' Union 

Jim Bednarz 

Department of Biology 

Boise State University 

Boise, ID 83725 

Ecological Society of America 

David Peny 

Department ofForat Science 

Oregon State University 

Forest Sciences Laboratory 020 

Corvallis, OR 97331-7501 

Siena Biodiftnity lalciame 

Steve Bec:kwict 

Eric Bec:kwict 

P. 0 . Box29 

North San ]IWI, CA 95960 

Society Cor Co~a Biolog 

James R. Karr 

Institute for EnviJonmcncal Studies 

UnMrlicy ofWuhiagton, FM-12 

Seattle, WA 98195 

The W"ddli& Soc:icty 

Mark Henjum, CIMir 

Oregon Chapter 

107 20th Street 

La Grande, OR 97850 

"t' ~ 0.a" {(.[;.~· 
80 

Executive Summary 

For the past decade, the national fon:sa of watem Washington and Oregon have received 

regional and national aamtion because of their ClCtltr.al role in the economic and ecological health 

of the Pacific Northwest. The national fon:sa east of tbC Cucadc aatl are no less important 

and, like the western forests addressed by the President's April For:at Conference and resulting 

Forest Plan, are also receiving national attention. Yet despite the impon:a.nce of these Eastside 

forests, we have no synthesis of scienti.6c information about their status and that of the associated 

biological resources. 

To 611 this void, a bipartisan group of seven members of the US House of Representatives 

approached several scientific societies to form the Eastside Forests Scienti.6c Society Pand to 

"initiate a review and repon on the Eastside forests ofWashingron and Oregon." They hoped to 

make • every effon to include the Eastside forests in whatever ancient forest legislation u · 

considered by the Congress.• The panel's mandate was to broadly review the status of all 

Eastside forests and their associated resources. In contraSt, the mandate of the Forest Health 

Assessment Team (the Everett Pand) was narrower. ThU team foc:used Wgdy on forest health 

and only in six river basins; their repon u dcsc:ribed as "general in nature" (US Forest Service 

1993). 

The geographical extent of old-growth forest ecosystems in Eastside national forests has been 

dramatically reduced during the twentieth century; continued logging of old growth outside 

current reserves will jeopardiu unknown numbers of native species. Forest harvest and other 

human actions have also changed the charaacr of many other components of Eastside landscapes. 

including rivers with their populatiom of resident and migratory saltnonids. Many ecologists 

believe that the combined c:ffeeta of logging old growth and fire prevention have •igni6cantly 

increased the vulnerability of Eastside landscapes to catastrophic dUturbances, further threatening 

what are already severely reduced habitats. 

The Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel pulled together existing infonnation in a 

repon that defines current conditions and offers interim recommendations for protecting the 

remaining resources until a long-term plan for protection and restoration can be formulated. 

ThU executive swnrrwy provides an overview of the rcpon and the panel's interim 

recommendations; the complete printed rcpon will be available in October 1993. 

The Data Sets 

Our analysis of lare-successionallold-growth forest (LS/OG)l is based largely on (1) the 

National Audubon Society Adopt-a-Forest Project carried out in cooperation with the US 

Forest Service (USFS) and (2) in-house USFS old-growth inventories. Both projec:tS involved 

interpretation of aerial photography and validation by ranger diluic:t staff and, sometimes, 6dd 

I Ten national forats (Fremont, Winema, Deschutes, Ocboc:o, Mllbeur, UDWilla, Wallowa-Whitmm, Wawchee, 

Colville, Okanopn) ocxupy lands berweeD the Cucade Crest ODd the euran boundaria ofWashinp>n ODd Oreaon. 

2 In this repon we follow the ddlnition of late-succalional/old-powth forat (LS/OG) IS ......I in Hopkins 

(1992), Hopkins eta!. (1992a,b), ancl Williams ec al. (1992a,b) wich cwo imponant -=eption.s: (1) We adopu 

minimum patch size for LS/OG of 0.5 oaa, IS OJ>PC*d to che I 0 to ~ aaeo in USFS interim guiclelines. ODd (2) an 

old-growth uee is ddined by cithu size or age. not both <- Nil repon for mon: detail). · 
81 

reconnaissance. USFS also IUmished many additional details about the n.i.tional foresu of the 

Eastside. Recent effortS by state and regional.chaptea of the American Fisheries Society defined 

aquatic diversity management UQS (Oregon) or their equivalents (Washington). All available 

geographical data were :i.ssembled in a geographic information system (GIS) by the Sierra 

Biodiversity Instirute. 

Resource Conditions 

The forest ecosystems east of the Cascade crest differ signiiicantly from those war of the crest. 

Compared with Westside forests, forests east of the crest grow in a more extreme climate--

hotter and drier in summer and colder in winter-and on soils that are often less productive. 

Their strucrure is more open, with a grassy undeatoty maintained by frequent, light groundfires; 

the habitat requirements of fish and wildlife may also ciifer. 

Late-successional/ old-growth forest 

Current levels of late-successional old growth on the Eastside fall &r below historic levels, 

particularly in lower-elew.tion forests dominated by ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas 

fir. Only about 20 to 25% of remaining LS/OG is currently protected administratively or by 

starute (from 8% in Wallowa-Whitman National F()rest to 32% .in Deschutes National Forest). 

From 70 to 95% of the LS/OG patches that remain cover less than 100 aaes each-too small to 

provide for the basic needs of IIWlY !.SlOG-associated species. Three national forests (Colville, 

Wallowa-Whitman, and Wmema) have no LS/OG parches larger than 5000 acres; of the seven 

LS/OG patches in three national forests (Malheur, Ochoa), and Umatilla) that are luger than 

5000 acres, only one is protected. 

Continued logging of currently unprotected LS/OG at 1980s rares would teducc the area 

occupied by these unique ecosystems tO between 7 and 13% of forested lands in the national 

forests. Further reduction in LS/OG is likely to jeopardize many components of the biological 

diversity of Eastside forests and increase the numbers .of rjuestened or endangeted species, 

especially among sensitive wildlife such as the American marten, northern goshawk, pileated 

woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, and flammulated owl. 

Many areas set aside in current forest plans as • designated old growth • are not old growth. 

The overlap of actual and designated old growth varies signiiicantly among national forests: in 

Winema National Forest, only 16% of designated old growth patches contain mon: than twOthirds actual old-growth forest, but in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 70% of designated 

old-growth patches contain more than rwo-thirds acrual old growth. 

Ponderosa pine: forests have bc:en especially hard hit by logging. Only ~5% of the: original 

ponderosa climax old growth remains in Desdlutes, 5-8% in Wmema, and 2-8% in Fremont 

national forests. But the: impacr of human actions in Eastside: foresa goes wc:ll beyond logging. 

Road construction, grazing, and fire conuol also may degrade forests and associated resoutec:s. 

Aquatic systeml 

Since: Europeans sc:ttled the region, the ability of aquatic systems. to sustain populations of native 

vertebrates has been compromised: large numbers of 6sh and amphibian .taza now face extinction 

in watersheds throughout the Eastside. Salmon production in the Columbia River has declined to 

less than five percent of its historic levels. At least I 06 major populations of migratory salmon 

and steelhead trout have been c:xtirpated on the West Coast, many of these east of the Cascades. 

Resident species that complete their life cycles within freshwater habitats are also threatened 

2 
82 

with c:zrinction. In Oregon, 24 of 25 at-risk raidmt fiah apccia or aub1pecies occur exclusively 

in Easaide water~; 14 arc found in wataabcds within the boundaries or immediately 

downstream of national forms. 

RoadJeu regiona 

Because fOalb criuaoa SO many fOremd areas 011 me Easaidc. aUUng roadlca zegioDS ~ 

enormous CClOlogic:al wluc.. UnfOmmately, mv of thae remaining areas arc p~; in the Blue 

Mountains of eas~m Oregon and Washington, for c:Dmple,less than 8% of722,000 acres of 

forested, roadless area is administratively pro~ Although roads were intended as innocuous 

corridors to ease the movement of humans and commodities across the landscape, they harm the 

water, soils, plants, and other animals in those landscapes. 

Riparian corridon 

Riparian (river, srreatn, and lake-edge) corridon-which link forest and srreatn environments, 

serve as buffer zones proteCting water raourca, and support a disproportionate share of regional 

biological diversity-have been damaged by logging. road construction, and grazing throughout 

the Eastside . . This desauction also threa~ the Sow of high-quality water for use by humans. 

Solls 

Soils on steep slopes, especially pumice, m vulnerable to erosion when disturbed, leading to 

siltation and reducing soil fertility. It takes a minimum of 200 years to reestablish old-growth 

forests on the best, most stable sites after logging; it could tala: much longer on fragile sites. In 

particularly fragile areas, forest cover could be permanently lost. 

Elements and piOCCIRS 

In short, the dements (genetic diversity and richness of species and habitaa) and pi'OCCISCS 

(hydrological, biological, and ecological) that characterize the ecosystems and landscapes of the 

Eastside have been heavily altered by recent human activities. What many people do not realize 

is that such alterations in rum jeopardize the vety real services provided to human society by these 

elements and processes. Only by implementing an ecologically sound management prognm can 

future generations continue to harvest the benefits of these fOrests and their associated resources. 

The following recommendations are designed to protect the remaining resources until a longterm strategy of protection and restoration can be developed. 
83 

Interim Recom.mendarioaa of the F.utaide Foresta Scientific: Society Panel 

1. Do not los laae-IUCCellioaallold-powth furau in eutem OrepD aDd Wuhiaaton. 

The sipific:andy .reduced area and fragmentation of Eamide late-sua:essiooallold-growth 

fOrestS from put 1ogins &Del road consauaion duealal. many fOrest and aquuic spec:icL 

Furthermore, the ability of region.! l•ndvapa . critical aquatic and terreatrial habitats. 

especially-tO absorb and buffu natural and human-induced disturbanc:a is diminished. 

Deferring l.SIOG lopg on all remaining fiagments will create a •rime our: allowing 

scientists to rigorously assess the status of l.SIOG forests and dewlap a 1ttategy to protect 

them. 

2. Cut no trea of any ipecies older than 150 yean or with a cliamctcr at breat height 

(DBH) of 20 iadlca or greater. 

It is essential to conserve u many of the mature trees of Eastside fOrests u possible in the 

short teem to SUStain these fOrestS in the long term. Mature aees have lived Cur decades, evm 

c:enruries; th~ very c:Dsrena: demonstrateS that they have the genetic characteristics to survive 

the full range of environmental variation present in eastern Oregon and Wuhingron. They are 

reservoirs of genetic diversity and serve u irreplaceable seed sourc:a Cur fOrest regeneration; 

they replenish the depleted supply of large snags and 6illen logs, providing nest and den sires 

for many animals; and they furnish unique historic records. As forester Boyd E. Wickman 

(1992) points our, they are •living aamples of our long-term objectives. • 

3. Do not log or build new t'OIId. in ~quaric dmnity management areaa (ADMAs). 

ADMA. are deDned as locations where native aquatic species are at risk of emnction and 

vulnerable to future disturbance, whole watersheds that represent the best remaining eamples 

of native aquatic ecosystems, or connecting corridors that provide an essential link between 

habitats required to suppo,rt fish popUlations at critical times in their lik cycles. Such area. 

contain the last vestiges of quality habitat and genetic resourc:a Cur native fish and other 

aquatic biota. They serve u cornerstones Cur any future efforts to protect dozens of at-risk 

stocks or to rebuild the lost production of native fishes. In addition, they provide the 

benchmarks Cur evaluating dm:ts of land management and ~g the ecological proc:ases 

that restoration should emulate. 

4. Do not consauc:t new roads or log within current (1) roadless regions larpr than 1000 

acres or (2) road.lcas regioaa that are bio1ogically aigni&cmt but uDaner than 1000 acres. 

Roadless regions exemplify the least human-disturbed forest and SJream systems, the last 

reservoirs of ecological diversity, and the primary benchmarks Cur restoring coological health 

and integrity. RoadS fragment habitat; alter the hydrology of watenheds; supply cxces~ivo: 

sediment to streams; increase human aca:.s and thus disturbanc:a to fOrest animals; and 

inftuena: the dispersal of plants and animals, especially exotic species, across the landscape. 

5. Establish protected corridon alons arreanu, mas, lakes, and wetlancb. Ratrict timber 

harYat. road consuuction, gruins. &Del c:uuiiiJ of fudwood within tbae conidon. 

Riparian corridors are particularly important in the semiarid environments dominating 

eutem Oregon and Wuhington. Seventy-five percent of terrestrial species known to occur in 
cbe Blue MounWDI, iOr c:amplc. cichcr dcpaacl cliftalT on ripuian zona or usc them more 

than other habicats. Riparian areas abo function as bufl'm that can reduce du: dfa:ts on 

wa~ of human land usc, such as fenilizcr and pesticide runoff from 'agriadrure. 

PerenDial streams with and without fish should be proteaed by a buffer zone on each side that 

is at least 300 ket wide horizontally, regardless of slope, or as wide as the 1 00-ycar 

Soodplain. whichcv.:r ia grater. Laka, ephemeral and intamittmt sueams, aeeps, springs, 

and walmds should be piOCICCIM by a bu&r u last lSO feet wide on all sides. 

Furthermore, modifying stream configuration by means of instream struCtUreS suc:h as 

defleaon and cabled logs should not be done as a surrogate for riparian-zone recovery. The 

greatest limications to Eastside fish production, for example, are high water temperarures a:nd 

sediment loads; struCtUreS do nothing to mitigate or reverse the effi:as of either of these 

faaon. lnstream strUCtUreS should not be inslalled without thorough watershed-level analysis 

.to determine the approac:h that best proteas and restores ecological dements and processes. 

6. Prohibit logging of dominant or coclomioant ponderosa pine &om Eastside fOrests. 

Restoring ponderosa pine to its former position of dominance in Eastside forests must be 

done to prorea and restore Eastside fOrest CCO$fStems. The marure ponderosa pines that 

remain constitute impor~ant points of origin for any recovery process, whether or not these 

trees are in LS/OG patc:hes. Their proteaion must be a high priority independent of the 

patch size in which the trees are located. 

'7. Prohibit timber harvest in areas prone to lancWicla or erotion unless it can be 

conclusively demonstrated by peer-reviewed lcientiJic: study that·no assoc:.iated soil 

degradation or aedimeut input to mams raults from that banat. 

Protecting soil fertility and stream water quality must be a high priority of all land 

management. ThereiOre, no logging should be permitted on slopes with a gradient steeper 

than 30% on pumice soils and 60% on other soil types. Logging on slopes between 30 and 

60% should retain 40% of maximum basal area,3 at least one-half of this basal area in uees 

larger than the quadratic mean diameter of unlogged uees. 

8. Prevent livestodt grazing in riparian areas acept under strictly ddined conditions that 

protect those riparian areas &om degradation. 

Poorly managed grazing in riparian zones often contributes to degradation of the terresuial 

and aquatic components of regional landscapes. Grazing may therefore be incompatible with 

proteaion of LS/OG and AD MAs, including assurance of their role as sources of colonists 

for restoring adjacent areas. 

The fint step is to ev2luate the condition of riparian areas in Eastside forests, including 

the extent to which grazing is injuring those areas. The second step is to initiate long-term 

monitoring programs to track the condition of grazed and ungrazed areas. If these 

evaluations or monitoring programs demonstrate a th=t to the health or integrity of LS/OG 

and ADMAs, grazing should be prohibited. Elsewhere, (a) if an area has not been degraded 

by previous grazing. grazing could be permitted, but only when management plans (e.g., 

allounent management plans) are revised to incorporate ecological standards consistent with 

3 &sal area is the swnm.Oon of the area in a sa.nd occupied by uee boles; quadratic mean diamew is the mean size 

of trees in a sund. 
85 

the loug-tam pmleaioo of nrcams, and me ping does DOt dcpdc the ripuiaD ZODe; (b) 

no grazing sbould be penniam in degraded riparian zones until conditioas haw been 

restored; (c) after restoration, livatock grazing should be pennitted only to the extent that it 

does not damage restored areas, and management plans haw been reviled to meet appropriate 

ecological standards. 

9. Do DOt los on fnailc .U. antil it ia c:aaclumJ:y ~ by peu-.mc-d 

ICicaa& study dw 10il intepicy ia procec:ced and dw forac i-cgencracion after logini 

ia u.ured. 

Many Eastside fo.teSU grow on areas that arc aansitional10 grassland or deserr (at low 

devarion) and 10 alpine habitat (at high clnacion). Mature ma probably became 

est:I.Piished in mnsition areas only during periods of unUIIIally &:vorable WQthcr. Their 

persistence hdpa maintain soil strUCtUre and populations of beneficial soil organisms, IUld 

ma= ma can s~ low-intenSity groundfira. Foten rcacncration on tranSition and higbdcvation sites may be difticult. Mormw:r, soils such as ish soils may be rdatiwly 

productive but vulnerable to compaction and loss of topsoiL Noxious weeds (usually 

introduced c:mtic spccica) contribute to site degradation if the cover of mature aces is 

remoml from mpe sites. With proper silvi.cultural techniques, however, soils can probably 

be protcered and fotest rcacncrated on many mnsition sites. Before logging is pcrmirrcd on 

a site, site-specific logging plans should be required to demonstrate that silvicultural 

techniques will not diminish the productive capacity of local soils. 

10. &tabliah a puac.l wid!. dae appropriarc diac:iplinuy brcadcb to dnelop loag-tenn 

manapmcat pidclina dw will protect Euuidc fo- &om cboupt, fire. u.-, and 

padaopat. 

Fire prcm1tion and early loging practica haw altered 10mc LS/OG system~. making them 

vulnerable to drought, iasccts, and fire. Salvage (removing dead, &.lien woody material) and 

thinning (cutting small 1M ma) arc nv0 legitimate techniques-but not the only ones-for 

lowering risk from such disturbances. But ladt of conscasus and past abuses, in which large 

healthy aces were cut in the guise of salvqe, lead us to recommend a comprchcnsift study of 

this issue. Scientists disapc owr how 10 define the goals of salvage and thinning and over 

the rules for sdccting areas where salvage or thinning is required. No consensus aists on 

silvicultural practices for minimizing cffcas from drought, fire, insectS, and pubogcna; on 

the conditiona under which l.S/OG should be entered 10 reduce risk of catastrophic loa; or 

on the lewis· of treatment that reduce risk without compromising ecological values. 

Sustaining regional natural rcsoutces and their usc depends on enlightened and comprchcasi:w 

approaches to protecting fotcst health. 

11. &tabliah a -.-1 paacl to produce a cocmiUwed 1UUe1f for racoring dae rqpoaal 

l•ad-,e and its c:ompoaent _,_. F.mph·- procec:tiDJ tbc beakh and intepity 

of rqpoaal biotic aa-.u u WI u the ,_ on which they dcpcad. 

Existing forac plans arc inadequate to address the complcz ecological issues in Eutside 

forests, cspccially with rcprd 10 management of latc-tueeasional/old-growth fY~tCMS· 

Fotest plans must be reviled 10 inteptc new cc:oiOgical undemanding of the inflUCDClCI of 

Euroamcrican sctdcmcnt with the chan&ing societal attitudes now ddining dairable 

conditions of regional landscapes and their rcsowa:s. Before those plans can be reviled, 

6 
86 

a>mprdlensm: inYcntoria of me ftatul of JWurall'CIOIII'Ca must be CXIIDplcled iOr each forest. 

N,tional policies need to be brought into line with national priorities for public lands. 

To meet c:urrmt needs for protection and restoration, USFS personnd need to be supported 

with appropriate funding and incentives. Bec:ause &derallands ate embedded in landsapes 

that often a>ntain significant amounts of private, state, and aiballands, regional programs 

must be grounded in cooperation among dWenc OWDenbip groupt. Loas-~am management 

programs desigDcd to protea me ecoJosical inqrity of n:p.w landscapes must be givm 

the highest priority on private as wdl as public lands. That integrity depends on proteaing 

both the dements (gmetic diversity, richness of species and habitats} and the proc:csscs 

(demography, hydrology, nuaient c:ycling, fire) within regionallandsapes. We especially 

note that this goal cannot be aea>mplished by applying techniques intended to mimic an 

assumed historic:al clisaibution of major habitat types. or forest age c:lasses. Mimic:king 

• old-growth struc:ture, • as advocated by some silviculturalists, ia not enough to protea the 

elements and proa:sses of living late-suc:c:essionallold.,growth forests and. their associated 

resources: 

The pands called for in recommendations 10 and 11 should include representatives &om 

all relevant disciplines and members from federal and stare agencies, aCademia, scientific 

societies, and other groups with appropriate expertise. 

Summary 

Our recommendations a>.ncenuare on the protection of remaining late-suc:c:essionallold-growth 

forests, aquatic diversity management areas, roadless regions, and riparian corridors because they 

are the basic building blocks fot reconstructing or restoring the Eastside landscape. Without 

them, opporrunities will be limited for building a long-term strategy to ensure sustainable 

supplies of Eastside natural resources. 

Acknowledgments 

Funding for developmen~ and publication of this repon W2S provided by theW. Alton Jones 

Foundation, Pew Memorial Trust, and Bullitt Foundation. The US Forest Service, especially 

Regional Forester John Lowe and his stafF, provided digital data sets and answers to many of our 

queries; this repon would not have been possible without USFS cooperation. The following 

organizations also provided valuable assistance: National Audubon Society, The Wuderness 

Society, Oregon State Service Center, Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, Washington 

Depanments of Wildlife and Fisheries, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Oregon 

Chapter of The Wudlife Society, and Oregon and Nonh Pacific International Chapters of the 

American Fisheries Society. Many others aided us in preparing this document; they are 

acknowledged in the full repon. 

References 

Hopkins, B. 1992. Lodgepole pine old-growth definition for national forest lands in Eastern 

Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Interim Old-Growth Definition for Lodgepole 

Pine Series, June 1992. 

Hopkins, B., S. Simon, M. Schafer, T. Lillybridge. 1992a. Ponderosa pine old-growth 

definition for national forest lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest 

Service, Region 6, Interim Old-Growth Definition for Ponderosa Pine Series, June, 1992. 

7 
87 

Hopkim, B., S. Simon, M. SdWi:r, T. Lillybridp. 1992b. While/pDCI fir old-pwda 

ddinition on rw:ionalmrest Iandi in Eanan Oregon and Wuhingcon. USDA Forest Servia:, 

Region 6,1ntcrim Old-Growth Definition for Grand Fir/White Fir Series, June, 1992. 

US Forest Service. 1993. Eastside fOrest~ health aueammt. Volume 1, El=utive 

aummary. USDA. National Forest Syatcm. Forest Servia: Raearch, Portland, Oregon. 

Wtckmin, B. E. 1992. Forat baltb in tbc Blue Mountains: The in8ucaa: of inlecta aad dileue. 

US Fw. Sntl. Gm. Td. Rll· PNW.,GTJl-29S. . . 

Williams, C., B. Smith, R. Mrowb,]. Berube, B. Kovalchik. 1992a. Doup.-6r (in=ior) oldgrowth ddinitioa on nationAl fOrest Iandi in Eastern Washinpln and Oregon. USDA Forest 

Servia:, Region 6, Interim Old-Growth Definition lOr Interior Doup.s-Fir Series, June, 

1992. 

Williams, C., B. Smith, R. Mrowb, J. Berube, B. Kovalchik. 1992b. Subalpine 6r old-growth 

definition on national fOrest Iandi in Eanan Oregon and Wuhington. USDA Forest Servia:, 

Region 6, Interim Old-Growth Definition lOr Subalpine Fir Series, June, 1992. 

8 
88 

------- Eastside Foresa Sde111tiflc Society Puel 
89 

....... , .... ~ SodltJ ..... 

........ Or.- Nldaall , ..... 

AI'S Aq111tie DiftnMJ Mah•••ce Areas 

1........ ..........., ....... . 

• AIS ......... M' Alw 

......_ ~ ....... Or.-~.,.... 

0 fttwllle 1.11* 
90 
91 

t........ .........., ......... 

t

N -I.MIGc .. ., It 22 Coop ........ ~ ....... 

- ...... IMIIIIII ........ rDN-. ....... - ..... Oil .... ._. (!MI ........ ...., 

......... .._.. ................. ...., ,.,.,._ 

/\/ ...... -
92 

E8lllide F...a Sfta•llr ... Sodlty Plmel 

Wmema Nadooal Forest 
Ullited Statu 

uepa:n.nt ot 

ll;ricultw:e 

bvly to: 2430 

~~ Dlftriot llaaiW• 

93 

D&teo ~ 12, 1993 

0.. l'r~d<ly 1 Alo~woL G, I TiaJ.1:11d W1ell C:Oileerzutel ~u- IU1d Mlact Kal..beur Ill' 

•~.aU ·ol>uut. 1:.11• I1BIII1ng or •&lT&g~t •a.~.••· Ciearly, ccnfu•ion rel.qna i.llterual.l:r. 

Olnd eneru&ll.y, alliS 11: hU -gees our c&-edil:>ill.<;:y IIDd ow: Hl&t1.09bi.ps. It ill 

t:U. to br111q t:hl.• to an ud. 

Alneadalent 2400-92-5 'to tile Forest Sarvica Kanuill (pagaa 4-5 enclosed) ilpacifia• 

the =rent dafi.:rl.ti.Dba for .u....a;. ·ll<oa, parti&l '.al.vaqe a&lu, ancl othu 

quaU.fied .&laa. tn tbe :rr 92 •al.• p~, ..,aey t.., of the H&lhaur Rr timber 

sill.aa we>:a idea.titilld •• ••u ... aqe• Mle•, - thouqh a larQe l1WIIbar contained 

&'I "identifiable •al..;.... COIIIPOMilt.• Wa aouqht to correct th1a lut o~. 

In rat>:ospact, our labeling' of 'J)IIrtial •&1'1'898 a&la• or MlU with ~~a:!= 

i.ncluai.mw of ueaa tbat do DOt Qi..,. z:aady evidence of 1110rtality [~4:\!'i.M) •• 

•salvage •alas• haa lad to a breaoh of ~lie ~t. 

! ask tb.st: you li.IL\it tba UH Of th" t".tOnn *ulvJOg• sale" to 11&1 .. -t:.i.ag tho 

detinition as spacifiad In ?41~ n~, item 11, vhieb ~·· 

A llfJtlv.aaq eal• 1.. a t..u.M.r a&l.e ~oa:' whioh t:;hc Fi&a~y ~eaaoa for ent.&:.r "-- "'u 

salvag. S....•ot lnleat:od, doa.d, . daalage4, or clowD t~ •••• 

li'iro-lc.i.Llcd trtaa, wLnd~, ~4 t ..... L•!a&llt"J <:rc>WIIa COI%pl.C W1't.ll a&ai.ly 

idontUiJib.le eipa o~ i..."le.,;:~ a.\.OI..l.v.Li-y (.;VI* to mind. ~ ca.nCSi.datee ~o De 1abtllleci 

•gal.Vag•.• % would &\hl l.haL t.h• t'our ctmracter1"1cs· CODt:aineCl 1n the 

<~•fi.ui.tlon ..,...~,. I.Ho ~.;1-.;-ly 1dent:U1Cta &rut .be pracoau.nant ( g>:aata&" than 95 

parc:a.>l.) wl.~.U1 the ·s&lva;~e- e&le uu. SliOu.lci t.be Ragional Fcreatar iewe .my 

~>l .... .:.r.r inll dJ.l:~lDn, we wtl.J. aii•Cl• t>y t:liAt guidance. 

1\"c 11>119ar will. paRi&.!. a&lvage •al1111 that ::Oiltain •an i.4entif1able ••l"&Qe 

component: (:l5 pe;-cent plus) ba labelled aa "aalvage. • Rootrcit dis-, wl>Ue 

i.naac~: activ.l.t.y, tbi.nn!.ng ~~~~. &D4 ovaratockad atan4e,· c:hll.rai:tariatic• or 

causal :actors ot c:c~ncern to the sllvicult.w:aliat, and o- for: which t,_tmRnt 

uy be i11C:l11ded in a ftl'1'8qe aale (He 2·US.06), a.re no lonQer candi4at.u fer 

tilllber sal.ea 4afi11ed aa "•alvaga• on the H.aihaur !IF. 

I recogni&a ~t.a bavot been made 111 uta ,;reparation eFFnrt-• .onl1 

.uvir<>IDBI1tal -s-..te/lleci.alon noti.ces. I uk that 7nn l.o .... l t:ba sal.a LA 

accord with th<t dil:ection above ill t.ba a4TL•ti•-- lrh•re f• .. U.1a, t.11. 

contrac't. and ~ tacr• lllloul.d :notlect this dinot:t-.tn.. . •- 5'laaal..lo9 Raict• 

sh<Nld nflaa't. t.bA above 4afLIIit.ions throuqh th" lw.'l'• Md sal.a p.--a.tioll 

p.....,. ... 

77-928 0 - 94 - 4 
94 

I 

~ 

L 11111• the 1* 111 .. i I J& tHLOG b-IM.nVW tllua aUc!wd !a Ire..-

*-1 d!nlftLOG; ....a.-, 1t b 111 tl•J ~ .. -'"'CIIU itt 

~ 

~·· ~ Ull llt:d.• .to np~a loR cnd.UIUi~r- ~· pit.t it:' et:_.. 

td.tla tile - of til. gzuelewl, L"~laft, """ ~- ~ ....... 

.. tile au.u: ... , - CIIUIIIIIIt: ., ot:liMvi --

~--- -· 

u.. --.La - ~·.Laoo.c• 01011 • CLiJ.a.. 
95 

- Mply 1:01. 2430 Date: .1Lao.,.n 16, J.llll.l 

~ Ia"" be- - ~•.toa .-... U.. cloof~iUcm ot llal.•fo98 .. 1... .t'~ 01 tJU.II 

d8&1a "i.•h loaw - ·1~ • .. »or.l.e ........,. Wll&t •UM U1! qaal.Ul.8c1 t:o eitbm: 

col.lect 01: -..,..w aser doLlar& DllO .&l:tl10119h uu.. aontuS:Loll IIIILY Dot eodSt ...,.lu .. -wl.W, :t· W8Dt ~ RSta.:e my a.u:.et:i.Da to 11,11 of you.. •• owe i.t to oar 

publica to ulNA a-t o..r pollay ~ with ISSJ' fwl4s cloea DOt pcll'tn)" a 

~1ng Ga:~t:Loll o:t •au...agw• ul• 011 tile~-

Po- serrice .IWII1al 2435, 2~2-5 (9/30/92), apells oat thll policy Oil what 

tYPM of tillbtu:' sal.M qualify for Al"Wfo98 Ale hDd,. caUeau-, IUld 

expiDc!Ltuftll. lama of~· AlM _,DOt" han U1 ~ aalY&qe CQIIIICIDBilt, 

bat Clllrt.aiJlly fit thll Maml&l c!eti.D!tioll u qul.ityillq. 'ftiU hU caulllld a 

p.'"Oblc whea. thll publlc ""l'l'at.& t:o - beect illfMted, cS.a4. duacre4, or dCMl 

tilllb"" when a •al• ia 1mlel.ecl u "A1vaoe:. • 

To avoid. tU. aonfuai.oa., I WIUit :r01l to label aalM .,. ...,,,.,!!"' only v!wA ~. 

~aant:a ue cla&:ly idomt:i.:t!Allle and p.......!nno1flan~ Lft t:laot a&la. X Eeoopl.;• 

there will PNI:>abl:r alvaya 'bA ~ ••'"'1"•-m of t:laeae aalaa tlb81o clo DOt: Ut t1aio 

de:t1nit.!Dn. l'or p!d"""• U' the a&la -u.i.Jia .or. t:haa. U ~at ~ 

ti.llabar, do nnt: r~ll U: a aal•age aala. ~ 4ooo ftOt ~ :rou. E.,._ 

C!011..rnoin!J ''"' ~ 8al•ap coal.<>"" ..... aG l""9 ae lf01I foll- the ~-L.lu&. i" FSil 2435. Jt. will aloo 411- "7"" t:o _...,_ to >:ape>>:t ao;;.....,.l'lJ.•-

v~h .....n.ot: tb&t ~~ o:t :r-z- ~ that i.• U... a&lv~11 ~ ill tlW 

"•i.O<U.o :L'.bcl:ooo< kl.c ....,_11•- 118pc1ct. 

'no -=<>Dt di.lract:.i.cm on appad. -Uuaa ·ill cmr J.!l70 l.accer da* De-E ll., l.99l, .s.- .w>t. c:blulp. J:t· Ule S:Clecl: --tbe dizaatiOil J.A that 

let.ter, ..-.,.. ... .n_. CJ:t wtllodle:r ·1t u a "ll&l.'Q9e• •ue, yoa at.lll h&- 1:o opl:i<m 

to --~~ u.., p:rojac:t: rlioa appeal· 

%t you have any quaftl.Ons :r89Udi.A9 thia ~ion, plaa.e call. either BOb 

De'Vl111 or lita98 Pauillon. 

cc: 

T .l11Jgr1111. 

J.be-.itll 

:r.~ .... R.DtYliJL 
96 

Mtiy to: 2Cl0 

lllldDMd 

~ 

ill tbe ~ l~ of dlzec:tiaa. t~ tbe 11-oiaaal J'O..-t:01r 

~ alwoe Al.M. · 

r 1Ddiaat.d ill "'F ,~ nf .a..,uat 12 c-.r _l.oeecl, - -· -14 pc tbot _.. 

• .,.,,.,.... in •"'" .0.10 - aal.:r U----t• --t ~.LUlO ••J.v~ c ~4 acnt 1a ~ eale.. r aJ..a aot:ed t11at 1.~ t1ao -.ioeal. ro~ 

u.....t u:r ol~ d~ - -u u!.cla a.r ChK pWuw:e. 

-

tlllo Rcll'ioGAl. 

15 ..,...&t ~·· ~~ ~ • .,WI. -· ...u "l'loa: 1L.·Mal.,"4f''•" ill~ •• J..t z:-

u. J:1W1.8ag 10&1. .. ~-­ ar di.rect:i.cm to &"~ u.L. 11..uu-. Dll aoc pat tbe voce ·eu ... .,-· 1A dlil 8a - J..t ~· iol L- 1:llml U .-:- ClMrly idM.t1t1Aal..a aJ. ..... ,.~ 1A tM •lll•-

/ft£,/J~ IWtlt A. aoa!l 

rornt~. 

tnclonrw 
97 

Mr. EVANS. I am just about near the end. 

We feel that the situation we now have can't be permitted to continue. It is a violation of. all the prjflciples that we started on to 

protect about ~ years ago. What do we hink is the solution? The solution, in our view, Mr. 

Chairman, is ertainly not money, that is not the problem. In our 

view, the pla e is being ruined because of wrongful policy and 

spending in the wrong places and lax protective measures. 

The National Audubon Society believes it is time to revive the 

national park idea which was recommended in 1967. This place is 

certainly of national park quality. There is literally nothing else 

like it anywhere in the Nation or North America. To us, after 18 

years, it is obvious that the U.S. Forest Service cannot be trusted 

to manage it with any degree of sensitivity, as we had once hoped. 

The old-timers who once loved the place are now gone and replaced by those who seek to pander to the lowest common denominator of commercial and recreational interests. In our view, they 

seem to have no respect or understanding of what the true values 

of Hells Canyon are, and we submit that their record of management and true stewardship is abysmal. 

Since the Forest Service has failed, and they have had 18 years 

to do otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we recommend that this committee 

take strong remedial action. It could take the form of new legislation, such as authorizing a national park preserve similar to those 

this committee has developed in Alaska where hunting is permitted, or it could be in the form of a national park study. At least 

then we would have an agency in control, the U.S. Park Service, 

which knows and appreciates and understand scenic values, which 

will not log, which is capable of protecting fragile and unique areas 

and which is sensitive to the grandeur and wildness that is the essence of this place. 

At the very least, this committee needs to issue the strongest 

possible directives to the Forest Service to make it plain that the 

American people can no longer tolerate such a poor record of flawed 

stewardship. 

We believe that the Forest Service has had the chance to prove 

its sensitivity to the values of Hells Canyon but it has failed, and 

grievously so. It is time for a change, and quickly, while there is 

still something left to change. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Evans follows:] 
98 

Natio~.~dubon Society 

;rv:! 

Statement of Brock Evms 

VJCe President foe Natiooal Issues 

National Audubon Society 

Before the Houle Interior 

666 Pennsylvania Avenue. SE 

WathiJI&IOII. DC 20003 (202) 547-9009 

(202) 547-9022/ox 

Subcommittee on Natiooal Parka, Forests and Public Lands 

Regarding Review of Forest Service Management 

Practices and Potic:ies, 

Hell's Canyon Natiorlal Recreation Area 
99 

I first saw the great inner gorges of the Snake River, known as Hell's Canyon, 

in September of 1967. In the years previous, as I was coming of age in Seattle, I had 

heard vaguely of it, echoes of whispers of a mighty river cutting the deepest gorge in 

North America through two mOWltain ranges, just a days drive off, in the remote 

border lands between Idaho and Oregon. 

I became aomewhat more acquainted with it in the mid 1960's when I began 

the practice of law with a small firm in Seattle. Among other clients, this firm 

happened to represent the Washington Public Power Supply System - the largest 

combine of producers of public electric power in the Pacific Northwest, who then, 

along with every other utility of the era, was in the last stages of the hydro-electric · 

dam building era. 

My firm's clients - WPPSS - were enchanted by the hydro-power generating 

potential of these inner gorges, and wanted to build several dams there. Their 

problem was that a private company - Idaho Power Company - also wanted to do 

the same, having already built a series of upstream dams in the upper parts of the 

gorge. IPC had in fact already been granted a license to do so by the Federal Power 

Commission (the predecessor of the now-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 

WPPSS challenged this action, and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, 

citing the "public power preference clause" of the Bonneville Power Act, passed by 

Congress several decades before. 

Thus, the only issue in the public's mind in 1967 insofar as Hell's Canyon was 

concerned, was .which interest, public or private, would get the privilege of placing a 

500 foot high concrete plug across the river, drowning out the last 100 mile stretch of 

its inner gorges. If there ever was a done deal, a lost cause from the standpoint of a 

lover of the values of a free-flowing river, Hell's Canyon was it. 

But a strange thing happened at the Supreme Court. Justice William 0. 

Douglas, in a rather remarkable obiter dictum opinion, persuaded his fellow justices 

that the issue should not be just who. was to have the privilege of 41xploiting this last 

great hydro-power project in the Northwest, but ~ any dam should be built at 

all. In a region which saw its great rivers only as sources of electric power or as 

highways for barge traffic, this was heresy of the highest order, and the first time that 

it had ever been uttered at such a high level of government. But there it was; it was 

a Supreme Court opinion, after all. 

In June of 1%7, when this opinion was handed down, I had by then left my 

law practice to become the Sierra Club's Northwest Representative, a vast territory 

whose jurisdiction included Oregon and Idaho. Only a few months on the job, and 

consumed by the struggle over the fate of the North Cascades, then reaching a · . 

climax, I was vaguely aware of the issue, and had already advised those few 

residents of the region who pleaded for help that there didn't seem to be anything 

that could be done, since the issue was in the Supreme Court. 
100 

And then I read a amall MWB item in the Lewiaton (Idaho) Tribwle, 

IIOIN!time that June. It briefly repocted on Justice Douglu' dec:iaion, and noted that 

the whole matter had been referred back to the FPC &x further hearings on the 

"whether" question. in a procedure we lawyers know as a mrumd. 

This was in 1967; tbeJe was no National Envirorunental ~olicy Act. no Wild 

and Sc:erliC Riven Act. no body of environmental law at all - we weren't even 

called environmentalists then. But it eeemed to me that if the gorges of the Snake 

were worth p~ if they were indeed as spectacular and inspiring to the 

human spirit IP'thoee who had been there said it was, then here was an opening -

perhaps a last chance. 01). behalf of the Sierra Club, the Pederation of Western 

Outdoor Clubs, and the Idaho Alpine Club, I filed a Petition of Intervention before 

the Federal Power Commission, arguing that the outstanding scenic and wilderness 

values there fully justified the famous statement of a previous justice, Oliver 

Wendell Holmes, that "a river ia more than an amenity; it ia a treasure" - and that 

there should be no dama at all. That heresy having been uttered again in the 

documents filed on the last day of the deadline, September 1, I then went to the 

Canyon to see for myself. 

I was not prepared for what I saw and experienced that first week of 

September, 1967. Here was not just 11 river - it was a big river, a great river: an 

average flow of 60,000 cubic feet per secorid (twice the volume of the Colorado), and 

twice that in full flood. · 

That alone wu impressive; but that was just the beginning. Immediately 

from the river on the east fioee the 10,000 foot wild and remote Seven Devils 

Mountains, while immediately - again direCtly from the river - on the west rose a 

series of equally dramatic, if not quite 80 high, series of cliffs, escarpments and 

plateaux, including the famous lookout at Hat Point, Oregon - known as the 

Oregon Breaks. From the snowy tops of the Seven Devils to the cactus and desert 

grasses of the river's bottom, 9,000 feet below, then back up the basalt cliffs, tumbling 

creeks and pine forests of the Oregon side, bound together by a grand play of light 

.and form and shadow, a place punctuated by the cries of eagleS, the home of. elk and 

cougar, a place where the. rare and immense white sturgeon still swim in the depths 

of the river itself, this was truly the most remarkable place I had yet seen. It was 

immediately plain that the description of WdUam Bonneville - the first white 

person to see it in 1833 - "that here ia a scene of such grandeur and immensity that 

it beggars the imagination .. . "hardly began to touch upon the beauty, the richness, 

the variety, the diversity, the wonder- and the rarity- of such a place, still existing, 

wild and intact, 80 late in our country's history. 

What was there to be done? True, we were going to get a new set of hearings 

before the Federal Power Commisai.on Cll\ this isaue of "whether"; but we innocent 

interveners had already been assured by those in Washington. "in the know," that 

this was just a pro forma proceeding, that the trial judge, having loog since been 

committed to the dam building side, was going to "do his duty" as ordered by the 
101 

Supreme Court, and then go on arid iaue lllOiher lic:eNe. We could do our best -

and we did; but we knew even then that the Federal Power Conunisaion would not, 

in the end, save Hell's Canyon. 

Sitting on the banks of the river in the deepest part of the canyon, at Willow 

Bar, looking out beyond the c:liffs to the peaks and plateaux, and feeling the pube of 

this greatlivin3 river, Cliff Merritt, Western Regional Director of The Wilderness 

Society and I had a discussion about the CanyOn's future prospects. We knew in the 

end that the solution had to be a political, not legal, one - although we intended to 

put on the best wild river case we possibly could. Merritt argued for seeking 

designation of the river itself, under the terms of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 

that was being considered at the time by Congress and likely to be enacted soon (it 

was, in 1968). 

But while it was dear that it was the free-flowing nature of the river that was 

in the most danger at that time, it was equally dear that it was the whole of it, the 

totality of the place, from the sweep of the Seven Devils down to the river, up over 

the Oregon Breaks and down to the Imnaha Valley just beyond, that should be 

preserved and protected forever; for here indeed was a scenic, wilderness, wildlife, 

archaeological, and recreational treasure that simply existed nowhere else. It was 

very clear to me that afternoon that such a place would have been overwhelmingly 

declared a National Park long ago if it were located in any other region of the 

country; and I so argued that this was .its highest and best use in a memo to the 

Sierra Club Board of Directors later that month. 

However, politics intervened on this point. In those days, as now, sport 

hunting was not allowed in National Parks and the concept of park preserve was 

unknown. So we hit upon the idea of a "Hell's Canyon-Snake National River," a 

designation which we thought would help the public and decision-makers 

understand that it was All the surrounding country, not just the river itself, that 

deserved formal protection, an idea which later took legal form as the presently 

existing Hell's Canyon National Recreation Area. 

This history is important because it demonstrates that, from the very 

beginning, the issues surrounding future management of the Hell's Canyon region 

were going to include both the river inl1 the surrounding country, and forever after 

it was going to be treated as the unity that in fact it was on the ground. While it was 

obvious and clear that the dams were the immediate threat, and if they were built, 

the wonder and wildness of the place would be mostly destroyed, it was equally dear 

that the plateaux, side canyons, splendid ancient forests, creeks, meadows, and lakes 

also deserved the highest possible protection. 

The rest of the story, up to the time of the passage of the Act itself in 1975 is 

well known. From my perspective it was one of three years of intense and grinding 

legal proceedings before the Federal Power Commission, where in fact we did 

succeed in putting on a case documenting the values of a wild river so strong that 
102 

even the dam-oriented trial jiJdae, when he ~y granted a liceNe in 1971, 

lllllOIInCed ~t he wu going to delay its actual implementation Cot four years, to 

give enviroamentalists a chance to prove their aae belore eoogn. - an IJnheard 

of action at the time. 

It wu allo a ltDry ol ptherlr!s loc:al and NgignaliiUppCXt foe potection ol the 

Cmyoa, ol trying to persuade the dilpirited ~ oi the day that it wu 

not a "doN deal," and that the riwr could be made aafe and &eH~ow~ng forever; 

and above all. an eff'ott to educate the public ol the entire nation that there wu 

somethina profound and powerful at stake in Hell's Canyon. a place that could 

bea>me part of the natioaaliiOUl and our memories forever, just lib Yoeemite or 

Yellowstone. 

It was not eaay,.politically, the prevailing paradigm of the time& being 10 

oriented towards dams; but support did mme, and 6rat &om the newly elected 

yoq tenator &om Oregm. Bob PIICbvood. who became the champion of 

protecting the entirety ol Hell's Canyon and its surrounding CIOIIritry. The U.S. 

Forest Service, ll1llfii8U of the lands on both aides ol the river, wu aleo, despite 

orders &om higher up, quietly oppoaed to the dams. At that time and in that region. 

the apnc:y wu not u heavily into the loging bulilvs 11 it is now, and its 

penoanel on .the ground were true "old timers," and had spent yeara and years 

wltldering thtoush the aorges, llvorials its iuunenlity, its rich filheriea and 

wildlife, and bww the true value ol the pblce. 

I had the privilep of woddng with Senatoc Packwood to draw on one ol the 

early mapa the boundaries ol what later became the National B«<ntion Area. 

While we did our best to avoid polmtial confticts in the boundary drawina (IUC:h 11 

.a mine in Idaho which w11 omitted) we could not compromise on two basic points. 

Fust, was the river itlelf: dams had to be forbidden 10 that thillilwr heart of the 

place would remain forever. Sec:ood and equally important w11 the wildneea of the 

place, the sense of aolitude and grandeur that 10 ltitred Bonneville, and ewry other 

person who has been there Iince. The practical meaning of this w11 that on the 

river itSelf the noisy jet boat traffic wu to be regulated. if not phued out entirely; 

and that road acxe11 to it - eapedally at its two main points, }ohnaon Bar on the 

Idaho side and Dug Bar on the Oregon (Imnaha River) side w11 to be kept primitive, 

10 u to preserve the existing character ol the place. On the forested plateaux above, 

while .the existing (limited) road network w11 to be retained, and perhaps even 

some (selective) logging permitted. once apin. the wild character of the place wu 

the foremost value. 

There was never any thought IIJIOI18 ~ of ua in the environmental 

community, committee staff, or Members of c:o.w- such u Senator Paclcwood 

and ~ AI Ullman. that the murmurs and ailences of the inner gorges 

would be turned into a noisy c:ircul of whizzing and increasing jet boat traffic, or 

their campgrounds into busy urban playgrowuia- nor w11 theP. any thought, not 

even im~~gining, that the ancient forests of the Oregon Br.:iib eapecially would be 
103 

turned into logging areas. 

But sadly, that is exactly what has happened; and that is why we are here 

today. Yes, the river does still flow free -but the Forest Service has permitted a 

five-fold increase in jet boat traffic, while at the same time actually limiting the 

number of permits they will issue foe float trips. It is everywhere building 11\d 

paving 11\d regrading roads down to the river and an the high plateaux. a1moet as if 

to guarantee that the once-quiet river bars will be jammed and over-run with far more traffic than the carrying capacities that these fragile places can posstbly sustain. 

Given this deliberately lax and "playground" oriented management style, the recent 

atrocity of the desecration of the ancient petroglyph& at Johnson Bar, because the 

agency built a road (over our protest) within a few hundred yards of them, comes as 

no surprise, shocking as it is. How ironic, in view of this desecratian and the, future 

destruction of ancient sites that is sure to come from such policies to note Section 

10(b) -:-f the Act, which reads: ''The Secretary shaJl promulgate .... standards and 

guidelines to insure the full protectian and preservation of the historic, 

archaeological, and paleontological resources in the recreation area .... " 

And how further ironic to see the same management "style; if that is the 

word, applied to the forested plateaux and their loog and beautiful forested side 

drainages: especially in Horse Creek and the Imnaha drainage. While it is true that 

Section 10(c) of the Act permits some selective logging, none of us who were party to 

the drafting of it ever contemplated that the Wallowa-Whitman decision-makers 

and forest "managers" would essentially treat these forests as a "timber reserve• to 

make up for the serious oveKUtting that is occurring elsewhere on the Forest. 

None of us ever contemplated, Mr. Chairman, that nearly 150 miles of logging mada 

would be built on these plateaux, inside the Recreation Area boundaries, for logging 

purposes. 

But all this is what has happened in the last 18 years under Forest Service 

management; and all of it has happened in direct violation of not only the spirit and 

intent, but also, we argue, the letter of the law. Instead of the quiet of the forested 

plateaux with its small network of primitive roads providing access, yet a respectful 

approach to enjoy the vast silences and immensity of this land, we now have 

increasing emphasis on fully paved and "upgraded" roads, literally begging more 

people to come into the area in inappropriate vehicles, far beyond its carrying 

capacity. And now we also have a wide network of logging roads, to take the ancient 

trees out of there. On the river below, instead of the silences and solitude, and a 

chance to experience one of America's mightiest rivers in a wild setting, we have 

virtually unlimited and increasing jet boat traffic, which is swamping the fragile 

beaches and campsites, and we have the circus-like atmosphere of Johnson's Bar, 

and its resultant destruction of rare and precious archaeological treasures. 

This situation cannot be permitted to continue. It is a violation of just about 

every principle that the original drafters of the Act had hoped for, and it is alowly 

but surely ruining, if not actually destroying, the very resources we had started out 
104 

110 protect almoat 30 years qo. 

What then is the eolution? The NatioNI. Audubon Society believes it is time 

110 revive the National Park idea, which wu recommended in 1967. The place is 

certainly oi NatioNI. Park quality; there is literally nothing e1le like it anywhere in 

the nation. ex North America. AlW 18 r-n. it Js quite obvious that the U.S. Ponlt 

Service camot be trUIIIed 110 1111n111 it with any dep'ee oi ISIIitivity, u we hid once . 

hoped; the old timers who loved the place are now gone, repllced by thole who eeelt 

110 plllder 110 the lowest common denominator oi ClDIIIIIIel'da1 and recreatiorlal 

interests. They seem 110 have no respect or undentandini oi what the true values of 

Hell's Canyon are, and their record of management and true stewardship is abysmal. 

The Forest Service has failed in its stewudship responsibilities here Mr. 

Chairman. and we recommend that this COII\IIIittee take strong remedial action. 

Such action .could be in the fonn of new legislation authorizing a Natiorlal 

Park/Preserve, similar 110 the an:epts developed in Alub and ellewhere, where 

hunting and fishing c:ould be permitted, or it could be in the form oi NatioNI. Park 

Study legislation. At leut theR we would have an agency in CXllltrol, the 'U.S. Puk 

Service, which knows and appreciates and understands scenic values, which will 

not log, which is capable of protectins fragile and unique ueu, and which is 

sensitive to the grandeur and wildneM that is the esaence oi this place. 

At the very least. this COII\IIIittee needs to illue the ltrCJn8est poilible 

directives .to the Forest Service, preferably in the form oi a~ law, to make it 

plain that the American people can no 1oopr tolerate sudu pocx record oi flawed 

stewardship. 

It ill the belief of the National Audubon Society, Mr. Chairman. that the 

Forest Service has had a chance to prove itslll!nllitivity to the values oi Hell's 

Canyon; but it has failed, and grievoullly so. It is time for a c:hanp aN.i quiddy, 

while there ill still IIOIIII!thing left 110 c:hanp. 
105 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Brock. 

Finally on this panel we have Mr. Ric Bailey, the executive director· of Hells Canyon Preservation Council. I note that he refers to 

this as his life's work. 

So we are interested in your views, and of course you are still 

a young man, so you have got a few decades left at least here. 

STATEMENT OF RIC BAILEY 

Mr. BAILEY. Once again I want to thank Mr. LaRocco and yourself, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing, because I think 

that it is really exemplary of a larger picture, which is the future 

mission of the U.S. Forest Service. 

But to get on with my testimony specific to Hells Canyon, I 

would like to have you picture, if you will-and I know that Mr. 

Smith, who has left, and Mr. LaRocco know Hells Canyon and have 

been there-but, Mr. Vento, hopefully you can go there, and hopefully you can picture it with the help of the photographs, a place 

that is literally the epitome of a national treasure. This is one of 

the most spectacular places on Earth, rivaling Yellowstone, the 

Grand Canyon, Yosemite, or any other place. 

But I also ask you to picture Hells Canyon in another light, 

which is certainly less pleasant but unfortunately true, literally the 

abused and neglected stepchild of America's natural and historical 

heritage. 

To assume that the spectacular natural, ecological, archeological, 

and cultural values, attributes of Hells Canyon, are permanently 

protected due to its designation as a national recreation area is a 

grievous mistake. 

Over the past 18 years since its designation, Hells Canyon has 

languished and deteriorated under an ineffectual and undeserved 

"second best" designation. The reason for this problem, we would 

submit, is two-fold. 

Number one, the Hells Canyon Act's intent is clear, but its pro- tection directives are not iron clad nor enforceable, and I say that 

as director of an organization that has on three occasions in the 

last two years litigated against the Forest Service for its mismanagement of Hells Canyon. 

The second reason is that the national recreation area is managed by the Forest Service, and we would submit that problem 

number one would not exist if the national recreation area were 

managed by an agency whose institutional philosophy is receptive 

to the protection outlined in the Act. 

My organization's opinion of Forest Service management of the 

national recreation area is founded on 18 years of on-site observation and involvement. We are based in Joseph, Oregon. We are 

right there in the middle of Hells Canyon, and of the ecosystem in 

general, and right next to the Forest Service office, and, in summary, we would say that the scars incised in Hells Canyon's landscape by the Forest Service will rank among the most notorious 

scars on the legacy of the Agency. This is one of their primary 

showcase areas, the area that they should have been taking care 

of with the most special care above and beyond any other place 

that they manage, but they have failed miserably. 
106 

After national publicity on the mismanagement of a national 

recreation area, even after extensive legal action against their policies through three Forest supervisors and three rangers, nothing 

has changed. 

Now I am going to digress from my testimony a little bit here, 

because we have all talked about the problems. They have been 

highlighted already. I am not going to repeat those problems. They 

are detailed in our testimony with accompanying documentation. 

But I wanted . to respond to a couple of things that came up earlier. For one thing, the national recreation area is a name. The Act, 

especially in sections one and seven, does not talk that much about 

recreation. What the Act talks about is primarily protecting 

ecosystems, fish and wildlife habitat, and the natural attributes of 

the area. Simply because it was called a national recreation area 

doesn't mean that, as the Forest Service sees it, it is this big pie 

that we are going to slice up and pass out to all these competing 

users. 

Hells Canyon is supposed to be protected. The ecosystem is supposed to be protected. The logging and livestock grazing are supposed to be secondary uses and must be compatible with the protection provisions of that Act. . Now, in terms of the bighorn and domestic sheep problem, as 

Congressman Smith was pointing out, when you have got a conflict-and there is an obvious conflict here between bighorn and domestic sheep-the nod should be going to the wildlife, not the 

sheep, and that is the problem that we have, is, with the Forest 

Service. The nod went to the sheep even though there was very 

convincing, if not conclusive, evidence that the domestic sheep were 

killing the bighorn sheep. On the question of clearcutting, I have here some photographs 

that I would like you to take a look at. Mr. Richmond stated that 

clearcutting does not occur in the national recreation area, and I 

would like the subcommittee to look at these photographs. Now, if 

those aren't textbook examples of clearcuts, I don't know what is. Those were cut in the Horse Creek timber sale in 1986, and they 

are right smack dab in the middle, the geographic center, of the national recreation area. 

I would also like to pass out some photographs for you to look 

at that are not enclosed in our testimony package that are of a timber sale that was logged last year and this year, 1992 and 1993. 

Now if I had a dollar, Mr. Chairman, for every time I heard a Forest Service representative say, "We don't do it that way any more," 

I would be wealthy, I'd be rich. 

That is a timber sale, of course, with the seemingly obligatory 

cow in the foreground grazing in the cut-over area. That is a timber sale that was logged just recently like I say, just this year and 

last year. Green timber, ponderosa pine, was cut, Douglas-fir was 

cut, there is what I would consider to be a de facto clear cut, a sloppy clear cut. So clearcutting does, in fact, occur, and the emphasis 

in the national recreation area has been on timber cutting. As far as range conditions, that issue was brought up. We conducted a study just recently. We had an intern conduct an evaluation of the grazing allotments in the national recreation area. 
107 

Eighty percent of the rangeland within the national recreation area 

is either in poor or very poor condition. 

I would like to point out that when that stipulation is made, that 

that is simply looking at forage for livestock. That is not looking 

at native plants, it is not looking at wildlife habitat. What that 

says is that 80 percent of the range is in poor condition for livestock. 

So we have a serious problem. We have invasions of exotic weeds 

that are really unparalleled in the loss of native vegetation in riparian areas that is pretty incredible. 

My last photograph here that I want to pass out, which, again, 

is supplementary, it is not enclosed in our package, is the proximity of the road to the petroglyph site. 

I would like to ask you, please, to envision that site as it existed 

before the development occurred. Now, Mr. Richmond said that the 

road was already there. The road that existed there I wouldn't even 

call a road, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I wouldn't even take my fourwheel-drive pickup truck on the road that existed there. 

The road that was newly constructed was a departure from the 

existing road that accessed the upper landing which was nearly a 

half a mile away from that site. That site, as it existed before the 

development, was a totally primitive site with an old Jeep trail, as 

I said, that you couldn't even drive. I have never seen anybody 

drive on that road. You couldn't drive on it without leaving the dirt 

track. It was a primitive site. 

I think this is also exemplary of one of the problems we have 

with Forest Service philosophy. To them, that was a bunch of 

rocks. It was a bunch of rocks with carvings on it, and that was 

the attraction there. I think the attraction there was not just the 

rocks but it was the site, it was the place, it was the character of 

a place that had sustained for centuries and centuries, as our 

friends in the Nez Perce Tribe knew it and worshipped it, so to 

speak, centuries ago, even as recently as 120 years ago. 

So, getting back to my main testimony, I want to stress the GAO 

report on national recreation areas does not tell the story of Hells 

Canyon management. I think that giving the Forest Service more 

money in Hells Canyon, as we have seen in the past couple of 

years, simply gives them a longer and stronger noose with which 

to hang the canyon. 

Ill-conceived recreation management is one of the major problems in the canyon today. The agency's policies are, among other 

things, turning the canyon literally into a national motorized area, 

with no plans to manage that increased motorized use and increased access. 

The issue in Hells Canyon is not just timber, it is not just livestock or endangered species, it is all of these and more. The tragedy in Hells Canyon is that the threats to it-and I can't stress 

this strongly enough-the threats to it are a direct result of the 

policies of its appointed steward, and that is a tragedy. 

The Forest Service has had 18 years to exhibit a viable visionary 

program to protect Hells Canyon and has failed in what was both 

for the agency a serious responsibility and an unparalleled opportunity to exhibit versatility in its management. 
108 

Now I would like to outline our solutions to this problem. We are 

not just corning in here to complain about the trashing of a national treasure, we are here to propose some solutions. We have 

proposed two sets of solutions. One is in the form of immediate aid. 

And these are outlined at the back of my written testimony, my 

oral testimony. 

Immediate aid would include a freeze on all line items, special 

projects, and timber sale funding until a new comprehensive management plan expressly based on conservation, protection, and restoration is enacted, and that the Secretary of Agriculture should 

submit this plan directly to this subcommittee. Number two-and this is the short-term solutions-reprogram 

line item dollars for current authorized developments in the NRA 

toward the preparation of a new comprehensive management plan. 

Number three, recommend and, if necessary, mandate, the immediate removal of the road and other developments at the Pittsburg 

Landing petroglyph site and the elimination of domestic sheep allotments from the NRA-and I would like to add in this case that 

we don't want to turn those just into cattle allotments, we ought 

to dedicate it to wildlife; that would meet the intent of the Act, I 

think, more appropriately-and a prohibition of jet boats from the 

30-rnile wild designated section of the Snake Wild and Scenic 

River. 

The fourth short-term solution is to immediately initiate investigations into NRA management policies by both the Congressional 

Research Service and the General Accounting Office. 

Legislative options-these are legislative options; pick one of the 

above, and I hope you will. I have three of them. Number one is, 

amend the National Recreation Area Act to provide concrete, nondiscretionary language requiring. protection of the natural values of 

the national recreation area. Number two, initiate a legislative 

study to explore the viability of designating the NRA and surrounding lands as a national park and preserve. Number three, amend 

the National Recreation Area Act to transfer management of the 

national recreation area to the National Park Service. 

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude here. I appreciate your tolerance 

with my running over my time, and thank you again for holding 

the hearing. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bailey and attachments follow:] 
109 

The Dismantling 

of Hells Canyon: 

A Summary of the 

Mismanagement of the 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

Testimony of the Hells Canyon Preservation Council, September 23, 1993 

''The Grandeur and originality of the views presented on every side beggar both the 

pencil and the pen. Nothing we had ever gazed upon in any other region could for 

a moment compare in wild majesty and impressive sternness with the series of 

scenes which here at every tum astonished our senses and filled us with awe and 

delight." Captain Benjamin L.E. Bonneville, from Hells Canyon, 11!33 

I have been to a place called Hell, but no more magnificent place exists under 

heaven." Entertainer Burl lves, from Hells Canyon, 1973 · 

''To assure that the natural beauty, and historic and archaeological values of the 

Hells Canyon Area and the seventy-one-mile segment of the Snake River .... are 

preserved for this and future generations, and that the recreational and ecologic 

values .... are thereby enhanced, there is hereby established the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area .... the Secretary shall administer the recreation area ... .in a 

manner compatible with the following objectives .... conservation of scenic, 

wilderness, cultural, scientific and other values .... preservation .... of all features and 

peculiarities believed to be biologically unique including, but not limited to, rare 

and endemic plant species, rare combinations of aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric 

habitats, and the rare combinations of outstanding and diverse ecosystems and parts 

of ecosystems associated therewith; protection of fish and wildlife habitat; protection 

of archaeological and paleontologic sites .... " 

Public Law 94-199 
110 

Summary 

The following is a management critique, and thus inevitably a summation of policydriven resource degradation and illegal federal management of a Congressionally 

designated place of national interst. The mismanagement of the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area (NRA) is illustrated herein by a selection of specific 

incidents that have occurred as a direct result of U.S. Forest Service policies. The 

significance and irony of these incidents are that the deterioration of Hells Canyon is 

actually being brought on by its appointed steward. 

The Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC) worked to enact P.L. 94-199, the 

NRA Act, and thereafter has monitored U.S. Forest Service management of the 

NRA. HCPC has a long history of involvement in these issues, and knowledge of 

this spectacular place. As an on-site, locally-based grassroots conservation 

organization based in Joseph, Oregon, HCPC is close to the pulse of both the Hells 

Canyon Country and the offices of the Forest Service. 

This summary was prepared for testimony at hearings conducted by the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, of the Natural 

Resources Committee, U.S. House of Representatives. Documentation, where 

applicable, appears in the denoted appendices. 

We ask that the reader consider the gravity of the tragedies listed here in light of the 

eloquent, protective language of the NRA Act, quoted on the previous page. We 

also ask that the diversity and cumulative sum of these problems be considered. 

There are not many more ways anyone could, or would dare to consistently harm 

such an incredible, celebrated place than by the multi-faceted policies invoked by the 

Forest Service, and inflicted upon the Hells Canyon NRA. 

Cattle defecating in the Imnaha River and grazing in clearcuts; the high-standard 

road and glitzy furniture imposed upon the canyon's most sacred archaeological 

site; the silent sterility of four-foot diameter pine stumps; domestic sheep where 

there should be wild bighorns; and the incessant roar of jet boats echoing in the 

wilderness canyon define the He11s Canyon experience. 

Add to this a no-policy recreation management plan, which encourages more and 

more motorized access and new and unregulated use (jet ski use is proposed on the 

Snake Wild and Scenic River in the new river plan) with no vision to limit, 

manage, or accommodate the increasing numbers, and the clear picture is of a 

rudderless agency. The Forest Service legacy of degradation in He11s Canyon NRA 

must be seen to be believed. 

The Congress gave He11s Canyon a less protective proclamation than it deserved, 

and gave the Forest Service less clear a mandate than was necessary. But it was a 

powerful mandate nonetheless. Regardless, it has not been carried out. These 

policies must be changed now. 

HCPCTcstimony, Hells Canyon NRA Oversight 
111 

General Management 

Outdated Plans; Piecemeal PlannillJ;No Regulations (Appendix A-1) 

The current Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area iS based oil information gathered between 1976 and 1978. 

The first draft of this plan appeared in 1 Cf79. The plan promises a major revision in 

1990, yet no revision is scheduled. 

The Forest Service is currently ac~lerating major developments entertained in the 

plan, after it reached obsolescence. The agency also contioues to use the plan 

religiously as an overall management guide despite drastically changed 

l~lwironmental circumstances and scientific evidence, chilllged public opinions and 

recreational needs, and new innovations in recreation and resource management. 

Until Congress recently applied pressure, the Forest Service expressed no plans or 

desire to update its EIS and CMP. However, the agency recently published a draft 

plan for Management of the Snake Wild and Scenic River. This plan would be 

tiered to the ancient CMP, creating an inconsistency of new, and outdated directives 

for managing the river corridor and adjacent lands. The NRA is basically being 

severed into management subdivisions that are managed separately under 

inconsistent plans with no integral overall theme, or vision for long-term 

protection. 

To make matters. worse, the new river plan is limited to ·planning for motorized and 

non-mot.Jrized river recreation. Consideration of other issues in the river corridor, 

such as vast livestock allotments and feedlots, roads, modem campground 

developments, and imperiled fish and wildlife have been ruled "out of the scope" of 

the EIS. . 

Section 10 of the Hells Canyon NRA Act (P.L. 94-199) requires the promulgation of 

special regulations to govern specific, potentially disruptive activities. HCPC has 

sued the Forest Service twice (1988 and 1992) in attempts to force the agency to issue 

regulations for care of the NRA. To date, ~rmanent, NRA-specific regulations still 

have not been published. (See Litigation Section for more details.) The Forest 

Service will probably be obliged to publish regulations soon in order to comply with 

the ruling of the court. Whether the regulations will address conservation, 

protection, preservation, and restoration of the NRA as mandated by law, remains 

to be seen. 

Staffing for Livestock and Silviculture (Apptudix A-2) 

The appendix for this section includes the FY 1993 staff roster of the NRA's main 

office. Notice the proportion of recreation staff (3 employees) to timber (7 

employees) and range (7 employees), while there are virtually no biologists or 

botanists. 

HCPCT<!!!timony, Hells Canynn NRA Owtllighl 
112 

Tepee Butte Envirortmental Impact Statement <EIS) 

This document was billed as a "recovery project" to apply allegedly necessary 

rehabilitation to the Te~ Butte wildfire area, which burned in 1988. The EIS cost 

approximately $3 million to produce. Its primary purpose, as illustrated by its 

directives, was to accommodate logging of the fire area. Ultimately, about 30 

million board feet were logged from the area, and approximately 5 miles of road 

were constructed. 

Upon announcement of the EIS process, HCPC asked the Forest Service whether it 

could simply use these funds to write an Environmental Analysis for a plan to 

facilitate replanting, trail clearing, studies on the ecological effects of wildfires, and 

other research and rehabilitation opportunities, without disposing of so much forest 

and constructing new roads. Our question was never answered. 

Just Another National Forest Ranger District IAppe11dix A-3) 

The Forest Service recently initiated three major management actions, each of 

which would or did take place in at least part of the Hells Canyon NRA. ~ese 

were: 1) An Environmental Assessment entitled "Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest Douglas Fir Tussock Moth Project" (February, 1991) for insecticide (Bt) 

spraying; 2) a Forest Plan amendment entitled "Management of Bighorn and 

Domestic Sheep on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest;" and 3) a "predator 

control" Environmental Assessment entitled "An Integrated Predator Management 

Program for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest," that would facilitate killing 

of cougars, bears, and coyotes that pose a threat to livestock. 

None of these documents even mentioned the fact that since part of the project area 

was within the Hells Canyon NRA, special legislated considerations for resource 

protection should apply. The Bt spray project (Bt kills butterflies and moths) 

threatened at least two rare butterflies that inhabit the NRA, and at least three rare 

flower species that may depend on butterflies for pollination. The Forest Service did 

not survey for the presence or elimination of any of these species before or after the 

spray project. The bighorn/ domestic sheep regulations were withdrawn after an 

appeal, and the predator control project is pending. 

Vanishing Beaches (Appendix A-4) 

A February, 1991 study by Middlebury College Department of Geology determined 

that Hells Canyon's beaches are vanishing at a rate that "greatly exceeds' the rate of 

erosion of sand bars in the Grand Canyon. The sand bar area has decreased by 75 

percent since 1964. 

Although the primary cause of beach erosion is sediment trapping by upriver dams, 

the Forest Service has not assumed a leadership role (as has the National Park 

HCPCTestimony, Hells Canyon NRA Oversight 
113 

Service in Grand Canyon National Park) in investigating options for reversing this 

problem. The agency has shown no willingness to prioritize funding requests 

toward solving such problems, instead of funding .timber sales, subsidizing livestock 

allotments, and constructing more modem facilities. 

Negating Public Involvement (Appmdi:r A-5) 

The Forest Service has coJ.isistently negated the right of citizen organizations to seek 

adjustment or reversal of projects that are potentially damaging to the environment 

through the administrative appeals process. This has been accomplished by issuing 

a contract for a project, and in some cases allowing a contractor to begin on-theground work, before or within days. of the time the public is notified of a decision. 

This has occurred most commonly with timber sales and recently with the 

relocation of a road that was partially within the Hells Canyon Wilderness 

boundary. 

The agency also has been less than willing, and in some cases siinply failed to fill 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Some that have been answered were 

only partially fille<!. with no e1Cplanation. HCPC has seven FOIA requests that 

remain unfilled. Some were submitted over a year ago. 

HCPCTC!ilimclftY, Hellscanyon NRA Oversight 
114 

Litigation 

Three active lawsuits are challenging illegal management activities and policies of 

the Forest Service in the Hells Canyon NRA. All of these suits address the failure of 

the agency to ensure protection of the natural and ecological values earmarked for 

protection in the NRA Act. (The Sierra Oub Legal Defense Fund will submit the 

briefs for these cases in separate testimony.) The lawsuits cannot, however, force 

leadership for protection and care of the NRA. 

Regulations Lawsuit 

During the nearly 18 years of its NRa management, he Forest Service has failed to 

adopt special rules for the NRA, as clearly required by the NRA Act. Those 

regulations would govern specific activities such as livestock grazing, logging, and 

motorized use of the Hells Canyon NRA to ensure the compatibility of specific 

activities with the protection mandate of the NRA Act. HCPC recently filed a 

motion for summary judgement in this case, and we will request injunctive relief 

barring specific projects and activities if adequate regulations are not published in 

the near future. 

Endangered Species Act Salmon Consultation Lawsuit 

HCPC is a co-plaintiff with four other organizations in this suit. It seeks to force the 

Forest Service to engage in legally-mandated consultation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service to assess the adverse impacts to listed salmon species in the Snake 

and Imnaha Rivers from new and ongoing Forest Service projects, and seeks to 

enjoin those projects until consultation is completed. 

Eastside Forest Health Lawsuit 

HCPC is a co-plaintiff with seven other organizations in this suit. It seeks to require 

the Forest Service to upgrade its forest plans to consider the changed circumstances, 

brought about primarily by poor timber practices and fire suppression, affecting the 

health of eastern Washington and Oregon forests. Plaintiffs may seek to prohibit he 

cutting of green trees prior to preparation of an overall forest health. restoration 

strategy and EIS. The outdated HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan does 

not recognize or assess the forest health situation. 

HCPCTestimony, Hell• Canyon NRAOversight 
115 

A Prowun Emplulsizin& Commodity Proc:luction (AJ1P"ndix B-U 

In .cOntradiction to the NRA Act's subjugation of timber. c:Utting to numerous 

protection provisions named in the Act, the Hells Canyon NRA, like any other 

ranger ~trict on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, contributes a set amount 

of timber volume to the forest timber target. · 

To date, more than 150 million board feet have been sold froiD NRA forests since 

passage ofthe NRA Act. The purpose of some of these !1o11es has been sugar-coated 

as means of "improving wildUfe habitat" or raising funds through KV moneys to 

pay for reereation projects. However~ several EA'scleatly .state that .at least part .of 

the purpose of the sale is to contribute to the Forest timber target. 

The Forest Service rorrectly states that only 12 percent of .the NRA is in the timber 

base. However, the majority of the NRA is uriforestect i.e., grass~ roCk. and 

water, and mllclt of what is timbered is .relatively inaccesilible, or eontains mostly 

commercially undesirable species' . · ·· · · -· 

The land included in the NRA timber allQCaticm. which is a part of the fo~t 

regulated cut,. contains the majority of the NRA's pol\deroea .pine component( 

which is the primary ·climax specie, and the· moit C!(l()lo8ically valuable ·tree. in the 

forest due to its reilistance to fire, ~. and disease; Heavy c:Utijng of old. growth 

ponderosa pine ~ oa:urred in many NRA timber sales, as can be easily seen by 

anyone walking on the. cut over sites. (HCPC has attempted to determine the actual 

volume of ponderosa pine cut &om each timber sale~ . However, the Forest Service 

has indicated that this is not practicable due to the unavallability 01' lack of accutacy 

of scaling records.) 

Selective Cuttina violation (1\ppftulix B~2) 

Every mention of timber harvest on federal lands in the NRA Act is made within 

sections imposing conditions on loping activities. The words "timber harvest" are 

always accompanied by the stipulation "by &elective cu«ing." It is clear that the 

intent of Congress was to ensure that any logging would be light-handed. The 

intent obviously is to prevent clearcutting. However, clearcutting is in fact · 

conducted, although the euphemism used for this praetke in the NRA is "group 

selection." · · 

The largest and most notorious clearcuts are found iJ\ the Horlie Creek Timber Sale 

(see photo, "the Trasedy of Hells Canyon"). In a p~ timber cutting project on 

Gumboot Creek, the Forest Service has verbally indicated it may prescribe small 

clearcuts. 
116 

Notorious Forest Practices (Appendix B-3) 

The silvicultural prescriptions for NRA timber sales differ little or not at all from 

standard Forest Service sales. The agency has publicly stated that its timber cutting 

practices are improving, and that timber sales are implemented only for the purpose 

of achieving objectives unrelated to timber volume output. But the Spain Timber 

Sale, which was logged in 1992, cut old growth ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and 

western lard} in a repeat performance of sales of the past 17-plus years in the NRA. 

One of the cutting units in the Spain sale is a de facto clearcut. 

In the Lick Creek Timber Sale, logs were skidded across Lick Creek while salmon 

were actively attempting to spawn (see photo). In the Lick Roadside Timber Sale, 

what were suspected to be aboriginal cairns were lost, and presumed to have been 

crushed to surface a logging road. 

Campgrounds are logged regularly. Every forested campground in the NRA has 

been logged at least once, some as many as four times. Lick Creek and Evergreen 

Campgrounds were essentially clearcut. The reason given for these timber sales is 

the removal of havard trees. The agency could have posted signs warning campers 

that potential falling trees could be a hazard, or they could have sent in 

administrative crews to complete any work instead of contracting a timber sale in 

which case economically valuable, healthy trees must be added to "'spice the pot"' for 

potential contractors. 

Construction of logging roads into roadless areas is common. In the North End 

Timber Sale, 47 "'spur"' Jogging roads were constructed into the formerly roadless 

heads of the Cherry, Cook, and Cottonwood drainages. 

In the Skook Sale, a historic trail was obliterated by a logging road. In the Cold 

Grave Sale, logs were skidded across springs and bogs and trees were felled into 

natural ponds. Recreation Roads such as the Hat Point and Upper Imnaha Roads 

have been closed to logging traffic only during prime recreation use seasons. 

The extra care and diligent planning that one would expect in a such a specially 

recognized place as Hells Canyon. with such clear mandates to protect ecosystems 

and fish and wildlife habitat have been conspicuously and consistently absent. (See 

accompanying testimony by award-winning forester Robert H. Jackson for more 

details regarding NRA forest practices.) 

HCPCTeslimony, Helb Canyon NRA Ovetsight 
117 

Bishorn Sl\ttp Dieoff (AppenAix c-11 

A massive dieoff of bighorn sheep occurred in the NRA, within the designated 

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area in 1990-91. Indisputable evidence indicates the cause 

of the dieoff was transmission of the fatal virus Pasteurella haemolytica to bighorns, 

from a herd of domestic sheep that had recently been introduced onto a federal 

allotment in the NRA. 

The tragedy of this occurrenc:e is that the Forest Service was well aware of the 

potential for a dieoff before granting a term grazing permit to a new pennittee on . 

the Sheep Creek allotment in 1990. A bighorn dieoff caused by domestic sheep had 

occurred in 1987-88 in the adjoining Eagle Cap Wilderness Area. Even the Forest 

Service's own literature, published in 1984. describes the disease transmission 

problem. Numerous reports possessed Dy the agency articulate the problem. 

Meanwhile, enforcement of permittee compliance on the Sheep Creek allotment 

was lax, to say the least. Documentation of stray domestic sheep wandering off the 

allotment, dead sheep scattered around the area, and domestic sheep remaining 

after the presaibed remoyal date has been obtained. At the very least the Forest 

Service should have postponed awan:lins of ;-~ permit to a new permittee if 

there was any doubt as to whether wildlife populations would be jeopardized. They 

should have enacted strict enforcement measures to ensure permittee compliance 

toward avoidance of any contact between domestic sheep and bighorns. 

The currently active Temperence Creek sheep allotment, which is on the Oregon 

side of the Snake River from the Sheep Creek allotment is thwarting four different 

planned reintroductions of bighorn ·sheep. The State of Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife has stated that they will not reintroduce any bighorns near domestic 

sheep allotments. 

Cattle Grazins Impacts (Apptn4i:r C-2) 

Forest Service publications state that the .entire NRA is occupied by livestock 

allotments. 

Most of the federal livestock allotments on the NRA are cattle allotments. The 

impacts from these are ~ evident: Practically all of the-<:9ldwater springs in 

the arid canyons are livestock watering troughs, or have been trampled and fouled 

by cattle. M.llny NRA camPJfOunds and dispersed campsites are occupied by cattle, 

and campers must clear away innumerable splats of oow manure. 

HCPCTeotimony,HellsC.S.yon NRAOvenight 
118 

The grasslands are rank with non-native weeds in large areas; riparian areas are 

trampled; meadows and hillsides are often barren; and native vegetation is depleted. 

The entire NRA is criss-crossed with barbed wire fence. 

Predator control programs in the NRA focus on killing native wildlife such as bear, 

cougar, and coyote to protect livestock. The NRA is incorporated into the WallowaWhitman National Forest predator control program with no consideration for the 

special NRA protection mandate. 

According to a 1993 HCPC analysis of the 48 NRA livestock allotments, 80 percent of 

the NRA range is in poor or very poor condition (for cattle or sheep, let alone for 

native plants or wildlife); only four of the NRA's 48 allotments have received a full 

analysis of conditions; only three have a valid Allotment Management Plan; and 

only six have had Environmental Assessments prepared. In the NRA, livestock is 

considered a given, and grazing contim,1es uiunonitored for years on end. 

Feedlots on Salmon Streams {APfJtndix C-3) 

The NRA Act requires the Forest Service to regulate the use of privately owned 

land, and to promulgate rules governing livestock grazing. However, there is 

virtually no regulation of activities on private land within the NRA. Cattle feedlots 

on private inholdings stretch for approximately 40 miles up and down the Imnaha 

River. Few of these are fenced, and cattle can routinely be seen trampling riparian 

vegetatio, and wading and defecating in the Imnaha River, which is one of the most 

critical producers of native stocks of spring chinook salmon in the Columbia Basin. 

HO'CTestimony, Hella Canyon NRA Oversight ! 
119 

Reaeation· 

The character of traditional travel routes in HeUa Canyon is rustic. dusty, "wagon 

roads" and old trails. Hells Canyon NRA Nis been defined by difficult access, and 

low-speed travel Only one small etretch of paved road existed in the NRA whim it 

was designated. However, the Forest Service is changing this with astonishing 

swiftness, and with no end in sight · · · 

Over the past three years, road improvements have drastically altered the kind .of 

recreation use that is occurriiig in areas all over the NRA. The NRA is becoming a . 

motorized, high-speed, drive-through network of roac$8. The Wallowa Mountain 

Loop Road, the McGraw Road and the Hells Canyon Creek Road hitve been paved. 

The Hat Point Road, the road to Pittsburg Landing, and spur roads traversing the 

Pittsburg area have all been "improved" to accommodate sedan. travel. These 

supplement a number of other high-standard roads that have been improved since 

the NRA Act was passed, such as the Wellamolkin,. Cold Springs, and Fish Lake 

Roads. 

In combination with the proPQ&ed openins.of airstrips, heavr jet boat use, and 

opening of jet ski use on the Snake River, the NRA is fast becoming little more than 

a national motorized area. This will eventually displace light-use recreatioi:lists, 

change the historic character of the area. and V¥tl)' ina'ease a<x:esa and use . 

throughout the NRA. The ""vitable result will be a perceiVed need on the of 

the Forest Service to accommodate increased motorized use with more moclem 

facilities. · 

Motorization is oc:curring helter-skelter with no regard for keeping any of the NRA 

secluded, other thitn some parts of designated wilderness. In many areas, the Hells 

Canyon Wildetnesil area is afflicted by noise and visual impacts from neatby roads 

and jet boat traffic. and is iJnpoeed u~ by increasingly easy ac(:ess. 

Lord Flat Rqad (ApptruliJC A-5) 

While planning timber sales, the Forest SerVice discovered in 1990 that two roads 

which had been open to motorized travel since d4!Signation of the Hells Canyon 

NRA and Hells Canyon Wildemeas Area in 1975 were partially within the 

wilderness boundary. 

The Lookout Mountain Road has bt:en closed since this discovery. However, the 

Lord Flat Road, which is little more than a rugged dirt track, was reopened in 1992. 

The Forest Service constructed new sections of road outside the wilderness 

boundary to replace those that were within it. · · 

Despite knowing that there was strong opposition to reopening the Lord Flat Road, 

HO'CTestlmcny,HellaCAnyonNRAQversight 
120 

the Forest Service began construction of the new road seginents immediately upon 

notifying the public that a decision to do so had been reached. An HCPC appeal filed 

three days following publication of the decision notice was denied due to the fact 

that the new segments had already been built during the week of the decision. The 

appeal had been filed as SO<il\ as possible .after notification of the decision was 

received. 

In reopening the road, the Forest Service exposes to motorized access approximately 

20 miles of the most rugged backcountry in the Pacific Northwest. It has recently 

been discovered that more segments of the road, beyond where the new 

construction ocCUlTed, are probably also within the wilderness bound\ly. Also, 

wildlife biologists have remarked on a significant increase in the use of the Lord,Flat 

area by elk herds during the time the road was dosed. 

Hells Canyon Creek Development 

This development, completed !his year, consists of a modem visitors center, a paved 

road, and parking areas constructed at the Hells Canyon Creek boat launch site. 

This site is located at the end of a dead-end road in a spectacularly narrow part of the 

canyon. Space is at a premium. Prior to construction of the new attractions, 

crowding was wmmon among boaters launching trips. The construction of the 

visitors center has encouraged increased use, including tour buses. The Forest 

Service recently conducted a cultural resource survey as the first step toward 

constructing more parking areas. Boaters now attempt to rig boats and manuever 

heavily laden trailers through a sea of wandering people. 

Pittsburg Development (Appeltllix D-4) 

This major develop:rqent project has converted .the hard-t~get-to, rustic Pittsburg 

area into a glitzy, modern. tourist-trap. What was once a remnant of a frontier 

ranch and a former Native American village and sacred site, is now dominated by 

an RV Park, and high-standard roads and facilities. This has not only changed the 

character of the place, but it has brought an entirely new use into the Snake River 

corridor, the most crowded part of the NRA: Developed, modem camping, RV"s 

and more ORV access. 

But the biggest tragedy of the Pittsburg Developnlf!nt is the newly located road to the 

upper landing area. This high-standard road was constructed to replace the old road, 

which was approximately one half mile away, to the east. The new road runs 

within 50 feet of the most significant archaeological site in the £anyon. 

A parking area was constructed next lo the archa~logical site, which is comprised of 

rocks containing symbols believed to have been inscnbed more than 2,000 years ago. 

A surfaced trail winds from the parking lot and brings visitors within inches of each 

carved rock. A wrought-iron and plastic bench was installed within three feet of 

HCPCTestimony, H.U.Canyotl NRA Oversight 
121 

13 

one of tne ancient petroglyphs. 

The funneWng of ho!ard4!!' of people to this site (which was preViously 

llJtadvertised, aa:eMed ~ exclusiVely by foot, IJid intruded upon only by an old, unUBed jeep trail) .from the neuby RV Pat¥ ancl Yilt the newly improved road, 

was not aooompenied by Anf melsures to ~e vandalism IJid ilieft other. than 

small posted sipl askinS. the visitor to ~ the cultural heritage. 

The development itself can be <lOIIIJtrued. a& an act of vandalism. as the natural 

character of the place in which the petroslypha had testect fot centuries is now 

simply a roadside tourist attraction.. H(PC repeatedly wamed.the Forest Service that 

the improved acceas would result in ~ to the aile. A mere six months after 

the road wa& built. one of the petroglypha was defaced by vandals. 

HCPC has recently learned that the road to this ancient petroglyph site was 

categOrically. exduded from environmeatal or cultural re\'iew ali required by NEPA. 

The illegality of the entire project was docuiDented by a. JJni~ity of Montana 

graduate studettt in 1992 (aee appendix). HOwever, legal challenge of the entire 

Pittsburg Development ha4i beeh rendered impoaaible because the Forest Service 

had sent no notice of the 1986 dedsion to conatrud the development to any interested parties. · 

Jet Boats ( AppeNii~ D-l) 

Jet boats, aome measuring 44 feet long aQd powered by three 35G-horae power 

engines, are allowed on the :n-mile •wild• designated aectiob of the Snake Wild 

and Scenic River. While non-motorized river craft aze limited to five launc:hee per 

day on the wild iedion of the river, there i& Virtually no limit on the number of jet boat&. .. 

This policy was illitially implemenW!f by a decision from Aaai&tant Secretary of · 

Agriculture John B. CroweD in 198it HOwever, tbat clepaion provided fot a mriew 

of the no-limit policy on jet boats aa ~ • 1985. No suctl review ever occurred, 

and jet oo.t numbeis have been unlimited and swiftly ~ ever since. 

In ilie new Snake River plan. the Forelt SerW;e ptOpolleS to lock iD the "traditiOnal" 

nwnber of jet boat&, r;neaDing thoee that have been allowed to acx:umulate wiiliout 

oonstraint durins the pat ten yeats. Thia. cleapite the fad thaf the NRA Act requires 

the Forest Servke to develop apecial ~tionll for the use and number of 

motorized river craft. a direclive that Wll!lisnored Cor more than 17 years. 

Regulation of neither the ~ not n~ of jet boat& baa ever been implemented. 

Even in the draft EIS for the new river n!Cl'eltion plan. there are no "rules of the 

road" to govern jet boat use, auc:h • 8peed limitB, no-wake rules, or slowing for 

floaters; no ~Ia on noise leveJa MUse of~ .-l stereo~; no limits on water 

skiing; no req1lirement Cor display oi relldily Visible .identification numbers; aJld no 
122 

14 

limits on the number of "nm&" up and down the river by each jet boat. 

Combining intense jet boating and floating on a narrow ''JUshway" such as the 

Snake Wild and Scenic River is a recipe for frustration, c:onfrontation, and danger. 

Jet boats are an impediment to the aafety and the desired experience of those seeking 

solitude and quiet within America's deepest canyon. they are not the picture of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act's description of a wild designated river as " .... th(l8e 

rivers generally ina«'essible except by trail. with shorelines essentially 

primitive ... these represent vestiges of primitive America .... " 

The environmental impacts of jet boats are also of concern. Their contribution to 

ongoing erosion of the river beaches is undocumented, though readily observed. 

The new river ~ c;lraft EIS, page IV-61, reveals the potential impact of jet boats on 

salmon with the statement " .... (C)oasidering the extrem~ly low nwribers of [fall 

chinook( salmon found within tll4l wild and scenic corridor, the magnitude of some 

negative effects [of jet ~) could be very lUsh and potent:Wly contribute 

cumulatively to an irretrievable lois of the J'eiiOU1'Cle (i.e., the salmon)." 
123 

IS 

SOlutions 

HCPC is proposing both ehort-tenn arid ~-term solutio~ to the mismanagement 

of the HeUs CAnyon NRA. The short-term aoluitons are in the. form of immediate 

aid to He& Canyon. The loa&~tenn aolution& &rf. a variety of legialative options 

that endeavor toward pemtan1mt ~tection of Hells Canyon. 

The short ~mn· aolutionl ahould be put of an oveiaJlatratesr involvms ·the 

Approp~tiOils Committee, and wOuld nquile ~ fUll copperati.on Of the 

Administration. throUgh the Secretary of~· ~ IOns-term solutions 

reqUire legislatiQO. which we believe tllil SubColiunlta!e should reconunend in ita 

findings. · · · · 

. ·. 

'mmnti•m Aid fprHsllt s;,09 . . .. 

* Freeze allli~ item,. special pro;ect&, quhin- sate funding tintil a .. 

new Comprehensive Management Plan expressly based ori . · 

oonservation; protection, arid restorati()n is ~Cted. · · . . . . . . . 

* aep~ line-item ~ollars for -t. ~uthori7.ed developments · fun(ls {Qr the preparation of a new E~~tallmpact Statement 

and CQmpr¢hen&ive Management~· · 

* · . Re(X)fnmend, and if~ maruiate ~ inunediate ret®val ofthe 

. new road and other dev~tsatthe ·petroilyph site; the 

eliiniitation. of domestic sheep al.lotmeJtts.from thE! NRA; aiu:l the 

eliininatiori of jet boatS from the wild se<:tiOJl Of .the Snake Wild and ~c~v«. · 

* Immediately ~te investigalioniJ intO~· JNnagement polic;ie8 

by bOth the Congressional~ 5ervice and the GAO. · 

* 

* 

* 

Amend the Hells Canyon NRA Act to provide non-discretiorwy 

language requiring protection of~ nabU'al values of the area. 

Initiate a legislative study to explore the viability of designating the 

NRA and surroUI)ding lands as a national park and preserve. 

Amend the NRA Ad to transfer management of the NRA to the 

National Park Service. 
124 
125 

THE MODERNIZATION AND MOTORIZATION 

OF HELLS CANYON NRA 

A. The McGraw Rim Road Is facilitating high-speed motoriZallon and 

modernization d what was once a dispersed use area, with llmltad access due to the 

character d the roads. Huntars and car-campers and hlkera used it Now It Is tourbuses, and fast cars. The proposed extension would furtfler intrude into this part of the 

NRA, disrupting or displacing existing use. 

B. The paWd road from. Hells canyon Dam to the Hells canyon Creek launch site, 

and construction of a visitors centar ther8 has fliYI8IIed more and more people into an 

area that was already OllWded just with the boat launching tramc. This dead-end road 

accesses a narrow spot in the canyon with very limllad room for expansion. Already 

the Forest Service is seeking to build another parking area to accommodate the tour 

buses that now go there. Launchtng a float trip has become a real headache. 

C. The Hat Point Road is a route that pierces the wildest part d the state d Oregon. It was formerly a two hcu drive to Hat Point, a real chalenging road. Now, more and 

more people are being funnelled into this formerly wild expanse on a road that gets 

you to Hat Point without any chaHenge in 45 minutes or less. It is increasing use, and 

already the Forest Service is building more parking areas and eamp areas to 

accommodate all the new people they've funnelled in. It used to be a dusty, rutic, slow· 

paced wagon road. Now It's a high-speed sedan thoroughfare. 

D . The Pittsburg Road is notorious due to the fact that the existing road between 

the lower and upper landings was relocated to access the petroglyph site. wherein a 

parking area and improved traH were constructed. The Forest Service claims it was 

"defining use," but with the new RV park and moc1em facilities, they have completely 

changed the historic and primitive character of the place and modernized the whole 

area, introducing a completely new recreation use and user (RV's and modern 

campers) into .the area. ' 

In summary, the Forest Service modernization and motorization d the NRA is a 

runaway program based on the directives of an outdated 1978 Comprehensive 

Management Plan.. The agency is increasing motorized use with absolutely no plan to 

manage it, except to continue expansion when use increases. Existing dispersed use 

and non-motorized use, and the frontier character of the canyon are being obliterated. 

As is shown on the map, there will be precious few places that will retain the rugged, 

historic, hard-to-reach character that the entire area has always r.d. There were 

virtually no paved roads in the NRA in 1975 when the area was designated. In 

combination with current maximized jet boat use on the Snake River, and opening for 

use of air~. the encompassing motorization d the NRA is nearty complete. The 

oNrall NRA plan and EIS 8hould be revlud before any new development• ara undertaken. The new development• are by no mean• Ufllent, but their Impact• are lrreveralble. 

77-928 0 - 94 - 5 
OREGON 

126 

HELLS CANYON 

NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA 

ROAD KEY 

--.............. ,......_ .. HCNRA 

--""'~ot-Hp$ ..... - swf~ee~O"rCttheP'utTwoYean 

Pt....s Major ROid 1mproYU'I'Itl'lb WI HCN1tA Nu.1 --Year 

--f'rilaiU.e a.:1u:vuacry Rotd, Panty ill W"\Jdema~ Area 

-()pellec1199l 
127 

Grazing & Timber 

in theNRA 

*____, ........... 

------..... 
128 

OREGON 

HELLS CANYON 

NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA 

IDAHO 
Hells Canyon 

conflicts put 

foresters 

on hot seat • Environmental activists · 

question the 

Forest Servlcl'a 

management Ill 

the area, and · 

some want II to 

become 1 

natlonal park · 

• DISEASE: The U.S. Forest Service 

has approved two 

SheO!>ilraziliJ pel· 

mils In Hels C. yon despite the fact 

thatscoresof . .. 

RockyMounlaln 

bigorn sheep In tho area have been 

wiped out by 

disease/PigiC4 

lly KATHIE DURBIN 

129 

It bu filled to - tbe environ· menlll 1JDP1C11 ot Uv•toi:lt snz!ni 'DI' to l'l(llllato·lllUIDI pndl<ee on . privato IIDd oloal - wlthln tbe-aru. ·. It bu lot' COIIIIIcto over river we but to tho bolllq polnl 

And -Ill pail duo to lack olfllnd· ina -1t:bat·-. Uttle untll recent· 

~ ~ prtmiUvo _,roods 

. Itt -· cr!U.. uy,. have treated.- ot tbe D&lloo'a 1ut vut 

wild - .. Juot - piece or tbe natlollal Alreot;.r.:tiD( to- but falilllltQ :dlmlojJ a-for 

tbe......,·uawbole. · 

"'''bo)'-~UICOIIIIIlodlly·pro4udac - Ill cooper· 

attoa rtvar .IU!dt - '

JUc locll llolloY -·" or "-PhIIYI . a rcrmor '-aDd llilcll: driver wbo - tbe llolla 'Canyo!l -.. doll CouDdl. "To tbe l'onlt Service, 11o111 CaitJonll ·a COIIIIIIOdlty that they ant IOIIIr to divide up lllte a pte 

and - out to compotlnJ Inter- -••" 
The Foroot Sinlce roopoada to ua critics by polntiDI out !bat 1oc:a1 communltleo npport · ua ...,.,.. 

rnent ~pby •... nw C01111tleo 

within tho ...,..dolt - IIIII tho. Idaho Lotllalaluro ·all ban .--. resolutions .._una continued Forest--L 

"What ,...,. eorT71n1 out ben II the intent oC our oomprebeDJ!vo 

plan," S&JI Bob Richmond. oupem. S.r or tho WallO-Wbltmln Natlona!Fores~wbkh .- tbo...,.. 

at!on ...... "'doll't-ror- minute !bot tbo--hu catered to AllY aue uu.r.t." · 

Nevertbalw, tbo _.ol7·JMr manapmont . ..-.lhu-- renewed ocrut1nJ u a 11ft'~ 

tration tabo a &lob loot' at -.do ship of tho public Iandi. 

Last month. tbo ·- - dispatched ave ·-. lnclud!Di 

Lyle Laverty,- oC rKl"OOIIon 

in the chlel'o alllco In Wublniton. D.C., to a rendezvoul with environ· mentalists,JoUI'IIIU* IIIII__. tatives of tho Bullllt Foundation. 

The SeattiHu•l'f••oulalloa pw the Hells Canyon ~ation 

Council su.ooo llit ,_ IIIII paid 

for the tJuw.dly l'ac:tollndlnllllp. 

Laverty oaiil tho F.r..t -It· self bepn .-.,.· ua IIIIDOP- ment of Hells Clnyoli two ,......,.., 

wheo throe .rilll<iDal ,.._mot within the CIDYOil to doftlop utra~ 

egy Cor ptUq,o4dlllonallllnd!Di. 

''The critlcll - - ror _.. tions monoy to put .,... _. on 

the river," huald. .,..----·. · .· 

But tht coiiiiCII, a-oC11> vtronmontollltl, oudltloit .... 1111111 b~ WIIIll~ tolalrl 

the .,.. away troiR tho P'Onot Sorv· ice a!toplbor 111111 llw u to tbo Na- tional !'ark Sorvlce to admlDlller .. a vast national park uul p~e. 

130 

an4 the \IDniiiiiOied- oCjet boato. 

Ao.a noul~ the Foraot Service in· 

-

wlldllteuul~-l'llla bullt·ln - -·· uulpower boall.-the desire 

Cor- and the-Cor wilder· ..... 

'!be Fonot-OOUiht to head· 

olf ..... oC-- by writ· Ina a ....._t plan !bot wotild 

have - the Snalle to ·Jet boats durlni the 1U11U111r betwoeo Ruoh . Cnlek 

_.,IIIII Wild Sheep RaPd - the .wtldoot otrotch. 

Poww hDatoro--"- Preoident Reallll'•.-t qrlcultura ....... tory, John B. CmnU, llllder . .,..... . 

..... troiR~- MeC!ure. 

R·ldlho, - that ,plan llld ell· ~.:ted tht.t tbo ontlno leb&th of the rlnr bo _, to lot boat.. with no rootricUon 111 thelrnlllllhen. 

hu ~~='=~~~ -...... a $22 million Industry c::eotend on LewlltoJl and Weiser, ldahD, 01111 Clubton, Wuh. Jet 

-; which allnw tourlots to see tho canyon on day tripe In alr-condi· ti.oucl comfort. DOW account for 90 

paeeent'Cit all trlpo throucb the can· Jill. 

Unlllco-jet boat opera· tori, ftoat trip outfttten muat vie for oeoz<e permlta durin~ the busy sum· 

,... --.Tiley aay tbo parade or 

IIOIIJ·jet boota rulno the llolls Can· ,... ~for their cuotomers. who noma "''llCllnna wilderness ex· porlolu:o. . . 

I!Ul - Mltchall. dlroctor or tho ~- NOrihweat Po- wtlllnat -lion. sayo there are plalJ oC'Iflldenllu rivers that offer 

quiet IIIII ooll1ucle. Concress in· !elided oomethlnJ dllferont In Hells Canyon, 1ha laid. 
131 

THE SUNDAY OREGONIAN (Metro), June 20, 1993 - Page 3 

"This is a power boat river. We be- lieve this canyon can be shared by 

all." 

The . Hells Canyon Preservation 

Council's Balley says that's like a!· 

lowing smokers to share a room 

with nonsmokers. 

"The people who want solitude 

and peace and quiet and a natural 

experience In Hells Canyon simply 

can't get It," he said. "We've hiked 

on bench trails 2,000 feet above the 

river and you can still hear the vibration of those motors." 

Three years ago the Forest Service, no longer able to ignore the conflict on the river, began developing a 

new river-use plan. 

The draft plan, due in August, will 

recommend regulating the number 

of power boats in the canyon during 

summer, forest supervisor Rich· 

mondsald. 

Some options l!llder consideration 

also would close sections of the river 

to power boat use. 

"I'm real confident we'll select an alternative that will defuse the controversy and reduce the conflict," 

said area ranger Woody Fine. 

,, 

What we're carrying out 

here is the intent of our 

comprehensive plan I 

don't believe for one 

minute that the Forest 

Service has catered to any ·one interest. 

,Sob Richmond, 

supervisor, 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

'' 0 

Above_ the heart-stopping whitewater of Granite Rapid, Granite 

Creek boils and roars down through 

a IUU'I'Ow side canyon to Its confluence with. the Snake. A i:rall winds 

uphill through hackberi-y trees to- ward Idaho's: Seven Devils Range. 

To the flrst-time visitor, Hells 

Canyon can seem a portal to a new 

and l!lldlscovered world, where the 

sky narrows and storms pass oyer 

without touching the canyon bot· tom. · 

Yet this land Is not empty. Even In 

May, C3!11psites are scarce. Balley's 

party passes by two occupied sites 

before putting In late at Kirkwood 

Ranch. · 

At Pittsburg Landing, the canyon's most . popular takeout point, 

the scene Is a blur of trucks and 

trailers and lines at the ·boat ramp. Heavy ·equipment Is punching a recreational vehicle park Into a mead- ow here. A newly Improved road 

leads to a parking area now under 

construction, where a trail will draw 

visitors Into a grove of hackberry 

trees that shalter rocks bearing mys- . ter!ous carvings. 'l'he Forest Service 

will put an Interpretive sign at the 

site but has no plan to provide securtty. 

··Experts warn that more visitors 

will surely lead to defacement of the 

2,000:year-old petroglyphs. 

"I hope that doesn't happen," Cole 

said, "but that is not an unknown 

site." 

0 

Environmentalists' efforts to draw 

attention to problems at Hells Can· yon have been hampered by the 

area's remoteness and the public 

perception that the issue was resolved in 1975 with creation of the 

national recreation area. 

Opponents of a national park 

study pillnt out that the National 

Park Service, underfunded and 

overwhelmed with too many visi- tors, Isn't doing an adequate job or 

managing the lands entrusted to it 

now. 

Bailey, who has devoted nearly 

half his life to a passionate cam- paign for Hells CanyoQ., concedes his 

dream of a park . and preserve en, comp8:sS!ng both. Hells Canyon and 

the Eagle Cap Wilderness won't be- come reality next year. · 

But Bailey believes the canyon's grandeur speaks for itself - and 

that one day the argument for desig- nating HeUs . Canyon as a crown jewel of the national park system 

willllnd a receptive ear in Congress. 

"We realize that legislation is a 

long-term project," he said. "In the 

interim, we have to protect Hells 

Canyon before we make it into the 

next national park. We have oneolng problems that need immediate 

attention. They can't wait for na- tional park legislation to pass." 
132 

THE SUNOAY UKM;ONIAN, MAY :.!b, ~~~ l 

Who's to blame for deterioration in Hells Canyon? 

_ ironm ists point the finger.at the Forest 

Service, which blames economics and politics 

~y KA.THIE DURBIN 

JOSEPH - The view from Buck· horn Lookout on a clear day takes in 

a maze of canyons and ridges that seem to go on forever. 

Nearly 4,500 feet below, the wild 

Imnaha River roars north toward its 

connuence with the Snake River at the bottom of Hells Canyon, the 

deepest gash in North America. The snow!'· peaks of Idaho's Seven Devils 

tloat in the hazy distance. The Nez rcrce Indians, lhis land's first human inhabitants, harvested its abund·ant elk and salmon, 

roamed its canyons and drew spirit·. 

ual strength from Its raw power. 

Similarly, many white new-

··omcrs have recognized Hells Can· \"On as a national treasure for most 

Or this century. Efforts to preserve it date from the late 1930s, when Sen. 

harlc.s McNary, R·Ore., asked the 

\":.~ tiona! Pa1·k Service to study the 

;,early inaccessible canyons and t.hc 1 ,1 tljoinlng Wallowa and Seven ~evils , · 

;~;: ;~~~;~i~!tf~~af~~~~le constdera- i l<lnho Power Co. built three dams 

: :t Hells Canyon to harness the Snake River's power. In 1975; Con· gre:>s barred future dams with a law thm de:>ignated 652,488 acres of the 

rugged country straddling Oreeon ;,nd Idaho as Hells Canyon Nadonal 

~·~ reation Area. HeJJs Canyon's legacy seemed 

-...t·cure. · ~1 t !6 years later, the U.S. Forest 

"·::"'."ice sits squarely in the center of :.n iutcnsifyina: controversy over its ~1r: ward!'hip of Hells Canyon. 

The agency has not complied with 

several requirements of the 1975law 

and has made little progress in implementing its own 1981 managelnent phm for the recreation area. The latter includes plans to improve 

primitive roads and _tr3ils and devel· 

::m.~~ iiid scenic over· 

BnvlrOiiuiiintaltata accuH the 

l'nnlt Service or ollowlnc the •teadY deterloratlon of .Hells Canyon throlllh a phllooophy that empba· 

- loalnl. II'Uhll and envlt!>n· m.e!ntaUY dlmaa:lna recreaUijlal clo'nlopmen~ .. 

'1la1ll Canyon'• environment baa betn in a consistent state of , detarioradon atnce the Foreat Serv· 

k:e:wu put Ill cbar&e," aald Ric Bal· ley, a J'l•)'ear·old, .{oaepb·based, riVer .JUlde· who reactivated tb~ 

Halla ClnYOJl Preoervatlon Council four yean q:o to work for a Hells 

Canyon National Park. Some rutdentl of Union, Baker 

uid Wallowa co\Ultiea believe the Forest Service lean• too far the ollior woy "-that It hu unnecoourl· 

ly withheld !lre<lamaied and lnlect· raVa.aed Umber rrom an economy !hit llllleled by natural .-urcea - pubUc lando. In the aftermath or ... -t lin, the qency aold .tuat 10 ·-t or the !lre<lamaied · tllllber available, leavln8 tha reot to 

~~i within the tromO. woft they have to operate unde~: . thtY're dolnc u well u tha. Y can, !lid. r.arry Crlbbt, preoident or the 

La Grande-Union County Chamber of Commerce. ''The conatraints that are put on them by poUtlcs and their own economlca putt them into a pretty narrow band." The Fore1t Service contends it '* been a vtct1m or undenunding, ne&].ect and political compromises struck lD the law that created the ni.tional recreation area. "What we should have and what 

we have are not the same," said Ed 

Cole the recreation area's manager ror the - three yeon. ''The Hells CAnyon National Recreation Area baa DOl been tha lbowoue that Con· creu 1nteDded. TheA were compro- mlael ltrDcl< tD come up with that 

lecWatlon." 

Brock Evana, vito preoldent of the National Audubon Society, worked Cor elaht yaan u the Sierra Club's Northweat representative to wm puaa1e of a bUl protectlne ~ells 

Canyon. He believt1 the aovemment bas broken the promise 1t made in 

1975. . 

~'What they're dolnats about as far removed as you can eet from what we thouaht we had,., Evans aald. "They're lontng every place where then are a-they can ret at. They'n ·tnattna It u a Umber reaerve wl>an It lhould be a recrea· tlonal and acenlc pin.. 

Sen. Bob Packwood, R.Ore., who sponsored. tht• bUl,. believes tt is worldq u well u olj>OC!ed given the comprombet that were struck to 

ret It puud, aald Hance Haney. a Pacltwood aide. 

But with money flnally nowine from Conareu to improve roads, 

davelop CIJDIIIroundo and biro more 

~reaUon spedaUata, "now, is not 

th• Umt to conalder changtlli the management of the area," Haney aald. 

0 

The road to Buckhorn Lookout 

paasaa throlllh aome or the .lareest old-erowth pondarou pine IJ'Ovesln tho Wollowa·Wbltman National For· est 

But aluhes of blue paint mark 

many ot the m.ualve trees for lo&· tPili. Nearby, aalv"'"loallli or flre- damt&ed a- baa lefl open, atump. studdtdatand&.. · Cole ezplalned. that the Forest 

Sentce cull treea 1n the national recreation area ollly to ratore the haalth or the roreot. enhance recre- ation, Improve flab and wildlife habJ.t&t ADd remove huardow trees 

neor roada and camPCI'OWI<II. llalloJ doaan~ buy ll .. I don't ,.. b.Dw recreation and 

wlldllCe are onhanctd by laldne out 
the biJ pine," he said. "To an aaeDCY 

of foresters there 11 nothlna obJec· tionable about a tore1round of stumpo, but the national recreation area wu dedicated to a dlft'erent kind of recreational experience." Under the forest's new lD-year 

management plan, the national recreation area 1s scheduled to pro- duce an averap of 7 mill1on board feet or timber annually - 5 percent of the forest's total Umber target. 

Since 1975, the Forest Service hu sold an averase of 9 mlillon board feet from area annually. In 1989, it sold 34 mUlion boald feet oC timber, most of It damapd by ftre. 

Bailey also has called for chanpe tn Krazina practices. Alone the federa1ly protected Imnaha River, where much oCthe ainyon boltDm Is 

privately owned, cattle erase the 

~~:.et.":J:o=~~ Three-quarters of the-national recreation area's public land-ta .. leued for sraz!ni. ln all, 48.6U cows and calves, l,.s& honea and 18,474 

sheep ll'1W' for at' ~ part oC the year on publlc land there. Cow plel in campgrounds are a fact of llfe, eapeclally alODi riverbanks. The Forest Service has· beaun a review to see whether .. ~ .ere needed, but the proceai wunu.e 

~=n:ne:::m~':=;e. eo~~!: ttnue. "Grazlni Is a tooL" Cole said. "We need to make sure In ustna those tools we don't aet confllcta." 

0 

The Oregon Natural Resources 

CouncU, the alate's laqest Orecon· bued envtronmantal orpnlsatlon, and the Hella Canyon Proservatlon . Council, Which includes huntera, outtltten and other COD&ervationiats amone its 550 memben, have c:alled for · a study of whether the 10vem· ment shoUld turn Hella Canyon over to the National Parle Service, wlt'h huntlnc prl~ preoerved. Some national fii'OUJ16 have )oiDed them. "The qua:Jity of Hella .Canyoli merits Its protection aa a national park," oald David Simon. of the National Parka and .Conaervatlon 

Association In Waahlnlton; D.C. "It'o a unique ploce on the face olthe earth and lt quaht ta be iif the nlitlonal park oystem." However, the prnpoaal bu drawn no aupport from the Northwett dele- pHon. AldOl to Packwood aDd Sen. Mark 0 . Hatfield, R-Ore, said the senators won't aupport cbaDitl that don't ei\Joy strona loeal aupport. 

Neither wiD Rap. Bob Smith. R-Ore., whoee district lnc1udol the Onson part ofllella Canyon. And residents of Nortbeaatem Orecon'a rural communitiea vebe· mently appoee turn1n1 Hella Canyon Into a national park, whent 1oplna, Kl'8ZIIIi and mlniD& would be prohlf>. I ted. 

133 

Two w- aao. inore than 400 oC them pecbd a hallln La Grande to confront Audy Kerr, conservation 

director for the Oreaon Natural Resources Counctl, over his plana to 

push for a· .national park and old· 

fii'OWih protection. "How many here want ine deed?" 

Kerr uked. No one ra1aed a hand. "How many want.· me seriously maimed?" he asked. A few hands went up. "We jl:lt want you out of Eastern Qreeon," one woman shouted. In March, the Orea:on Lands . Coalition, a timber and ranehinl support network, ol'lflllllzed a cam·· pa1Jn to persuade Union, Wallowa and Baker county. offlelals to 

endone current Foroot Servlca man· aaemenl • "Phlloeopblcally, we reject the no-use restrlcttona that are clearly 

part of an overall preservation 

objective," said coalition spokas· woman Jackie Lang. Cribbs said the La Grande-Union County Chamber of Commerce he 

heads decided to adopt a positive stance now, iatber·tban react nesa· ttvely later to a park propooal from park proponents. This way, be said, 

"If It c!oeo 10 to Consreu, the people directly atrected can be Involved up 

fronl" The econOintc atakes for North: eastern Oreeon are hta:h, Cribbs aald, becauoe so much or the publlc land already II iet ulde In catego- ries that produce no -economic 

return. 

"In this part oC the world we're agriculture, we!re cattle and we're 

trees," he said. ''If you remove larie areu ll'om that baee without replac- lna It IOIIlewhere else, the Impact on the local economies Is just tremen· doUJ." 

0 

Envlronmentaltsta also have steppe4 up their effort• on behalf 

oC Hella Canyon. Tbe Hella canyon Preservation CouncU, a ohoeatrlnB ell'or! that operate~ out of a room In Bailey's drafty farmh01110, proclucad a polished 28-mlnute video detalllnB the canyon's history and natural" 

wonden. The AlllaDca for the Wild Rock! .. , an oraanlaatton dedicated to ·pre· 

serviDB !'he 1arpof ot Nort'h Amer!· ca't tntac:t w1ld. ec:o~yatema,1ncluded 

a Hells canyon national park otudy 

In a ilralt bW for whlch It Is seeldll& 

·-· Bailey recently went to Wuhlna· · ton. D.C., to lobby for. a chanae ln Hella canyon manapmenl But the national conservation 

fii'OUPI Ill' the campalan wiD have to bulld brooder aupport before they will become actively Involved. "It' a at the top oC the llat In terms oflarae. new national parks," Simon said. ''The question is, what will it 

talte to translate IP'11&a-roots support to national support ln Congressf' 

From the bellnnlnl. the 19'15 law creatma tbe natioDal recreation area wu a compromise between pttiervatlon of.a remote, ruue<t wtlder· neu and economlc exploitation oftts foreats, rangelaDcla and minerals. The .law required protection of free.Oowtna aectiona of the Snake River and COJliii'V&tlon of the canyon's ·wllderness, wtldltfe and 

archaeolo&y. It set aside 214,000 acres - lncludlna: Hells Canyon Itself and the Imnaha River breaks - 11 wtldernesa. In enhana:e, it allowed cra.zlna. mtntne. selective loa:a:tnc "and the continuation of such exiatlna: uses and develop· menu aa are compatible with the 

provlslool" oCtheact. . The Forett Service completed a management plan for Hella canyon ln 1981. But Inadequate llmdlna by Conaress, political prenure from the Rearan administration and lack or Foreat Service tntuattve have delayed lmpor!ant dec!Jions and len the area ripe for confllct. • Conaren dlrected the Forest Service to write reau!ations govern· Ina Ul8 of'pr!vate landa within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, .but the Wallowa· Whitman NaUonal Foreat only recently fin· 

!shed wrltln& draft rules. Those rules, under review in the Portland regional omce; deal primarily with land use and development, Cole said. GrazinB on private land Is atrected only u tt comes under atate water quallty reautatlona. What took ao lona? ' ''They've been on hold primarily 

becauee. under the Reagan adminis· 

tratlon they would net have Down," Cole said. • The 19'75law reqUlred the For· est Service to develop a system or scenic roada providtna access to viewa, eapec1ally along the West Rim 

lnOretJon. But, u a 1990 report by the con· grenlonal General Accounting Office pointed· out, He11a Canyon 

remalna faraely Inaccessible and the Foreat Service has made few improvements to the area'a prlml· 

tive roada - largely because of 

underfuncllnB by COnll'fl8. Throlllh Hatfteld's efforts, about $2 million has been appropriated atnc. 1987 to improve road.& alons 

the West Rim; to the premier Hells canyon viewpoint at Hat Point; and to the Snake River boat·launchlng lite at Dua Bar. • Few improvement& have been made to the primitive tratls and 

t::'~F=t~~:~~ at1on durin& tbe UllOa wu responsi· ble. A apeeial appropriation from Realonal Foreater John Butruille will allow him to beltn work on a number of projects, lncludina: a visi· tor center, traU improvements and a 

recreational vehicle camparound at 

Pltlsbur& Landlnr on the Idaho side of the Snake. · 
134 

1HE SUNDAY OREGONIAN, MAY 26, 1991 

But Baney saya the Fol'l!llt Service 

should follow the example of the 

National Park Service at the Grand 

Canyon and .disperse recreation. 

along the canyon rim, not build 

developed campgrounds along eco- logically aenaltlve riverbanks. 

"It's going to exacerbate the river 

problem," he said. 

• The 1981 Fol'l!llt Service man· agement plan called for lim1ting the 

number oC boatl on· the Snake River 

- powerboat~, non-motorized dories 

and rafts- during the summer, and 

excluding power ooall from one sec· lion of the f'ree.running river year· 

round. But powerboat enthusiasts 

found two powerful allies in then· 

Sen. James McClure, R·Idaho, and 

then·Asslstant Agriculture Secre· 

tary John B. Crowell. 

Crowell, who was In charge of the 

Forest Service, overruled the 

agency's plan and with McClure's . 

blessing took away Its authority. to 

restrict powerboat use on the Snake · 

River. As a result, use of the river 

by private and commercial power· 

boats mushrooms on summer week· ends. . · Restrictions on the number of · 

float·trip outfitters who could use 

the river never. were changed. ''There's no question·that the peo· 

ple who go on commercial float trips . 

are extremely disappointed that 

power boats so dominate the river," · Bailey said. "They come for peace 

and quiet, but on summer weekends 

the Snake River Is nothing more 

than a powerboat fi'eeway." 

The conflict ftbally prompted the 

Forest Service to appoint a task 

force, now working on a solution to 

the problem. · Cole says he welcomes scrutiny of 

the Forest Service's management. 

lntimately, he said, the canyon's fate 

will be decided by the public. " If the public reels It wants it 

managed as a national park, that's 

the public's prerogative," he said. 

"The public has to ask, what Is it 

that It wants to come oiJthat land?" 

MlllaAM RIYHOLDI 

Cowo tr.nple h-. ollhe lmnllhll Rl•.,., I*! ollhe -rol Wild and Scenic lllwll' ,,_, wlllch ,.,.lhrough prt•ala ......,. land within 

llallo Canyon Nallonal RecraaUon Area. ~ ,._ llo f-1 

Sonloelo clevalop ruiN ...-.a llllllrol ,.....,_on prtwala land 

wltllln ... - ....... boundarlu, but 11 , ..... ...., ... -

hat ""'adoplad """" "'*' . 
135 

Seattle Post-tnteltigencer, Tuesday, Junell, 1993 

Wide rift 

ina huge 

gorge 

Uses for Hells Canyon 

haven't yet been settled · 

HELLS CANYON, Idaho - The risina: drone or a jet boat resounded through the Snake River c8nyon in early 

evenin&. just as Forest Service omcials 

soUJht to convince a group or visitors that connicts between ratters and mo. tori.zed travelers are minimal. In an aquatic version of a fire drill, five Northwest Dories guides dropped d inner dishes and sprinted toward their 

boats. They reached the shore ahead or the jet boat's powerful wake, in time to hold wooden craf\ from being pounded against rocks. 

With motor sounds, manmade waves 

and gasoline smells. to underscore his 

poi nl. Ed Cole . Hells Canyon NationMJ 

Hccrcation Area ranger, declared: "This is not a wilde rness river." 

It is. howe ver. a very wild river. 1-lrlls Cetnyon on the Snake 'tiver is one 

or the most dramatit. difficult to reach spots in America. Its very remoteness ha s made the 

canyon a modem-day refuge for those scekinc respite rrom pressures or life. He lls Canyon sees three times as many visitors as it did five years ago. Its growi ng popularity has put the 

652.488-llcre Hells Canyon Nationa l Re· cr('ation Area in the middle or a land usc battl e th:.~ t will •uwc rcvcrbc rationlii 

far beyond North America's deepeSt 

canyon. • Will conse rvationists make the 7.000-foot-deep canyon centerpiece of a drive to create more national parks in 

the West? • Will the Forest SC!rvire change its philosophy or land management. and )li\'C t·ec reation and conservation p reC'C· 

dcn(·C over suth traditional uses o.s timber cutting and sheep craz- in ~ 

• Will compe:tine: recreation- ists get alont. or is it necessary to h<~. e ru les to pry them apart? The rutr is as wide and deep a!i Hells Canyon Itself: Some come to the canyon to Javor ruthhll waters and listen to the winds. But others get a rush from power- ing their boats through roariq 

rapids. 

The Forest Servl<e limlta the number of raften on the river. But it puts no reatrtetlou on jet boat.s. An averap of 20 to 30 private Jet boat&, plua to-eommer- eial <:raft. can be found In the canyon on a summer day. 

The connJet.s were. debated not lone lJO u a quiet jet bOat pulled 

k~~n:~.:er:~:t~~~our:.-:u~: lunched with their euide, Hells Canyon Preaervation Council leader Ric: Bailey~ 

Out jumped leaden or the Northwest Power Boat Aiaoc:la~ 

tion, and a heated debate broke out 

"It's an attitude of dental: You refuse to retotnite that one person's uH denies another penon's pleuure," said Bailey, wbo hal rafted Hells Canyon fo~ 15 yean. "Ric, I don't deny your ript to have a wilderness experience, and this ian't the place for it." retorted Sandra Mitchell, North- west Power Boat Association ex- ecutive director. 

Bailey wants to restrict motor- i7.ed boaters, followif1i the model 

of other streams a_ueh as Oreeon's Rogue River. The preservation council would ban jet boats for up to 42 miles of the 107-mile stretch 

between Hells Canyon Dam and the Clarkston-Lewiston bridp. The proposed ofl'-limltl area includes sever al npids and the deepest, most hauntina section or Hells Canyon. In a horizontal 

distance of just eilbt miles, eleva- tions pluna:e from 8,89S feet on Bc,u Mountain in Orqon to 1,!500 

fe et at the river, and back up to 

9.393 reet on Idaho's He Devil peak. 

Jet boats would be allowed ror about 30 miles in the national recreation area, and down to Lewiston, Idaho, a cit)' that adver- tises Itself 11 "the Jet boat manu· raeturin& capital of the world." · 

Such restridions are &oithe- ma to the jet boat industry. 

"This is a power boat river; we don't believe any boat should be eliminated from this canyon," sa id Mitchell. '"With . proper etiqu tte. we be lieve problems will nnt exist" 

ore t Service is drawing u~ a new manacement plan that wJII Jovern use of the river for the next 15 years. 

"I think there will be a limit on jet boa t usare," said Bob 

Richmond, Wallowa-Whitman-Na- tional Forellt superviaor:. He 

wo~~£ved!C:::C ~aC:· Proven a 

bureauer•tic maze even for a bureaucracy used to ftndlna: itself caught in· the middle of land use battles. I11ues faei~ the Forest Service IO to the heart or the aJteney's ~i ssion. 

The ilopn "Land of . Many Uses" is familiar to anyone who 

has driven into a national forest It proclaims the Forest Service's manaaement philosophy. · Around tbe Weat, loc:al Forest Service omeiala have traditional- ly .serviced economies of timber 

and minlnc towns just . outside national roruta. Tbey renected pro-development values of towns 

&om Ketehitap, Alaska, to Enter- prlse, Ore. While maD)' national forests 

have undet~one a cbanee from development toward preservation, at Hells. Call)'on, manqement retains the old wayl. Connletina: UJel are thrown topther, and 

loc:al innuence is stron&- "They've responded to an isa-. lated local population that says, 'This Is our land and we'll do what we want,"' Bailey said. . 

Trees are cut in the national recreation areL Grazing is al~ ' 

lowed, despite evlden<:e that biC· born sheep herds have been thinned by diseases contracted from domestic sheep. The Foreat Service has built an all-vehide road into remote PittsbuJ1 t.ndin&, in the heart of 

Hells Canyon. It was previously reached by a rutted track. A big recreational ·vehicle campground is under eoMtructlon. The Forest Service's most con- trovenial move at Pittsburg Land- inc is to construct a road and paved trail· to rocks bearing a set or Indian pelroliyphs. .. This makes me very, very nervous," uys Roeer Contor, a retired senior manacer in the National Park Service. " I'll tell 

you what I think will happen. 'Someone will deface this site with a can of spray paint-Then they'll put in an ua:iy chain link 

renee around it" Forett Service development at Pittaburc t.ndilll remi_nds Cantor of daya wben the National Park Service plotted roada alon& coast- al beaches of Olympic National 

Park and schemed to put in a 90- mlle loop throUih Utah's Canyon- lands National Park. ''They're behind the curve here," he said. "They're still back in the 19608 to 

a ~~~le H:~n'ianyon Preserva ~ lion Council bas thrown up its hands at the Forest service. It wants to replace the acency with the National Park Service. ''This could be the naeship of America's last eeneration of great national parkl," u ld Mary O'Bri- en, president otthe council. The proposal has precedent 
In 1938, discotitent with Forest Service manaeement prompted Franklin D. Roolevelt to create Olympic National Part. Three de· cades later, the North Catcades 

National Park wu carve:d . out or three national forests. Contor was its first superiatende:nt One key preservaUonist · Is leery of the Park Service. 

When nrst eleeted covernor of Idaho in 1970, Cecil Andrus said 

more dams would be bunt in Hells Canyon "over my dead body ... 

Andrus, a Democrat. later teamed up with a pair of conservationist Republicans, WashinltOn Gov. 

Dan Evans and Orecon Gov. Tom McCall, to create a dam·free na· tiona! recreatfon area. Andrus hu araued, however. that national parks ban huntine and would impose toQ many rules on Id.ahoans' enjoyment of the outdoors. Andrus is an avid hunter. 

The National Park Service 

may play an indirect role in Hells Canyon. In other places, fear of a Park Service takeover has spurred the Forest Service to chanee its ways. ·u may yet happen in Hells 

Canyon. The Forest Se~ice prom· 

ises to phaSe out sheep grazina in the canyon althoU,Jh it ~on't aay when. "Just how we remove those permits is yet to be detennin~ " 

said Cole. And the a.cency may limit access by jet· boats. 'In the early 

1980s it tried to keep a 16·mile section free of motors, by was overruled "at the political level" 

said river rancer Woody Fine. The 

Rea&an administration decreed that jet boaters would eo where 

they wanted. 

Hells Canyon seems to be an unchangine landscape, but man's desires tor North America's deepest hole have evolved. Sheepmen were once doml· nant, to the detriment of land- scape and wildlife. A future Idaho gov(>mor and 1enator, Len Jordan, 

ran 3,000 animals over 17,000 acres in the 1930S. The Jordan ranch is today a major historic site in the canyon. In the 1goos, pubUc and pri- vate power dueled over who would buUd a 80Q...foot hi&h dam 

in Hells Canyon. The Washincton Public Power Supply System pro. posed a dam that would have cul off moat ulmon habitat on the Snake River 1yatem. 

136 

Ric a.lleJ of the Hells Canyon PreS8fV&Iion Council listens to responses by F'!f8SI Service offiCials regarding management of the wilderness area along the Snake R1ver. 

Dam-builders were blocked by 

a famous U167 U.S. Supreme Court ruline written by Justice William 0 . Douelu. He ordered that feder- al aa:encle. look beyond kilowatts 

in considerinc the canyon's fU. 

ture. 

"The telt is whether the (dam> 

will ~ in the public interest'' 

wrote Doue:las. "And that dctermi· 

nation can be made only an.er an 

exploration of all issues relevant to the 'public interest.' including 

future power demand and supply. alternative sources of power, the 

public interest in preserving 

reaches or wild rivers and wilderness areas, the preservation of 

anadromous fish for commerci.,l and recreational purposes. and the protection of wildlife." More than a quarter~entury 

later, the "public interest" in 

Hells Canyon has yet to b<" fully 

den ned. 

Hells Canyon 

: Snake~ · River 1 Waf11W1fl1 / I 

. ... .. ...... . "·"· I 

~5!~011 ! 

I 

! 
137 

Sealtlo Post-lnleiiiiJt!nCef, WedM&day, July 7, 1993 

Vandal hits 

site of Indian 

petroglyphs 

By Joel c-JJy P-1 N..:ic:NI CorresponderC 

A \o-andal bas defaced a re- DOWlled Ind.ian petroglyph site ln 

Idaho's Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.. just a few month$ after the Forut Service built au all we.ather road to withiD 

y.nds of the rock carvings. The vandal uaed a TOCk or nail 

tD "'"""'b a drawing or a deer and a bow and aJTOW on a stone next to carvicg,s by nati~ artist& that date bac:lc 2,000 yea:rs. 

''Tbey didn't d"""''" the pet- rogin>bs tbemselv= They add•d one of their o-.u," said Ed Cole, ranger with t.be Wallowa-Whitman NationalForv.st. Tile site !s at Pittsburg Land- ing. just above the Snake River near Lewiston. Idaho. The Forest Service is developi.J1g - a boat launch, Parl<iul .,... and recre- ational-vehicle camp there. "Our intention is to find out who did it aDd make au eumple that this 1$ not somethiat to do around a petro&JYph . site." Cole said. · 

A conservation i!WP that op- JN.:a"'l IIU.I.II)i;l UI..I!IUU U( UJI!l J U.\1 

said the. Fo'!f'.._~ce illvltad 

t:."~~or'ti;'~. e..!::t. 

llli>ilo tlel!l~~ ~ 'lll¥6le<'l<iu• 

dral¥1-.. .. . . . 

~~tW'~~ . -~~~~ 

cj: I 'a.' ei' 'Ui C.'o.Y~~ PNi.fm.tto•. 

B.lllei' altlf'Pideol:boaL·Irlp• dOWII•tlle:-8ftlb. ~To.' DUriq · trip dowa tlll'f~ tiiilale ~ay; 

he Al'llled · wu.· l'oi'OII Bfi'Y~ 

omelalo· lk•t !lliot' wete lnviiJ"' ··ct.U.. b)l~tCiilllll ll!li pet.. l"'fyplu. . .. . 

··w~ !Old • n woKWh~p p ... ltcllda~-hkeoluoonlba 

ll'om lhe t1111e '"'buUt ~ rood," 

lie .. Jdi · . .. a ro.:e~ ~""d n · ond make • ·•·'·Ci;Jo, · ~)lolqlt or the aatloaal ·~~lle!l(e (o,r ¥.~rn~bldjo to gel to .. rilonoill0<11anil; 11/111ed ·ttioa that I.L . 

· eaolllf.ltCIII l~illllloti>nitlvo dlo- He apee•l&tcd lh •I the vondal . PliQII''wO)IId wof• to more elfec- . mQ haVe walked UJ a half-milo Uv.~>:, ili'OJact tbe potrotl~h fll~ : trail J)'om the Snaiu,.llver end not 

~~~J:"r::f,!" ~~~~ vlillora walked ao root n:om ~·· now , .. d .. 

19 ~ Plttoal7PIIa aae~ · 70"!•" · Tjlo doep-red po'h>fjlyp~o are <;ole ial.d ye'olerdl)l, · _ tlae ·oldoal lndlaa lrawiqa !11 

' ""'l'lto bool wo ..,. do b Inter- llella Calli'On, predal"l( tho Nor. prot tht alto, provl!lo lafonnaiiOil Peru ttlbo. · 

. oa. lli1 olljl JDd ~ow lo _eare Cpr The ayoaboto hav• Mver been ll-ThO- wo ~ould dolo build dqolpherect. Tho~ ar< eonooa>trat-
138 

Periauh: Agency U;lvited vandalism, critic says 

ed "'" a oombrero-IQ.pod IIIah known u llexloao H~t Rook. 

'lbi va .... l'a ocrolcblilp are 

~-~~·~or Qolll lho road Will IIIJU'OYod, 

lho J>ellvllrDh ..... - - ollke moot re......-la Ike Wool. A deeplY 

rutted, ron ··- l--we tnock ,.,.....,, 'l'lo FOIQII SerYloe 

P"' ln .. oU·weMI!er.road ond baa 

r.lallllocl a lludonod lrall wllh 

. ·~·-Ito. 'l1w ... ..., ... followed • 

dllfal'8Dt polleJ lUll punued by 

tho Kallollll PaJt Bemce at ""' olbar-~ allo, PolrUiod Forut NllllooiorPart In Arlzon-. . 

PIOIIDOd by vOIICiallllll, notably 

~ish"'~=~::-,.,::: lho rut samca ao ,....,, pubiJ. choo hapllltlot nllu:opol011eal oliGo. Whil11 a troU lo ono f411Hd potnJalllpb waa wulaod out bJ a flllk flood, It ....... , rep&lrecl -

•••,. rioi1or1 to "•w lllo draw· !-..-a dlatuco. Tbo PllllbiiJJI Laadllll .... ~ 

ot1110at J>u. beo~~ lho Poreot s.r.. 

~.~-::'u~.;:~~ Rocreoll.., Aioo. 'l'hf' UUCllllt been~~ l'c¥''puii.IJ!I• i>Mii· 1111 81'01 bollde tho 8Rako 1\1-.r old Cor aiJolwiDc too,...,oaol ve- hl<lu to ~ on ..,d otr -ell 

lhr<KqJh IP'UIIaadl obo¥e tho rit• er. . 

Colo .. ld tho Foroit Servlocj know~ wh\111 tho potroa!rphl wqrq Yllldallr.od ~ htlt-n&lll<ll ot Jlll9. ~ CRIIIPllll alllj laan~itnc boaU on Uao n..,.r at t~ UNe. 
139 

THE SUNDAY OREGONIAN (Metro), June 20, 1993 

Bacteria spread by domestic sheep 

kill Hells Canyon bighoms 

•oeiplte lbllhreal to 

wlldlle, tile Fonllt Service 

conUnuas to eJJow lheep 

umtna In Ute area 

By KATHIE DURBiN-· 

oiTM Or~_, *If 

Bacteria spread by .domeatlc sbeep have wiped· out · scono .of Rocky Mounllln bl&bonnhaop'ln the Hells Canyon ccuntey aiDoo tho 

mid-19708. 

Neverthio!eso, o\-c iha ~ 'throe years tho u;s. sirv!ce bU · 

approved . two ~ ·pot. mila In Hells Conyon.. . . • . 

Just thls yeai; t~~i U.S. Foreot Service app!ovecl :t!Je tnDa!~ or a 35,860:acre sheeHrazln&· allQtment on the Oregon 'slda of Hells canyon from Dne Oreaon rinclier \0 anQtb' 

er. : .. - :· . :-. :"· . :- ": 

pe~;~~~=~ ' Idaho, rancher, td irue0

blJ abeop 

on a 37.o&&-acre ··allotm.ent Dell' ; 

wbere a. )alp •cb<llr ot·b.l&boma ; had OCCUlTed a. few: Yean Nrller. ' Anolher diO-Ofr. wblcll· ldiiOcl 31 ! ewesandlOinllo;~~ali>CO . thattbrie, · - · ··· ·. · '· ·-~ · •· 

The Foi.at serYJc8 ccntlnueo ~o · aUow shaep 1D giaza In tho canyon and adjacent ~ Cap WUdorneaa despite coDclUiive new evidence : that the · PasUurrlla· ' /wmi>l)ltlca ' 

bacteria they pan cany are tho cui· prlt In the dle'oll'a. · . · . .. . 

The ba'cteria.' ·wblcll . !Ower bl&-· · hom's i'eslstanee to ··pneumonia, . kill sWiftly - usUally. within' ·24 hours after lnfectl9i>.-!llolopa_ta be- . 

lieve they are ·spread throu&h . grass. . 

Hells Canyon's hl&b bluffs and sheer canyon walls pnce were 

home to abunclsnt herda or blebo.m . sheep. The Nez Perce and other 

trlbeo hunted thelil' for -·· Homesteaden who arrived in the · 19th century S~ them for meat Many were ldlled to supply Iron tier 

mining campo. BY tbe I!NOo, they 

had been bunted \0 """'extlnctlnn. In the late 1960)1, bl&' pme. agon· cl .. In Oregon and·ldaho bNIII tho . . expensive ·- and ultimately ttaglc 

- 'effort to · relntrOcluce blcbom sheep Into Hells Canyon «1untey . . 
140 
......................... WILDLIFE 

The HeUs Canyon National Recreatfon A'rea provides a 

home bover 375 species of animals including 29 

species ol fi$h. Of the-se animals, the Rocky Mountain eflc ispahopsthe best known. Theoeelk, introduced in HellsC.nyon in 1913, are now found tllrooah the entire 

ate~. N~iw Rocky Moul"!tain bishom sheep disap- J. peono<~"""" domestic s~~eop di ...... decimaled the loal-1ation. They ho.e since been reintroduced 

sucasolully in bolh ldiho and Qreeon. Rody Moun- tain .,m in~theSeYI:n Devils MounU.im in Idaho. The..- p<eVaient game bird is the chukar partri<Jse, also ¥1 introduced species, which is found at lower 

....aoon.. The whill! """"""· Americo's iarwest freshwiler fish, inhabits the Snake River. Anadromous 

salmon and steelhead are increasing in numbers in both lhe SNke and Imnaha River drainages. Both bakt and 

BOklen eagles are fa irly common here, as well as a numbef of species of hawks and falcons. 

................... ~ 

~~~ 

MANAGING FOR THE FUTURE 

The renew.Jble natural resources with the Hells Unyon 

National Recreation Area are valuable assets managed to preserve natural beauty and the other attributes for whichthelueawascre~~tedbyCoftaress. Whilevisiting 

the Hells Canyon Nat~l Recreation Area with its 

monumental aeolosic ~atures, take time to efljoy the 

diverse ases and sizes ol forest trees, the shrubs and wildflowers, the wasslands. Enjoy the sights and 

sounds of cattle, sherep, elk, deer, cougar, bear, coyote, 

bis·homsheep, birdsandCMherwildlife. Theoerenewa· ble resources ~re JWt of your national heritap. 

fCJr \ddilion.d lrllnrrn,ltr;•n 

• \\,1].,"'\\l,t• 

'- ,! II 

• I I ', ( • ,.., '- .• 

..... c;:.ron ........ -...... .... 

_____ =~'::':~17121 COOl!- ,_ 

2531 ....... 0rM. P. 0. lolc- ~WA._ 

~.,...,. 

~=--- :.""~-=-

.... ~ ........................ •U.S, G O V IEIU .. MIEI'IT PltiNTING 0 "1'1C::IEI lti••O•III·Oil/ 12001 

R6-WW-o32-1984 
~~~ 

Welcome to the 

Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area. 

Created by Congress in 197.S, the 

Hells Canyon .National Recreation 

Area encompasses more than onehalf million acres over parts of th ree 

National Forests- the WallowaWhieman National Forest in Ot'egon, 

and the Payette and Nezperce 

National Forests of Idaho. It straddles 

the Hells Canyon of the Snake River, 

from the peaks of Idaho's Seven 

Devils Mountains orl the east to 

Oregon's rimrock and mountain 

slopes on the west 

The Recreation Area was created to preserve the 

free-flowing character of the Snake River in Hells Canyon for future generations and to protect its 

archaeological, historical, ecological and recreational 

values. When Congress established the Area, it also 

recognized existing activittes such as ranching, grazing, farming, and timber harvesting as tradilional and valid 

uses of the Area. 

This brochure takes a k>ok at three important renewable resources, timber, range and wildlife, and 

eJtamines their ties with the recreational, scenic and 

historical values of the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area . 

~..-.~..-.~..-. 

~~~~ 

TIMBER 

Early settlers along the Snake River in Hells Canyon 

used timber in developing their homesteads and 

ranches. Even though the land area that is now the 

Recreation Area has never been a large supplier of 

commercial timber, lumbering has been an important 

part of the economic life of neighboring communities. 

Timber harvest is perminedwithin the Area as long as it 

is consistent with the objectives of the Congressional 

Act establishing the Area . In all cases, selective harvest 

of trees must be used. This is done by cutti.ig and 

removing individual trees, or sm.all groups of trees 

covering not more than two acres at a time. 

Within the Recreation Alea, there a~ forested lands 

suitable for timber harvest in four Jocations: In Idaho, 

north of the Hells Canyon Wilderness; In Oregon, 

,, I·:. 

0'l~ ·. ·- q:;: ~{ ·:I,. . L' 1'-I"-'\:' .. 

r;··; · -~l . 

' ·--'· I, 

~ 

\ 

-- . . :......_ 

' - -.l - .. 'J . ' 

-· - northwest ol the Buckhorn LookoUt; on the plateau between Freezeout Saddle an<! lord Flat. and along the upper Imnaha River. These lands available for timber 

harvest amount to about 60,000 acres or roughly 12 

percent of the Recreation Area. Congress has directed 

that these lands be managed primarily for dispersed 

recreation rather than solely for maximum timber 

production. Priority is given to maintaining healthy and 

diverse groups of a variety ol tree sizes and species to 

prated and enhance timber stand health, scenery and 

wild life habitat. Additionally,. at least 10 percent of the 

harvested lands will be maintained in old-growth 

timber. 

~~~ 
143 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

We will recess at this time and then come back from the vote to 

ask questions of this panel. So we will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. Let's resume our sitting. The committee will resume 

its sitting. 

I note that Mr. Penney has left for a few minutes, but he will 

be back. 

Brock, as I said, I was interested to look at the history of this. 

I didn't realize the source of your expertise in this. In any case, you 

are obviously talking about amendments. We talked about the provisions of the law. Much of that has not been litigated, has it, in 

terms of whether or not the Forest Service is, in fact, responding 

to what the law is? 

Mr. EVANS. I don't know every detail. Mr. Bailey mentioned 

three lawsuits. I am not aware of any others on these points yet. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Bailey do you want to articulate on that particular point? 

Mr. BAILEY. I would be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. 

We actually have one lawsuit that primarily addresses management of the recreation area. That lawsuit was initially filed in 

1988, and the court found that the Forest Service has failed to promulgate special regulations, site-specific regulations, regulation of 

specific activities for use and management of a national recreation 

area. 

Section 10 of the Act requires those regulations. 

Mr. VENTO. But these suits have not been fully resolved yet. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. BAILEY. No, they haven't. They are still ongoing. 

Mr. VENTO. There are three outstanding. 

Mr. BAILEY. Right. 

Do you want me to speak to the other two? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, just briefly for the record. 

Mr. BAILEY. Okay. The second suit charges the Forest Service 

with violation of the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult 

with the National Marine Fisheries Service on the impact of its ac- tivities on salmon in the Imnaha River. 

The third lawsuit seeks to enjoin the cutting of any green timber 

until the Forest Service amends its environmental impact statement to address the forest health issue. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, those are all viable issues. We know the disposition of other pending questions like that. 

The concern that we would have as legislators is that we are 

going to rewrite a law that is already appropriately written. The 

dilemma I have, as Mr. Evans says, if you look at the literal reading of this, you should read this, Members of Congress. I think you 

are probably right. My only excuse is, I wasn't here when it was 

first written. Otherwise, I am safe on this account. I will have to 

figure out a different excuse since then. Now we are just pawing 

through the 4,000 pages of the NAFTA agreement and hundreds of 

pages of side agreements. 

In any case, the concern is, is it prudent really to run in and 

begin amending things if, in fact, there are suits, if, in fact, there 

is more focus of attention on this? 
144 

From my perspective, we knew it was a controversy the last couple of years, as opposed to, you know, look, we have a new administration, and obviously a changed course, which is being said with 

regard to the Forest Service, even with the Forest Service Chief in 

his discussions about modifications here, and wouldn't we be best 

advised in this instance, rather than refighting all the fights with 

regards to what already is in the law, to try to proceed to implement it in a good faith manner, if we can get that done? 

Mr. EVANS. That is a good question, and it has lots of ramifications, Mr. Chairman. At 0ne level, certainly it would be better perhaps to wait for a 

resolution of the lawsuits and see how they go. We think we are 

going to win them, and there are others coming down the line perhaps. That would be the simplest thing. 

On the other hand, isn't it tragic that we have to have lawsuits 

on something like this? Perhaps a committee directive to the Forest 

Service stating what the committee reads into this Act or 

reaffirming what we believe was the intent certainly of Mr. Ullman 

and Mr. Packwood and other prime movers in those days, that 

might be better. 

I am thinking about Senator Church's guidelines on clearcutting 

during the controversy in the early seventies which were not law 

but were a clear indication, and the Forest Service, by and large, 

was able to get some new guidance from that. So that is a possibility too. 

I think when you get a chance to see the place, I think you would 

agree that if it were in Iowa or some place like this, this would 

have been a national park 100 years ago. This is a fantastic place. 

Just because of local political pressures and other concerns and history and tradition of local folks who live there, who fear these 

things, that is the problem. 

But we are going to continue to advocate the management by the 

agency that we think will best protect the place, and that certainly 

would be the Park Service. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand what you are suggesting. 

Obviously, though, part of this has had some ramifications where 

the Forest Service had recommended limitations in terms of motorized use on the rivers in the mid-1980s and I guess in the 1984 

plan, and that then was set aside by the Chief and or the Assistant 

Secretary of Agriculture. So it had not always been a case where 

the Forest Service really was headed necessarily the diametrically 

opposed position. Of course, I understand your concerns. When we start talking 

about steamboats that were on the river in 1865 as being the predicate for jet skis today, that obviously is a substantially different 

use and, of course, a question of the intensity of the use, which I 

think has now been recognized, but there were efforts to try and 

curtail or limit that type of use. 

Mr. EVANS. Well, we will have to see the new proposal or plan 

that comes out. As you point out, this is a new era, a new time, 

a new administration. Maybe it can be corrected. We are skeptical 

because of the 18 years of past performance. 

Mr. VENTO. I prefer, obviously, to have written things in law. 

There are some things in law that should be followed. 
145 

As far as the timber programs that exist, you obviously speak, 

and Mr. Bailey has spoken and given us some photos of the 

clearcuts that are inappropriate, and Brock has also. 

Mr. Bailey, what type of timber program, if any, do you think 

ought to existhere? They talked only of a salvage program today, 

you know. Today Congressman LaRocco was pointing in that direction, and it seemed to me that the supervisor was responding positively. Mr. Leonard reserved the option that a "no green tree" policy would not be acceptable in terms of forest health, the new landscape policy, you know. 

Mr. BAILEY. Right. 

Well, I think that in terms of timber harvest in the NRA it was 

allowed through the Act, but I think that the inclusion of a national recreation area into the regulated cut for the forest was a 

serious mistake. In other words, there was a quota of timber that 

was required from the national recreation area. 

As far as the question of what type of timber cutting could take 

place in there, I would say that which was specifically based on biological concerns and recreational concerns that would address a 

specific issue and would not be for the purpose of providing lumber 

to sawmills, but that would be a secondary yield of a timber cutting 

program, but that it would not be part of a program, it would be 

biologically based. 

Mr. VENTO. We have another vote now. We are going to have 

hearings next week on forest health, and the real question is, is 

this going to be driven by the need for how many million board 

feet, or is going to be really driven by something called forest 

health? Underlying all of this, of course, is our sort of limited 

knowledge, really limited knowledge, of ecosystems. 

We have been putting in bills the last few years in Region VI, 

west of the Cascades, and every six months we were getting another report from the agency's scientific committee on owls, from 

the Portland group, the "Gang of Four," and then most recently, of 

course, another effort. Each one of them has tended to modify what 

our policy positions had to be in terms of what was sustainable, 

what was possible there, what the impacts were. I think it demonstrates really the inadequacy of our knowhow in terms of these 

ecosystems, and they are very complex. 

Mr. EVANS. Could I just interject on that point? 

Mr. VENTO. Certainly. 

Mr. EVANS. That is true that we don't know everything, but I 

think every new report that has come out on these issues in recent 

years, Mr. Chairman, has gone only one way. As Mr. LaRocco has 

often pointed out to me, salvage logging and forest health are not 

the same thing. Sometimes they intersect, but often they do not, 

and cutting down the forest in order to save it, which is how we 

see this, is not the remedy. Granted, it produces timber for mills, 

but that is not the issue. 

We can put all the reports together, and I urge you to read the 

one that I will submit to the record on that point. · Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penney, my time is quickly running out here because we have got another vote up, and I want to give Congressman LaRocco an opportunity. 
146 

I must say,· I concur in most of the points you had about the vertebrate species and the problems with grazing and the other issues 

that you raised. They were similar to issues that I have raised. It 

seems to me the case is pretty clear that a road running across a 

ranch being turned into a much upgraded path right to these cultural resource sites without a recognition of the problems was and 

is inappropriate. How it can be resolved at this point, of course, is 

more difficult. 

So I just want to recognize your testimony. It had certain elements in it of questions I had raised. You have heard the answers. 

I think the concerns remain, and the answers basically are in the 

future, and I am not very good at predicting that. 

Mr. LaRocco, do you have any questions of this panel? 

Mr. LARocco. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I will take into consideration our vote. Obviously, field hearings are a real luxury where we don't have 

these bells ringing. 

I think, Mr. Penney, you had stated on page 3 of your testimony, 

"Our position is that jet boat activity does have harmful effects." 

Is your position based on biological data, scientific data, that you 

have accumulated? And, if it is, could you submit that for the 

record as well, or is it a cultural position? 

Mr. BAILEY. Are you talking about the last paragraph? 

Mr. LARocco. Yes, I am, Mr. PenneyIt has yet to be found whether disturbances on the water affect the spawning of 

anadromous fish. However, our position is that jet boat activity does have harn;1ftil 

effects on these fish and their habitat. 

Mr. BAILEY. I think one of the concerns from the tribe as far as 

the mechanics of a jet boat in general, the way that the system 

works near the surface, it sucks water in to help propel the boat, 

and, as I understand it, there are even smolts, those type of thing, 

which do travel, I believe, near the surface and can be sucked into 

these motorized boats. 

Mr. LARocco. If there is anything you have further on that, that 

would be helpful. 

The hearing that is coming up next week on forest health, I have 

a keen interest in that, and I think Brock Evans has correctly represented my position. 

I think one of the benefits of an ecosystem forest health approach 

is salvage. I think reducing the density of stands, precommercial 

thinning, reducing the fuels on the ground and species diversification is important. We are still working on that bill. 

As you know from my questioning of the Forest Service, I am 

concerned about green timber that is coming out with timber sales. 

Mr. Bailey, the clearcut pictures you showed us were from 1986. 

Mr. Richmond said there are no clearcuts going on right now. Is 

that an 1986 picture, and what is going on right now in the forest? 

Mr. BAILEY. Actually there are clearcuts planned. At least we 

have been verbally notified that there are clearcuts planned, what 

the Forest Service euphemistically refers to as group selection or 

group cuts of two acres approximately. They are planned in the 

Gumboot Project which is coming up, I think, this year, that they 

are probably going to publish an EA on this year. 
147 

So it is an ongoing thing, and I think that some of the cuts that 

we have seen in the Spain timber sale that was cut last year and 

this year, the classical definition may not apply, but they sure look 

like clearcuts to me. 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. Would you acknowledge that clearcuts 

sometimes help wildlife habitat? 

Mr. BAILEY. No, not in Hells Canyon. 

Mr. LARocco. Not in Hells Canyon? 

Mr. BAILEY. No, because in Hells Canyon there is not a shortage 

of openings, there is a shortage of.timber, a shortage of cover. I 

would say no. 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. 

Governor Andrus has put out a statement today opposing Park 

status for Hells Canyon that is in concert with my opinion. Obviously my desire for this hearing, and to put a spotlight on Hells 

Canyon management, is to see what we can do with the present 

system. 

Is there anything good going on here? I mean this comprehensive 

plan, Mr. Bailey, obviously lou will be an active participant in 

that. I would think you woul probably say it is late, but nevertheless it is on its way. Is the timetable that was given by the Forest 

Service aggressive enough for you, or is it news to you? 

Mr. BAILEY. It is news. 

Mr. LARocco. It is news? 

Mr. BAILEY. It is news. 

Mr. LARocco. That is what happens at these hearings. Fast 

breaking news here in Washington. 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, I expected a few surprises. 

Mr. LARocco. Yes. 

Mr. BAILEY. We spoke with Mr. Richmond and Mr. Cole, the staff 

at the Wallowa-Whitman, just recently. I think it was about two 

and a half or three months ago. They said that they weren't going 

to be doing a plan in the near future, and that is the last we had 

heard. 

They need to do a new comprehensive management plan, but the 

thing is that what is contained in that plan is what is going to be 

the question. And this goes back to the question of the litigation, 

of the ongoing lawsuits, is that that plan could come out and could 

not meet the intent of the Act, but as a watchdog organization that 

is trying to protect that environment for our members and for the 

general American public, we can't litigate intent. We can't go to 

court and say, ''The intent of the Act is to primarily protect wildlife 

and fish and so forth, and you are emphasizing the other." It 

wouldn't fly in court. That is why we feel that there is a very 

strong need to amend that Act and to strengthen it, to take out the 

loopholes so the intent is clear. That should at least be done. 

But we think ultimately that the only way Hells Canyon is going 

to be truly protected and recognized as the national treasure that 

it is, is for it to be taken over by an agency that will protect it, 

and we see that as the ultimate solution after 18 years of trying 

to work with the Forest Service, of begging and pleading and then 

eventually suing the Forest Service, that there is no other solution. 

Mr. LARocco. I think where we are headed with ecosystem management without attempting the impossible at this moment to give 
148 

\ 

a definition of ecosystem managem-ent, but it has a lot to do with 

the sustainability of local economies, the· sustainability of communities, sustainability of resources, normal range--of variability, and 

all these things that are now being talked about and--coming to the 

fore. ·- .... 

I would be hopeful that the Forest Service would address"this in 

the new comprehensive plan, because if the local people don't buy 

into these plans, then it is dead, then we are going to be in conflict 

the whole time. That is why I hope we have peace on the river, 

quite frankly, at some time, and the river corridor, I think, really 

leads to that, and we can work out the biological things with regard to grazing and so forth. 

Speaking of grazing, Mr. Penney-and we have got to go votedo you have grazing rights, true grazing rights, in the canyon for 

gathering? 

Mr. PENNEY. Yes, on all open and unclaimed land. 

Mr. LARocco. And do you utilize those grazing rights? 

Mr. PENNEY. Yes we do. Many of our elders still do collect roots, 

berries, and other plants. 

If I might, real quickly, Mr. Whitman could further answer the 

question on the disturbance by the jet boats. It does have to do 

with some of the red counts that are actually in the river, if we 

may, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LARocco. Let's see. We have five minutes? 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know how much time we have left. We can 

come back. I think we can get a few more questions in on this 

panel. We will do that. It is an important panel. 

So we will stand in recess at this point, and we will be back for 

further discussion. 

[Recess]. 

Mr. VENTO. The subcommittee will resume its sitting. We were 

just in the process of finishing up with the questions for this group. 

Mr. Bailey, one of the issues here is, some of the issues need not 

change in the process. For instance, if the Forest Service is no 

longer the manager and somebody else is, you would still have the 

same issues on the river. So I don't know that Congress would 

change that. You obviously could change the designation or change 

the guidance t}lat exists in legislation. Maybe you would have a 

modification of the grazmg, or elimination, and in some conservation units that does not occur, and/of the timber harvest issue 

would obviously be prohibited in some jurisdictions, ·depending 

upon how you designated, especially, park jurisdiction. But other 

than that, the same sort of management problems could be presented to anyone. 

For instance, the intensity of use, which has been pointed out by 

Governor Andrus, which could still be a problem. I me.an the Park 

Service could just as easily have that. 

One of the concerns you have is road construction. You believe 

there is too much road construction. Is that accurate? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, it is. I think that, really, to summarize our 

views on the problems with increased use and Forest Service recreation management, it is that the agency doesn't seem to have any 

overall plan as to where they are going to emphasize the motorized 

use, how they are going to limit motorized use in certain areas. The 
149 

policy now seems to be that they are just going to accommodate the 

more people that are coming in without trying to limit them. 

They have told us that they are, you know, improving these sites 

to accommodate the people that are already there. So what are 

they going to do when more come? Are they going to keep building 

more parking lots, paving more roads, building more restroom facilities and boat launches when more and more people come? We 

need to be limiting the use and dispersing the use. 

Mr. VENTO. Not only do we have use in terms of recreational use, 

we point out the campground problems with the conflicts with 

users, recreation users, whether it is jet boat users and floaters on 

the river, whether it is campers and cows in the campground. 

It just sounds to me like it hasn't been given the type of-I think 

it stands as a representation really of an inadequate or ill-conceived plan, a lack of resources, lack of personnel, and so forth and 

so on, and of course you suggest that that isn't the answer. But I 

think those types of issues could be resolved. We may disagree with 

their resolution if they permit or close a campground or if they 

eliminated grazing allotments and so forth. 

Nevertheless, they are not making the decisions. It seems to me 

the problem isn't that they are making decisions, the problem is, 

they are not making decisions. That is the problem. They are not 

making decisions, they just give in to everyone, and the problem 

is that it is destroying the resource. 

Now, the Organic law, at least as represented by Mr. Evans in 

terms of the designation of this sounds like it has the type of guidance in it. 

Mr. EVANS. Could I speak to that quickly, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. EVANS. In part I think that is so, that they aren't making 

decisions, but as Mr. Bailey said earlier, it is what is in the plan 

that really counts, not the fact of issuing a plan at all. In fact, they 

are making decisions. When they log those big Ponderosa pines, 

when they have clearcuts in Horse Creek, when they claim they 

are doing selective logging and they really aren't, when they are 

building a parking lot and reconfiguring the road down at Johnson 

Bar, those are real decisions they are really making. 

We completely agree, and you well know from our previous testimony on other issues before this committee, we are not necessarily 

fans of the Park Service; they have their problems too. We have 

just found, at least in the last 30 years of my experience, that this 

is an agency which has a different institutional culture. They are 

much more oriented toward the natural beauty, toward the wildlife, 

toward the preservation, than the Forest Service which, in our 

view, has a corporate culture much more oriented toward commodity use, and it comes through again and again and again, and they 

can't even be stewards of a place where, to us, the words are very 

plain. They are making decisions. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Smith may have a question or two, and we will 

go on to the next panel. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse my absence. I 

won't take long. 
150 

Mr. Penney, my review of history indicates that Chief Joseph ran 

about 30,000 head of cattle in Hells Canyon. Does that correspond 

with your knowledge of history? 

Mr. PENNEY. Not only cattle but horses, a large number of horses 

also. 

Mr. SMITH. Unrestricted and unfenced. 

Mr. PENNEY. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. I assume they didn't damage the river or the salmon 

runs in those days. 

Mr. PENNEY. I think they had certain areas that they kept the 

horses in and the cattle, and I think they were knowledgeable 

enough that they kept them away from the streams. 

Mr. SMITH. You will forgive me, but I have been in the cattle 

business all my lifetime, and I know how difficult that is, to herd 

cattle like that. 

I want to compliment you and the Nez Perce especially in your 

efforts to seek out local people in Wallowa County and to work with 

them, especially on the salmon issue, because I think those kinds 

of efforts that you are making with local Wallowa County people 

are the best efforts that can be made toward a solution, which is 

difficult. The worst efforts are made by Mr. Brock and me exchanging press releases nationally, he supporting his clientele and me 

representing a district in Oregon. That is the worst level. 

So I applaud you in that effort, and I think if there is a solution 

to be made, you will find it there with your efforts on the ground 

in Wallowa County. And thank you for doing that. 

Mr. PENNEY. Thank you, Congressman Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Bailey, I can't help but review some of your 

thoughts when you were writing for Earth First. You said, in 1985, 

"We estimate that the demolition of the dam could put more people 

to work than could be employed in the wholesale logging of the 

NRA." Is that what you said? 

Mr. BAILEY. I am not quite sure what you are referring to. 

Mr. SMITH. The 1985 issue of Earth First. You were writing, and 

I am quoting what you wrote. Do you still believe that? 

Mr. BAILEY. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea at all to investigate 

taking out Hells Canyon Dam to get salmon back in the Owyhee, 

the Payette, Malheur Rivers, and a number of other river systems. 

It would be good to investigate that. I think the fish are more important than the power. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Then, in 1985 in an action alert you wrote, 

The opportunity is here to kick the ass of the timber robbers of Boise Cascade 

Corporation and save from desecration the ancient home of Chief Joseph and the 

Nez Perce Tribe. 

Did you write that? 

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, I did. 

Mr. SMITH. Do you still believe that? 

Mr. BAILEY. You bet I do. 

Mr. SMITH. Good. 

Well, I just want to point out, if folks think I come from one side 

of the issue, there are folks that come from way on the other side 

as well. 
151 

Getting back, Mr. Penney, I didn't see in your statement a position on the question of making Hells Canyon a national park. Do 

you wish to answer that question or not? I don't want to put you 

on the spot, but I would like to know if you have a position. 

Mr. PENNEY. I think our current position, as the tribe has dealt 

with other issues. Usually you are put through a continual series 

of studies. I think the tribe believes that there are existing laws 

that need to be implemented now, that we cannot wait any longer, 

several years down the road, to implement these possibly new procedures. 

That was the concern I had with possible amendments to existing law because when we dealt with the parks bill, that took three 

or four years-well, actually our counsel has been dealing with that 

almost 30 years. 

I guess all I could say at this point on behalf of the tribe without 

consulting the rest of the council members is that our immediate 

concern is that existing laws be implemented by the Forest Service. 

Mr. SMITH. On a side comment, there have been those who want 

to make a national park out of the Steens Mountains. You have 

heard about that. One of the reasons that many of us oppose thatand it could apply to Hells Canyon as well-is simply that a National Park in that sensitive of an environment would attract the 

kind of people that would desecrate it, and I worry that the attention even at Hells Canyon might fall under a similar situation. 

You know, it is an interesting mix. You want people to see these 

wonders that Nature has provided us, and the minute you open it 

to people, people destroy it. I read your statement carefully, but it 

is an interesting balance that we try to strike, and don't do it very 

well. I think, that people destroy nature, and yet we are all trying 

to preserve some of it, and the very activity of man destroys what 

we are trying to preserve, an interesting anomaly. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. I think we have do go on to the next panel if we can. 

Do you have any further questions, Congressman LaRocco? Mr. 

Penney was concluding a remark earlier, I know. 

Mr. LARocco. Just before, and he had invited Mr. Whitman to 

make a statement, and I don't know if we should invite him to. 

Mr. VENTO. Sure. 

Yes, Mr. Whitman? 

Mr. WHITMAN. Yes,. thank you. 

The response is to Congressman LaRocco's question about jet 

boat intrusion or impacts on anadromous salmonoids. 

We know that there are impacts specifically to fall Chinook 

which are listed as threatened. We are embarking on a series of 

studies based upon a cultural profile that we were forced to redo 

simply in order to determine the extent of what type of research 

we had to carry out for cultural resources, of which salmon are a 

portion. 

Our position at this time is that we are seeking to validate our 

own position by actually coming up with biological fact upon the 

extent of the impacts on spawning fall Chinook. 

There are two groups of fall Chinook, one that goes into the 

Grand Ronde as an early fall spawner, goes as high as the 
152 

midportion. Another is a late fall spawner, which is a river spawner. . Our concerns are that there are intrusions not only from one 

user group but from all user groups. The latest is where we have 

had people who are rafting in there. Someone with a compound 

bow was using spawning fall Chinook for target practice. We have 

had others who have gotten off boats at the bars, spawning areas, 

and chasing fish around, changing course, direction, of jet boats 

going up river, going over spawning bed areas. The disturbances to these fish at this time are unacceptable, so 

we are going to be validating the type of impact and then seeking 

redress for that. So that will be forthcoming probably by the end 

of the next field season. 

We are doing experimental studies right now with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service on the Snake River fall Chinook. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, that is very interesting. 

I wondered the same thing. I noted Mr. Penney's comments, and 

I look forward to seeing that. I think it will be useful to the Forest 

Service in terms of their regulation of jet boats and/or floaters. 

Well, let me thank this panel. 

Mr. Bailey? 

Mr. BAILEY. Could I very briefly say one more thing for the 

record, Mr. Chairman-very briefly? 

Mention was made of this survey in Wallowa County where 94 

percent of the people opposed designation of a national park. Well 

here's an ad-this is in our package--where we urged a no vote on 

that measure because it was so inaccurate and so poorly worded, 

we urged a no vote, and so we were among those 94 percent that 

voted no. 

The other thing is that there is a survey done by Boise State 

University which is in our testimony package which states that 56 

percent of the people in western Idaho are in favor not of just 

studying but of designating a national park in the area. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we will look through the packets, and we appreciate your observations and input on this debate. Mr. BAILEY. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, gentlemen. 

We are pleased to welcome the second panel which is made up 

of Mr. Pat Wortman, a commissioner of Wallowa County, Enterprise, Oregon; Ms. Skootch Pankonin, representing the Idaho Outfitters and Guides; and finally, Ms. Sandra Mitchell of the Northwest Power Boat Association, from Boise, Idaho. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pat Wortman, as you have adequately introduced, is a dear 

friend of mine, a commissioner. I don't know why he chose to get 

into public life. He has made a success of a ranching operation, and 

he has devoted a lot of his time now to this public office, and I am 

delighted that he could find his way clear to come out to Washington and to testify. 

And, Skootch, hello. Nice to see you again. 

But I am delighted that they took the time and effort, Mr. Chairman. And there are two people with him. 
153 

It is difficult to communicate with this Government 3,000 miles 

away, as we all know, but it is especially a tribute, I think, to have 

local people come this far to testify and to use their valuable time 

to allow us to hear their points of view. So thank you for allowing 

me to say hello to Mr. Wortman. 

Mr. VENTO. You are welcome. We are pleased to welcome them. 

We do appreciate their coming. I understand the difficulties in 

terms of being here, as well as Ms; Mitchell from Boise. 

Mr. Wortman, your testimony, by previous request, has been 

made part of the record. We may be expecting more votes today, 

so insofar as you can summarize, it would be helpful to the subcommittee. 

Please proceed, Commissioner. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF PAT WORTMAN, COMMISSIONER, 

WALLOWA COUNTY, ENTERPRISE, OR; SKOOTCH PANKONIN, 

WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICA OUTDOORS, REP· 

RESENTING IDAHO OOTFfiTERS AND GUIDES, WASHINGTON, DC; AND SANDRA F. MITCHELL, PUBLIC AFFAIRS DI· 

RECTOR, NORTHWEST POWERBOAT AND WESTERN 

WHITEWATER ASSOCIATIONS, BOISE, ID 

STATEMENT OF PAT WORTMAN 

Mr. WORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Pat Wortman, and I serve as county commissioner for Wallowa County, Oregon. 

All the counties in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon that are adjacent to the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area have passed 

resolutions opposing either a national park study or national park 

designation. Further, in Wallowa County a vote was taken to assess the people's opinion as to whether Hells Canyon should be 

studied or become a national park. The vote was overwhelming. It 

was 94.5 percent against, 5.5 percent for. 

When the HCNRA was created in 1975, the United States Congress promised the people of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho that 

what traditional multiple uses of the area would be preserved 

along with that depended upon the resources they had customarily 

utilized. 

Since that time, special interest groups, specifically the Hells 

Canyon Preservation Council and Oregon Natural Resource Council, have conspired to prevent the United States Forest Service 

from managing the HCNRA as Congress envisioned. The tactics 

these people have employed are appealing lawsuits and some desecration of resources themselves. 

The United States Forest Service has tried to cope with these 

measures while carrying out their legislative intent with inadequate funds because Congress did not see fit to appropriate money 

for planned improvements. 

The question before us today is, will Congress abide by its promise and ensure our people that the legislative intent of the HCNRA 

is fulfilled? Will our Congress renege and yield to special interest 

groups pressure or create a national park? 
154 

Congress should keep its promise to the people. Congress should 

possess integrity and honesty beyond reproach. This need is extreme. 

Because people view government and the political process with 

distrust and a complete lack of respect, it is time our national leaders regained the respect and the trust of the people. 

There are economic reasons why Congress should not spend 

money to study the HCNRA for a national park, nor should it be 

designed as such. 

Our national budget is an embarrassment to all responsible people. Every effort should be made to erase our national debt. Until 

this situation is corrected, we should not incur further debt. The 

communities adjacent to the HCNRA lack the infrastructure to 

support a national park and more tourist traffic. We also lack the 

funds necessary to support low-paid people through the off season 

when they will be unemployed. It takes 3.3 tourist-dedicated jobs 

to equal the payroll of one forest product job. People on poverty 

wages cannot pay protection of fire, sewage, water, and solid waste. 

The cost of managing an NRA without commodity utilization is 

staggering. ·Fuel loads created by the infested forest present the 

specter of catastrophic wild fires so great, it will destroy and damage many natural resources. Fuel loads over 250 tons per acre will 

burn at temperatures in excess of 15 million Btu's per acre. 

This intensity much greater than pre-European era fires and will 

destroy the organic layer of soil, volatize nutrients, and set the 

stage for masses of erosion that will, in turn, pollute streams, kill 

fish, silt in spawning beds for anadromous fish. These temperatures are great enough to kill all aquatic life in small to medium 

sized mountain streams. Mechanical removal, controlled off-season 

fires, and re-arrangement of these fuels are the only ways to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring. 

Wallowa County and the Nez Perce Tribe have developed a salmon restoration plan for this area. This plan should be implemented 

to recover, restore and maintain salmon habitat. 

Each acre of land has a carrying capacity for whatever organisms 

occupy it. This is especially evident on forest lands. We must have 

the proper species to avert disasters associated with natural phenomena such as insects, disease, wild fire, and other natural catastrophic events. When such events take place, all surrounding 

areas are impacted. 

The HCNRA was selected because of its unique beauty, the culture of the area, natural resources present, and the remote characteristics that provide solitude. Preservation of these characteristics 

was a primary consideration in creating the NRA. This intent has 

not been met. 

Most of the remote live stock populations have been removed 

from the area, and the culture associated with livestock operations 

in a remote location where people relied upon nature and their own 

capabilities are gone. These operations presented today's society 

with a glimpse of yesterday and should be restored rather than 

turning the area into a national park. 

Livestock grazing and wildlife associations have been beneficial 

to most wildlife. According to studies by all western universities, it 

is generally accepted that livestock grazing enhances big game for-
155 

age. In fact, where livestock have been removed, big game have 

generally left the area and' moved to new ranges where livestock 

are present. 

Prior to the creation of the HCNRA, this region was managed 

jointly by the U.S. Forest Service and private landowners for many, 

many years. Through their collective efforts, this area was managed so that in 1985 it was conside~d a unique and outstanding 

area so valued as to be set aside forever. Perhaps we should reinstate that management. 

County governments, the U.S. Forest Service, Indian tribes, and 

local people have collaborated to formulate plans for the management of the HCNRA and to provide and to benefit the people of the 

United States and the Indian tribes who are native to this area. 

Many of those participating in this planning process have years of 

experience managing this unique area. 

We feel greater knowledge, more experienced planners, and the 

ability to implement these plans cannot be found elsewhere. 

I suggest that Congress spend as much time, money, and effort 

in promoting our current plans as they would in a national park 

study. I further suggest that Congress approve funds to fulfill the 

plans already developed and evaluate the results at that time. 

Lastly, we suggest that Congress confer with recognized andresponsible leadership of the people within the area. It is our opinion 

that action based on misinformation seldom is equal to action 

based on science and well developed plans of responsible people. 

I would like to thank you for allowing me to present this message to you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Our next witness is Ms. Pankonin. 

STATEMENT OF SKOOTCH PANKONIN 

Ms. PANKONIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Skootch Pankonin. I am the Washington representative for 

America Outdoors, the national trade association for professional 

outfitters and guides. I am appearing today on behalf of the Idaho 

Outfitters and Guides who regret that they are not here, and they 

would be more statistically glib than I am able to be. That is a collection of overall 400 businesses through the State, and 280 of 

them are members of IOGA, and I would note for the record, that 

is 70 tercent of the guides in Idaho, which is a testimony to the 

sort o quality of leadership and innovation of IOGA, because getting outfitters to agree and act together on anything is just like 

herding cats. IOGA is the best we have got in the country. 

IOGA represents 25 of the 34 float boat and power boat outfitters 

in Hells Canyon. Their clients, together with other outfitted recreation users, are about 22,000 people coming in probably in the 1993 

season. 

As its popularity has increased, with that comes user conflicts 

and resource impacts. You find the first record of problems between 

IOGA and Forest Service management as early as 1979. That is 

only four years after designation of the area as a national recreation area. 

I was disappointed today in Mr. Leonard's summary of accomplishments of the Forest Service there in that it was a collection 
156 

of bricks and mortar and surface roads for access. Our problems 

are more in the area of the user conflicts. We are part of that conflict. It has to be resolved with other users who are not part of the 

outfitted public. It is damage to the resources. 

One of the first things that was on our list of developing problems, sort of early warning, was this kind of mish-mash of use on 

camps and trails and the kinds of impacts we and other users are 

having that are not really getting addressed. 

You talk to people like the Robertson family in Boise. They talk 

about just an alarming diminishment in chucker population. It is 

an indicator species. This tells us that the tributary canyons to the 

Snake as well as Hells Canyon itself are for reasons we haven't 

identified not sustaining wildlife, therefore not capable of, in the 

long run, sustaining the kinds of uses we are making of it either. 

A lot of attention was given to destruction to the pictographs. 

That is not the only thing you need to focus on, on cultural resources. I have hiked in the area. There is desecration of graves, 

there is loss and destruction of artifacts and other kinds of sites. 

This is a symptom of not enough public education money, not 

enough law enforcement money. 

I think our problems began to be acute around 1989. At that 

time, the outfitters passed a resolution supporting study of the 

area as a national park. Ric Bailey would love to be able to hold 

this up as support for his proposal. He knows he can't because the 

outfitters really didn't mean it. It was their frustration with the 

Forest Service, and at that point we were still in the habit of kicking the family dog when we were frustrated. 

There are some outfitters that support the park proposal. The 

vast majority of them feel that the management style of a park, the 

kinds of facilities typical of a park, are not appropriate for this resource. 

Earlier than that, they had chosen to work with people at the 

field level to try to resolve these problems. It wasn't working. I 

think a lot of the people at the field level felt as beleaguered as 

we did about lack of funding. We began talking with Congress, 

with the Idaho and Oregon delegation, with funders in the administration and Congress, and the outfitters ultimately got one of 

those kinds of laws and sausages messages. What we talked about 

was operation and maintenance, something that the Forest Service 

is desperately short on funding, and we talked about law enforcement, and it may simply be a historical coincidence, but what happened at sort of the culmination of our lobbying in congressional 

appropriations that year is, Hells Canyon got money to build new 

road access into Pittsburg Landing. This is directly below the wild 

section of the river. It got a new building. 

About that same year, I was on a private trip with people in 

Hells Canyon. At one o'clock in the morning, other boats arrived at 

camp, there was gunfire, and you didn't know whether you were 

going to die within moments or whether this was some redneck's 

way of saying, "Hey, do you guys want to have a party?" You know. 

We were safe. It was sort of the latter, I guess. 

But as long as Congress has got the Forest Service people in 

Hells Canyon funded and directed to be off nailing shingles on a 
157 

new roof, we are going to continue having those kinds of problems 

as well as the impacts on the resources that we are not addressing. 

The message that Congress gave us that year kind of was, ''We 

are not real concerned about these resource problems; we are real 

interested in building buildings;" and that wasn't a real good message, given the concerns that we had. 

We then started on the LAC process. This is a new process for 

people in Idaho. Traditional planning kind of takes what is there 

and works around it. LAC says, ''What is the desirable off-season? 

How do we get there?" It is the closest that citizens have to what 

I think ·aU of us refer to as ecosystem management. It is a process 

that is approximately similar to that. 

Going into it as a representative of a user group, you kind of 

make a commitment that you are going to give a little, you are 

going to get a little, but you are going to stick by the results. 

IOGA sent off four representatives. It was two power boat people, 

two float boat people. It was kind of like Noah's ark, two by two 

they went off to LAC planning, and they participated, and it was 

a form in which-we have our own conflicts between float boats 

and jet boats, and we certainly have conflicts of competition for 

scarce resources with other resource users. But here was a setting 

in which everyone was sort of willing buyer/willing seller, we are 

here to participate, and we are going to stick by it. That recommendation went to the Forest Service. 

The · draft environmental impact statement came out, and, guess 

what? The Forest Service threw it out. Their expectations for LAC 

had been very high, perhaps UJ:\reasonably high, but now you find 

a community that feels an effort it made-and it was a little bit 

frightening; this is pretty deep down dirty technical planning for 

what they are used to as a public process-is sort of cast aside. 

This committee has focused very much on jet boats here. I have 

had about 28 years of experience on the perceived conflicts. They 

are spoken of and talked about far more than they exist. Your focus 

here a little bit is on, "Do we get rid of them?" This is not a choice 

between flavors of ice cream. 

You are not talking about getting rid of rafts. Half the people you 

know have got a raft or a canoe in their garage. You move to 

Lewiston, and half the people you know have a jet boat in their 

driveway. It is a different kind of culture. It is very much part of 

our history in Idaho, and I am actually from Idaho, and I grew up 

in Lapwai on the Nez Perce reservation and was later a reporter 

for the Tribune. 

I sat here trying to quantify how many jet boat rivers we have 

got in the United States. I came up with immediately ·five. I 

thought of Cataract, and I got to six. I know I have missed a few, 

but I think you would have trouble getting to 10, where we have 

got hundreds of rivers that we are operating raft operations on 

commercially. We have got several thousand rivers that are used 

by private boaters that just don't lend themselves to commercial 

development, and you are on pretty tough ground when you are 

talking about 10 rivers that are offensive to some people. 

Now, what is offensive is when we have got too much of everybody there, and I don't deny that there is a jet boat problem there 

77-928 0 - 94 - 6 
158 

and it has got to be resolved somehow. I thought we would get 

there. LAC, it needs a forum. 

The forum given to jet boaters and float boaters in Idaho is 

IOGA. They have· lived under the same roof since 1970. They have 

problems, they have tensions between them. As they work them 

out, what we find is improvements that have been adapted nationally for river etiquette, river safety, the technology. Her group actually has put out the best available. ~t is a video and brochure that 

gets to shared responsible use on the rivers by this mixture of 

craft. So now we move to the next forum, or we are in the next forum, 

which is the' draft environmental impact statement. We have found 

ourselves split somewhat, or there is the fear of it, because there 

are people who take advantage of a situation like this where our 

folks are frustrated, so they see if they can drive a few more 

wedges in. I hope we can bring this together within the context of the draft 

environmental impact statement. The community meetings have 

been encouraging to that point. I have found the testimony of the 

Forest Service today encouraging on that point. If we don't get it 

done in that context, then I suppose next Congress does it. 

We welcome your look at this. You have actually been involved 

with us in looking at some of these problems for years. We are 

there to help. I hope as you are looking at it, you cast a sideways 

glance to your Congressional colleagues who do the. funding, because I think, frankly, they are very high priority on building 

buildings and paving roads. Earmarking the appropriations process 

that guides the Forest Service is very much responsible for a lot 

of what is going there. It is very much responsible for the inability 

of the Forest Service to maintain, operate, repair, police; it is building buildings instead. . Thank. you for allowing us to testify. I appreciate it. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Pankonin and attachment follow:] 
159 

a e 

AMERICA 

OUTDOORS 

The national voice of/he outfilling industry. 

STATEMENT OF 

SCOOTCH PANKONIN 

WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE 

AMERICA OUTDOORS 

and in behalf of 

IDAHO OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES ASSOCIATION 

before the 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OVersight Hearing on the Forest Service Manaq~t 

of National Recreation Areas 

Including Hells canyon National Recreation Area 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 

National headquarters. P. 0 . Box 1348, Knoxville, TN 37901. 615-524-4814 Fax 615-525-4765 

WashingiOO ofrJCe. 308 Constitution Ave., NE, Washington, D.C. 20002. 202-546-1808 Fax 202-543-6870 
160 

TESTIMONY OP AMERICA OUTDOORS 

AND THE IDAHO OUTPI'l"l'ER AND GUIDES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Scootch Pankonin. I am the Washington 

Representative for America OUtdoors, the national trade association 

for professional outfitters and guides. 

I'm appearing today in behalf of the Idaho OUtfitters and Guides 

Association (IOGA), a statewide organization representing 280 of 

the 400 small businesses which provide outfitted recreation 

opportunities to the public. Altogether these companies bring an estimated $60 million into the Idaho economy each year. 

From a national perspective, Idaho outfitters have provided much of 

the innovation and leadership which has moved the industry to adopt 

minimum impact, light-on-the-land modes of operation. The 

voluntary standards which IOGA has encouraged throughout our industry generally supersede regulatory requirements for minimum 

impact. 

A commitment to ecosystem management and sustainable use in the 

allocation of natural resources is fundamental to IOGA members, as well as one of three principles in the Mission Statement of America 

Outdoors. Application\ of these principles in the management of the 

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area is not progressing uniformly well and has not done so since its designation in 1975. 

IOGA represents 25 of the 34 floatboat and powerboat outfitters 

permitted by the Hells canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA), a unit of the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. The demand for guided trips on the Snake River through the deepest gorge on ·the continent 

has shown. steady growth throughout the past decade. To 

international visitors, as well as to young people growing up in 

the shadows of the Seven Devils, Hells Canyon is a learning laboratory of the true Aaerican West -- an opportunity for 

adventure, history, evidence of ancient cultural lifeways, and for a diversity of environmental education. 

The public has discovered the wonders of Hells Canyon, and it is 

estimated that nearly 22,000 folks will participate on a guided 

jetboat, floatboat, or hike this year. 

With popularity comes user conflict. There comes as well an ever- increasing need for funding and a greater ·manageaent burden on private landowners and federal land managers. Since the mid-1980s, 

outfitters and guides have become increasingly concerned about the 

need to bolster on-the-ground management in the river corridor. 

As a first step, the Association shared its concerns about a lack 

of management and enforcement presence with those managers closest 

to the resource. By 1989 frustration levels over the lack of 

maintenance in the river corridor had put outfitters at serious 

odds with the u.s. Forest service. 
161 

Paqe Two 

By Resoiution at its 1989 annual meetinq, IOGA members voted to 

support a conqressionally-mandated study of the NRA and the Wallowa 

and seven Devil Mountains by the National Park Service for 

potential inclusion in the Park System. Today, that Resolution 

must be prefaced to reflect the frustration outfitters felt at that 

time toward Forest Service manaqers. 

It was a shot across the bow at the Forest Service -- the closest 

culprit at hand -- and not intended even then by most outfitters to 

imply early support for the Park notion. Today, outfitters feel 

for the most part that the manaqement style and facilities typical 

of National Park operations are not suitable in the settinq of 

Hells Canyon. 

Thouqh by 1991 the outfitters had taken their case to hiqher levels 

of qovernment, IOGA moved its popular Partners Afloat proqram to 

Hells Canyon. That April outfitters a.nd quides, aqency personnel, spokesmen for other user qroups and local landowners spent three 

days in the Canyon, explorinq issues, opportunities and challenqes. 

The experiences of that Partners Afloat trip were carried forward 

into the Limits of Acceptable Chanqe (LAC) task force by a number 

of participants. 

As a consequence of what outfitters were beqinninq to learn from 

aqency personnel in the field, IOGA beqan to involve itself more deeply in the flow of cash from Forest Service headquarters throuqh the Reqion to the field. 

Your own staff, Mr. Chairman, confirmed for us that outfitter concerns about money reachinq the field were more than realistic. 

Put into this national context, - saw Hells Canyon's fundinq problems as merely another example in the midst of a national 

epidemic. 

Institutionally, the Forest Service responded to conqressional 

concerns, as well as -- we would like to think -- some of our own concerns. Special staff responsibilities for conqressionallydesignated areas were established. We thouqht we were assistinq that effort by tellinq the story to ma:.bers of the Idaho and Oraqon conqressional deleqations and to others in Conqress and the 

Administration who control the flow of money. 

Idaho outfitters saw their modest effort!B evaporate in one of those 

laws-and-sausaqes political experiences with the conqressional appropriations process. A siqnificant deqree of awareness about 

law enforcement and resource manaqement needs in Hells Canyon had 

finally been accomplished. Yet the Interior Appropriations conferees met those needs by fundinq new road access downstream of 

the river's Wild area and by increasinq visitor amenities with a new buildinq and launch facility. 
162 

Page Three 

This increase in access and facilities enjoys considerable 

political support in northern Idaho. It serves a fairly broad 

spectrum of the public. It was not a bad political aove. It was a question of priorities: Congress chose to laprove and increase 

access, but in doing so set aside an urgent need for renewed 

emphasis on protection of the resource. It was not a message we were happy to hear. 

Outfitter inquiries about the funding problem in Hells Canyon have 

only been minimally satisfied. Today, IOGA would like to suggest 

to the subcommittee specific questions which need to be asked about 

that budget and the allocation of funds to the field. 

They include: 

* What has been the budget for the HCNRA for Fiscal 

Years 1990 through 1993? What was the amount that was directed from the Washington Office of the Forest Service 

to Region 6 in Portland? Were there any restrictions on those funds? 

* How did the Regional Office spend funds budgeted for 

the HCNRA? Were funds retained for overhead? How 

much? What amount then was sent to the Supervisor's 

Office of the Wallowa Whitman National Forest in Baker, 

Oregon? 

* How were HCNRA funds spent at the Baker level? For 

overhead? How much for equipment? How much for capital expenditures, etc.? 

IOGA's questions about the HCNRA budget includes siailar 

transactions related to the HCNRA offices in Enterprise, Oregon and 

at Clarkston, Washington, where much of the on-the-ground river 

aanageaent originates. · 

To be understood and useful, that information needs to be compiled in a clear, comprehensible foraat. IOGA is requesting the 

subcommittee's assistance in obtaining this information in order to 

help user groups understand the basis on which there is alleged to 

be such a shortage of administrative dollars reaching the field. 

It is very difficult to draw a correlation between the job that 

needs to be done and the appropriate placeaent of resources to 

accomplish those management needs without more information. 

Outfitters need to better understand the HCNRA's budgeting process 

in order to heighten their role and responsibilities as recreation 

service providers. 
163 

Page Four 

It follows that outfitters and guides are skeptical about the 

ability of Region 6 and the Wallowa Whitman National Forest to 

implement, monitor and evaluate the future Record of Decision on the Environmental Impact statement for the Wild and Scenic Snake 

River Recreation Management Plan. In other words, will there be 

adequate on-the-ground management, education and enforcement to 

support the Record of Decision which will direct future management 

of this magnificent resource? 

IOGA membership is on record in support of the recommendations of 

the Hells Canyon Limits of Acceptable Change Task Force contained 

in the DEIS. Four IOGA members -- two floatboat representatives and two jetboat spokespersons -- served on that Task Force. 

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to depart from IOGA's comments for a moment 

to offer some national outfitter perspective on that situation and 

to speak from my own experience. I fear the process appears to be 

leading us toward user conflicts at the moment, not resolving 

management needs with a goal of responsible shared use. 

The LAC process which was used in Hells canyon requires user groups, resource managers, and landowners to shift gears away from some very traditional ways of thinking about planning and doing 

planning. LAC is designed to move us significantiy and responsibly toward true ecosystem management. 

It is new to Idahoans. It involves representatives of the public 

at levels of complexity in planning which they've not, for the most 

part, experienced. Going into the process, each group's 

representative conveys a commitment tci give a little and get a little -- and to stick by the results. That raises expectations: that the time and concentration one commits to the group process is 

meaningful. 

On the face of it, the commitment appears to have been a waste of 

time for many participants in the Hells Canyon LAC process. Their 

work was rejected in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In 

the telling of it, they do not distinguish between "my work" and 

"your work". It's expressed as "our work", and they feel the LAC 

balance of "give" and "get" -- responsible shared use -- has been 

skewed by a recommendation which came out of left field. 

A common belief that outsiders have about the outfitting industry 

is that rafters hate jetboats, . and vice versa: that they can't 

operate cooperatively within the same river corridor. If my 

telephone is any judge of it, that debate is right out on the table 

again. The surprising DEIS conclusion to the LAC process makes 

many of our people feel · they are alone, once again facing conflicts 

which have spun beyond their control. 
164 

Page Five 

I've lived with the issue of floatboats vs. jetboats for 28 

professional years -- a decade as legislative staff to the Idaho 

congressional delegation and another 16 years or so .as the 

government affairs consultant to outfitters and guides. / 

Rafters and jetboats have their tensions. They are not n'turally compatible on the water, and it takes education and co .. uqication 

to integrate the two styles of river-running. Nowhere/ is the 

relationship more productive and instructive . to the res~ of the 

industry than in Idaho's outfitter trade association, IOGA. 

They've lived under the saae umbrella since the early '70s. New 

problems arise every day, and from facing new problems have come new approaches and iaproveaents in river etiquette and s~fety. A 

fine product of this partnership, for your reference, is in fact 

not an IOGA publication, but a video and brochure on re ponsible shared use produced by the Northwest Powerboat Association. 

Neither IOGA nor America OUtdoors is prepared to scrape the 

responsibility for the llll.nage-nt problems and funding situation in 

Hells Canyon off the side of this table exclusively onto the lap of 

the Forest Service. · Recreation users share the responsibility to 

avoid •loving the place to death". other users have found their own rewards and created their share of the problems in the Canyon. 

The Hells Canyon outfitters and guides enthusiastically welcoae and 

encourage this subcommittee's longstanding commitment to improving the management of Hells Canyon. We also hope you wi!ll take a sideways glance at other of your congressional colleagues -- those 

who control the purse strings. They have contributed significantly 

to the scope and weight of the burdens on us and upon Forest 

Service resource managers. 

Nationally, the public-private sector relationship between 

outfitters and .the Forest Service has improved steadily over the 

last decade. We're creating together a high standard of service to 

the public. We're far aore effective in sharing responsibility for 

protection of the resources. This has been accomplished without 

the luxury of a lot of dollars in the pockets of either partner. 

We think that relationship can bridge the current frustrations and re~ch easily toward creating solutions for Hells Canyon. 

Where Hells Canyon management is concerned, Congress is also a full 

partner -- the senior partner, many would say -- in finding answers for the· many problems ahead of us. America OUtdoors and the Idaho 

OUtfitters and Guides Association looks to you for guidance. IOGA 

is prepared to get down into the Canyon and to respond with 

considerable detail to questions you might have. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman. 
165 

RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW 

The Idaho Outfitting and Guiding Industry 

Idaho's outfiners are a diverse group of small businessmen and businesswomen. They offer a wide vuiely of outdoor 

recreation experiences. including big game hunting. trophy trout fishing. whitewater expeditions. jet boat tows, crosscountry and backcountry skiing. steelhead fishing. helicopler skiing, backpacking, photography. mountain climbing, 

horseback rides. mountain biking. snowmobiling, dog sled rides and sleigh rides. 

• Outfitting is a key component of the 

state's ever-growing destination travel 

and tourism business, which ranks third 

in the Idaho economy. Outfining guests 

increase by about 10 percent per year. 

• Last year, the state's 362 outliners 

infused an estimated $60 million into 

the Idaho economy, a 67 percent 

increase since 1983. Guests spend 

amounts ranging from $75 to $250 per 

day. 

Rural Economic Development 

• 80 porcnt oliOGA raldoat oodftt1er 

membenllftlaaad-tetotbe 

_,.,_ullldes wlthaa 

aven10 populatloa ol4SI. 

• Ou-n aad IJIIdes boost Idaho's 

runiKODOIIly at a time wileD other 

._.........,. illdustrleo bave 

decllaod. TINtowa ofRJallu- ao 

outjillns 1111978; IDdlq, il""' 14. 

• Outfitters employ about 1.740 guides. 

people who come from all walks of life 

including Idaho high school and college 

students and teachers. 

• Idaho's abundant clean. free-nowing 

streams and high-quality fish and 

wildlife habitat are the lifeblood of the 

resource-based tourism industry. much 

like the Snake River is the lifeblood of 

Idaho agriculture. 

GUEST PARTICIPATION 

p 90,000 

A 80,000 

R 

T 

c 

p 

A 

N 

T 

s 

7Q-71 75-76 80-81 86-87 

SEASON I . 

Did You Ktto•? Riv~r tripJ, including wilderness whitewater jiOQI$ and jet boat tours, are the 

most popular outfining service in Idaho. making up more t~ 65 percent of tht' 

total g.usrs. Day trips are the fastest growing segnvnt of the river business. 

Tht numbtr of gutsts who book backcountry hunting trips in /t/Qho- abour 

5,(}()()- has rtmained stablt the last two thcadts . 

What Is An Outft#u7 An outfitl'r is someone who offers guided trips. for·compensltioo. Toopenae legal I~ 1n 

Idaho. ourfiners must be licensed with the state Outfinen and Guides Lic:ensing B''Jrd 

rand musr ob1ain a special use permit from the federal land rnanapr. 

A g•IM ls an oulfitter'i employee. Guides must be licensed with lbe stale board. ::,: ·· 

with licensed OUifillers rand be cenirtCcJ in first-aid. 

r ....... -..... .... ldabo ...-r....,..a-,...,aa_....., Outfitters ud Guides ~-__ t954 

I callodlbeldoboOod111enMCIGIIldoo- TodoJdla _ _, .... 

i Gllldoo"-latloa...,.....u75...-orl71olli2,fllloa--..i• 

[ ~.-· TheAIIOdatlooo's -~~to---.,.-,o-rorthe ~lie. and ,..poaslble stewardlhlp fllpubllc laaclo ... w-.. 

This publication made possible through a grant ll"ith Safari Club International, Febmary /992. 
166 

MYTHS AND FACTS 

MYTH: Outfitted guests harvest too """'Y tile in the stale, 

ing onl·y a few for rtsicknt luutttn. 

FACf: In 1989, hunters harvested about2~ soo elk in 

Idaho; outfitted guestS. including bodt residcniS and nonresidtnts, harve8led 1.001 elk-4.4 pen:ent. As a m.aei 

of fiiCt, Idaho resident bowbunters harvested 1110"' elk 

( 1,393 or 6.2 pen:ent) dwt outfitted pests. 

22500 

20000 

17500 

15000 

12500 

10000 

7500 

5000 

2500 

1181 Elk Hanttlt 

Bow 

Hunlenl 

1,313 

8.2% 

MYTH: Outjintd hunting guests don't pay their fainhart 

for wildlifo managttntllt. 

F ACf: Outfitted guestS repoac~~tlesa dwt 2 pen:ent of lhe 

hwiters in Idaho. yet !hey contribule """" dwt 10 pen:ent 

of the FISh and ClaQae license and taa fees collected e~~:h 

year. In 1988, hllftlina license fees lllcaled $14.6 million. 

MYTH: Outfitters bring too nuuiy non-rtsidml hUIIttrs 

into Idaho. 

FACf: In 1990, oflhe 29,348 non-resident bllftlina taaS 

sold; only 4,902, 17 ~t, wm sold to lhe outfitted 

public. 

.RESIDeNT 

248.320 - 8ft, 

MYTH: 71re outjintd public gtts a disproportiONJttly high 

share oflaiUiches on the four ptrmitt<d rivers in fdaha. 

FACf: They m:eive 40 pen:ent of the alloclled launches 

on the Middle Fori< of the Salmon River. 20 pen:ent on the 

Selway, 40 pen:ent on Hells Canyon, and 50 pen:ent on the 

Main Salmoa. 

MYTH: Outfitters daminattldaha 's rivers. leaving few 

streams for private boaurs' exclusive JUt. 

FACf: There are.....,. sueams in Idaho where there are 

no outfitted service&. Several Idaho river pidt boob list 

dozens of non-outfitted river rullllinl oppcx1Wiities. 

MYTH: Outfitttd guestS catch and uep alltht fish in the 

river. 

FACf: Idaho fishina outfium operate on many stteams 

such u lhe Middle Fori< of lhe Salmon on which <:lldl·and· 

release fisbinJ is required. On saams where fish buvest is 

allowed, 111011 outfium strOIIJly eDC0Ut1f0 pests to 

releue lilb in order to IUIIIilllhe - 011 wbic:b tbeir 

busillesa is buecL 

MYTH: Outfitttr-. concentrate i11the bac/u:OfUitry. camping 

i4 cw,ry firain41t and~~~~ " . . • .. ; " •· . •. 

F ACf: A tocal of 27 hllllliq outfiaen operate in lhe Frank 

Church-River of No Retum Wi.ser--dull'soadltW-fwneryllllqMft ... (88.320 ~~~:ra). 

Camps reservec1 for lhe outfitted public are sptad out as 

-n: there's an •venae of oae camp foreveay 42 square 

miles (26,880 ~~:reS) . 

0 NOH-OUTI'ITTED 

NON-USIDENTTAGS 24,448-83% 

PANHANDLE 

ELK 

11133 

n. 
167 

S MALL B USINESS M AKING A B IG C ONTRIBUTION TO THE E CONOMY I 

Outfitting guests engaged in direct spending of $22 

million in Idaho in the 1986-87 season. the last year for 

which figures are available. Expenditure• include outfitting fees, hunting and fishing licenses. lodging. meals, meat 

packing, etc. That same year, licensed outfitters engaged in 

direct·spending of$18.2 million, including $2.1 million in 

the form of state taxes and license fees, and federal user 

fees. 

IESTIIIATED QIIOSS EXPENDITURES 

MADE DUlliNG 1 .... 7 SEASON 

CATEGORY EXPENOfTURES 

Client Fees ........................................................ $15,725,014 

Licenses (hunting & fishing) .................................. 1,275,381 

Wilhin Slate Travel ................................................ 1,321 ,429 

Lodging .................................................................. 1,085,717 

Restauranta ........................................................... 1,073,566 

Supplies ................... :; ............................................... 448,588 

Groceries .................. ; ............................................... 286,137 

Miscellaneoua Retail ................................................ 339,556 

Taxidermy & meatpacking ....................................... 400,402 

Totlll EetltMIMI G_.l!xpendltuNe ............ $21,155,710 

More than 95 percent of Idaho outfitters operate their 

businesses on public land. In return for that privilege. they 

must pay 3 percent of their gross receipts to the U.S. 

Treasury. For example. when a pest pays an outfitter 

$1,000 for a week-long trip on the Middle Fork of the 

Salmon River, $30 is collected to pay the federal government. In I 990, Idaho's outfitters collectively paid $384,316 

to the U.S. Treasury. 

Federal user fees paid by outfitters help cover the costs of 

national forest recreation management. Outfitters who run 

the Middle Fork of the Salmon River paid $94.911 to the 

federal government last year in 3 percent user fees: the 

Middle Fork District's recreation budget is $117,000. 

Therefore, the outfitted public indim:tly contribute about 

80 percent of the district's recreation budget in 3 percent 

fees. 

MIDDLE FORK 

RECREATION 

BUDGET 

MIDDLE FORK 

Like other small businesses Idaho's outfitters pay 5 

percent sales tax on all fees collected: they also pay sales 

tax on the many goods and equipment needed to run their 

businesses. 

Idaho guide wages range from $45 to $125 per day. High 

school and college students save thousands of dollars for 

their education while guiding in Idaho each summer. A 

recent Garden Valley High School graduate, for instllnce, is 

putting himself through the University of Idaho with funds 

he saved while making $75 per day guiding on the South 

Fork of the Payette River. 

Contrary to popular belief. outfitting is a challenging way 

to make a livins. Studies show that typical outfitting small 

businesses net 4.5 percent of their gross income. If an 

outfitter grosses $100,000 in one season, for instllnce, his 

take home pay is about $4,500. Like many small farming 

and ranching businesses, outfitting pays off in lifestyle and 

freedom, not in a fatter wallet. As a result, many outfitters 

work other jobs to make ends meet. 

OUTtTJTER NET INCOME A EXPENDrnJRES FROM 

ACTIVITJES CONDUCTED DURING THE 19116-87 

OUTFITTING SEASON 

19.69% 

EXPEtCIM\JIIIt: CATt:OOAV $ AMOUNT % Of' TOTAL 

c;J Oulli<ll Servlcel 1-m.eae 7.28% 

D F-..IUM<F- 207,303 1.32% 

• Equipment 4,017,689 25.55% 

EJ Slate • Federal Toxoo 541.279 3.44% 

c.wa980 3,086,592 19.69% 

11;;1 Cllont/Guide Food 1,614,918 10.27% 

Ill Animal Food o483,912 3.08'1. 

CS1 Adv811islng 861,094 5.48"1. 

1!1 Other 2,957,021 18.80% 

..... ..__ 118,313 4.45'1(, 

Totals $15,724,920 100'4 

NOTE: nW ftgurrs 011this poge conw from 'lndustiy Repon 011 the 1983-84. Throuth 1986-87 /dDho 011tjining Seasoru', prepotff by JG~Ms M. 

LDnsche. MBA of JML2 COIUulrint. SGft W~ Cit)', UT. 
168 

Idaho 's outfitt~rs provitk many nort -co~nsat~d ~rvices which benefit the public. 

• Idaho oudiuen llld picles .-Jy clelr lrlik ond pic:l: up terboae in 

the ouuioon..la 1989, outfiuen ia me Frank Cb~h River of No 

Reblm Wildornes& clcal<d obout 3.000 miles of ll'aib lind pocl<od out 

sevenl ,... of terbqe. 

•Idaho's riY<r Olllfiacn belpod the U.S. Forest Scrvi<>e ldoplapock-itin. pack·it-ou« policy for nda on die: Middle Fort lnd Maio Salmon 

riven in tbe 1970s. 1bll policy. now lht campers credo, hu (O&Ia'ed 

the removal of ... alrbqe dumps aloaa bach riven. 

• In dlelalo 1980&. Main Salmon JU.., Olllfiacn enooutaaed tbe F...,. 

Set\' ice co ~dope a policy of pac:kina out humaa wute. Now all bollen 

must pKk out human wutc 10 keep lhc river environment as dun u 

possible. 

• Idaho's outfinas are e~ in first lid and rncur. When misb.lps 

OC'CW' in the blckcounuy. oudinen are ofteft the filS( ones to usist lost 

or injuml lUken or hUDII:tl. River o...tiaen ofcea help privace f'lo&ten 

whose rafts,.. piNIOd on rocks« Hip in .W.,..OUS nopids. Oucfiacn 

have won numerous awards for public as&istanc:e. 

• Les Bechdel of McCall, Idabo outfiaer and owner of Canyoas. l.nc .• is 

the nation's leaclia.J upen i.D. river mcue and safecy &Dd co-author of 

.. River Racue." He otfm tevt:nl trliniaa semiun in ldabo each 

year. hdpint privMe -.s and pro(asaioaalpicleslelrn lhe 111011 

advanc<:d Sliety ltlChaiqlles foe w!U...,.,.,. c.-i,._ kayaltinf and 

raftina. 

• Idaho's oudinen initialed a proaram caned "Partners Afloll," a 

meetinJ of key players ia tWUn1 resourte manaacmenc: 0C1 river tri~ . 

Forest Service ClliefDale Robauoo. -Lanyc..;,. BLMChicf 

Cy Jamison. ond repmeotalives of tbe forat producu. miDenla. ...r liv.-t pzlnf ioduscries have ~ ia SIICb lripo. w!Uch bave 

been held on lhe Middle Font. Maio llld u.- s..u-_ Hdb Caayon. 

and Payctt.t riven ia che lilt five years. IOOA offtciUs seek tD 

promoce "Responsible. Slwod Usc" by tbesc-.,. of !he millda. 

• When callod on fot ...-. ldallo ~ occaiooally bolp Filii 

and Game ollia:n---io the boc-,. • Idaho outftlll:n 1r11velto Waahinp>o. D.C. 10 1o11by foe impoved 

!undint fot ...,.-facilicics and impoved laod-ill 

Idaho. Those efforu have produced reaulrl: - ftlodi.oc boa 

increucd .5 I percent in lhe 1ut rwo )'eM'S. N p11t of dJal PKtaac. 

Con ..... funded $$ miUioo f« mud> ooodod nesutfaci .. of the Maio 

Salmon JUver road from Sboup 10 Com CtooL 

THE IDAHO OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES LicENSING ~~ ' .. ····. ' '· Crealed in 1961, ldlho's Li!:euinl Boord is recopiud • Boon! of Medi<:iDo: 6 ..-.! doclo:iil..iJIIIIIIk: ~ I 

throuahout the wat u-the most comprehcasive licensina Oflhopalhic pbysiciaa. I law eDf ........ j 

prosrams in exitleuce. Olep and Wulli..-, fw i-. •Boord of Nursina: 6-. I .,..........._ ~-• 

have no licensina bauds. Moatana recently creoled a boon! to The BOII'd's fiscaii9911Judeet lppiOprilliaal- $2.45,000 

license huntina and fisllinaauides, and Wyomiaa's boon! is which is funded solely from fees,....- from the sale of 

three yeatS old. outfitter and guides licema. They mceive no .,._a1 fuDd 

To provide paid servic'cs in Idaho, boch out:fincn and pidc$ revenues. 

must be licensed by the Idaho Ouditters IIICI Guides Licensins The Enfon:ement Divisioa for the ~ -.! is lo:pt 

Board. Outfitters muse also obcaiD speci.al·use pennies from the busy investigatina iUqal ourfitt:i.q aDd pidiDaiiCdvilies. In 

U.S. FOIHt Service or B....., ofl..uld M....,.ment when 1990.llolrd enfon:emeot ~ iaicioled 56 iD...,;pdoas 

n<Cessary. of suspected illelllll:livilios by lllllice8led oudi-. IIIII 

The Uccnaina Boon! usura dW oudia.~> ... hiply skilled; guides. Out of this 10111, 9 ciwioaa wen iuued, - oulfitters 

qualif&ed. bonded, certified in fiBI· aid. utd financillly capable were convicted of illeallll:livities, IIICI u of Fcbntlry I, 1992, 

of providing a safe. quality experience for the reaeatina public. two WIITII\ts are still OUIIIandilll, IIICI seven .,_ ore S1i11 

The Idaho Ourfinen and Guides licensin& Board has five under invesrigation. 

members: three outfitters. one ldlho Fisll and Game rep«sent.1- The Boord llso oddresses complaints which ate filed qainst 

tive and- member of the public at-1-. Compared to other licensed outfia.rs or guides. In 1990, 24 ouditters wete cited 

slate licensin& boards. this is a fair and balanctd ;unngemeiu: for various violations. Nine of those wen issued PI"'O*ionary 

• Stare Board of Pharmacy: 4 pharmacists: one member ac- licenses. ten were assessed fines toWins S3J.50. tbiee licenses 

large. were re\•oked, and cwo cases were dismissed. 

• Board of Dentistry: 5 dencists. 2 hygienists. I consulcanc. 

EXPERIENCE IDAHO OUTFITTING! 
169 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

I would just suggest to you that the land management agencies 

are right there advising them on that too, you know, in terms of 

building these things, as much as they protest. 

Ms. PANKONIN. It is a two-way street, I know. 

Mr. VENTO. It isn't all happening just under the influence of the 

appropriators. They are getting a lot of advice and encouragement 

from land management agencies. . Ms. PANKONIN. But there are other things that they ask for that 

you ignore, and you could begin ignoring that. 

Mr. VENTO. That is right. That is true. But they are a willing 

partner in that particular process, a very willing partner, an eager 

partner. 

Ms. PANKONIN. I understand that, sir. We are not a willing partner in that process. 

Mr. VENTO. Nor are we. 

Ms. Mitchell, your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA F. MITCHELL 

Ms. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee on 

a subject that is important to me and incredibly important to the 

organizations I· represent. 

The Northwest Powerboat and Western Whitewater Associations 

were organized in the 1970s to promote the interests of power boat.;, 

ers, to give them a voice in issues affecting their sport, to promote 

safety, and develop a strong resource ethic affecting behavior both 

on and off the water. 

We also organize and participate in volunteer projects associated 

with power boating rivers including campsite cleanup, maintenance, and construction of new facilities. These organizations provide a voice for about 1,500 members throughout the Northwest, 

including Canada. 

Each national recreation area is unique in both its character and 

designating legislation. The tremendous spectrum of recreation opportunities provided by them makes our Nation richer. Congress 

demonstrated great wisdom when it allowed legislation to be tailored to meet the specific need of each NRA's resources and visitors. 

Hells Canyon's legislation is sound, recognizing historic uses, 

protecting the canyon's irreplaceable resources, and looking forward to the future needs of our people. 

The Forest Service has been a responsible steward of this national recreation area. Power boaters have not always been in 

agreement with the agency staff, and we certainly have not always 

gotten our way. However, we respect their professionalism, sincerity, and integrity. 

The Forest Service people who work directly with the Hells Canyon resources have proven themselves to be dedicated, working 

long hours, many of them donated. 

This canyon is neither devastated by logging nor trashed by uncontrolled recreationists, nor is it a recreational Bosnia where floaters and power boaters battle each other. Even the river corridor, 

which is rather highly used, is clean, beautiful, and peaceful. The 
170 

NRA's outstanding resources have been protected in this canyon, 

and it is in much better condition today than it was when it was 

designated. I assure you that the only guns in Hells Canyon are 

water guns. 

This is not to say that there is not room for improvement. National recreation areas deserve to be the recreational crown jewels 

of the National Forest System, complementing our national parks 

by providing American people with a variety of opportunities for 

their leisure time with recreation emphasis. 

We would suggest the following measures that should lead Hells 

Canyon NRA towards the excellence in management it deserves. 

One, continued consistent funding of the five-year capital investment program. 

Two, provide improved and consistent funding for recreation operation and maintenance, both developed and dispersed. 

Provide balanced funding for management of other resources, including roads, trails, wildlife, fisheries, range, cultural resources, 

wilderness, and vegetation. 

Four, consider the NRA's organization and whether it might be 

better managed as a unit reporting to the regional forester, elevating its status within the organization, and removing one level of 

the organizational hierarchy. 

Provide funding for updating the comprehensive management 

plan to reflect changing social, economic, and resource conditions. 

This should include funds for comprehensive resource inventories 

where needed to support the planning effort. 

Funding for planning should not come at the expense of operational funding. Hells Canyon and our Nation's people are well served by its designation as a national recreation area. The Forest Service has done 

an acceptable job of management, although there is certainly room 

for improvement. We would plea that Congress and the agency recognize the importance of this national wonder and give the program the emphasis it deserves. 

However, neither the area nor its visitors will be served by 

standards that attempt to level management of all national recreation areas. Their greatest value lies in their uniqueness, of each 

of the components of the system, and the wonderful spectrum of opportunities they provide. This is not a machine that is broken and 

needs replacement. A minor tune-up should have it humming along 

nicely very soon. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell and attachments follow:] 
171 

Testjmopy 

House of RepreM:olatjyes 

Natjopa! Parks. Forests apd Public Lapds Sub-committee 

Sandra F. Mitchell 

Public Affairs Director 

Northwest Powerboat Association and 

Western Whitewater Association 

September 23, 1993 

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee on a subject so 

important to me and the organizations I represent. The Northwest Powerboat 

and Western Whitewater Associations were organized in the 1970's to promote 

the interests of powerboaters, to give them a voice in issues affecting their sport, 

to promote safety and develop a strong resource ethic affecting behavior both on 

and off the water. We also organize and participate in volunteer projects 

associated with powerboating rivers, including campsite clean-up, maintenance 

and construction of new facilities. These organizations provide a voice for about 

1500 members throughout the Northwest, including Canada. 

Hells Canyon's Management 

Each National Recreation Area is unique in both its' character and designating 

legislation. The tremendous spectrum of recreation opportunities provided by 

them makes our nation richer. Congress demonstrated great wisdom when it 

allowed legislation to be tailored to meet the specific needs of each NRA's 

resources and visitors. Hells Canyon's legislation is sound, recognizing historic 

uses, protecting the canyon's irreplaceable resources and looking forward to the 

future needs of our people. 

The Forest Service has been a responsible steward of this National Recreation 

Area. Powerboaters have not always been in agreement with the agency's staff; 

we have certainly not always gotten our way. However, we respect their 

professionalism, sincerity, and integrity. The Forest Service people who work 

directly with Hells Canyon's resources have proven themselves to be dedicated, 

working long hours, many of them donated. In view of the fluctuating and low 

level of funding provided to most federal recreation programs in the past decade, 

without their extraordinary efforts and those of many volunteers, the canyon 

would not e~ibit the good condition we fmd it in today. This Canyon is neither 

devastated by logging or trashed by uncontrolled recreationists. Nor is it a 

recreational Bosnia where floaters and powerboaters battle each other. Even the 

river corridor, with its relatively high number of users, is clean, beautiful and 

peaceful. The only guns pointed between river visitors squirt water in the spirit 
172 

of comradeship and fun. 1be NRA's outstanding resources have been protected 

lind this canyon is in much better condition today than it was in at the time of 

designation. 

This is not to say that there isn't room for improvement. Lack of funding and 

staff to implement the Comprehensive Management Plan for all resources has 

constantly plagued Hells Canyon's managers and slowed progress. National 

Recreation Areas deserve to be the recreational crown jewels of the National 

Forest System, complimenting our National Parks by providing the American 

people with a variety of opportunities for their leisure time with a recreation 

emphasis. We would suggest the following measures that should lead the Hells 

Canyon NRA towards the excellence in management it deserves: 

1. Continue consistent funding the 5 year capital investment program; 

2. Provide improved and consistent funding for recreation operation and 

maintenance, both developed and dispersed; 

3. Provide balanced funding for management of other resources, including 

roads, trails, wildlife, fisheries, range, cultural resources, wilderness and 

vegetation; 

4. Consider the NRA's organization and whether it might be better 

managed as a unit reporting to the Regional Forester, elevating its' status 

within the organization and removing one level of organizational 

hierarchy. 

5. Provide funding for updating the comprehensive management plan over 

the next five years to reflect changing social, economic and resource 

conditions. This should include funds for comprehensive resource 

inventories where needed to support the planning effort. Funding for 

planning should not come at the expense of operational funding. 

Powerboating in Hell's Canyon 

Hells Canyon's Snake River has a long history of navigation and powerboat use. 

It is particularly important to us because of its' unique suitability for this activity. 

1bere is simply no better whitewater powerboating river in our nation. The first 

powerboat passengers to enter what we now know as the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area were with Captain Tom Stump on his 110 foot stemwheeler, the 

Colonel Wright, when he challenged the Snake River's rapids in 1865. This 

sturdy steamer was followed by the Shoshone, which traversed the entire canyon 

from Boise to Lewiston in 1870 and the Norma, which duplicated that feat in 

1895. In 1912 captain Ed McFarland began the first powerboat tour business 
173 

operating out of the Lewiston area, charging $1.60 for a trip to Wild Goose 

Rapid. In 1914, he braved the rapids all the way to Granite Creek with 19 

passengers aboard his gasoline powered craft, the Prospector. The flfSt Snake 

River Route mail delivery contract was awarded to Press Brewrink in 1919; 

weekly delivery of the mail from Lewiston to Johnson Bar continues today. 

Powerboats played an invaluable role in Hells Canyon's history, carrying people, 

produce, and supplies in and out of this once thriving area of the west. Now the 

many farms, mines and ranches are few, but powerboats continue to serve the 

needs of both canyon residents and the many recreationists that enjoy its' 

wonders. 

In 1954 a New Zealand sheep rancher named Bill Hamilton revolutionized river 

running with the flfSt water-jet propelled boat. This miraculous craft could run 

in very shallow water. Jet pumps first appeared on the U.S. scene in the late 50's. 

Norm Riddle, a whitewater boating pioneer, began running jetboats into the 

Canyon in 1963 and says that others were there before him. In 1965 Norm 

married a tough welded aluminum hull to the jet pump, giving us a light-weight 

craft that could run rapids and was tough enough to withstand the rigors of Hells 

Canyon. 

Two important industries evolved around these pioneer efforts, the manufacture 

of welded aluminum jetboats and tourism. In the Lewiston/Clarkston Valley 

alone, 13 companies build these exciting and durable craft. On Hells Canyon's 

Snake River, 19 outfitters carry over 20,000 people annually in powerboats, a 

vital link in the region's tourist industry. The canyon is also extremely important 

to the many private powerboaters that recreate there. 

Powerboaters use the canyon with a minimum of impact. Most of the 

commercial guests are day users who stop only at hardened sites, such as the 

Cache Creek and Kirkwood interpretive facilities. While they do introduce some 

sound into the canyon, it quickly fades into the river's rush as the boats pass. 

Conclusion 

Hells Canyon and our nation's people are well served by its • designation as a 

National Recreation Area. The Forest Service has done an acceptable job of 

management. although there is certainly room for improvement. We would plea 

that Congress and the agency recognize the importance of this natural wonder and 

give it the program emphasis it deserves. However, neither the area or its' 

visitors will be well served by standards that attempt to level management of all 

National Recreation Areas. Their greatest value lies in the uniqueness of each 

component of that system and the wonderful spectrUm of opportunities they 

provide. This is not a machine that is broken and needs replacement; a minor 

tune-up should have it humming along nicely in short order. 
174 

Powerboating in the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area 

Historical 

• Steamboats to Jetboats 

Hells Canyon has a long and rich tradition of powerboating that spans more 

than a century. In 1865 Captain Tom Stump took the 110 foot Colonel 

Wright up river into what is now the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area (HCNRA), turning around at a point 25 Miles above the Salmon 

River (Snake River of Hells Canyon, pg. 30). Five years later (1870) 

Captain Sebastian Miller brought the 136 foot steamboat Shoshone the full 

length of Hells Canyon, from Southern Idaho to Lewiston. In 1895 Captain 

William Gray followed the route blazed by Bas Miller in the Norma, a 165 

foot stern wheeler. The steamer Imnaha ferried supplies to Eureka Bar in 

1903, followed by the Mountain Gem in 1904 (Snake River of Hells 

Canyon, Pgs. 52-54, 58 and 59). 

The many homesteaders and miners who called the Hells Canyon area home 

in the early 1900's needed transportation for people, supplies and produce. 

The Snake River was a ready highway for them to use. One of the first to 

provide that service on this navigable river was Ed MacFarlane in 1910 

with his 36 foot gasoline powered Flyer. In 1912 he added the 65 foot 

Prospector to his fleet. MacFarlane began the first powerboat tour business 

operating out of the Lewiston area, charging $1.50 for a trip to Wild 

Goose Rapid. In 1914 he braved the rapids to Granite Creek with 19 

passengers in the Prospector (Snake River of Hells Canyon, Pgs .. 61-63). 

Many boat Captains and craft took their place in the traditions and history 

of the canyon over the years. These include characters of legendary 

dimensions such as Press Brewrink, Kyle McGrady, Oliver McNabb and 

Dick Rivers. Their large and sturdy propeller driven craft included names 

like the Chief Joseph, Let's Go, Clipper. Idaho, Florence, Wenaha and 

Idaho Queen. 

The frrst Snake River Route mail delivery contract was awarded to Press 

Brewrink in 1919. Weekly delivery of the mail from Lewiston to Johnson 

Bar continues today. The boat goes up on Wednesday and returns on 
175 

Thursday, providing a valuable service for canyon residents. For tourists 

the ride up river into Hells Canyon on the mail boat was an adventure of a 

lifetime. 

In 1954 a New Zealand sheep rancher named Bill Hamilton revolutionized 

river running with the first jet propelled boat. This miraculous craft could 

run in very shallow water and proved a match for some of New Zealand's 

toughest whitewater. Jet pwnps fust appeared on the U.S. scene in the late 

50's. According to Norm Riddle, a jet boat pioneer on the Snake River, 

Jim West was one of the fust to use a jetboat in Hells Canyon, using a 

fiberglass and wood craft with a Beuhler pump. In 1962 Bob Smith and 

Paul Filer took a welded aluminwn boat with twin outboards all the way up 

river through Hells Canyon to Oxbow and return in one day (Snake River 

of Hells Canyon, Pg. 99). 

Norm Riddle began running jetboats into the Canyon in 1963 and says that 

several others were there before him. He notes that it was rare to see rafts 

at that time. In 1965 Norm married tough welded alwninum hulls and the 

jet pwnp, giving us a craft that could run through shallows and rapids, was 

light in weight and tough enough to withstand the rigors of Hells Canyon's 

whitewater. While early designs were crude and utilitarian, they evolved 

into the efficient craft we have today, boats, engines and pumps capable of 

safely running all of Hells Canyon's rapids, -yet handsome enough to appeal 

to buyers as a family boat. -

Two industries built around these pioneer efforts. The first is the 

manufacture of welded aluminum jetboats. In the Lewiston/Clarkston 

Valley alone over 13 companies build these exciting and durable craft. The 

second is tourism. On the Snake River in the HCNRA 19 outfitters carry 

about 20,000 people annually in powerboats, a vital part of the region's 

tourist industry. Of course there are many other businesses and services 

which support powerboating: marine engines, upholstery and tops, jet 

pumps, fuel, hotels, restaurants. and so forth. 

• Floating 

In 1925 a young adventurer Amos Burg traversed the canyon with a canoe. 

He returned to Hells Canyon on three other occasions, the first with a canoe 

in 1929, the second by raft in 1946 and fmally by raft in 1978 (Snake 

River of Hells Canyon, Pg. 75). Five parties left accounts of floating the 

river in the 40's, including one outfitter trip (Snake River of Hells 

Canyon, Pg. 89). Surplus rafts from World War II made river running 

2 
176 

more available and inexpensive. By the 50's and 60's more people were 

braving the rapids of the Northwest's rivers, including Hells Canyon, but it 

wasn't until the early 70's that float use exploded. 

• Corps of Engineers and Navigation 

While the definition of Wild and Scenic rivers in PL 90-542 calls for 

essentially primitive and Wldeveloped shorelines, the Snake River in Hells 

Canyon doesn't fit the mold very well. With three dams above that trap 

sediment, the beaches have largely disappeared. The river was at one time 

lined with ranches and farms, most now abandoned. Flows are controlled 

by the dams and change hourly. Even the river channel itself has been 

heavily modified over a long span of time to enhance navigation by the 

large, deeper draft craft that used to ply the river for commerce. 

The first reference to modification of the river channel in the HCNRA 

appears in a 1903 Lewiston Tribune article referenced in The Snake River 

of Hells Canyon, Pg. 57. The article spoke of a trip by the steamboat 

Imnaha with a "party of government engineers who would blast away the 

large rock in that menace to navigation (Mountain Sheep Rapid)". In 1914 

$25,000 was appropriated for the Corps of Engineers to improve the river 

channel with explosives (Snake River of Hells Canyon, pg. 63). From 1903 

until designation Wlder the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1975 the Corps 

of Engineers continued projects to improve navigation of the Snake River 

in what is now the HCNRA. This included blasting rocks, construction of 

diversions to channel water and installation of channel survey markers as 

navigation aids from Lewiston to the end of navigation improvements, 86 

miles upriver. The balance of the river to Hells Canyon Dam (18 miles) 

does not have survey markers. 

Management Plans 

• The first plan 

An awareness that a management plan was needed for the Snake River first 

dawned on the Forest Service in 1973. The area was then managed as part 

of the Hells Canyon-Seven Devils Scenic Area. While the Forest Service 

had a jetboat patrol on the river, it was used largely to do cleanup work 

and provide administrative transportation in support of fire, trail and range 

crews. 

A float outfitter asked the three Forest Supervisors involved in managing 

3 
177 

the scenic area and their District Rangers to accompany him on a float trip. 

He worked diligently to show the Forest Service people that float use had 

grown to a point thafit was out of control and a threat to the area's 

resources. Powerboating was not even an issue. He was successful in his 

quest and convinced the Forests' collective leadership to impose a 

moratorium on issuance of any new float outfitter permits. There were 18 

permits at that time and about that many more applications filed, but not 

processed. Private float usc(. like powerboating, was not a major player in 

the growing use impact picture at that juncture. 

As a result of the float trip, the Supervisors also initiated work on a 

management plan focused on floating, the element of river use threatening 

to get completely out of hand. The first plan was completed in 1975, 

adopting the moratorium and setting a target of 16 float businesses with 

one launch every 8 days. Most floats at that time were 6 days in length, 

going to the Grande Ronde take-out. A limit of 5 launches from points 

between Hells Canyon Dam and Rush Creek would be allowed each day 

during a control season, 3 private and 2 commercial. This worked out to a 

50150 allocation between commercial and private in terms of numbers of 

people because of the larger commercial party size. The limit of 5 

launches per day was based on the availability of campsites in the first two 

days of the average trip and the capacity of the launch ramp at Hells 

Canyon Creek. These limitations are still valid and were not even 

questioned during the recent management plan review. No limit was placed 

on floating below Rush Creek and none exists today .. 

• The interim plan 

In December, 1975 the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area was 

designated. The legislation called for completion of a comprehensive 

management plan (CMP) by December 1980. A planning team was 

assembled and began its task in 1976. An interim management plan was 

approved for the river, adopting, in large, the 1975 plan. Commercial 

powerboat business were to be placed under special use permit and a first 

come first served system was adopted for issuing float permits and 

reservations. 

• The Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) 

The planning team fmished their task and a CMP was sent to the Chief of 

the Forest Service in December, 1980. The Chief signed the plan on May 

23, 1981 and must have felt as if he had just slid down a banister covered 

4 
178 

with razor blades. One feature of the plan was a control period closure of 

the river from Wild Sheep Rapid to Rush Creek Rapid to powerboating. 

This resulted in over 20 appeals and outrage from powerboaters who had 

worked out a compromise with floaters to limit powerboat access in that 

section of river, but not eliminate it. 

The Chief, in an unprecedented move, decided to reconsider his decision. 

He appointed a committee to review the plan and make recommendations. 

The committee advised him to allow powerboat access on the entire river, 

but to limit numbers during the control period in the upper section, a 

proposal very close to the original power/float compromise. The Chief 

signed his second decision adopting the committee recommendation on May 

12, 1982. However, relationships between the Forest Service and 

Powerboaters were badly wounded by what powerboaters saw as a betrayal 

of trust and they decided to fight any restrictions on their access. More 

appeals were filed against the second plan than the frrst. It is worth 

pointing out that at no time did float interests enter the process, either in 

support of the Forest Service or against it. The agency was left swinging 

in the wind on a gallows of its own construction. 

In fact, the Forest Service had failed to establish that powerboat use in this 

segment of river was at a level requiring restrictions to meet any stated 

goals or objectives. They weren't challenged on their float allocation 

because physical factors dictated the limit. In the case of powerboating, 

however, any limits had to be based on social factors and experience 

objectives. Nothing in the plan supported limits on either basis. 

• The Crowell decision 

On April21, 1983 Assistant Secretary of Agriculture John Crowell signed 

a decision on the river management portion of the CMP. A decision on the 

balance of the plan didn't come until April, 1984. Crowell placed no limits 

on day-use by powerboats, but did make provision for assignment of 

campsites. He called for continued registration of all boaters and 

monitoring of the effects of boat use on other values. If the Forest Service 

determined, as a result of monitoring, that adjustments to boating use letr"els 

were necessary, it could do so, but not before the 1985 season and only 

after giving notice and soliciting public involvement. 

• LAC 

The Forest Service did monitor conditions and, in response to a steady 

5 
179 

increase in boating activity throughout the river's length, initiated a 

University of Idaho study of use and users in 1988 and 89. This study 

monitored social conditions that were overlooked in the original CMP. A 

review of the river management portion of the CMP, utilizing the Limits of 

Acceptable Change Process (LAC), began in 1990 and ended in September 

of 1991. A 22 member task force met 19 times and, after 250 hours of 

work, hammered out a compromise recommended river management plan 

based on goals and objectives. This task force consisted of representatives 

from all interested groups and was facilitated by the University of Idaho. 

The plan recommended by the task force included limits for powerboats on 

the same river segment where floaters are limited. The premise of plans 

developed under the LAC process is that desired conditions are defmed and 

standards established. When monitoring shows that standards are about to 

be exceeded, various management actions are implemented, such as 

education or site hardening. When all else fails, regulations come into 

play. 

• The EIS 

The next step in plan modification was to amend the Forest Land and 

Resources Management plan. The Forest Service began that process in the 

fall of 1992 with a series of meetings for issue development. .. Initially the 

Forest Service had hoped that an EA would suffice and that it could be 

completed by spring of 1993. However, it soon became evident that even 

with the LAC effort, which should have reduced any controversy, the level 

of concern was such that an EIS would be mandatory. 

The Draft EIS was recently released for public comment. While the LAC 

proposal was the proposed action. the p~ferred alternative was a plan 

entirely alien. It ignored the intensive public involvement and negotiation 

that had gone into the LAC propasal and selected a scheme discussed by the 

LAC Task Force, but discarded as unworkable and unacceptable. The heart 

of the preferred alternative calls for allowing exclusive use by floaters one 

week and powerboaters the next week on all but a small portion of the Wild 

section of the Snake River, the assumption being that the two user groups 

are incompatible. It also limits access to the Scenic section ofthe river and 

restricts outfitting businesses to the point of crippling some and making 

others non-viable. The end result is halving everyone's access to the Wild 

Snake River and placing an oppressive system of controls on recreationists 

that aren't needed and that the Forest Service cannot afford to implement. 

The present target date for completion of the plan revision is Spring, 

1994. 

6 
180 

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Ad of 1975 

This law designated 652,000 acres in Oregon and Idaho as the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area. Within the recreation area it also designated 

214,000 acres of wilderness and 171 miles of wild and scenic rivers (these 

acres and miles include additions from the Oregon Wilderness and 

Omnibus Rivers Acts, both of which post-date the HCNRA Act). The 

Snake River is designated Wild from Hells Canyon Dam north to Pittsburg 

Landing (31.5 miles), Scenic from Pittsburg Landing north to the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest's north boundary (36 miles) and Study 

from the W-W's north boundary to the HCNRA's north boundary and the 

Oregon I Washington state line (4 miles). 

None of the river is within wilderness, although its half mile wide corridor 

is bordered on both sides by wilderness for 18 miles and on one side for an 

additional 32 miles. 

Some important sections of the act are: 

• Section 7 which establishes objectives for management; 

• Section.& which requires a Comprehensive management plan; 

• Section 10 which addresses the promulgation of regulations and 

recognizes both motorized and nonmotorized craft as valid uses of the 

Snake River. 

Use Figures 

Forest Service river use reports are available from about 1978 onward. It 

is important to note that the Cache Creek public contact station at the north 

end of the river came on line in the spring of 1991. Up to that time 

compliance with the permit system by upstream traveling powerboaters 

entering the HCNRA had been minimal, about 53%. An apparent large 

jump in 1991 powerboat use actually reflects the improved rate of 

compliance, nearly 100%. 

During the 1991 control season 9,992 people floated in the HCNRA. This 

includes floaters launching below Hells Canyon Dam, below Rush Creek 

and from the Lower Salmon. During this same period 20,561 people 

accessed the HCNRA by powerboat, 67% of the total, or 2 out of every 3 

visitors. If only Snake River Floaters are considered, powerboaters 

comprise 80% of the total, 5,261 floaters vs. 20,561 powerboaters. Most 

of the powerboat use took place in sections of the river below Rush Creek 

7 
181 

where neither power or float use is restricted. 

When total annual figures are considered, powerboating dominates river 

use even more. Data for private boating isn't available to us for the entire 

1991 calendar year. However, we do have annual data for conunercial use. 

Conunercial powerboaters brought 19,497 people into the HCNRA in 1991 

for 22,169 service days. This compares with 2,113 Hells Canyon 

conunercial float passengers for 6,524 service days (doesn't include the 

Lower Salmon floaters). 

Economic Impacts 

Eliminating powerboat access to the entire canyon, as requested by the 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council in a current law suit, would be 

devastating to those who make a significant portion of their income from 

that industry, directly or indirectly. 

The most obvious impacts would be to the 19 commercial outfitters who 

make their living taking passengers into the canyon. Most will be unable to 

survive a major loss of access during their busiest season. The boat 

manufacturers and related industries will also be damaged. Manufacturers 

of pumps, marine engines and trailers, upholsterers, maintenance 

businesses, banks, advertisers, airlines, tour ships, travel agents, 

restaurants, hotels, tackle shops and fuel suppliers will all experience a 

revenue loss. 

The following conservative analysis approaches revenues and jobs on an 

annual basis: 

Commercial powerboat outfitters: 

Gross revenues as reported to the Forest Service For 1991 

Estimated jobs (some seasonal) for outfitters and employees 

Businesses 

$1,598,133 

58 

19 

Tourism businesses associated with commercial powerboat 

customers: 

The following figures are based on estimates developed by the 

Idaho Dept. of Conunerce. · They found that the typical travel 

group entering Idaho spent an average of $22.06 per day per 

person and stayed an average of 6.62 nights. This gives an 

8 
182 

average expenditure per person of $146.04. This estimate is 

indubitably low for the people who participate in the 

powerboat related activities. 

19,497 customers x $146.04 = $2,847,342 

Private Powerboating 

No studies have been done to support revenues associated with 

private boating. We know that the average party size is 3 

persons in the control period and that they stay an average of 

2.9 days. They took 1342 trips in 1991 and operated their 

boats for about 19,459 hours. By estimating fuel 

consumption, engine maintenance, amortization, transportation 

costs, food costs and other expenses we were able to develop 

the figures below (see attachment). These are conservative 

and probably low. No use figures are available for the fall and 

winter months so we have to make some assumptions. The 

Forest Service has indicated that the off-season use in 1992 

appears to be roughly equal to summer use. 

Summer use--estimate total expenditures for fuel, maintenance, 

boat costs, food, transportation and misc. = 

Off season use--Estimate as equal to summer use 

Manufacturing and associated businesses: 

In the Lewiston/Clarkston valley alone l3 businesses 

manufacture and sell welded aluminum jet boats. About half 

of these are used primarily on the Snake River. While the 

businesses would not loose all of their sales if the Snake River 

was totally closed to their craft, the loss would be such a large 

portion of their sales that few, if any, would survive. Two 

major support businesses are also included in this estimate, one 

a marine engine company and the other a trailer manufacturer. 

Their businesses have built up to support the boat 

manufacturing. Not included are other Pacific Northwest boat 

manufacturers who construct boats used on the Snake River, 

pump manufacturers, accessory suppliers and raw material 

suppliers. 

Lost Sales 

Lost Payroll 

Lost Jobs 

9 

$744,034 

$744,034 

$14,640,000 

$2,286,350 

108 
183 

Totgl JmR4Ct of Spqb Biyq Po!!!frbeqtier §22,859,893 

University of Idaho Study 

In preparation for the management plan review the Forest Service decided 

to survey people who use the river. The study, contracted with the 

University of Idaho, was designed to provide information about river ·. 

users, who they are, how they use the river, their perceptions of the river 

and management preferences. The study segregated data by different 

boater groups, commercial float, private float, co~ercial power and 

private power. It ran from April 15, 1988 through· April 14, 1989. The 

University mailed 1,927 questionnaires and received 1,492 responses, 77%. 

The study is more remarkable for the similarities it disclosed among the 

groups than the differences. All took river trips for the same reasons, to 

be close to nature, enjoy the whitewater, to be with family and friends, for · 

excitement and to visit wild lands. While disc~ssions about crowding 

absorbed much of the task force time during the LAC effort, the study 

showed that 65% of respondents did not feel crowded. Concerns by the 

35% that did experience some crowding were concentrated on one section 

of river and focused, to a large extent on campsite problems. Only 24% 

had negative contacts with other groups; complaints focused on camp 

conflicts and rude people. In the problem identification section of the 

study responses between groups were so close that they were aggregated 

for analysis. Most boaters didn't encounter the problems listed; fewer than 

25% identified any item as a minor or major problem. Over 80% of 

respondents from all groups wanted to maintain the existing experience. 

Reactions to different management actions and facilities options were 

mixed and too complex to analyze here. The bottom line, however, is 

located in the study report's conclusion. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 

is the worst trip ever and 10 is the best trip ever, 68% ranked their trip as 

an 8, 9 or 10. Only 1% ranked their experience as a 1, 2, or 3. 

The Organizations: Northwest Powerboat Association,and Western 

Whitewater Association 

The Northwest Powerboat Association Inc. (NWPBA) is a registered nonprofit corporation in the State of Idaho, organized on 15 November, 1978 

to stimulate and advance the general welfare and safety of boating; to serve 

the interests of recreational water users; to defend such users against 

10 
184 

discriminatory legislation, regulations,and burdensome taxation; to develop 

a fraternal spirit among all recreational water users; to provide a medium 

for the exchange of boating information; to own or lease property for the 

Association uses; to enhance the fisheries and wildlife of the rivers and 

waterways we use; and to perform all desirable and lawful functions for 

the successful operation of the Association and in the general interest. As 

time progressed, the Association shifted it's role into resource protection, 

boater education, safety and volunteer work on the HCNRA. It is also 

proactive in all agency management issues that affect powerboating, 

including management planning. They organize, promote and operate 

various events, such as the annual Clearwater river race and championship 

events such as the world championship race of 1992. 

The Western Whitewater Association, Inc.(WWA) is a registered non-profit 

organization in the state of Idaho, organized in 1976 to protect our free 

flowing river resources while supporting multiple use management. It 

functions in much the same way as the NWPBA and has been proactive in 

management planning issues affecting powerboating. WWA represents, for 

the most part, powerboaters from Southern Idaho. Members organize, 

promote and operate various events, such as the annual Payette River Race 

and various championship events. Improving boater safety and user ethics 

are also among of their objectives. 

The Northwest Powerboat Association (NWPBA) was originated to 

provide Hells Canyon powerboaters with an organized voice to interact 

with the Forest Service in development of the original HCNRA 

Comprehensive Management Plan. It was active throughout that process 

and successfully appealed the Chief's first and second decisions. The 

organization has continued to be pro-active in management of the HCNRA, 

and was heavily involved with the L.A.C. effort just completed. 

Powerboating was represented by four members of the LAC Task Force, 

two from the private sector and two from the commercial sector. One 

private and both commercial representatives were members of the 

NWPBA. There were three alternates, all with the NWPBA. This 

association and it's members have been proactive throughout the history of 

the HCNRA, participating in all phases of management, volunteering to do 

cleanup work and building and installing picnic tables and toilets. The 

group has also worked actively with Congressional delegations concerning 

HCNRA management and funding. 

The Western Whitewater Association (WWA) was formed to also to serve 

as an organized voice of Southern Idaho powerboaters in dealing with 

11 
185 

Forest Service river managers, first with Salmon River Management and 

second with the HCNRA. They were appellants in the original Hells 

Canyon CMP and were very active during the development of that plan. 

Their representative on the L.A.C. Task Force was the only member that 

attended every meeting. The WWA has also been very active in the 

HCNRA in the same manner as the NWPBA, including volunteer work. 

The members of both organizations care deeply about the area, its 

resources and the ability and right to access it of recreational purposes. 

They also support the provision of powerboat access for the general public 

through the services of powerboat outfitters. 

Differences between Hells Canyon Powerboaters and Floaters 

• There are many basic differences in the ways jetboaters and floaters use 

the river. 

1. Powerboaters have far less impact per capita on lands along the 

river than floaters during the summer control period. Much of the 

powerboater's activities are water based. While some camp along 

the river, the majority are day users. Most of their land activities 

are at hardened sites such as the Kirkwood Historic Ranch. Most 

floaters camp along the river and spend relatively little time on the 

water each day. Much of their time is spent in camp, scouting rapids 

and taking side trips. 

Those control season powerboaters who do camp stay less time than 

floaters. The average length of stay for all powerboaters is 1.3 days, 

vs. 2.4 days for floaters. Powerboaters who camp have smaller 

parties: 3 people average per private powerboat party vs. 9 people 

for private float parties. 'fbese factors lead to more land impacts per 

unit of use by floaters to vegetation and soils; it also means more 

human waste. 

We have less information about fall, winter and spring use than 

during the summer controlled season because permits were not 

required until recently. Float craft are rarely seen during this time 

except immediately before and after the control period. The single 

largest draw for powerboating during the off-season is steelhead 

fishing. This is primarily a water based day use activity with no land 

impact. Big Game hunting draws fewer people, but most of them do 

camp along the river and spike up into the mid elevation benches. 

Little of their time is spent in the corridor; the game they hunt is 

much higher on the canyon face. Chukar hunting is primarily a day 

12 
186 

use activity. 

2. Few private powerboaters camp between Wud Sheep Rapid and 

Rush Creek Rapid, the section of river with the fewest campsites. 

The reason is simple; most don't want to run the big rapids with a 

big load of camping gear. Floaters nearly always have to camp in 

this section of river. The limit placed on control period float 

launches at 5 per day is based on the numbers of campsites in the 

first two days of a float trip, Hells Canyon Dam to Rush Creek. 

Powerboater competition with floaters for camp sites is not much of 

a factor on this section of river. However, conflict over campsites 

can be completely eliminated if the Forest Service will simply 

implement a campsite reservation system as called for in the CMP. 

3. Most powerboaters who camp set up their equipment at one site 

and stay there for the duration of their visit. Floaters, on the other 

hand, usually stay one night at each site, setting up a new camp every 

night. This means more trips back and forth to boats ( beating out 

trails and breaking down river banks), different tent locations each 

night and spread of the impact to more land. The larger party size 

adds to these impacts. 

Powerboaters have superior mobility and can go up or down river to 

locate a suitable campsite. Floaters are on a one way trip and finding 

a suitable campsite can become a consuming task that ruins an 

otherwise enjoyable experience. This creates conflicts between the 

two groups that could be easily managed with a campsite reservation 

system. 

4. Floating is largely concentrated in the 31.5 miles of wild river 

above Pittsburg landing. In 1990 floaters terminated 47% of their 

trips at Pittsburg landing. Another 24% terminated their trips above 

Pittsburg andjetboated back to Hells Canyon Dam. Only 19% went 

all of the way through the HCNRA to the Grande Ronde. That 

number has since been adjusted downward to 15 %. 

5. Much of the private powerboat use takes place between the 

HCNRA's North boundary and the Salmon River, an area visited by 

only 15% of the Hells Canyon floaters. The bulk of the upstream 

commercial day use trips turn around below Rush Creek. 

13 
187 

Regional Recreation Opportunities 

The outstanding opportunities for whitewater powerboating provided by 

the Snake River in Hells Canyon are unique in the Northwest, probably the 

United States and perhaps the world. While a number of regional rivers, 

such as the Middle Fork of the Salmon and Selway Rivers, are managed to 

provide outstanding opportunities for exclusive floating, none feature a 

similar experience for powerboaters. In fact, according to a recent 

analysis by the Forest Service, of those 35 rivers in the Pacific Northwest 

within the wild and scenic rivers system with class ill and IV rapids, only 4 

even allow powered craft. Only the Rogue and Salmon Rivers offer a 

quality powerboating opportunity and only the Snake is available to 

powerboaters for its' full length and year-long. If recreation opportunities 

are examined on a regional basis, the Snake River in Hells Canyon should 

clearly emphasize whitewater powerboating. 

14 
Thursday, September it>, 1~~.:> 

Boaters, 

floaters 

say; 'Let 

us share' • Plan to alternate 

between uses draws 

flak from both sides 

By Bill Loftus o!thtTribun. 

Floaters and boaters can share the Snake RIVer · in Hells CAnyon, -.nbers of 

!"' .emot!onaUy charged audience 

~~on~ednesday evening at 

A U.S. Forest Senice meeting 

~:~::,rn=-t, tothe~ 

=~~~Area The crowd applauded Oyde Nl· cely, a rafter IUid member of the group River Access Far Tomor- row, when be CODdemned the qency'a proposal to pve floaters IUid jelboat.., altematlllg weeJ<.. to travel the canyon's uppermost reaches. . 

"Moat people I bow in this area. ftoaten and boaters. 4on 't 

:.,;. ~=~em with shared 

tabiThe plan the ageucy put on the e doea.'t retJect -the general 

P.'f'J!fl":.~t~~~ lowing a more vocal minority to clictaie to a lilent ~rity. •• 

th~~~~~= that worked bard to Write a new ~!rr the canyon, Nicely 

Arthur Seamau of Lewiston 

~.;:.;~~~~ tired Hells CAnyon usiotant rang· or wi>o wort<ed with tha taal! force 

~ru!:i::r. Ub history Is reIn tha early 11101, the qency releued another manaJ.ement plan that would have limited jet· boat use of tha canyon. It failed after the outcry readied the Agri· culture Secretary's ofllce. ,.Some ot the paralle1a are uncauy.' · Seam au •aid. noting that earlier plan wu the agency's anawer to another citizens' plan. "I think they're maldng a big misth

take by IgnOring wbat the users of e riYer say they wanted." 

Curtis Chane. operator of 

==~cl~~o~o a supporter of tha qenc:y's p~an at the meetiQg. C1wig said even ht. support 11 tempered by 

changes he'd like to see, adding, 

See Share, Page 2B 

188 
--.1 

--.1 

~ (\.) 

CD 

0 

:f 

--.1 

I DAH.D 

.,...... 

Rafters, power boaters 

c~h at Hells Canyon BY jOHH IIALZAR 

U.S A.,;.lu Ti,.. 

HEU.S CANYON NATIONAL 

RECREATION. AREA - The trouble with "uving'' tbe great scenic 

plac ~ .ot America ia that, like saving 

money· or uving your breath, some 

thin&O ·are bani to keep saved. 

For instance there ia Hells Can- yon, the steep; grOndiose rock gorge 

cut by the Snake River through the 

WalloW. and Seven Devils mountain 

ranges, delin,.lini: the border of Idaho and northern Oregon. It ia America's d-t ~yon, more than 8,000 feet .from its highest pine-and-peak 

edgea clown to the cactus-and-brush 

river 1lottom .below. 

Bocli in 1975; Congres..rescued · 

the canyoa &Om the hunarY eye ot dam builclets by deoipaq 652,488 

·acres otHella Canyon and 10 miles ot 

the Snake River 111 National Recrea- tion Area. ·

' Yaheo! River oOoters - rafters 

and dory men ·- along with back-

packers and naturalists, were thrilled. 

So were ·the power boaters, whose 

thundering jet. boats navipte the 

npids of . the Snake and bring 20,000 tourists into the deepeat reaches of 

the i:anyon. Cattle and sheep ranch-

ers gotland-use riibts in the deal, and 

so did ~ber harvesters. 

·Now the barPm has soured. 

These days, a new push is. being 

mounted by rafters and wilderness 

buffs to turn Hells Canyon into a national park and preserve. · 

Timber !larveilini: '!>as blighted 

the hich country, they say; and gnzine liveatock has. driven out mOot wild 

biJbom sheep. But·moet ol all, crow- ina numben ol jet bolto have tranafonned the narrow, winding canyon into a · boomina: sound chamber ofaluminum mach n~s' slamnUne up and 

down the river. ."Our vision was that this plaCe 

was going to be protected," says Ric 

Bailey, a dory guide and director of 

the Hells Canyon Preservation Council. "We wanted a place were people 

can go to experience the wonders of nature . . . not something · you -can 

THE SEATTLE TIMES TRAVEl. SUNPAY

easily do over the scream of a 9()().. 

horsepower engine." . 

Bailey complains strongly ihai jet 

boaters have unlimited access to the 

river while nfters are liniited _to 

launching five groups per day. 

And, ~e argoea, the Forest Ser- vice ftlllll8ement of the river favors gnzing. timber harvest and construction of new campgrounds,·all of which 

imperil the i:anyon's wild qualitie& 

Bailey goided 1 group of journal-

ists and officials o( the Seattle-based 

environmentalist Bullitt Foundition 

on a dory excursion this spring down 

the upper stretch of the rivei; where 

tlie white ·water is the largest and 

scenery the !OOOt imposing. 

The trip was another step in a 

campaign to generate public support 

to make Hells Canyon the centerpiece ·in "the creation of America's 

last generation of · great 111ational parks." · 

FeeJUw the m611ic 

Arouiid the camp kitchen, uplifted 

by the sensation ofremo~in this 

deep chum awaah in the emerald color ohpring. it is easy to share the .wilderness magic of HeUs CanyO!I as felt in the hearts of people like Bailey. 

And R011er Contor, too. With a 

face u leathery u 1 saddle, Contor beholds the canyon with 34 yesra 

experience in the National Park Ser-

vice, including stinllss park superintendent and regional supervisor ot all 

parks in Alaska. 

"By whatever standard you apply," says the now retired ranger, 

"this place. undoubtedly qualities as a 

national park. From the finlt day, it 

would outrank all but a few of the 

existing 56 national parks

." 

The next day of the ·trip, all of the 

big rapids have b

The rumble in the 

familiar city soun

bustion ·engines. 

plati 'caught on, je

inevitable restrict

froni the upper 

Grazing and tim

eliminated from t

Exact terms o

liOn would be sub

heave-and-pull in 

Oregon and Idah

most reasonable p

·only one with a p

America's d

echoes to tlu 

boats and a 

turning it intO 

- political support i

be to designate 

·National Park a

gory ot national 

permit continued 

A 340-honepo

jet bolt pulls into 

midday and leade

Power Boat Assoc

make the case f

pleasures in Hella 

''There are p

explore the outdo

mode of transporta

the motor -it's an 

choil:e,' ~ says San

tive director of th
190 

• • 

LEWIS1DN IDA H 

• • • 

Chamber of Commerce 

The Honorable Congressman Bruce Vento 

Chairman, National Park, Forest and Public Lands Sub-Committee 

United States Congress 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Sep~bcr21, 1993 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

On behalf of the membelllhip of the Lewiston Chamber of Commerce and the residents 

of the Lewiston, Idaho and Clarkston, Washington Valley, I want to convey to you our 

interest in preserving the rigbts of recreational enthusiasts to continue unrestricted access 

to the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. 

As the nation's largest gateway communities to the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area, access to this unique national treasure via waterways and powered watercraft is 

essential to this. area's economy. Tens of thousands of visitofll access Hells Canyon NRA 

from the Lewiston-Clarkston communities every year. The travel and tourism industry in 

our community depends on continued access to the Hells Canyon NRA via the Snake 

River. 

We strongly encourage you and your subcommittee to insure that all forms and makes of 

watercraft will have continued access to the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. 

With best wishes, I remain 

Sincerely, 

&~fl-L- Daniel T. Schenkein 

Executive Director 

2207 E. Main St., Lewiston, Idaho 83501 • (208) 743-3531 • FAX (208) 743·2176 •TOLL FREE I-800..f73-354S 
191 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Mr. LaRocco, did you have any questions of the witnesses? 

Mr. LARocco. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

Commissioner Wortman, I notice in your testimony you said, "I 

suggest that Congress spend as much time, effort, and money in 

promoting our current plans," and then you say "improve funds to 

fulfill the plans already developed." 

Is your position in conflict with what is moving ahead with regard to a new comprehensive plan? You seem to be focusing on existing plans and current plans. Or do you think what is going on 

with the Forest Service as has been announced today is a worthwhile scheme? 

Mr. WORTMAN. I think their attempts are very worthwhile. In 

the past 14 months, we have sat through a consensus-building plan 

with the salmon. I would like to see this same situation applied to 

the Forest Service, with those interests represented, those stakeholders that have historic ties to the land. 

I think that is very important, because it was mentioned previously that if the stakeholders do not have ownership of the plan, 

then it is doomed to fail. I would have to agree with that. We have 

seen plan after plan after plan in not only our areas but other 

areas that were made and implemented from the outside, from the 

top down rather than from the bottom up, and it had a short lifespan, I hate to say. 

Again, we are spending dollars for those sorts of efforts that we 

could well invest in securing what we have now and improving and 

enhancing, and to allow them to manage as they have been mandated. 

Mr. LARocco. You have been around the area for a long time. 

This is your home, Wallowa County, obviously, and you are, as my 

colleague mentioned, an exemplary public servant. 

I think it was mentioned that there have been like three or four 

rangers and forest supervisors on this forest. Is this a career 

wrecker assignment? I mean what goes on here? I mean we have 

had like a revolving door. Is that part of the issue? · I brought up the restructuring of it. I don't know. I am just trying to look at this thing, because, as you know, I have come out 

publicly against the park idea, and I want to keep working here. 

The reason we are here today is to recognize the proper oversight 

of this committee over Forest Service activities. We are just trying 

to make things better. 

But if you could talk about what has gone on in the past there 

a little bit, just briefly, and then talk about restructuring. It has 

been laid on the table here, at least in the testimony by Ms. Mitchell, that maybe we look at an elevation of management that reports 

directly to the region. 

Please. 

Mr. WORTMAN. Any time that you put someone in charge of 

something and allow them two to five years to tum the situation 

around as far as resources, I think you are dealing with fantasy 

and folly. I feel that if someone is truly going to be a steward and 

a manager of the land, he should be there so he has co~tinuity. 

Knowledge is great from the scientists, but the application of that 

knowledge needs to come from the lands manager that lives there. 
192 

And yes, as we turn one forest ranger, one supervisor, each time 

we turn these people over-and we do so that they can advance; 

it is built into the system; the only way you can advance is to leave 

where you are at the present. When you bring in a new person, 

that person is not familiar with the problems of the area, the history and the culture of the area. He may be a landscape manager, 

which sounds very good, but you must get back to the basics of 

management when you are managing land, and that is dealing 

with the trees, the grass, and the ground, and as we turn these 

people over from one job to another, we lose our continuity. And 

yes, I feel that is a problem, I feel it is a problem. 

I would like to see our rangers have at least 20 years on the 

ground before they become a ranger, because many of them come 

from, you know Missouri, Minnesota, they come from all areas, and 

they come in, and they are given a charge to manage a unique, 

very rugged area. It takes three years before they know how to get 

home when they are 40 miles from home. How can they be expected to make good, sound management decisions? 

Mr. LARocco. That is why I don't support term limits-oh, that 

is another subject. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WORTMAN. But appropriate. 

Mr. LARocco. Right. 

Do you have any comment on the restructuring of the national 

recreation area with regard to reporting up the line to the region? 

Any thoughts on that? 

Mr. WORTMAN. There are a lot of thoughts that go through my 

mind how to do this. But, again, it is done with the dollars that 

we are given and the people that we are given to administer these 

dollars, and, again, I would like to see continuity within our county 

with our land management. 

We are 65 percent owned by the Forest Service within our county. That 65 percent land base is very, very important to us. What 

your neighbors do impacts how you live, and vice versa. 

I don't know as we could restructure. I think we could bring it 

back to the ground level for some critical management decisions 

that need to be made, but those need to be made, as I said in my 

testimony, by consensus of the stakeholders and carried out that 

way, rather than fed back up through the system where many, 

many people have their input on it before it becomes a policy, and 

this is what we have discussed today. Our policies are made locally, 

and then they are reviewed outside of our area; they are changed, 

manipulated, and they come back, and the stakeholders feel that 

they have been betrayed when this policy is applied. 

Mr. LARocco. Do you think a customer of an outfitter and guide 

is a stakeholder? 

Mr. WORTMAN. Would you repeat that again, please? 

Mr. LARocco. Do you think a customer of an outfitter or a guide 

is a stakeholder? 

Mr. WoRTMAN. I guess in some ways, you could, but I don't believe that person from a foreign land-and I am speaking outside 

of the United States, I hope. 

Mr. LARocco. I thought it was California, but go ahead. 

Mr. WORTMAN. Anything 100 miles from Wallowa County is a 

foreign land to us. 
193 

Those people, yes, I think they should have their input, but as 

far as those people sitting at the table and dealing the cards for 

the decisions that are going to be made with the native peopl~ 

and I am speaking of the tribes as well as the Eurasians that are 

there; I go back three generations within that county-then I guess 

we have problems with our local people accepting it, and unless it 

is accepted locally, you are going to continue to have conflict. 

That is not to say you are going to find a cure-all. We don't want 

a Band-Aid on it. We have kept the Johnson and Johnson Company 

in business for many years with Band-Aids. We don't want the 

Band-Aids any more. 

Mr. LARocco. Well, I had mentioned that earlier, about sustainable communities, sustainable economies, local buy-ins of these 

plans. Maybe there is an opportunity coming up here with this 

plan. I am a firm believer of people getting in early on in the process and get involved-and we have a broad community of interests 

here. For example, over in my district in Moscow and Lewiston, as 

Ms. Pankonin has mentioned with the power boats, we have a very 

diverse community there in the Clearwater Valley and people that 

use this resource obviously and people that come to our great 

State. 

So I am hopeful that on the planning process, people that get in 

early have a standing. You obviously will be right there at the 

table, and I am sure Mr. Bailey will be as well. 

Ms. Pankonin, thank you very much for your comments on the 

limits of acceptable change and the history of that. I think that is 

very helpful, because I remember talking to people in Idaho who 

said that they were going through the process and they were hopeful about that, and then it just sort of disintegrated, and here we 

are back at it. I understand from a local level just exactly what you 

are going through, and I appreciate your testimony. 

Ms. Mitchell, thank you very much for the five points. I think 

that is the best kind of testimony we can get, positive things we 

can do. I noted in four of the five there was the word "funding," and in the fifth one the word "funds" was used about three or four time~, so funding comes up a lot and how we direct it. 

Ms. MITCHELL. And I want to make this clear because I would 

feel very uncomfortable if it sounded like we had our hand out saying, "Give us more money; give us more money." I think before you 

allocate any more money, you need to look into the budget and see 

if that money is really going where it should be, and if there are 

cuts that can be made in that budget, if the money can be put into 

another line item rather than just appropriate more money, because I appreciate that you don't have any more money. 

Mr. LARocco. Well, thank you very much. In the interests of 

time, I will move on and just say to you, Mr. Chairman, the last 

time Ms. Mitchell appeared before our hearing she used the term 

"spiritual" when talking about wilderness, and I want to note that. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Spiritual roots. 

Mr. LARocco. Spiritual roots. 

Ms. MITCHELL. That is right. 

Mr. LARocco. You said that in Boise and in Washington. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, thank you. 
194 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wortman, you know the Imnaha River from point to point. 

Tell me about feedlots along the Imnaha. 

Mr. WORTMAN. I would like to speak to that because I noticed we 

had a picture of a feedlot passed around here today. Yes, I do know 

quite a bit about the Imnaha River. I spent my formative years 

there in that area. The feedlot that was depicted was used approximately four to five weeks as a calfing area for the ranchers before 

they go back into the uplands. At this time, the grass is dormant, 

as you know. If you would look in your picture, you can see some 

ice in the river. The banks of the river are pretty hard at that time 

when you see ice lying there that long in the Imnaha River at 

1, 700 feet elevation. 

Yes, there are cattle in certain given areas where the ranchers 

that utilize that area have calfing areas. 

The feedlots, I am familiar with about four, I guess, along the 

Imnaha River that you could classify as a feedlot-that is used 

more than about 70 days out of the year-and I think they are 

used around 90. This is a wintering area for weaner calfs. One of 

the feedlots is just about a mile below the town of Imnaha, if I may 

call it a town. That is my home town, population of 10, I think. 

Anyway, yes, this feedlot was put in by a person that we perceived to be an outsider within the last year. We worked with that 

person, got him to ask SCS, SWCV, for help. That feedlot now has 

some windbreaks in it, it is fenced from the river, has some settling 

ponds in it. If there is a tremendous runoff, that is where the runoff will occur. 

I would say it was managed that way for about eight to nine 

years before we got this change in place, but the reason for the 

change is the change in ownership. It is like managing government 

or anything else. As you make change after change after change, 

you don't see much continuity. 

But that is the major feedlot that I see, and that is where cattle 

is wintered for about 60 to 90 days, and it is a tremendous change. Mr. SMITH. What you are saying, I guess, is that it is not a feedlot with 100,000 head of cattle in it in downtown Boise, Idaho. It 

is used sparingly in the wintertime for wintering purposes at a 

time when the damage to any stream bank, if it is frozen, is possible, I assume. And during the summer, as you mentioned, I 

guess, the forage grows up in the feedlot probably better than it 

does outside. Well, it has a little more fertilizer. 

Mr. WORTMAN. True. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, some of us understand that fertilizer. We deal 

with it here all the time. 

Let me ask you about how Wallowa County is financed. Do you 

finance road maintenance and schools in your county? 

Mr. WORTMAN. As many of you know, we are financed through 

timber receipts and grazing receipts with a good portion of our 

school, about 85 percent of our road maintenance funds, coming 

from the timber and grazing receipts. 

Mr. SMITH. How much? 
195 

Mr. WORTMAN. Eighty-five percent. We have 710 miles of road 

within our county that we are required to at least provide access 

for those passing through. 

Mr. SMITH. So if you lost through a national park status, if you 

lost your forest fees, what would you do? 

Mr. WORTMAN. We would field many, many more complaints 

than we field today, because with people coming to see this thing 

that we have set aside in perpetuity comes more wear and tear on 

our roads, our services. Not only do they break down, and we do 

not have the dollars to repair them, but they become an issue within the media: "Why don't you fix the roads?" We do not have the 

money to fix the roads. 

So yes, that is how it breaks down. 

Mr. SMITH. There has been a good deal of discussion about how 

many more tourist jobs would be available with a national park 

designation and the elimination of timber jobs. It gets kind of cold 

in Wallowa County, doesn't it? 

Mr. WORTMAN. I understand it was 18 the night before last. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, in January it is 18 below. I have been there. 

Mr. WORTMAN. On good days. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. And your winter lasts about six months. I don't 

think there is much use of the Snake, is there, in that six-month 

winter period? 

Mr. WORTMAN. Use of the Snake River? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. WORTMAN. It certainly slows down. I am not familiar with 

the boat activity at that time of the year, I am sorry to say, because I don't enjoy going out on the river bank when you have to 

cover yourself up to where you can't move. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. So the tourist dollars would come during the 

tourist season. What do you do all winter without tourism? Do you 

have much tourism in wintertime? 

Mr. WORTMAN. I am sorry to say we have about three months of 

tourist season, and the facilities that we have at this time, no, you can't get accommodations in Wallowa County for two or three 

months. 

Mr. SMITH. So the county would disintegrate. You can't fund 

schools. I have seen some maps which, as I recall, if enacted, this national park would eliminate 85 percent of the funding of one school 

district. You would have to school there near Enterprise, I think, 

isn't it? 

Mr. WORTMAN. I would think that if you went forward with a national park that we would probably be dealt with as the people that 

sat in this chair previous to us, we would probably be relegated to 

a reservation, and then your funds entirely would perpetuate us, 

if we were to be perpetuated. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate your coming. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Wortman, is there grazing that takes place outside of the Hells Canyon area? 

Mr. WORTMAN. Takes place outside? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. 

Mr. WORTMAN. Yes. 
196 

Mr. VENTO .. What are the private inholdings now in the Hells 

Canyon area? ;Is it just on the river there, the one river? Are th,ere 

more inholdings, do you know? ,' 

Mr. WORTMAN. The private inholdings that I am aware of there, 

Mr. Chairman, are on the Idaho side. The Oregon side, with the 

sale of Cache Creek, Jim Creek Ranch, in our county within the 

last four years, we are very limited as. far as on the canyon face, 

and the HCNRA itself, which takes in the Imnaha drainage, yes, 

there are quite a few inholdings there. But other than that, no, we 

do not have private property within the canyon itself. 

Mr. VENTO. You dedicate local receipts from timber sales and 

grazing permit receipts to road maintenance. Is that what you 

said? 

Mr. WORTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Solely. And that pays about 85 percent of the roads 

maintenance on some 700 miles of road. 

Mr. WORTMAN. And schools. 

Mr. VENTO. And schools? How much of the school budget is that? 

Mr. WORTMAN. How much is the school budget? 

Mr. VENTO. How much of the school budget is that? 

Mr. WORTMAN. At this time, it is about 21 percent. Mr. VENTO. Timber and grazing receipts. That is not wholly from 

the Hells Canyon Recreation Area, though, is it? 

Mr. WORTMAN. That is not totally from the Hells Canyon Recreation Area, no. Mr. VENTO. How much is from the Hells Canyon area? 

Mr. WORTMAN. How much? 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Mr. WORTMAN. I don't know what the breakdown would be at 

this time. We ran it about two years ago, and it came out about 

2 to 3 percent for schools and roads. But this was after the grazing 

had been removed pretty much. Mr. VENTO. Well, it sounds like 2 or 3 percent. Maybe it would 

even be more than that, it would be 5 percent. It sounds like a 

small percentage of it then. 

Mr. WORTMAN. Yes, it is, because there is very little activity as 

far as resource extraction that takes place there. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, of course, you are talking about these modifica- tions in terms of limitations on sheep allotments, and they are 

talking about further restrictions in terms of harvests. So those 

also will impact, I guess, irrespective of whether there is a change 

in designation. Is that correct? 

Mr. WORTMAN. It will have an impact not only on dollars but on 

custom and culture of our area. 

Mr. VENTO. This issue about stakeholders, is this a particular organization that you belong to? - Mr. WORTMAN. No, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. This is just a phrase that you are referring to. They 

are not people that live in the Hells Canyon area, they live in Joseph, and they live in some of the other communities-Enterprise, 

and so forth? 

Mr. WORTMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. They are stakeholders, and how far away do you 

have to get before you are not a stakeholder? We know in Min-
197 

nesota we were excluded because even the Forest Service personnel 

that came from Minnesota weren't able to learn their way around. 

Mr. WORTMAN. Well, sir, I think it is only a fact that that area 

has a unique custom and culture. 

Mr. VENTO. I think really-it is only an opinion, but I really 

think it is. That is my own view. 

Mr. WORTMAN. Perception perhaps. 

Mr. VENTO. We understand, and I think the Forest Service does, 

Mr. Wortman, the concern to reach out and work with local communities. I commend the Forest Service for their efforts to do that. 

But at the same time I want to assure you that, as my friend Mo 

Udall used to say, the little old woman in tennis shoes who lives 

in Minneapolis has an interest in what is happening to Hells Canyon because these programs are supported on a broad basis. 

You have a lot of interest in terms of watersheds and timber resources, we understand that. But we also have to recognize--and 

I hope the local communities will-that as we gain more knowledge 

and insights of the values, the resource values, the natural resource values-as you notice, I have sort of underlined them during 

my questioning-they have become very, very important and somebody has to speak for them. We have got a lot of other folks that are willing to talk to recreation use, which I have obviously utilized to a great extent, along 

with others, and enjoy it. But we want to make certain that in the 

process of doing that, we are not damaging some of the other resources that we revere as being special with regard to these sites. 

Ms. Mitchell, on that account, or Ms. Pankonin, if there is a demonstration-for instance, you have got some outstanding studies 

here that are going on with regard to jet water boat use perhaps 

impacting on smolt, impacting on salmon reproduction, vertebrate 

species, which is of course threatened and/or endangered. What 

type of response are we going to get from your organization if that 

is a problem? 

Ms. MITCHELL. We are very interested in those study. In fact, we 

have been in contact with the gentleman who is doing the study 

in Alaska on the effect of power boats on salmon and spawning 

salmon, and we are going to, of course, respond. If there are, in fact, things that we can do, if there is impact 

from our recreation, we will obviously take an interest. Because we 

recreate with a motor doesn't mean we don't care. 

Mr. VENTO. On a more casual basis, the Forest Service in 1984 

made efforts to try to limit motor boat use on the river at that 

time, to permit it. Was that your position at that time? You obviously in your statement discuss your respect and admiration for 

the professionals at the Forest Service and the job they are going. 

Ms. MITCHELL. And I said we didn't always get along. Mr. VENTO. You know my next question. 

Ms. MITCHELL. And we had accepted at that point limitations. 

Power boaters had negotiated and accepted limitations. Those limitations were thrown out, and there was a prohibition on a particular section of the river, and so that is when the Power Boat Association said, "Wait a minute; you haven't demonstrated user capacity, you haven't demonstrated any impact from our industry," and 

we went through the appeal process, and we won. 
198 

We do accept limitations of our numbers. We don't want to overuse that canyon either. 

Mr. VENTO. I think maybe they went to a little higher appeal 

process. I don't know exactly. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, that is available to everyone. 

Mr. VENTO. But it is of concern because, after all of that sucrose 

dose on the Forest Service in terms of their professionalism, I just 

think it is important, but it wasn't exactly coming from Washington, DC, as it ultimately did. 

Ms. MITCHELL. I do not think that you have to agree with someone to believe that they are professional. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I understand. 

Ms. MITCHELL. And we certainly don't agree with the Forest 

Service in all their decisions, but we do respect them as land managers and we do find that, you know, we can disagree without 

being disagreeable. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Pankonin? 

Ms. PANKONIN. On the question of salmonoids, Idaho Outfitters 

and Guides began a study on the Salmon River, I think, three seasons ago, anticipating that there could be an impact. They don't 

have all the final results. They know that the hen will move from 

the reds, she returns to the reds. We don't know how many stray. 

So they have made several modifications to their operations already. They may have to do more. 

This came up on the Rogue just recently in connection with trying to change the schedule on some filming. They have a:1 absolute 

prohibition on the reds related to jet boats. I don't know what the 

science is underlying it, but I can get that from the river ranger 

for the hearing record, if that would be helpful. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, one of the other questions is, they have this 

beach question here. Is this a result of the dam and a higher energy water being released? Is that the issue here in terms of these 

beaches, which apparently are important to various segments of 

the river, and it would change the nature by having beaches and 

the energy and water is degrading them? 

Ms. PANKONIN. That is my overview. Your staff asked this question two days ago when I was sort of trotted in here quickly. I am 

going to have to get information for you. I have worked on that 

issue for years in the Grand Canyon. I think we are looking at approximately the same thing. It is the rapidity of the drop, not the 

release, per se. 

Ms. MITCHELL. That is my understanding also, that it has to do 

with clear water flooding that is caused by the dams. There was 

a study by Graham and Sites, I believe, in 1991, and that is the 

source of it in Hells Canyon, and it is not from power boats. 

Power boats do, no question about it, move the sand in and out, 

but the extent is very minimal. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, again, it is a problem we are having in a number of areas as a result of wakes from power boats. Most jet boats, 

I think, make a lesser wake, actually. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. The issue, of course, with the feedlot matter that was 

brought up, insofar as they are called feedlots, I guess-they are 

not feedlots as we have in the Midwest, I guess, Mr. Wortman, 
199 

they are calfing areas, as you described them, but they can still 

add substantial nutrient unless there is some process in place to 

prevent that. Is there any type of structure to prevent flowage from 

them into the river in terms of nutrients? If they do this in early 

spring, eventually even cow pies melt, I guess. 

Mr. WORTMAN. Yes, and if you would like to look at some of the 

measures that we are implementing along those lines, I would like 

to send you a copy of our Wallowa County-NezPerce Tribe salmon 

recovery plan. 

Mr. VENTO. So you have addressed that particular question in 

terms of the nutrient contribution of these calfing areas or feedlot 

areas, as they are called. Is that correct? 

Mr. WORTMAN. We addressed this very extensively within our 

plan because we recognize that it is a negative impact on this. Like 

I say, at this time there are far fewer of these conditions down 

there than there were even 20 years ago. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Was it pretty much an area where you don't 

winter the animals in shelter in the winter, you just leave them on 

these flats where it is warmer? So you are actually delivering a lot 

of food and so forth there at that time. So they calf there. How long 

is this a calfing area? It would only be a couple of months, six or 

seven weeks. How long are they there? 

Mr. WORTMAN. The calfing areas are utilized from a month to six 

to seven weeks. By that time, the temperature has moderated, the 

requirement for feeding has gone away, and they do go to the uplands. 

Mr. VENTO. So they are taken out of the uplands. They must be 

taken off the uplands in December. 

Mr. WORTMAN. They come down out of the uplands to these bars 

probably by January 1. But, again, it depends on the year, what 

Mother Nature deals us. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand. Then you are saying it is anywhere 

from six to seven weeks. But then they are back up there in 

March? 

Mr. WORTMAN. They go back. There are permits in some of the 

areas. 

Mr. VENTO. I thought you said there was a six-months winter. 

I was thinking of Minnesota here. 

Mr. WoRTMAN. What we are speaking of here are the reasons 

that the tribes historically wintered their livestock along these 

streams. Because the winters are milder, you don't see prolonged 

cold, deep snow in these lower elevations, and that is the reason 

that we do it today. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we wouldn't want to be stuck with the technology and insights of a Native American of 100 years ago. 

Mr. WORTMAN. I think it would help us once in a while if we 

would turn around and look behind us. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think we might want to look at what we are 

doing and what the impact is today, which I think is what is taking 

place. I think if that were the defense we were using, that as a defense probably wouldn't sell very far with me, although I admire 

some of the values and other attributes of Native American people. 
200 

Well, I think we have exhausted the time here and appreciate 

very much the panel's testimony and efforts to share their views 

with us. 

Mr. LaRocco, did you want to say goodbye to your constituents? 

Mr. LARocco. I want to thank the panel and say goodbye to my 

constituents and also thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. 

Mr. VENTO. You are welcome. 

The meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:05p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

WaiOWa County Chamber of Commerce 

September 18, 1993 

P.O. Box 427 

Enterpri!e, Or. 97828 

Phone 426-4622 

National Parka, Foresta & Public Landa 

812 O.H.O.B. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: Proposed change fro. Hells canyon National Recreation Area 

to "Hells canyon National Park" . 

FOR THE RECORD: Wallowa County Cbaaber of C~rca is OPPOSED to 

creation, and OPPOSED to any study concerning such creation, of a H~lls Canyon National Park. 

Ger.tleeen/woaen: 

On behalf of the Board of Directors and ~rahip Of the 

Wallowa County Chamber of Commarce, Enterpriaa, Oregon, I 

respectfully requeat that this letter be included as part of the 

Public Record regarding the above issue. 

As official spokesper son for the Wallowa County ~r of 

Commerce as President for the year 1993, I am writing to oppoila 

changing the status of the HCNRA to that of "HELLS CANYON NATIONAL 

PARK." 

The HCNRA is ALREADY available and accessible for racr-tional use . The HCNRA (USFS) is currently carrying out plana to -.ke the area .,re accessible for 110re people (i.e. handicapped, elderly and 

children) in those areas which are .-enable to that killd of 

accessibility. The Wallo- County Chamber of c-rca, as a coa~~~unity-based and oriented organization, holds that current 

aanag-nt and planning is more than adequate. Greater access and use than is already planned/anticipated would adversely impact this 

unique area. 

Further, the forests within the HCNRA are badly in need of 

aanagement for forest health, restoration and biodiversity, 

National parka do not allow for ~~anag-nt of our forest111. With 

approximately 4 million acres of forests in If .E. Oregon beii!Q 

attacked by insecta and disease, there is a serious potential to-r 

catastrophic fires, if these acres are not salvaged promptly. 

'l'hat the National Park Service 1s unable to taka care of what' it 

already haa is evident in the turning away of visitors at many ot our aore popular National Parks. These parka are in poor repair and being 

further ~ged by over-use . We do not want that to happen to our beautiful Hells Canyon NRA. 

The "Public Good" ia constantly baing used to justify the new park . The public cannot bast be served by condeanation of 66, 000 

additional acres of privata property. Wallowa county ia already 

iaracted detriaentally by mora than 65\ of ita total land area being 

in federal or state ownership "for the public good . " An additional 

•taking• of 66,000 acres of property will advaraaly affect our 

(201) 
202 

county's diminishing tax and economic base. 

The "Public Good" cannot best be served by locking up our forests and sentencing them to death. Such action is directly 

opposed to serving "the public good" in that it not only leaves our forests dead and dying through mismangement and no management, it 

further jeapardizes wildlife habitat, water quality and quantity as well as the lives of local citizens, who have for generations been the 

careful guardians of this great and wonderful resource known as Hells 

Canyon. 

Further, the citizens of Wallowa County, Oregon, Washington and 

Idaho do not need the additional tax burden that would need to be 

imposed to support creation of yet another national park. With our current overwhelming national debt rapidly on the rise, we feel 

that downsizing the government, including the National Park system, 

cutting spending and economizing is the best insurance for our "public good and future generations.• 

In summary, let me again state: The Wallowa County Chamber of 

Commerce is OPPOSED TO CREATION OF A HELLS CANYON NATIONAL PARK. 

Sincerely, 

'--/ ?";:' y:<~ ... ' /t

M~l~Murrill, 

v• ~· ~ 

President 

Wallowa County Chamber of Ca.aerce 

On Behalf of the Board of Directors 

and Members of the wallowa County C~r of Ca.merce 

cc: Rep. Bob Smith · 108 C.H.O.B. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Wallowa County Chieftain 

Enterprise, Oregon 

The Observer 

La Grande, Oregon 

KWVR Radio 

Enterprise, Oregon 
307 S.E. Alamo Street 

Enterprise, Oregon 97828 

September 18, 1993 

203 

National Parks, Forests & Public Lands 

812 O.H.O.B. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: Proposed change from Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

to "Hells Canyon National Park". 

FOR THE RECORD: I 8111 OPPOSED to creation of, or a study for possible 

creation of, a Hells Canyon National Park. 

Gentlemen/women: 

I respectfully request that this letter, in its entirety, be 

included as part of the Public Record regarding the above issue. 

The HCNRA is ALREADY available and accessible for recreational use. The HCNRA (USFS) is currently carrying out plans to make the area more accessible for more people (i.e. handicapped, elderly and 

children) in those areas which are amenable to that kind of 

accessibility. It is my opinion that current management and planning 

is more than adequate. Greater access and use than is already 

planned/anticipated would adversely impact this unique area. Further, the forests within the HCNRA are badly in need of 

management for forest health, restoration and biodiversity. National parka do not allow for management of our forests. With 

approximately 4 million acres of forests in N.E. Oregon being attacked by insects and disease, there is a serious potential for 

catastrophic fires, if these acres are not salvaged promptly. 

That the National Park Service is unable to take care of what it 

already has is evident in the turning away of visitors at many of our more popular National Parks. These parks are in poor repair and being 

further damaged by over-use. We do not want that to happen· to our beautiful Hells Canyon NRA. 

The "Public Good" is constantly being used to justify the new park. The public cannot best be served by condemnation of 66,000 

additional acres of private property. Wallowa county is already impacted detrimentally by more than 65'1> of its total land area being in federal or state ownership "for the public good." An additional 

"taking• of 66,000 acres of private property will seriously and 

adversely affect our county's diminishing tax and economic base. · The "Public Good" cannot best be served by locking up our forests and sentencing them to death. Such action is directly opposed to serving "the public good" in that it not only leaves our forests dead and dying through mismangement and no management, it 

further jeapardizes wildlife habitat, water quality and quantity as well as the lives of local citizens, who have for generations been the 

careful guardians of this great and wonderful resource known as Hells 
204 

canyon. 

Further. the citizens of Wallowa County, Oregon, Washington and 

Idaho do not need the additional tax burden that would need to be 

imposed to support creation of yet another national park. With our current overwhelming national debt rapidly on the rise, we feel 

that downsizing the government, including the National Park system, cutting spending and econ0111izing is the best insurance for our "public good and future generations.• 

In summary, let me again state: I am OPPOSED TO CREATION OF A 

HELLS CANYON NATIONAL PARK. 

Sincerely, 

~j/1.~ 

Hubert M. Murrill 

cc: Rep. Bob Smith 

108 C.H.O.B. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 
205 

Forest Practices on the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

Selective Cuttins 

The act creatins the NRA approved of lossins as an activity to 

the extent of beins compatible with the purposes of the desisnation of 

the area for a recreation uses. The term "selective cuttins" was used 

to limit the forest practices; this term does not completely duplicate the term "selection system" as used to describe forest practices that are expected to result in uneven-ased manasement. There was a seneral 

opinion that the uneven-ased forest was the intent of Consress. In the 

five years for plannins, the Forest Service held meetinss for the pub- lic. In one at the Joseph Civic Center, attendees were broken into 

small sroups to consider various topics. Harry Teilmann, Leo Goebel 

and I were to consider timber. Durin& the meetins, one of the planners came around several times sussestins that we approve of half acre clearcuts. We didn't. Later, the Forest Service put out brochures sum- marizins the public input. A yellowish-cream colored one stated that we had reco-ended half acre clearcuts, thus documentins an untruth. 

The three of us had questioned the lesality of that amons ourselves 

and I had went to a per1on in another team and asked if she knew of 

any part of the NRA- that would benefit from that kind of edse type . She said that she didn't. We dropped that idea at that point. When the NRA was created, the Forest Service had been havins 

meetinss with small losaers at Davis Cafe. I spoke up at the time 

statins that wildlife experiences had been dominant in teatimony for a National Recreation Area, and opinins that we had better do every- thins risht. Seldom has the Forest Service been so totally cold to 

what I said. They have lossed heavy, totally outside of expectations 

at the time of the enactment. They called sales "salvase" when an appreciable amount of · the timber cut was sreen. At the time of the 

spruce bark beetle epide•ic and the .Tepee Butte Fire Recovery, they used the term "with complete silvicultural treatment". That is an euphemism, It wa1 rape. At a meetina on the Tepee Butte Fire Recovery proposal, I sussested that the lossina be limited to •alvase, then · leave the roads and skid trails open for a couple years. That would 

facilitate havins small lossers come back in for bark beetle infested 

trees. Instead, lossers spent part of their ti_me cuttins sreen trees 

and a lot of salvasti was not accomplished. 

Small areas have been thinned alons -roads to open the views so that motorists could see across small canyons throush trees. ·That is 

the closest to meetins the apparent intent of the Act as any that I 

know of . 
206 

Good Forestry- Diversity and Productivity 

Literature from the west side indicates that SS of a tree's 

nutrients come from the mineral soil, a little from'charcoal but most 

by a large percent from the life processes in the forest. Also, nearly all insects and diseases are specific as, to their host leaving some species or some age classes generally little damaged. Thus a diverse 

forest as to species and structure is far less subject to devastation 

in epidemics. The greatest damage to a single species that I know of was to spruce with the spruce bark beetle. The greatest damage that I 

know of to large areas was from mountain pine beetle in lodgepole 

pine. With catastrophic fires or wind damage or epidemics with heavy logging, the soils are disturbed to the detriment of the life process- es in the soil and life processes above ground are destroyed. Loss of 

remaining green trees is the reduction of the capacity to make annual 

deposits of organic material necessary for timely recovery of the 

forest. In catastrophic conditions, the decision has to be to rely on natural regeneration in many places and to plant in a few. Consider 

this - this year many Forest Service personnel had about had it by 

time the three northern districts had planted a million and a quarter seedlings, yet that was probably about 3,600 acres, a drop in the 

bucket as to the need for reclamation. With these problems, the areas with the greatest chance of natural regeneration are not planted and 

usually those are areas most apt to come back to lodgepole pine or not come back to forest for a long time. Thus diversity is lost as well as the biological processes in over cutting after a catastrophy. 

Non-forested areas far exceed forested areas in northeast Oregon and particularity in the NRA, thus the diversity in forested areas or those that can be reclaimed to forest must come from the complete 

range of successional stages and plant communities as forests. The 

lesser amount of forest also makes it more vulnerable to fragmentation 

and reduction of habitat for creatures with large territorial needs. 

Now, we are in desparate need of a massive reclamation of our forests. It isn't that the allowable cut was to great for the capacity of the land designated·as "dispersed recreation- timber management". It has been too great for the forest practices. If we do everything right for 300 years, the allowable cut could be twice what it was and compatible with the purposes of National Recreation Areas. 

Robert H. Jackson 

PO Box 316 

Joseph, Oregon 97846 
207 

Background of Robert H. Jackson 

December 1947 - graduated from Iowa State in Fores.try. 

1948 to April 1951 -worked for U.S. Forest Service on Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Gila National Forests with a detail to the Cibola N.F .. 

April 1951 to 1970 - worked for satrmills in Wallowa County as a forester . First - the Bate Company, then the Chief Joseph mill until 

Boise-Cascade bought them out, and the for Boise-Cascade for two 

years. 

!970 to present - my partner and I bought some land that we have 

managed as a Tree Farm. Beside .the Tree Farm work, I have done some consulting work. 

Am on retired status as an Oregon Professional Land Surveyor. 

1984 and 1991 - we won the Oregon Tree Parmer of the Year award. 

1992 - we won the Western Regional Outstandin1 Tree Farmer award, also 

in the American Tree Farm System. 

Robert H. Jackson 

PO Box 316 

Joseph, Oregon 97846 ~ff~ 

~~~;f9JJ 
208 

HEllS C1INYCN 

FRESERVATICN CXXN:ll.. 

P.O. BJX 908 

JCSEEH, CR 97846 

Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

812 O'Niel House Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

September 24, 1993 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

We again extend our thanks for the opportunity to present to the 

Subcommittee the results of our scrutiny of Forest Service 

management of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. 

This letter represents supplemental testimony to clarify, and put in 

context two answers I gave in response to questions from 

Subcommittee member, Rep. Bob Smith. Please include this letter in 

the hearing record. 

Mr. Smith's presentation of statements made in the past by me 

during a time when I did not represent the Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council (HCPC) indicated that his question was directed 

at me personally. When he asked whether I supported those 

statements, I answered in the affirmative in the understanding that 

he sought my personal perspective only. 

I failed to stipulate that affirming them in fact reflected my personal 

opinions, as the context of Mr. Smith's question implied. It should be 

noted that HCPC has no official policy regarding the subject matter of 

either of those statements. 

The first question by Mr. Smith pertained to the demolition of Hells 

Canyon Dam. Many people have q·uestioned whether Hells Canyon 

Dam should be relicenced. The dam is an impassible barrier to 

anadromous fish, blocking salmon from former spawning grounds in 

several major river systems including the Boise, Payette, Owyhee, 

Malheur, Weiser, and Bruneau Rivers, among others. Recently, a 
209 

group of hunting and fishing people in Northeast Oregon called Fish 

in Northeast Streams advocated that Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and 

Brownlee Dams be dismantled. 

The second question was in relation to a 1985 mailing sent out to 

inspire letters in support of a wilderness bill introduced in the U.S. 

Senate. A reference to the Boise Cascade Corporation was made in 

the mailing, which I affirmed and reiterated my support for. Again, 

this was my personal view. It is not the position of the Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council. 

Moreover, it is a reference to the Boise Cascade Corporation itself, not 

to any employees of that company. Part of the reason for my 

disrespect of Boise Cascade Corporation stems from its labor policies, 

which have been a hardship to its employees in Union and Wallowa 

Counties. 

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify these statements, and again 

for your concern for this issue. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director 
HELLS CANYON 

PRESERVATION COUNCIL 

210 

Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

O'Niel House Building, Room 812 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

September 30, 1993 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

Please include this letter, and the enclosed documents in the official record 

of the oversight hearings examining management of the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area {NRA), held September 23, 1993. 

The enclosed recent correspondences document another example of a 

continuing problem regarding Forest Service policy in managing the NRA 

that was alluded to in our testimony package: 1) The agency's consistent 

policy of making It difficult for public interest groups to be Involved in its 

decisions, and; 2) flagrant roadblocks erected to deny public access to 

documents needed to examine agency management actions, and 

compliance with legal mandates. 

The first set of documents, labeled "exhibit 1," Involve a requirement for 

Interested publics to send In a form in order to remain apprised of agency 

projects through mailings. The forms were for some reason received by 

HCPC Jess than a week prior to the deadline, though the letter 

accompanying the forms is dated 30 days prior to the deadline. 

The second document, labeled "exhibit 2," Is a Forest Service response to an 

HCPC Freedom of Information Act {FOIA) request. The request is relatively 

simple, and is necessary for us to complete our analysis of the agency's 

livestock grazing program. 

PHONE 503-432·8100 

FAX 503-432·9061 

POST OFFICE BOX 908 

JOSEPH. OREGON 97846 
211 

How_ever, the Forest Service Intends to charge us $665.00 to flU the request 

when lt is well aware that HCPC quallfles for fee waiver as a non-profit 

organization. A Wallowa-Whitman National Forest employee last month 

told an HCPC intern that "the word from high up" was that HCPC was to be 

"stonewalled" 1n its FOlA requests. 

We will likely have to hire an attorney and sue the Forest Service In order 

to receive the Information requested 1n our FOIA. This may take years. 

The gravity of these Incidents may not weigh heavUy ln the eyes of 

Congress when seen as Isolated. But they are a part of a consistent policy 

on the part of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest apparently design~ 

to make It difficult or impossible for its management of an area of na~onal 

Interest to be examined. 

We agatn extend our thank& for your interest In the serious IsSues 

surrounding management of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Sincerely, 

~ Executive Director 

enclosures 
212 

HELLS CANYON 

PRESERVATION COUNCIL 

Messrs. Lloyd Swanger and Ed Cole 

u.s. Forest Service 

88401 Highway 82 

Enlerpr1se, OR 97828 

September 30, 1993 

Dear Lloyd and Ed: 

I have reoeiwd a copy d 1ha notices each d you sent out lnlorming Interested parties 

d 1ha deadline to indicate a desire to remain on 1ha mailing lists for 1ha Hells canyon 

NRA and Eagle cap District. 

The letter states: "Please complete and return the enclosed form by September 30, 

1993. If I do not hear from you by that date, I wiD assume you wish to have your name 

removed from our maUing listS." 

Although this letter Is dated September 1, the envelope Is postmarked September 22 

(copies enclosed). We assume that 1ha letter made It to cu mailbox by 1ha 24th. 

However, we were not able to pick 1.4) cu malllrltil September 29. 

I would hOpe that in 1ha full.n you might allow for considerations such as this, wherein 

six days notice (actl.!aiiY four, conalderlng that we would have to mall the notioe two 

days in advllnoe d the deadline) prior to a deacllne Is unreasonable. We are not sure 

why the notice was mailed to us more than three weeks after Ita date. 

The Sooplng Ust Return form Is enclosed. We request that you irlorm HCPC in writing 

as to whether we will remain on your maiUng lists. 

Sincerely, 

Ck?~L, Ric Bailey 

Executive Director 

enclosures 

PHONE 603-43U100 FAA 603-132-IIOGI 

POST OFFICE BOX IIOfJ 

JOSEPH. OREGON 07844 
• 

Hello: 

Unlled ..... o., ...... c~ 

Agrlcullure 

213 

H.-. c.n,on Nllllaall Rec:rullon ArM 

11401HIQIMar12 

........... Oregon17128 

. c.tng .... the &.Mel end s.vtng People 

1950 

September 1, 1993 

Hells canyon Nalianal Racnlallon Atall 811C01np IIIII a vast, dMifM .aa. encl ra management involvea 

a wide variety ol pnljectl. HMmg 11om you • I plan 11ae projacll .. !inpiirtanl to me, and your name .. ~ Included on mailing IIIII my stall 11181 to 1011c1t COI1II1I8I1I8. 

In the past law y..,., 1lae mailing IIIII ,_ gown qullalarga. par1icUIIrly In comparison to the nwnber 

oi1WP0f11811111b.mi1d. In an IG8mpl to aave ...,..llld po11111g11, WhlleprcMdlng the pubUc with lnlonnallon 

and oppollldlaa to parllclpale In our plar1rq JII'CIC*S, we are updlllng our mailing lists using 1he brief 

SCoplng l.lll Return encloled wlh lhlllaller. 

Your COII1I1I8Illl about my popoeala are an lrUgnll f*1 ollhe procep. A propoaal .. just a point from 

which to 11a1t the planning and anlly8la pr-. YCJAJI comrnen111 .. ~ for developing altematives to 

propoaals I am CCIIlllderlng and often for rallnlng my original prcpc11111t. 

P-. oomplel8 llld return the encloled form by September 30, 18113. Ill do not '-r from you by that 

dala, I wiiiiiiiiiUIIMI you wish to ,_ your name l'8fiiOV8d 11om our mailing IIIII. 

If you law quelllons 01 'MUd like mora lnlonnallon, 011 you know ol OCher Individuals 01 organizations 

that woUclliketo be placed on our mallng IIIIa; pie-. c:on1aet Tom GlaAford, Envilllnmenlal Coordinat01, 

Hell canyon Nallanll Racnlallon ma, 88401 Highway 82, EIUipllle, OR 87828, (503) 426-4978. 

Thank you for your .,..... In Hells canyon Nalianal Racnlallon Anla. 

77-928 0 - 94 - 8 
214 

-·-·· ---- -~-__._ ____ _ 
• Forool 

-

215 

llallowa-llhitman 

National Forest P . 0. Box 907 

Baker City , OR 

_... 6270 

97814 

September 27, 1993 

Mr. Anthony llest 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council 

P.O. Box 908 

Joseph, OR 97846 

Dear Mr. llest: 

This letter responds to your two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests 

we received from our Regional Office on August 15, 1993 . Both requests were 

undated. 

You asked for information regarding allotments and management practices in 

the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in one of the FOIA requests. In 

the other, the Regional Office provided a copy of the 1990 Memorandum of 

Agreement between the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

The remainder of the request was forwarded to our Forest from the Regional 

Office . You requested: 

* List of BMP's for grazing (October 1982) and subsequent modifications 

and revisions, specifically those BHP's utilized on allotments within 

the HCNRA (page __ MOU) . 

* Records of inspection and enforcement actions addressing BMP 

implementation on HCNRA lands (page __ MOU) . 

* Records of water quality monitoring for determination of the 

effectiveness of BMP' s on HCNRA lands (page_MOU). 

After coordinating with the staff at the HCNRA office in Enterprise, they 

have informed me that the first request would take a General Schedule (GS) 

employee approximately three days to research and retrieve the proper files 

and the second. two days . 

Estimated Search: 

40 hours of GS-9/5 ($15.09 + 16'- $17.50/hr) - $700.00 

- 2 hours free search time - -$ 35 . 00 

Total Estimated Search Cost $665 . 00 
• 

216 

Hr. Anthony West 

The estimated costs for the aearch are $665.00. This does not include any 

fees incurred for copying docUIIent:s . Because this estimated fee exceeds 

$250.00, an advance payaent of one-half the cost ($332 . 50) is required 

before your request is processed, unleaa you qualify for a fee waiver . 

You request a fee waiver or reduction of charges on the grounds "disclosure 

of the requested information will contribute significantly to public 

understanding of the operations and activities of the government and is not. 

in your commercial 1nterest.• 

Because these requests involve significant search time and the benefit t.o 

the general public of the requested records is not clear on its face , the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest will not be able to fill your request until 

the fee issue is resolved. More infon~&tion is necessary before a fee 

waiver determination can be .. de. The U. S. Department of Agriculture has 

established six factors upon which to base the fee waiver determination . 

See enclosed Exhibit A. 

To facilitate your reply, I have listed questions below which will assist in 

making the fee waiver determination . 'ntese questions are premised on the 

factors from Exhibit A. Please avoid conclusive statements and explain your 

intention. 

1. How will a list of BHP's for grazing and subsequent modifications and 

revisions, specifically those utilized on allotments within the HCNRA, 

be likely to significantly contribute to the general public's 

understanding of the HCNRA' s operations and activities? 

What is the informative value of the list to the general public rather 

than to HCPC? 

2 . How will the records of inspeccion and enforce .. nt actions addressing 

BHP imple .. entation on HCIIRA lands be likely to significantly contribute 

to the general public's understanding of the HCIIRA' s operations and 

activities? 

\lhat is the infomative value of the records of inspection and 

enforcement actions to the general public rather than to HCPC? 

3. How will the records of water quality monitoring for determination of 

the effectiveness of BHP' s on HCIIRA lands be likely to significantly 

contribute to the general public's understanding of the HCNRA's 

operations and activities? 

What is the infomative value of theae ~ecords to the general public 

rather than to HCPC? 

4 . How will the infor..tion regarding allor.ents and aanagement practices 

in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area be likely to significantly 

contribute to the general public' • understanding of the HCNRA' s 

operations and activities? 

What is the informative value of thia information to the general public 

rather than to HCPC . 
• 

217 

Hr . Anthony We st 

5 . Vhat expertise, or access to specialized knowledge, do you have or 

intend to procure to interpret the requested records? 

6. How do you specifically intend to disseminate the requested documents 

for your interpretations to the general public? 

Do you charge for the information you disseminate? 

If you require this information immediately, you must provide a written 

willingness to pay before your request will be processed further . The 

willingness to pay can be addressed to me at W'allowa·\lhitman Na_t1onal 

Forest , P.O. Box 907, Baker City, OR 97814. 

Otherwise we will neither search or proceed with duplicating responsive 

documents until a fee waiver determination has been made . If I do not have 

your response to the fee waiver criteria within 30 days of the date of this 

letter, your fee waiver will be evaluated on the limited information you 

have already provided. If you need further assistance with this request , 

you may contact me at (503) 523-6391, ext. 206 . 

Sincerely, 

ANNIE HANSON 

FOIA Coordinator 

Enclosure 

cc : J 1m DeHerrera - HCNRA 

Chuck Quimby 

Pat Brandt - RO, Planning · 
218 

......,.._ - COUIICIL 

September 18, 1993 

The Honorable Bruoe Vento ~irman, National Parka, J.l'oreate, .nd Public Landa eo-ittee 

House of Repre-nt.tiv.a 

W&ahinaton D.C. 20515 

Dear · Sir 

I am writintr in re•ard to a hear~ thoo National Parka, i'oreete, 

and Publi.o Lande CoiiDittee will be holdi1141 September 23 on the 

statue of the Halle ~on National Recreation Area in Ore.on and 

Idaho. 

The Halla C~on National Recreation Area ehould remain under the 

maD&Cement of the l'oreet Service. Thera ie alreaci)r in plaoe iL 

plan, beine illlpl-nted bv the Forest Service developed with the 

aupport of local orcanized labor, citizana, ~ ~~nt 

bodies, to improve ac~- and ehawoa- the HCI1BA. 

We are abeolutely oppo-d to any National Park or Park 

feaaibility study that mi8ht be undertaken in tbia part of Oreson or Idaho. The Nat·ional Park Service ie already in a deficit 

eituation and doea not need 1m7 addi.tional land to aanaae. 

Any deviation from current manaaement and direction ia completelv 

mmeoe-;ary. The HamA, under current manaa-nt, ia available 

for the efto1or-nt of any who wish to uae the u.a. · 

Please -e that m:v o0111118nte are included in tha record for the ~mine National Parka, Poreeta, and Publio L.nds Committee 

h.ar1D8. Thank You. 

1

;lA~ !/tiss..xna. 

Rapreeentat.ive, Nort.hweet Ti.mber Worker• R.80Ur0e Council 

90a. 21at Street 

Bicin, Ore•on 97827 
Septa.ber 21, 1993 

219 

STATE SENATE SALEM, OAEOON 

17310 

The Honorable Bruca Vento 

..-LY'rO-...c.\Tm: 

__ 

_ ,_ ....... QP'

--_ . O. ...... 

.. _ --~·-

Chair, National Parka, Foreata ' Public Landa Subca.aittaa 

2304 Rayburn Houaa ottica Building Waahinqton; D. c. 20515 

Dear Conqreaaaan Vento: 

I would like to add ~ voice to the· aany who are oppoaed to the daatruction ot the delicate ecoeyatea of the Halla 

Canyon National Raoraation Area which would be brought about 

by the creation ot a national park in northeastern oregon. 

The natural raaourca-beaad tocua ot the USFS ia certainly aora in tune with the area in queation than would be tha 

caaa with the National Park Service. Tha Maz Perce Indian 

Tribe, alonq with the raaidanta and county otticiala ot Wallowa county, oregon, bava dav.elopad a salaon restoration 

plan, involving tribUtariea of the Salaon and the Ianaha 

Rivera. Habitat raatoration would be seriously iapairad under a cbanqa ot aanaq-t troa the U. s. Forest service to the National Parka Service, 

Detractors ot the u. s . Foraat Service have atta10ptad to discredit the agency by citing lack ot ita accoapliahaanta. Yet, the USFS haa bean YD&bla to aaet ita aiaaion to a larqa daqrea baoauaa of obetructioniat tactica by thoaa very 

groupe who supposedly seek to protect our national 

recreation area. Bfforta to iaprova roada, aatabliah 

additional canyon viewpoint& and trailhead&, and conatruct boat launching tacilitiaa bava baan continually blooked by 

legal actions or cutoffs of funding. I tail to aee any benefit Which would raault froa the increased pressures of a national park in our aoat unique Halla canyon area . 

I Understand that the potential of a study of the aituation 

ia proposed, and although a •atudy" doea not aound 

threatening, the deaiqnation of Hells Canyon aa a study area bringa all currant USFS aanagacl uses to a halt. 

Finally, the National Parka Service is severely underfunded 

and can barely -t ita preaant .. intanance coats. How can an already-overburdened federal agency take on an additional 

burden of a new national park? What hope can - have tor the preaarvation of this aoat unusual of natural wonders? 
Tbe Honorable Bruce Vento 

Septeaber 21, 1993 

Pa941 2 

220 

I ur9e your ooaitt" to retain ..naq-t ot the He.lla 

c.nyon ••tional Recr .. tion Area with the u. s. Foreat 

Service. 

Sincerely, 

aoC. . .ts~££91'-- oreqon State senator 

GHSIItr 

co: Honorable Robert F. s.ith, u. s. Jlapresentative. Oreaoll 

Honorable Peter DeFaaio, oregon, u. s. Jlapreaentative 
221 

September 16, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce Vento 

Chairman: National Parks, Forest 

and Public Lands Committee 

FAX: 202-225-1968 

Dear Representative Vento: 

This letter is my testimony, on the status of the Hells Canyon 

NRA, for the hearing on September 23, 1993 . 

Hells Canyon NRA is being managed just fine under the direction 

of the ·National Forest Service. It is an area being managed for 

all the value, which is great, that it has. It is managed in the 

appropriate areas for recreation, historic, scenic, timber, 

grazing, hunting, and all the other aspects of multiple use management. If it was under the National Parks Service, it would 

be managed for very limited and restricted uses. 

The National Parks Service is having much more trouble managing 

land than is the Forest Servic.e . The National Parks System is 

loosing money and operating in a much greater deficit situation 

than the Forest Service. 

I DO NOT want to see any chanQe in the management of the Hells 

Canyon NRA and I DO NOT feel any study is in order . 

Please include my statements in the testimony on this subject. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Sincerely 

Q.~~~~ 62593 FINLEY CR . LN. 

SUMMERVILLE, OR 97876 

503-534-5321 

Member of Northwest Timber Workers Resource Council 

cc: All members of the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands 

committee 

All the members of the OreQon Congressional Delegation. Forest Supervisor, Wallowa-Whitman NF 

HCNRAl 
222 

REQUEST: ThiS letter be included as part of public record. 

National parks, Forests and Public Landa co-ittee 

Congresa .. n Bruce Vento- Chairman 

812 .O.H.O.B. 

Wash., ·D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Vento, 

we are writing in oppodtion to • Hellli Canyon National Park". 

A national park here is neither needed or dedred by local people • . The 

area is already a designated recreation !lrea which has done it's share· 

of cri.pp1eing our economy. A parit vould ·only add. to our problema. : 

You cannot ~ these areas by setting them aside. We have lost many 

ni11iona or good trees to insecta and fire in the last rev years due to 

lack of proper harvesting of our ti~r. 'lfhen timber dies or is burned, 

ve lose future jobs, wildlife, fish, and recreation. We are going to 

lose even mora vith a "lock up• policy. Forest lands must be managed 

just as a wheat field does. You do not set aside corn, vhaat, potatoes, 

onions, Btc., just for us to co .. look at. 

The Federal Gov•t does not take care of the National l'arks ve already have. 

we see no reason to have more parks and take more land out of production. 

Bapecialy nov vhen our country is in economic distress. 

oregon is 6~ owned by government nov. That makes us dependent on Gov•t. 

lands which ve believe is vhat the u.s. Gov•t. promised western states 

at the time they stopped the "homestead Act•. we vere to be able to use 

gov•t. land for!!! purposes. Multiple use. 

There is plenty of room for recreation, logging, mining,and gra·zing. The 

people of the vest have been doing it for 150 years. We as a nation cannot 

afford these huge set asides which vill be; and is right nov being 

destroyed by nature due to 

a desire for saving Hell's 

Hells Canyon National Park 

Sincerely, 

Ivan and Agnes Roberta 

Copy to;Bob Smith 

neglect on the part of those vho profess 

canyon. 

is a bad idea. 

to 
~~~ 

U,,S', ~~Cf ~ .. 

~ :R~ .. 

223 

~.e.er ~, 

- ~/J &~..c~ /R# #e,,e,;v/-

::z;:-MH ,~ NV/:S.o~ 7Z /t!A(I?# ~ 

~'ctef'S · ./S,S.N~$, 

. ~ ~/~":::? ~~ ~r.J' 14'~~­ AN'~ JI'At:lt:'J,7,.,s : 

- ~~/·v~ ~,~ ,:p #e ~ 

..H~s ~ ~~ ~~t!!td,v~ ~~ 

-fi.,IZ' /~s.i::A'~ ~~~ 

~/If,. A/#'N /If"~~~~~ ~•es.­

~~ ~ ~e" ,k,~ ~ ~-k 

/71"'~ ~ k · /~"p ,1/:r ~, 

- ~..J ~ ~ /:""'~~~ ~~/Z:? sKi:L ~..-'& -,A/~ .-J:L ~/ ,-.H~ ~ ~,~,...?~,.. 

~~/ ~e ~ P:,~n=. ./dt,./L ~ S•"c ... ~= ._, ~ #~ _£ 

?'~':w,.;,..J,ve_ AI~ skip-s, 

_,.y'_,d_ ~ zt,..,.,/,+L 41='~ ~ ,ev/~ 

-"'?d. ..,¢.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 

a/l~eJ-~.,.~o/.9"'~ ~jy,. 
~~~ ~ ~~.v~--~ ,v'#- ~"",?"'....4/~ ...;,,~ p· ..... .r:s-1--=R- /IZ"~;~? ~;v ~ ~AV~~.S.S 

#.ee" ~ ,..-._.. ~;¥ ~ $e-.cJit:: 

#.ee.~P ,.r ,4e ~ . 

'I/,:sc,~·~~e d,~*"S ./-,;.:_~4-~~ /",...,~~ 

A'$ ~/ ...,.,ae ~~~ ~ ... ,.C":S' ~ ~e ~;,J.Q/a~ s-.Lc::;e j,~ , 

- ~ /~;e ... ~ .. ~A*',/~ 

~ _,;,p ,o~,_,J,~s ~'"-- ~ • .;Y ~;Z _,-r,t.~JC ~~ ~ 

Y4!eA~ c:::!'~F< ,#// ~·~.s~ 

.,~ &/~ ....,..,/,.J .... ..u:h-. 

- ~~~ a;r~;/~~s ~.dr 

~ 1k r~~ ~ #~ //;!', ~n. .A6#A..dA )'~ .6..)' ..,t;/~ ~""' ~A'".;V,,~~~~ ~~... 7/J-~ 

... ~~~ ~ell!!'~~ /../ ,.,.,.~~-...c:J 

~~" -
The Honorable B~ce Vento 

Chairman: lfational Parka, Poreat 

aDd Public Lancia CoaDittee 

raz 202•225-1968 

Dear Representative Vento: 

225 

Pleaaeaccept these comments aa teatimon7 to the lfational Parka, Poreat, 

ud Public Landa CCIIIIIIIittee hearing concerning the manao-t of the 

l!BLLS CAifYOlf JfRA. 

Me are oppoa.4 to a . lfational Park .or a ICational Park Stud7 in this part 

of Ore;on and Idaho. 

'l'he Jl*ll• Can7on RRA ia being edequatelr managed for IIIUltiple woe b7 the 

Forest Ser.vice jwot aa it should be. The people in the conmmitiea that 

!tOrder the ICRA baa JDade it clear too, that we don't want .a lfational Park 

or·stilcl7 in lf.l:. Oregon. 

Please don't disregard the wishes of the people that live and are trrinv to worJc here in Or89on and Idaho. 

~\)~ c:hr.is Da~J~Jett 

lforthwea~ 'l'imber Workers Reeource Council 

IJO& ·479 

tigin, OR. 97827 

eo: a.u .-bars of the BatiODal Parka, Poreet and Public Landa C~t.tee. 
226 

September 21, 1993 

TO: COMMJ:T'l'EE ON NA'l'XONAL PARKS, FOUS'l'S, MD POBLXC I.ANCS 

THE HONORABLE BRUCE VENTO, CHA:tR 

Please enter this 

hearing regarding Recreation area. 23, 1993. 

information into the racor4 for the oversight 

manag-e ot the Halls Canyon National 

This hearing is to be held Thursday, September 

I live in Joseph, Oregon, adjacent to the 652,000 acre Hells 

Canyon NJIA, and am cognizant of the manag-ent of the NJIA. 

Development and showcaaing of the NliA has 'been delayed by appeals 

and other obstructionist techniques commonly employed by 

preservationist groups, 'but is now progressing. In spite of 

publicity produced by these groups, manaqamant of the Halls 

Canyon NRA has bean in compliance with land use all.oeations that are designated with Public t.aw 94-199. 

Thera is no need to make an expensive administrative change from 

the US Forest service to the National. Park service. At the 

present time, the National Park Service is not able to adequately 

manage lands under its jurisdiction. With ~:he massive 'budget 

deficit our nation is facing, such a change would be an unnecessary, fool.hardy ex:pan4iture of taxpayer 4oll.ars. 

Please nota that several chambers of commerce in Oregon and 

:tdaho, several Union ~cals in Oregon, the County Commissioners, 

of Wal.lowa, Baker, and Union Counties in Oregon, aDd the Idaho 

State Legislators have passed resolutions in opposition to a national park or a national park study in this area. 

Ad41tionally, the Wal.l.owa County citizenry voted on a referendum 

regarding a national park in this area. The election was held in 

May, 1993 and the citizenry voted 95' - 5' iA OPPOSITION to a national park or park study. 

:t urge you not to taka this issue l.ightl.y. .....g-..t of ehe - Hell.a Canyon NRA is baing han4lad a4aquataly ~ the .Porast 

Service. Do not change eha administration of this vast area to 

~";f&Nre. 

Cassan4ra R. Botta 

83374 Airport Lane 

Joseph, Oregon 97846 

copies: Senators Hatfield, senator PackwoOd, Senator Craig, 

Representative Smieh 
22'7 

from the D£~1< ¥J.J,I993 

of JEANEITE R. BURRAGE 

t· <Jkj, .,. t tr" ~ 

~~ 
National Parks, Forest • 

Public Lands 

Rep. Bruce Vento, Chair 

812 O.H.O.B. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Vicki Fleshman 

62005 Liberty ·ad 

Joseph, Or 97846 

Dear Representative Vento and Meabers of Committee: 

Please accept this letter and all enclosures as testimony and 

enter into public record. 

I am writing in regard to the hearing concerning the 

management of the Hells Canyon Recreation Area - whether this area 

should be under the United States Forest Service, as it is now, or 

should be under the supervision of the Rational. Parks Service. 

This issue is of great· concern to me as I believe the Hells 

Canyon area to be a place where all interests can be served. If the 

N.P.S. were to be given this area to "manage", I feel this will end 

and the public would not be served to the best advantage. The 

N.P.s. is not currently known for its management practices. Many 

who have visited our more popular parks have become disgusted at 

what they have seen. And in fact, many have been turned away. The 

only thing that would be accomplished in this "shift" of agency 

management would be exclusion of use for many interests. The Hells 

Canyon was not aeant to exclude ~ of the public that enjoy its' 

many benefits. 

The u.s.F.S. has been berated by some as mis-managers • . The 

truth is, as many of you well know, they are mandated by Congress 

and obstructed by special interest from doing the very job they are 

to do within the area - -JIADASitll Because of these obstructions, we 

are now facing a severe decline in forest health and the 

consequences of an catastrophic wildfire are inevitable! The 

question is no longer "If", but rather, "When". If the u.s.F.s. 

were allowed to aanaqe our forest, including the Hells Canyon, I am 

sure they are equipped with the employees an~ "know how• to do the 

job. 

Following are some facts and information pertaining to issue: 
229 

fOREST HBALTH 

WHY SHOULD WE MAlfAGE OUR FORESTS? 

some of you are probably wondering, what makes me qualified to 

write on Forest Health? My answer is two words - self education. 

About 3 years ago I was involved in organizinq the Forest Health 

SyaposiUJI. up until that ti .. I knew we hac! a problea within our 

forests, here in NE Oreqon, but I didn't know what it was, how it 

ca.e about, or KbAt to do about it. I ctidn't even know what "old 

growth• was. I thouqht I did, but found out that what I considered 

old qrowth - Big is old, most of the time wasn't! 

You see, I was like most of the general public is - looking, 

but not seeinq; hearinq, but not listeninq; and talking about 

things I kn~w very little about. I knew that a loqging site wasn't 

pretty to look at and thought the forest, in a natural setting, 

should look like a park! 

Through the SyaposiUJI, I had the opportunity to be educated by 

people who do know what they are talking about. I learned that old 

growth isn't deterained by size but rather, size is a matter of 

species and growth area first, with aqe second. I learned how to 

take care of trees and the management tools applied so that they 

may grow into what we all want and need , as well as the benefits 

we enjoy - lUJiber, wood products, wildlife habitat, ground cover 

for shade and to reduce snow--lt and runoff, to prevent erosion 

and provide us with the beauty we enjoy and expect when we are in 

the forest. 

That following spring, I attended a facilitator workshop. 

Guess what the topic was ---- Forest Health I This workshop was 

conducted by o.s.u. and the u.s.F.S •• There were several fro• all 

walks of life who attended. private timber owners, housewives, 

forest service employees, preservationists and ranchers. some had 

their •inds made up before they attended the workshop and therefore 

were not able to discuss and learn. I had entered it wanting to 

know more and I learned a qreat deal, includinq that there are 

(2) 
230 

those interests out there who do not think man has a place in the 

forest and it should benefit only wildlife! We discussed disease, 

insects and the effect of the drought and I found out what 

mistletoe really is and what it can do to trees. 

This spring I bad another opportunity to be involved in the 

Forest Health issue. I landed a specially funded job with the 

Oregon State Department of Forestry. They told me I was chosen 

because of three main reasons: 1. I had the best background on 

forest health of all the applicants: 2. My artistic and office 

skills would benefit their program and: 3. Because of my involvement with several grassroots organizations and familiarity with 

local citizens, they knew I would work well with the public. I 

enjoyed the job, mainly because I was in a position to learn more 

and help people. I dealt directly with forest health daily. My job 

was to assist the service forester in compiling information to aid 

private land owners in management and stewardship of their timber. 

Timber management is necessary for many reasons - most of 

which, in my opinion is common sense! You only have to look around 

you to see how management is used in every day life in the county, 

whether it is the fields you drive by, your yard or .your garden. 

Every living thing must have certain things to live - sun, water, 

food supply and room to exist! 

Perhaps that is how it is best explained. M;;magement is 

implemented depending on the situation and the goal to be achieved. 

Some of these management steps differ, while others remain the 

same. 

In an annual flower garden, you follow the same basic steps as 

you would for a vegetable crop or grain field. You prepare the 

soil, plant the seed or plant, water, weed and thin to reduce 

competition. The goals however, are different. The flower garden 

is for beautification and enjoyment to the eye, while the vegetable 

garden or grain field is for a food source! 

(3) 
231 

A perennial flower qarden or alfalfa field. is handled a little 

bit differently. The soil is disturbed as little as possible to 

avoid damaqinq the returninq qrowth, yet it is weeded, watered and 

someti-s as in the case of iris, it is thinned. The qoals differ 

for each of this crops in that the flowers are, aqain for beautification, while the alfalfa is a food source! However perennial 

flowers aake wonderful ~ flowers. 

A forest should be looked on as a qarden of sorts and each 

should be manaqed accordinq to the qoals in mind. This is where 

the difficulty l~es in individual interests. What d.o - expect of 

our forests and. what do we envision a forest to produce? It is 

only capable of. producinq .what . we manaqe for I A forest sail be 

.anaqe to provide all of the thinqs, all interests expect, bu~only 

if manaqement practices are allqwed. 

The harvest of timber, a manaqement tool, provides us with 

all of the benefits I mentioned . earlier, but it also plays an 

important role in til• reqeneration of. the forest. Loqqinq practices 

provide: soil preparation for n- qrowth: thinninq to reduce 

competition: removal of disease or insect ~nfected tr-s: and 

diversification for wildlife ,habitat. The -re disturbance of the 

soil cheats an _environaent f~r self-seedinq of new trees. 

Pre-co-ercial thinninq has a qoal of qrowinq larqer, superior 

trees with optimum expected qrowth by cuttinq the smaller, 

qenetically inferior ones,. When ·lookinq at a cut of a tree that has 

been in a stand pre-co-erc.ially .thinned, you will. see what· is 

termed as a "release•. Thill indicates that the tree beqan receivinq 

more ,.of what it needs to thrive and thus, exP,Grienced increased 

qrowth. OVer crowdinq produces staqnate qrowth. 

Another aspect of manaqement requires harvest of· mature trees. 

A tr- produces OxYqen at its fullest potential,. when. qrowinq. Once 

the qrowth capacity is ;r;each~, less OXyCJ~ . is th~efo;r;e produced 

and the tree enters a decline in health, as well as resource 

productivity. As . these tr~s decli~e careful ;,atchinq and .harvest 

protects the other •old qrowth• tree~ from ~oainq staqn.;te. alld 

(4) 
232 

threatened by insect and disease. This also provides the environment for "natural seeding•. 

Now some of you are probably saying, "What is the point of 

clear-cutting? It is so ugly!" Unfortunately, All of life is not 

beautiful. I am not advocating all "clear-cutting", but sometimes 

in order to create the best, you must first remove what is there . 

A clear-cut is just that ••• It is the end of that stand~. it is 

also the beginning of a new one! 

The main object is not to harvest every single tree, but is a 

tool, an extreme tool, used to accomplish a goal~. That goal is 

usually to establish a different species or solve a -problem within 

an area . And, in oregon a clear-cut does not necessarily aean 

cutting all of the trees within that area. Not leaving enough trees 

to meet the required standard per acre could result in a clear-cut. 

The current rule states that leave trees must be well 

distributed and of an acceptable species, depending on the area, 

and the estlblish&d standard must be met within 6 years. on our 

side of the state that means, "100 trees to an acre• and the key 

word is "established. This means the planted or seeded trees must 

be in the ground, free to grow and thriving! New 1993 reco .. endation is for 200 trees per acre - I don't know if that has been 

accepted, as yet, by legislation. 

The oregon Forest Practices Act provides for. threatened and 

endanqered species, or "T 5 z·•·s, as -11 as riparian protection. 

But Oregon's reforestation proqrea has been one of. the qreat-t 

successes of the act durinq its' 22 yr. history. Landowner 

compliance reaains very high proving "People care about the forest 

and -nage for toaorrow as -11 as today" I 

Disease and insect epidemics, further increased by a 7 yr. drought cycle has put our forest in a serious decline. Any attempt 

at aanage .. nt or salvage has been stopped by appeal after appeal 

fr011 preservation groups who claim to care and want to protect our 

forests. 

(5) 
233 

As only one exaaple; The spruce budwora was recognized as a 

potentially epidemic problea. The u.s.r.s. initiated a plan whereby 

"host or trap" trees would be used . to bring the insects under 

control. Spruce trees were cut down & insects attacked those trees, 

however, when the tiae came to burn the trees, destroying the 

insect colonies, a local preservation group filed a lawsuit 

stopping further needed action. Those insects, now much qreater in 

nUmber, migrated to the standing spruce trees and the epidemic was 

in full swinq! 

Appeals have also been filed to suppress prescribed burning in 

heavy fuel loaded areas. According to this group, all fires should 

be natural. My friends, What man does not manaqe, Mother Nature 

does and, as Judy told you last week, the r.s. is gearinq up for a 

soo,ooo acre wild fire! This fire, Kb§n it occurs will destroy all 

of our resource as well as wildlife habitat and undoubtably, hoaes. 

our air quality will be devastated and the erosion effects will be 

disastrous! These appeals are from the same people who ~ to 

care about the environment! Politics of extreme environmentalists 

get in the way of real scientific methods I 

Yes, these are some of the bad. aspects of the environmental 

.ovement, however, I will say there is one good aspect that has 

been brought about - - Awaronessl Never again will we take for 

granted what we do and enjoy in natural resource areas. And, Iu, 

we can do a better job, and WI ARB! 

In closing, I would like to leave you with a another analoqy, 

something to think about. 

The extremist needs to learn what a good cattle rancher 

already knows. A cow mans' .ost. prized possession is his doq. A 

good doq is irreplaceable when you are working cattle. He can help 

you in the chutes, qathering them up, heading them in the right 

direction or putting them through a gate. You see, the cattle that 

(6) 
234 

go through the gate first, leaving their calves behind, aren't the 

best cows. But those cattle lingering behind with their calves, if 

pushed too hard, will turn and fight. WHAT A GOOD cow MAN KNOWS 

THAT THE EXTREMISTS DON'T IS - - -WHEN '1'0 CALL OFF THE DOG! 

Respectively ~tted, 

vfdu~ Vicki Fleslman 
~~ ~~ ~~ Jf~ rr: 'II~ J. f'l.

~ ~ t I :.1 . ~ .. o.lz a: f ·.g • . f . _

a i r1· t J • .. i' i' J t f 

~ t.t .1r ~1 1t r1 1 ~ rl .. 

~ li a.t I. H [fl ;, ·r

1 ~ I ~ i hI f! 11 i l l U _r

I l • l' • ~~ - . a • • f tl 

! 5 fit· ~1 It ~'I 5 nJ

r J ! 1 J i • h J f l t

l i . fr.l J~ rnt [ lf

~ l l lif J•. tJr ( ~l

I ,t i ~·~~ ~~ iri 

11

r !_-;

1

~ ~~ e- '<l ;r 1 .t ·

g r; f ~ · r 

, .. g · ! l ~ . p .

~ -1 · 2!! t 

i l 1 &.{ d ~n { .J
286 

• •ne foreata o{ Belb Canyon are beaiepd with dileue epidemics due to Forest Service 

timber m&JJ&aement policies. • · 

:r AcT: The Forest Servic:e operates under CoqressioaaDy Maadatedguldelilles including 

the. National Foreat Manage~r.ent Act. The founding principles are based on conservation and 

wise use of natural resources. 

Because of the appeal process, fire salvage sales and removal of dead or dying diseased and 

insect infested trees are being denied. Memben or the Hells Callyon Preservation council 

are amona those opposiog remedies to the Forest Health epidemic!' They have 

consistently blocked proven practices that could have helped restore forest health~ 

• •'fhe Forest Service has logged more than 150 million board feet (MMBF) of timber from 

the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area over the last 16 years." 

FACT: The U.S: Forest Service is mandated to remove S-9 MMBF annually. Of the 

131,936,000 MMBF of actual volume, only 124,500,000 was actually harvested. Of this 

portion, 90% was salvage of insect, fire or blowdown damage. There is only a 12% portion 

of the HCNRA that allows timber harvest. Strict guidelines are followed and include: health 

of the ecosystem, visual quality, wildlife habitat, and reduction of hazards for recreationists. 

• "HCNRA is a cattle feedlot", "Every acre is included within a cattle or domestic sheep 

allotment". 

FACT: Allotment base is approximately 4% of the HCNRA. While there are a few 

allotments still being used several are vacant and in the Environmental Assessment process 

prior to re-use. According to the Forest Service "lack of funding and manpower prohibits 

these assessments from being done•, and therefore the allotments are not being used. It is 

quite likely they will remain vacant indefinitely. 

• "Area has largest free-roaming elk herd in U.S. • 

FACT: Elk were introduced to N.E. Oregon in 1911 and their numbers far exceed 

objectives set by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. While these elk winter on 

the lower benches of the canyon, most of their grazing is predominantly on the Wallowa and 

impact private land. 

The current bull to cow ratio is low due to hunting pressure and a project is underway to 

improve this situation. However, the high fatality rate of calf elk and deer fawn due to 

predation has been put •on bold .. for another year by government agencies. 

It is also noted that these elk roam in open terrain and gather in numbers in areas that have 

been previously grazed by livestock, as they prefer the short, green arasses. Some of the 
237 

areas historically pv.ed, but out of allotment, are now covered with stagnant vegetation that 

the elk do not prefer. They therefore return to the agriculture areas for green, lush fonge. 

* •Bighorn Sheep are dying from diJeue transmitted by domestic sheep". 

FACT: Univenities.in Washington and Idaho documented that bighorn sheep are carriers 

of the PV3 virus that causes pneumonia and high mortllity in herds. Domestic sheep have 

previoualy been blamed for this problem. 

* "No limit on jet boats, rafters must enter lottery". 

FACT: The upper 15 miles of river is restricted to five nft launches each day from the 

Friday before Memorial Day through September 15. As many IS 30 people and numerous 

water cnft may be included in one launch. 

* "Tnils are unmaintlinecl", •There is no enforcement of regulations •, "chaotic free-for-all 

of recreationists, littering, etc. etc ••. " 

FACT: U.S.F.S. crews maintsin tni1s yearly, however preservation groups have objected 

to tnil maintenance and then complain about lack of maintenance. Projects of maintenance 

include volunteer groups such IS Silvacompass, Outward Bound and the Siern Club. There 

are 900 miles of tnils, many in designated wilderness, in year round planned work 

programs. The N. W. Powerboaters Association meets each year with the Forest Service for 

a •fitter patrol" outing. When it was tint initiated there was a pickup load retrieved. Last 

year, 1991, there was one plastic aarba&e sack fuU. This shows that the •users" of the area 

not only enjoy the use, but care for the area and what it offers. Livestock openton and 

guides who use the uplands also maintsin tnils. 

The National Park Service, accordina to media reports, is sorely nealecting many of our 

famous and favorite parb. It is doubtful this agency could provide management of the 

"proposed area" equal to the Forest Service and the people who know, use and love the area. 

It should also be mentioned, appropriately, that one of the most staunch supporters of the 

psrlc proposal and member of the Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Ric Bailey, was 

videoed on one of the several nft trips he took in 1991. According to an article in the 

Wallowa County Chieftain, Bailey, (u well u other prominent people on that trip, including 

a candidate for Senator, a hiahly positioned member of the National Wildlife Federation, a 

hiahly public Environmental spokespersoll, u well as a previous member of the Oregon State 

Legislature,) was viewed urinating in the river, usin& loud and indiscreet language until the 

wee houn, drinkina, bathing and walking the beach area nude while invading the privacy of 

others who were camped on the same beach area. 
238 

FOREST HEALTB 

WHY SHOULD WE MANAGE OUR FORESTS? 

Some of you are probably wondering, what makes me qualified to 

speak on Forest Health? My answer is two words - self education. 

About 3 years ago I was involved in organizing the Forest Health 

Symposium. Up until that time I knew we had a problem within our 

forests, here in NE Oregon, but I didn't know what it was, how it 

came about, or xbAt to do about it. I didn't even know what "old 

growth" was. I thought I did, but found out that what I considered 

old qrowth - Big is old, aost of the time wasn't! 

You see, I was like aost of the general public is - looking, 

but not seeing1 hearing, but not listening1 and talking about 

things I knew very little about. I knew that a loqging site wasn't 

pretty to look at and thought the forest, in a natural setting, 

should look like a park! 

Through the Symposium, I had the opportunity to be educated by 

people who ~ what they are talking about. I learned that old 

growth isn't determined by size but rather, ·size is a 

matter of species and growth area first, with age second. I learned 

how to take care of trees and the management tools applied so that 

they may grow into what we all want and need , as well as the 

benefits we enjoy- lumber, wood products, wildlife habitat, ground 

cover for sh,ade and to reduce snow-melt and runoff, to prevent 

erosion and provide us with the beauty we enjoy and expect when we 

are in the forest. 

That following spring, I attended a facilitator workshop. 

Guess what the topic was ---- Forest Health! This workshop was 

conducted by o.s.u. and the U.S.F.S •• There were several from all 

walks of life who attended. private timber owners, housewives, 

forest service employees, preservationists and ranchers~~ome had 

their minds aade up before they attended the workshop and therefore 

were not able to discuss and learn. I had entered it wanting to 

know more and I learned a great deal, including that there are 
239 

those interests out there who do not think aan has a place in the 

forest and it should benefit only wildlife! We discussed disease, 

insects and the effect of the drought and I found out what 

aistl.toe really is and What it can do to trees. 

This spring I had another opportunity to be involved in the 

Porest Health issue. I landed a specially funded job with the 

Or8C}on State Depertaent of Forestry. 'l'lloeV &;olcl M I was chosen 

.,.,., .. a .of-~ .-in realloiiii; 1. 1 had t!rlr best ·-- ~ound on 

fm:eat...hJt.al,.tll- of -all the appllcants; 2. II) "'JJIIr~''"' office 

skills we11J:• tleRef-!4:-- t:hat-r--p~""'DD!t:- 3-¥- Beee ... e er -r in..,ohe 

-~ •Ub aeueral: 1Jrll•ft!R3ts··-or'!Jll11izat:iefttl--and f-i.Uac.ity- with 

lGC&L.cUh-.,-titey knew I would ·-'t well with Ute pdlsHe. I 

enjoyed the job, aainly because I was in a position to learn aore 

and help people. I dealt directly with forest health daily. My job 

vas to assist the service forester in coapiling info~ation to aid 

pr~vate land owners in aanageaent and stewardship of their tiaber. 

~ Tiaber aanageaent is necessary for . .. many reasons - aost "''of 

which, in BY opinion is coaaon sensei You only have to look around 

you to see how aanage .. nt is used in every ·day life in the county, 

whether it is the fields you drive by, your yard or your garden. 

Every livinq thing aust have certain things to live - sun, water, 

food supply and rooa to exist! 

Perhaps that is how it is best explained. Manage .. nt is 

iaple.anted depending. on the situation arid "the goal to be achieved. 

So.. of these aanage .. nt steps differ, while others reaain the 

s .... 

In an annual flower qarden, you -follow the s ... basic steps as 

you would for a vegetable crop or grain field. You prepare the 

soil, plant the seed or ' 'Plant, water; weed and · thin to reduce 

eoapatition. The ·qoals-· however-, ilre different. The flower garden 

is for beautification and enjoy.ant to the eye, while the vegetable 

garden or qrain field is for a food source! 
240 

A perennial flower qarden or alfalfa field is handled a little 

bit -differently. The soil is disturbed as little as possible to 

avoid damaqinq the returninq qrowth, yet it is weeded, watered and 

sometimes as in the case of iris, it is thinned. The qoals differ 

for each of this crops in that, the flowers are, aqain for beautification, while the alfalfa is a food source! However perennial 

flowers make wonderful ~ flowers. 

,Lf_l _1."\ .. Jtl\(!li~1 t:lJ A forest should be looked on as a qarden of sorts and each 

~~ .. ~~ should .be manaqed accordinq to the qoals in mind. This is where 

FO~ it the difficulty lies in individual interests. What do we expect of 

~VF our forests and what do we envision a forest to produce? It is 

~ only capable of · producinq what we manaqe for I A forest !all be 

manaqe to provide all of the thinqs, all interests expect, but only 

if aanaqement practices are allowed. 

~e h~est of timber, a manaqement tool, provides us with 

all of the benefits I mentioned earlier, but it also plays an 

important role in the reqeneration of the forest. Loqqinq practices 

provide: soil preparation for new qrowth; thinninq to reduce 

competition; removal of disease or insect infected trees; and 

diversification for wildlife habitat. The mere disturbance of the 

soil ~ats an enviro~nt for•:.elf-seedinq of new trees. 

Pre-commercial thinninq has a qoal of qrowinq larqer, superior 

trees with optimum . expected qrowth by cuttinq the smaller, 

qenetically inferior ones. When lookinq at a cut -of a tres that haa 

been in a stand pre-co-rcially thinned, you will ses what is 

termed as a "release". fhis indicates ~.t; ~e,_J:_I~,.~J'IJ,-ceivincj 

110re of what it needa to thrive.~&'lr.'Su~JtYOU to look 

at here up front. over crowdinq produces stagnate qrowth. 

• Another aspect of manaq-nt requires harvest of mature trees. 

A tree produces oxygen at its fullest potential, when qrovinq. Once 

the qrowth capacity is reached, less oxygen is therefore produced 

- and the tr- enters a decline ·in health, as -11 as resource 

productivi~y. As these tress decline1 careful vatchinq and harvest 

protects the other "old qrovth" trees fro. beco.inq stagnate and 

threatened by insect and disease. '"TiU.s 1;/t,o 'fU~ 4 Mu::iu4..J r A.tM) tJc..u.rl.b ~ - . . 
~1 

~ 

~ Mow some of you are probably sayinq, "What is the point of 

:lear-cuttinq? It is so uqlyl" Unfortunately, All of life is not 

beautiful. I aa not advocatinq all "clear-cuttinq", but soaetiaes 

in order to create the best,_ you must first reaove what is there. 

A clear-cut is just that .•• It is the end of that stand bYt, it is 

also the beqinninq of a new one! 

* The aain object is not to harvest every single tree, but is a 

tool, an extra- tool, used to accoJIPlish a qoal. That qoal is 

usually to establish a different species or solve a problea within 

an area. And, in Oreqon, · a clear-cut does not necessarily aean 

cuttinq all of the trees within that area. lfot leavinq enouqh trees 

to aeet the required standard per acre could result in a clear-cut. 

The current rule states that leave trees must be well 

distributed and of an acceptable species, dependinq on the area, 

and the !!tst4blishec! standard au_st be aet within 6 years. On our 

side of the state that aeans, •ioo trees to an acre• and the key 

word is •established. This means the planted or seeded trees must 

be in the qround, free to qrow and thrivinql Mew 1993 reco-endation is for 200 trees per acre - I don't know if that has been 

accepted. 

* The Oreqon Forest Practices -Act provides for threatened and 

endanqered species, or •T i B"'s, as -11· as ·riparian protection. 

But Oreqon's . reforestation proqraa has been one of .the qreatest 

successes of the act durinq its' 22 yr. history. Landowner 

coapliance reaains very hiqh provinq "People care about the forest 

and aanaqe for toaorrow as -11 as today•! 

~ .~ji..( * Disease and insect epideaics, fUrther increased by a 7 yr. 

(1) drouqht cycle has put our forest in a serious decline. Any atteapt 

at aanaqement or sal vaqe has been stopped by appeal after appeal ~ 

preservation qroups who claia to care and want to protect our 

forests. 
242 

As only one example; ~e spruce budworm was recognized as a 

potentially epidemic problea. The u.s.P.S. initiated a plan whereby 

"host or trap" trees would be used to bri,ng the insects \lnder 

control. Spruce trees were cut down & insects attacked tho11e trees, 

bowever, when the time came to burn the tress, destroying the 

insect colonies, a local preservation qroup filed a lawsuit 

stopping further needed action. Those insects, now auch greater in 

nuaber, migrated to the standing spruce trees and the epideaic was 

in full swing! 

Appeals have also been filed to suppress prescribed burning in. 

heavy fuel loaded areas. According to this group, all fires should 

be natural. My friends, What aan does not manage, Mother Nature 

does and, as Judy told you last week, the P.~. is gearing up for a 

500,000 acre wild fire! This fire, KbJn it occurs will destroy all 

of our resource as well as wildlife habitat and undoubtably, homes. 

Our air quality will be devastated and the erosion effects will be 

disastrous! These appeals are from the same people who ~ to 

care about the environment! Politics of extreae environmentalists 

get in the way of real scientific .. tbo4s! 

Yes, these are some of the bad aspects of the environmental 

aoveaent, however, I will say there is one good aspect that has 

been brought abou.t - - Awareness! Never again will we take for 

granted what we do and enjoy in natural resource areas. And, ~. 

we can do a better job, and tfE ARE! 

In closing, I would like to leave you with a another analoqy, 

something to think about. 

The extremist needs to learn what a good cattle rancher 

already knows. A cow mans' aost prized possession is his doq. A 

good dog is irreplaceable when you are working cattle. He can help 

you in the chutes, gathering thea up, heading thea in the right 

direction or putting them through a gate. You see, the cattle that 

go through the gate first, leaving their calves behind, aren't the 

best cows. But those cattle lingering behind with their calves, if 

pusbed too hard, will turn and fight. WHAT A GOOD COW MAN KNOWS 

THAT THE EXTREMISTS DON'T IS - - -WHEN TO CALL OFF 'l'HE DOG! 

TIIAIIIt YOU 

0 

77-928 0 - 94 (248) 

ISBN 0-16-044097-1