[House Report 108-667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-667
======================================================================
TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTINUED USE OF
ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL OUTFITTER HUNTING CAMPS ON THE SALMON RIVER
_______
September 8, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1003]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill (S.
1003) to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the
continued use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps
on the Salmon River, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 1003 is to clarify the intent of Congress
with respect to the continued use of established commercial
outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 (CIWA, Public Law
96-312) designated over two million acres of the Idaho
backcountry in the Salmon and Challis National Forests as the
``Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness'' and 79 miles of
the Salmon River as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. The CIWA included a finding that ``such protection can be
provided without conflicting with established uses.'' Section
9(b) of CIWA states that the River corridor is to be managed
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, rather than the more
restrictive provisions of the Wilderness Act.
Along this 79 mile stretch of the Salmon River are a number
of outfitter hunting camps. Ten of the camps are privately
owned and three operate under Forest Service special use
permits to provide commercial recreational services. These
camps are located at Stub Creek, Arctic Creek and Smith Gulch.
As described by Under Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey, these
camps ``provide unique, traditional services and experiences to
the public in a setting that cannot be duplicated.'' The
current permits for the camps were issued in 1995 and run until
2010. The three permitted camps were established and in use
prior to the enactment of CIWA. It is important to note that
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, permanent structures are
allowed on ``wild and scenic'' rivers as long as they do not
``substantially interfere'' with the nature of the river. (16
U.S.C. 1281 (a)). In this case, the structures already existed
before the River was designated and are part of its character.
Moreover, it takes several hours by dirt road and then boat to
reach the camps and without them, most of the public would not
have access to this portion of the Salmon River. Additionally,
Forest Service permits for these outfitters require mitigation
to protect scenic, aesthetic, and fish and wildlife values to
comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. One highly visible
hunting camp was allowed to be relocated in 1988 to a new site
where it is now screened from view, with the intent of
enhancing the values that caused the River to be designated.
Although the legislative history accompanying CIWA
indicates an intent to provide for the continued use of the
three camps, some environmental groups have disagreed, claiming
the three camps violated the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A
lawsuit was filed, and a federal district court held in
September 2000 that the three camps were inconsistent with the
Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. (Wilderness Watch v. United
States Forest Service, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D. Mont. 2000)).
The court also ordered the Forest Service to have them removed.
When the court ordered the Forest Service to remove these
facilities, it also directed the agency to consider the needs
of the camp owners in setting a timetable for removal. In
January 2003, the Supervisor of the Salmon-Challis National
Forest signed a Record of Decision that continued use of the
camps with temporary facilities and set a schedule of removal
of all permanent facilities at the three camps by December 31,
2005.
In the aftermath of the lawsuit, many of those who
developed the CIWA indicated that the original intent of the
law was misinterpreted and the outfitters should remain.
Included in the appendix to this report are letters in support
of S. 1003 from Cecil Andrus, former Governor of Idaho and
Secretary of the Interior in the Carter Administration; Bethine
Church, the wife of former Senator Frank Church, the author of
the CIWA; James McClure, former Senator from Idaho; Frank
Elder, Forest Service witness who testified on the legislation
which became the CIWA; Dennis Baird, Sierra Club witness, who
also testified on the legislation; and Norm Guth, former Salmon
River lodge owner.
During consideration of S. 1003 in the Resources Committee,
several members of the minority party questioned whether the
three camps should be allowed to continue because of the
refusal of their owners to vacate them in the 1970s. The
minority argues that prior to the enactment of CIWA several
camps had been asked to leave the area. While seven of the
camps were disbanded, the three camps affected by this
legislation remained. They were still in place when CIWA became
law in 1980. While this may have been a legitimate question of
fairness during consideration of CIWA in 1979 and 1980, the
camps were nonetheless included in the legislation. The
Wilderness Watch decision pertains to the administration of the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and not the merits of each
individual permittee. As such, the issue raised by the minority
was addressed, right or wrong, with the enactment of CIWA. S.
1003 clarifies the intent of Congress as it pertains to CIWA's
interpretation in the Wilderness Watch ruling.
The Committee notes that while some national environmental
groups have opposed S. 1003, those who participated in the
original drafting and negotiating of the legislation which
became CIWA are supportive of the bill. Also, by and large, the
people of Idaho as well as the entire Idaho Congressional
delegation support S. 1003.
S. 1003 would clarify the intent of the bill and would
allow the three established commercial outfitters to continue
use of the national forest as long as they are in compliance
with their special use permits.
Committee Action
S. 1003 was introduced on May 5, 2003, by Senator Larry
Craig (R-ID). The Senate passed the bill with an amendment by
unanimous consent on November 24, 2003. In the House of
Representatives, the bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health. On June 17, 2004, the Subcommittee
held a hearing on the bill. On July 14, 2004, the Full
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee
was discharged from further consideration of the bill by
unanimous consent. No amendments were offered and the bill was
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by
voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
enactment of this bill would increase revenues to the federal
government of less than $10,000 a year.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not
apply.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 28, 2004.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1003, an act to
clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the continued
use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps on the
Salmon River.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
S. 1003--An act to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the
continued use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps
on the Salmon River
S. 1003 would allow three hunting camps located on the
Salmon River, a designated wild and scenic river in Idaho, to
continue to operate. As the result of a lawsuit against the
U.S. Forest Service, those camps are required to vacate, by
December 31, 2005, the sites they presently occupy under
special permits.
Based on information provided by the Forest Service, CBO
estimates that enacting S. 1003 would have no significant
impact on the federal budget. Allowing the camps to continue to
operate would result in increased offsetting receipts (of less
than $10,000 a year) beginning in fiscal year 2006 because the
Forest Service would be able to continue collecting permit fees
from them. (Such receipts are deposited in the general fund of
the Treasury and cannot be spent without appropriation.)
S. 1003 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
On August 1, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
1003 as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources on July 23, 2003. The two versions of the
legislation are identical, as are the estimated costs.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 3 OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
(Public Law 90-542)
Sec. 3. (a) The following rivers and the land adjacent
thereto are hereby designated as components of the national
wild and scenic rivers system:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(24)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) The established use and occupancy as of
June 6, 2003, of lands and maintenance or
replacement of facilities and structures for
commercial recreation services at Stub Creek
located in section 28, T24N, R14E, Boise
Principal Meridian, at Arctic Creek located in
section 21, T25N, R12E, Boise Principal
Meridian and at Smith Gulch located in section
27, T25N, R12E, Boise Principal Meridian shall
continue to be authorized, subject to such
reasonable regulation as the Secretary deems
appropriate, including rules that would provide
for termination for non-compliance, and if
terminated, reoffering the site through a
competitive process.
[(D)] (E) Subject to existing rights of the State of Idaho,
including the right of access, with respect to the beds of
navigable streams, tributaries or rivers, dredge and placer
mining in any form including any use of machinery for the
removal of sand and gravel for mining purposes shall be
prohibited within the segment of the Salmon River designated as
a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System by this
paragraph; within the fifty-three-mile segment of the Salmon
River from Hammer Creek downstream to the confluence of the
Snake River; and within the Middle Fork of the Salmon River;
and its tributary streams in their entirety: Provided, That
nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to prohibit the
removal of sand and gravel, outside the boundaries of the River
of No Return Wilderness or the Gospel-Hump Wilderness, above
the high water mark of the Salmon River or the Middle Fork and
its tributaries for the purposes of construction or maintenance
of public roads: Provided further, That this paragraph shall
not apply to any written mineral leases approved by the Board
of Land Commissioners of the State of Idaho prior to January 1,
1980.
[(E)] (F) The provisions of section 7(a) of this Act with
respect to the licensing of dams, water conduits, reservoirs,
powerhouses, transmission lines or other project works, shall
apply to the fifty-three-mile segment of the Salmon River from
Hammer Creek downstream to the confluence of the Snake River.
[(F)] (G) For the purposes of the segment of the Salmon River
designated as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System
by this paragraph, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, after
October 1, 1980, not more than $6,200,000 for the acquisition
of lands and interests in lands.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
S. 1003 would overturn a Federal Court decision that found
that the use of lodges, cabins, and other permanent facilities
on national forest lands along the Salmon National Wild and
Scenic River was a violation of law.
Supporters of S. 1003 claim this court decision is a
misinterpretation of the 1980 Act that designated this area.
While under the wild river designation, permanent facilities
are not allowed, supporters claim this prohibition wasn't
supposed to apply to the Salmon River. However, neither the
1980 Act nor its legislative history speaks to such an
exemption, even as the law and its legislative history speak to
other exemptions granted in that legislation.
S. 1003 raises a number of fairness and management issues.
It has been brought to our attention that long-standing Forest
Service Regulations in effect at the time of the 1980 Act
prohibited permanent facilities in this area. In fact, in 1970
the Forest Service ordered the eight outfitter camps not in
compliance with this prohibition to remove their permanent
facilities. Five outfitters complied with this directive, three
did not--the same three that are seeking exemption by S. 1003.
What signal does this legislation send to those outfitters
who followed the rules? When asked about this at the hearing on
S. 1003, Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey's response was
that there are often winners and losers in legislation. Do we
really want people to believe they can ignore the rules or let
the Forest Service turn a blind eye to the law and its own
regulations?
Further, the direct language of S. 1003 would grant these
three commercial outfitters a special right of use to national
forest lands that other national forest users don't have and
would severely limit Forest Service authority on the issuance
and management of these outfitter permits. The Administration's
testimony asked for changes on these matters but none have been
made.
We recognize that the Forest Service has been part of the
problem here by renewing permits when they had no legal
authority to do so. That is why an offer was made to allow the
existing permits to run their course. That offer was rejected
and as a result we are left with the original bill with its
policy and management problems.
S. 1003 is anything but a simple bill. Members need to take
a long and hard look at its problems. In the absence of changes
to correct its serious deficiencies, we urge defeat of this
legislation.
Nick Rahall.
George Miller.
Edward J. Markey.
Mark Udall.
Jay Inslee.
APPENDIX
----------
May 22, 2003.
Mr. Doug Tims,
Northwest River Company,
Boise, ID.
Re A Bill Clarifying Commercial Outfitter Hunting Camps on the Salmon
River.
Dear Doug: I have looked at the proposed legislation
concerning the lodges at Stub Creek, Smith Gulch and Arctic
Creek along the Main Salmon River in the FCRNR Wilderness.
These lodges and camps were well known at the time the Act
was written and debated, and any effort to have them removed as
part of the deal would have raised great controversy, I'm sure.
Indeed, Frank was committed to achieving a balance in the
legislation that allowed many such facilities to remain in
place. I question whether the law could have passed without
this type of compromise.
Frank certainly wanted to maintain a true wilderness but he
was a realist about the situation. His effort always was
mindful of keeping the River of No Return accessible for as
many people as possible. Staying at the lodges is a great
alternative for some families then and now. He understood the
need to keep out inappropriate uses such as vehicles and roads,
but he clearly advocated for the valid historic recreational
uses in the 1980 bill for the River of No Return Wilderness.
You have my permission to send this letter on to all
relevant congressional representatives and committees.
Very sincerely,
Bethine (Mrs. Frank) Church.
------
May 30, 2003.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Please accept this correspondence as my
total support for S. 1003.
As a result of my years as Governor of Idaho and as
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, I am intimately
familiar with the issues and location of the properties in
question, properties that are now inside the outer boundary of
the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area. I have
personally visited the locations in question and was involved
in the decisions that permitted Norman Guth, owner of the Big
Squaw Creek facility, to move that facility to a less intrusive
location away from the river's edge. He agreed to move; the
Forest Service was happy; and it appeared that we had enhanced
the wilderness characteristics of the area. The new location of
this facility is at Smith Gulch, which is much less obtrusive
but permits ``existing uses'' to continue.
In 1980, when we passed the legislation that finally
created the River of No Return Wilderness Area, which is now
the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area, we thought
the issue had been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I might
add that Norm Guth went to considerable expense in creating the
new facility, and he did it simply because he is a good
citizen, one whom I have known for more than 30 years.
The 1980 record of the committee hearing is, I think, quite
clear as to what the intent was, and I hope that you and your
committee will see fit to pass this proposed legislation to
clarify the issue once and for all.
With warm personal regards to you, I remain
Sincerely,
Cecil D. Andrus.
------
June 3, 2003.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I support the efforts of Senator Craig
in S. 1003 to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to
the continued use of established commercial outfitter hunting
camps on the Salmon River.
In 1979, Senator Church and I heard extensive testimony
from the citizens of Idaho and others concerning the
establishment of the River of No Return Wilderness. At issue
before the Congress were the Idaho and Salmon River Breaks
Primitive Areas. These areas and the surrounding lands that
were recommended for wilderness protection make up a vast area
of more than two million acres. The area is very challenging
terrain cut by the Salmon River into canyons and river
corridors with very difficult access.
Idahoans had developed a number of historical methods of
access prior to Congress addressing the future management of
this vast area. It is very important to local citizens and
outfitters to have a way to explore and enjoy Idaho's multitude
of hunting, fishing and recreation opportunities. As we heard
in the hearings before the Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation,
and Renewable Resources there was significant support for
designation of a large segment of central Idaho as wilderness,
but equally important that the public be allowed continued
access.
To strike this balance we placed the following language at
the beginning of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act:
Sec. 2. (a) The Congress finds that--
(1) certain wildlands in central Idaho lying within the
watershed of the Salmon River--the famous ``River of No
Return''--constitute the largest block of primitive and
undeveloped land in the conterminous United States and are of
immense national significance;
(2) these wildlands and a segment of the Salmon River
should be incorporated within the National Wilderness
Preservation System and the Wild and Scenic River System in
order to provide statutory protection for the lands and waters
and the wilderness-dependent wildlife and the resident and
anadromous fish which thrive within the undisturbed ecosystem;
and
(3) such protection can be provided without conflicting
with established uses.
Contained in the bill was a balance between management
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act.
The congressional record includes extensive discussion of the
reason for the dual designation. Under the Wilderness Act,
existing uses such as airstrips, powerboat use and camps with
permanent structures on the Main Salmon would not be allowed.
We included specific language in the Act that directed the
Forest Service to manage the Main Salmon corridor as Wild and
Scenic in order to allow continued access via powerboats and
the camps with permanent structures.
Senator Church and I specifically questioned Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture Rupert Cutler and Region Four
representative Frank Elder about this balance. Their answers on
the record and later in statements to the committee reports tie
back directly to the ``such protection can be provided without
conflicting with established uses'' language on the face of the
bill.
The committee report states ``While both the River of No
Return Wilderness and the Gospel-Hump Wilderness overlap
portions of the Wild and Scenic River corridor, the Committee
reiterates that only the rules and regulations promulgated
pursuant to the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will apply in
the river corridor. Thus certain activities not generally
permitted in wilderness areas, such as the hunting camps on the
river, the use of motorized tools to gather firewood, and small
hydroelectric generators can continue within the wild and
scenic river corridor on the river.''
At the hearings, I specifically asked Assistant Secretary
of Agriculture Rupert Cutler about the dual designation. I
asked ``Did I understand your most recent proposal did not deal
with the earlier questions with respect to the management of
the river corridors--particularly the Middle Fork and the main
Salmon? Middle Fork is a Wild and Scenic River and it is your
suggestion that it become wilderness and go into the more
restrictive management of wilderness? But that the Salmon River
itself would not become wilderness but would become part of the
wild and scenic rivers? Mr. Cutler, ``That is correct, in order
to continue the mode of transportation on the main Salmon
River. The question of contained use of camps on the main stem
also would be provided for by excluding the main system
corridor from the wilderness area.''
Here and at several other places in testimony, the
``camps'' that were discussed are those at Smith Gulch, Arctic
Creek and Stubb Creek as referenced in S. 1003.
At present, these facilities are under Forest Service order
to be removed in 2004. S. 1003 must be acted on promptly in
order to provide for the continuation of this important
historical access to the Salmon River by the public. It was
clearly our intent in 1980 that this use, which is facilitated
by the permanent structures at each site, shall continue for
present and future generations.
Sincerely,
James A. McClure.
------
Hon. Larry Craig,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Craig: I have been involved in administration
and management planning of the area now designated as the Frank
Church River of No Return Wilderness and the Salmon Wild and
Scenic River during much of my career as a Forester with the
U.S. Forest Service. I testified before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee during consideration of the Central
Idaho Wilderness Act, and later served as leader of the team
which prepared the Congressionally mandated management plans
for the subject Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River.
I have read Senate Bill 1003, and believe it is consistent
with the intent of Congress and the interpretation of Forest
Service managers implementing the Central Idaho Wilderness Act
of 1980. Congress included specific language in the Act, and
further explained it in accompanying committee reports,
regarding the continuation of certain uses, activities, and
developments which would ordinarily be disallowed in a
Wilderness/Wild River setting, but which were specially
excepted in this situation. These included jet-boat and chain-
saw use and buildings (and related developments) used as
hunting and fishing camps by Outfitters operating under
provisions of Special-Use Permits issued by the U.S. Forest
Service.
Sincerely,
Frank S. Elder.
------
May 28, 2003.
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Re S. 1003.
Dear Sir: I have read the text of S. 1003 and believe that
its language is fully consistent with the original intent of
Congress when it passed the Central Idaho Wilderness Act.
I participated as a conservationist in most aspects of the
writing of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act, working closely
with Senator Frank Church and his staff in that long process. I
have also personally visited all three sites where outfitter
camps operate on public lands along the Salmon River.
In writing this legislation, Sen. Church intended to the
maximum extent possible to insure that uses compatible with the
natural values of the Salmon River that were in place before
enactment would be able to continue at the same level after
enactment of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act. Sen. Church had
visited all three camps in existence at the time this
legislation was being considered and repeatedly stated that it
was his intention that the law would permit their continued
existence under USFS permit. Based on my memory of these
events, there can be no doubt about what Mr. Church intended
the final legislation to do. Sen. Church was also a fine writer
in general, and of legislation in particular, and consequently
I can see no room for ambiguity in interpreting this
legislation and Mr. Church's intent: these three camps were to
stay.
One of the three camps is now at a different location than
at the time of enactment, but that move was made at the behest
of the Forest Service and was designed to relocate the camp to
a less visible and intrusive spot--a request generously agreed
to by the lease holder.
Sincerely,
Dennis Baird.
------
May 28, 2003.
Hon. Senator Larry Craig,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: I wish to express my support for S.
1003 which clarifies the original intent of Congress with
respect to the continued use of established commercial
outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River.
In 1979, I was president of the Idaho Outfitters and Guides
Association, representing hundreds of outfitters and guides who
served the general public, allowing them the opportunity to
access and enjoy what was then known as the central Idaho
Primitive Area. Working with a broad, bipartisan coalition, the
outfitting industry supported what became the largest
wilderness area in the lower 48 states--now the Frank Church--
River of No Return Wilderness.
I was directly involved in fashioning the Central Idaho
Wilderness Act of 1980 in a manner that was thought at the time
to expressly allow the continuation of established uses of the
Salmon River country. Among those established uses were many
airstrips, the use of motorized jetboats on the Main Salmon
River, and established hunting camps in the Main Salmon River
corridor. There was a great deal of attention paid during the
legislative process to assure that the Main Salmon River
corridor would be managed under the Wild and Scenic River Act,
even though the wilderness area overlapped. The reason for this
specific arrangement was so that uses based on motorized access
and camps with permanent structures, normally prohibited in
wilderness, could continue in the Main Salmon River corridor.
It was well understood by all parties involved including
the U.S. Forest Service managers that the ``hunting camps''
referenced repeatedly in the legislative record, were the camps
now located at Smith Gulch, Arctic Creek and Stubbs Creek.
These three camps have long been an important method for the
public to visit and enjoy the hunting and fishing resources of
the Main Salmon River corridor.
During the hearings before the Senate, both Senators Church
and McClure questioned Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
Rupert Cutler and Frank Elder from the Region Four office of
the Forest Service about how the law as written would be
administered with emphasis on the effect on established uses.
Secretary Cutler testified, ``Our revised River of No
Return Wilderness proposal reflects a balance between
wilderness necessary to help round out a quality wilderness
preservation system and the consideration of other resource
values that are essential to the well-being of local and
regional economies.''
Secretary Cutler, ``We favor administration of the main
Salmon River under the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, rather than as part of the wilderness, so as to permit the
continuation, as appropriate, of motorized travel on the river
and outfitter and developed camping facilities within the river
corridor. This method of travel and these facilities are needed
to support a major existing recreational use of the river.''
Senator Church further questioned Secretary Cutler and
Frank Elder, ``What is your general view about the location of
the outfitted and guide hunting camps on the main Salmon
River?''
Mr. Elder, ``The number and type of outfitter or hunting
camps that exist now are reasonable. If the entire area were to
be designated as wilderness, these types of structures would
not be permitted under the act, which is the reason we proposed
a Wild and Scenic River corridor, which allows slightly more
permanent developments.''
Senator Craig, the Frank Elder who testified about the
camps had been the district ranger who worked directly with the
owners of the camps in question. I owned the Smith Gulch camp
and worked with Frank Elder and others in the Forest Service to
assure that the camps would continue and that they would exist
in a manner that would minimize their visual and environmental
impact on the area.
In closing let me thank you for your efforts to clarify the
original intent of Congress on this matter. I was one of over
600 Idahoans who testified in Salmon, Lewiston, Boise and
Washington, DC. The law as passed was a compact with the people
of Idaho. It stated that we could achieve the balance of
protecting the magnificent resources of the Salmon River
country while allowing continued historical means of access.
The words on the face of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act,
``such protection can be provided without conflicting with
established uses'' have significant meaning. S. 1003 will
maintain the compact between Congress and the people of Idaho
and their visitors as intended.
Sincerely,
Norm Guth.