[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 822, H.R. 4806 and H.R. 4838
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 22, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-105
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-098 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Tom Osborne, Nebraska George Miller, California
Jeff Flake, Arizona Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Joe Baca, California
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
GREG WALDEN, Oregon, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Scott McInnis, Colorado Tom Udall, New Mexico
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Mark Udall, Colorado
Carolina Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona VACANCY
Jeff Flake, Arizona VACANCY
Rick Renzi, Arizona Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico ex officio
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 22, 2004.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Inslee, Hon. Jay, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington.............................................. 4
Larsen, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Nethercutt, Hon. George R., Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington............................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Udall. Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico, Statement submitted for the record.......... 60
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, Prepared statement of..................... 67
Statement of Witnesses:
Chase, Gene L., C & C Contracting, Inc....................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Fadden, Chris, Vice President, Washington State Snowmobile
Association................................................ 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Husmann, Ed, Sky Valley Resident and Snohomish County Farm
Bureau Member.............................................. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Pope, Art, Executive Director, Northwest Youth Corps......... 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Reardon, Aaron, Snohomish County Executive................... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Rey, Hon. Mark, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Sax, Jeff, County Council Member, District 5, Snohomish
County, Washington......................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Town, Mike, Friends of the Wild Sky.......................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 822, TO ENHANCE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND
THE RANGE OF OUTDOOR OPPORTUNITIES PROTECTED BY LAW IN THE SKYKOMISH
RIVER VALLEY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DESIGNATING CERTAIN LOWER-
ELEVATION FEDERAL LANDS AS WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R.
4806, TO PROVIDE FOR A LAND EXCHANGE INVOLVING FEDERAL LANDS IN THE
LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST IN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; AND H.R. 4838, TO ESTABLISH A HEALTHY FOREST YOUTH
CONSERVATION CORPS TO PROVIDE A MEANS BY WHICH YOUNG ADULTS CAN CARRY
OUT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS TO PREVENT FIRE AND
SUPPRESS FIRES, REHABILITATE PUBLIC LAND AFFECTED OR ALTERED BY FIRES,
AND PROVIDE DISASTER RELIEF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Thursday, July 22, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard W.
Pombo, [Chairman of the Committee on Resources] presiding.
Present: Representatives Pombo, Walden, Flake, Inslee, Tom
Udall, and Herseth.
Also Present: Representatives Larsen and Nethercutt.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
will come to order.
Good morning. Today, we will hear three bills: H.R. 822,
which would designate 106,000 acres as the Wild Sky Wilderness
in Washington State; H.R. 4838, which would create the Healthy
Forest Youth Conservation Corps; and H.R. 4806, which would
facilitate a land exchange between Lubbock Christian University
and the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico.
The Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that Representative
Nethercutt have permission to sit on the dais and participate
in the hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member can make opening statements. If any other
Members have statements, they can be included in the hearing
record under unanimous consent.
I would first like to recognize our colleagues from
Washington, Mr. Nethercutt and Mr. Larsen, who are requesting
this hearing. The proposed Wild Sky Wilderness has been a big
issue in the State of Washington. And after meeting recently
with Mr. Nethercutt, I agreed to hold a hearing on H.R. 822 to
discuss and further examine its merits.
As the Chairman of the Resource Committee, I have had many
wilderness bills sent my direction. To expedite review of these
bills, the Committee has carefully crafted guidelines that all
reasonable and sound wilderness proposals should meet. My
criteria simply requires bills to meet the standards and intent
set forth in the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Often in the past, wilderness areas have been designated
without good-faith consultation and demonstrated local support,
and I believe that is wrong. Local communities and economies
are particularly effective by wilderness designations. They
must have a say in the legislation affecting them, their
community and their way of life. The hearing today will help in
this regard.
Simply said, a segment of H.R. 822, the Wild Sky Wilderness
Act is not consistent with the Committee's guidelines or the
Wilderness Act. Much of the proposed wilderness area does not
meet the actual definition of wilderness. Wilderness, as
written in the 1964 Act, is, and I quote, ``An area where the
earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man and an
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence.'' Yet H.R. 822 has miles of roads,
culverts, bridges and dams, and this is not wilderness.
Last year, the Administration stated on the record that the
Wild Sky Wilderness proposal would include roughly 16,000 acres
of land deemed not suitable by the Forest Service. This
includes some 8,000 acres of previously harvested and roted
land, roughly 2,000 acres of private land, about 3,000 acres of
public access routes and close to 3,000 acres for Forest
Service boundary adjustments.
The authors of this bill also claim that the wilderness
would protect outdoor opportunities of the area. Yet due to
endangered species in the area and late successional reserve
requirements, it would be nearly impossible for the Forest
Service to create any new trails in much of this area. The
reality is that existing management restrictions, in the
opinion of the local Forest Service, would likely preclude the
building of any new trails in the area. Thus, there would be
less access, not more, for this area.
To sum up, I would like everyone to take a look at the
picture of the bridge. This bridge is located near the center
of the proposed area. How can this be considered untrammeled by
man? With all of this said, I am willing to work with Mr.
Nethercutt, and Mr. Larsen, and Senator Murray on the
legislation to address those concerns and move a bill that is
supported by the communities, protects from wildfire and other
natural disasters and is consistent with the Wilderness Act.
Unfortunately, a line has already been drawn in the sand.
Yesterday, Senator Murray stated that anything less than a
wilderness designation for the entire area would basically be
unacceptable.
Mr. Nethercutt has already expressed his enthusiasm to work
with the Committee on this bill that is good for all of the
State of Washington, and I am hopeful that my other colleagues
in the House share this willingness.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,
Committee on Resources
I'd first like to recognize and thank our colleagues from
Washington, Mr. Nethercutt and Larsen, for requesting this hearing. The
proposed Wild Sky Wilderness has been a big issue in the State of
Washington, and after meeting recently with Mr. Nethercutt, I agreed to
hold a hearing on H.R. 822 to discuss and further examine its merits.
As the Chairman of the Resources Committee, I've had many
wilderness bills sent my direction. To expedite review of these bills,
the Committee has carefully crafted guidelines that all reasonable and
sound wilderness proposals should meet. My criteria simply require
bills to meet the standards and intent set forth in the 1964 Wilderness
Act.
Often, in the past, wilderness areas have been designated without
good-faith consultation and demonstrated local support--this, is wrong.
Local communities and economies are particularly affected by wilderness
designations--they must have a say in legislation affecting them, their
community and their way of life. The hearing today will help in this
regard.
Simply said, a segment of H.R. 822, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, is
not consistent with the Committee's guidelines or the Wilderness Act.
Much of the proposed wilderness area does not meet the actual
definition of wilderness. Wilderness, as written in the 1964 Act is
``an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by
man'' and ``an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence.'' Yet, H.R. 822 has miles of roads, culverts,
bridges and dams--this is not wilderness. Last year, the Administration
stated on the record, that the Wild Sky wilderness proposal would
include roughly 16,000 acres of land deemed not suitable by the Forest
Service. This includes some 8,000 acres of previously harvested and
roaded land, roughly 2,000 acres of private land, about 3,000 acres of
public access routes, and close to 3,000 acres for Forest Service
boundary adjustments.
The authors of this bill also claim that the wilderness would
protect ``outdoor opportunities'' of the area--yet, due to endangered
species in the area and late successional reserve requirements, it
would be nearly impossible for the Forest Service to create any new
trails in much of the area. The reality is that existing management
restrictions (and the opinion of the local Forest Service) would likely
preclude the building of any new trails in the area. Thus, there would
be less access, not more, for this area.
To sum up, I'd like everyone to take a look at the picture of the
bridge below. This bridge is located near the center of the proposed
area. How can this be considered ``untrammeled by man''?
With all of this said, I am willing to work with Mr. Nethercutt,
Mr. Larsen and Senator Murray on the legislation to address these
concerns and move a bill that is supported by communities, protects
from wildfire and other natural disasters, and is consistent with the
Wilderness Act. Unfortunately, a line has already been drawn in the
sand. Yesterday, Senator Murray stated that anything less than a
wilderness designation for the entire area would basically be
unacceptable. Mr. Nethercutt has already expressed his enthusiasm to
work with the Committee on a bill that's good for all of Washington
State. I'm hopeful that my other colleagues in the House share that
willingness.
______
The Chairman. I would now like to recognize Mr. Inslee, the
Ranking Minority Member, for any statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I want to thank Mr. Pombo for
convening this hearing as well.
I think John Muir said it best. He said, ``In God's
wildness lies the hope of the world, the great, fresh
unblighted, unredeemed wilderness.'' And now after years of
bipartisan effort, Congress has a chance to protect the
Creator's handiwork, provide a new jewel in our national crown
of wilderness and pass the new wilderness bill in Washington
State in 30 years, the Wild Sky, which is truly a bipartisan
achievement.
This is great country. I went up there and climbed Baring
Mountain last Sunday, and I just want to share just a couple
bits of information with the Committee, just a couple pictures.
Some will be obvious, some will not.
Here is the first picture. When you are in the Wild Sky
wilderness, you feel like you are in the wilderness. I was
there, and scraped knees and all, I was in the wilderness.
Second picture. To answer a myth that the only people who
enjoy wilderness are sort of fit athletes, here is a guy, you
will see his gray hair--I don't know if his gray beard shows--
going up on the mountain. This is not just for Olympic
athletes. You find old folks enjoying the woods.
Next picture please.
And most importantly, who you find in the woods, when I
just got out of the car at the Baring Mountain trailhead, this
is the family, the Rowl [phonetic] family from Woodinville,
Washington, out for maybe their kids' first hike. And those of
us who know the value of wilderness, a lot of us had our first
hike with dad or mom, and this is a tradition that this Wild
Sky wilderness is intended to create. And if you see these
kids, if you look at their eyes, you know what we are really
talking about. So the young and old enjoy it, the rural, the
urban, the rich and poor. This is for all folks.
Second point I want to make. This wilderness, Wild Sky, is
probably the most carefully worked wilderness bill for several
years for two reasons:
One, it made accommodations for multiple uses, for bikes,
for horses, for the disabled community, changes to accommodate
the snowmobile community. It was very cleverly worked.
Third, this bill has the most important timber in it, which
is the low-level timber which protects the cardiovascular
system of Northern Washington and the Skykomish drainage
because we understood, and the drafters of this bill
understood, that the low-level timber provides shade,
filtration of water and help with the salmon that are so needy,
and these are the salmon that get higher in the Cascades than
any other salmon run probably in the State of Washington. This
protects low-level timber.
And fourth point, and this is one where there is more than
a modest degree of disagreement of good, sincere people,
including Mr. Pombo and myself. It is a gross misinterpretation
of the wilderness bill to suggest that the U.S. Congress is
constitutionally prohibited from declaring wilderness where a
human being has walked. If we did that, we would never, ever
declare a wilderness.
As one of the creators of this said--Henry Jackson--who
said, ``A serious and fundamental misinterpretation of the
Wilderness Act has recently gained some credence, thus,
creating a real danger to the objective of securing a truly
national wilderness preservation system. It is my hope to
correct this false so-called `purity theory,' which threatens
the strength and broad application of the Wilderness Act.''
As did Republican Mark Hatfield, who said the same thing,
who said, ``I am not a lawyer, but the effect of such an
interpretation would be to automatically disqualify almost
everything. For few, if any, lands in this continent or any
other have escaped man's imprint to some degree.'' And that is
why he allowed a wilderness in the Eagle Cap wilderness to
include previous logged lands, a good Republican Senator.
That is why the originator of the bill, Representative
Saylor, said, ``I have fought too long, and too hard, and too
many good people in this House and across this land fought with
me to see the Wilderness Act denied application by this kind of
obtuse or hostile misinterpretation or misconstruction of the
public law and the intent of Congress of the United States.''
Protecting these lowest-level forests, these lowest-level
forests are not the lowest priority. They are the highest
priority, and we can't part out the Wild Sky wilderness sort of
like a used car and lop off these most high-priority forests in
this entire system. It is not fair to the salmon, it is not
fair to the timber, and most importantly it is not fair to
those kids who deserve a functioning ecosystem, and that is why
this bill needs to pass, which is a bipartisan effort of many,
many people who have worked many, many years in this regard.
Let me see if I have a last point. You are waiting for it,
Mr. Pombo, is that right, my last point?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Inslee. The last point I just want to make is this
thing is probably, you are never going to get total unanimity
on any wilderness bill, but I have seldom seen such a broad
consensus that has been developed. You have mayors, and city
councils and probably 96/98 percent of the population within an
hour of this wilderness, and I hope that their will is followed
by this Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Pombo.
The Chairman. I would like to recognize, in deference to
Mr. Nethercutt, I would like to recognize Mr. Nethercutt for a
very brief statement before we go to the author of the bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. I
appreciate your kindness and courtesy in holding the hearing
today. It has been 4 years since the whole Wild Sky issue was
presented, and it is a tribute to you, sir, that you would hold
a hearing. And I appreciate your willingness to do so and have
disparate views, I am sure, be presented here.
I want to tell you that I had a chance to go to Wild Sky. I
have talked with you about this area. And it is beautiful. It
is gorgeous country. I went with former Governor Dan Evans and
Mike Town, one of the witnesses today. I have also talked with
those who are not in favor of a Wild Sky wilderness measure. I
met with Ed Husmann in his home, talked to Jeff Sax--two of the
witnesses here today--and I respect their views, too. There is
controversy about this issue.
Mr. Larsen and I have had a good working relationship, I
believe, trying to come to some consensus. And I have asked my
staff to look for ways that we can get to the result I think
everybody wants, and that is preservation of the area, with due
respect for the various parties who are part of the region and
part of the area. So I am looking forward to finding some
common ground with you, Mr. Chairman. I do believe this is a
beautiful area that would be preserved, and I think we have to
be open to ideas about how we can reach the common objective,
and that is to provide the resources for people in the future,
but also access for all.
So I am pleased to be with you. I look forward to listening
to the witnesses and gaining the benefit of the testimony of
all who are here today, and I thank you all for letting me sit
on the panel and be a participant.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nethercutt follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George R. Nethercutt, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Washington
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, I appreciate your kindness and
courtesy in holding the hearing today.
It has been 4 years since the whole Wild Sky issue was presented
and it is a tribute to you, sir, that you would hold a hearing and I
appreciate your willingness to do so and have disparate views I'm sure
be presented here.
I want to tell you that I had a chance to go to Wild Sky. I've
talked to you about this area. And it is beautiful. It is gorgeous
country. I went with former governor Dan Evans and Mike Towne, one of
the witnesses today.
I've also talked with those who are not in favor of a wild sky
wilderness measure. I met with Ed Hussman in his home, I talked with
Jeff Saks--two of the witnesses today. And I respect their views, too.
There is controversy about this issue. Mr. Larsen and I have had a
good working relationship, I believe, trying to come to some consensus.
I've asked my staff to look for ways that we can get to the result I
think everybody wants and this is preservation of the area with due
respect for various parties who are part of the region and part of the
area. So, I'm looking forward to finding some common ground with you,
Mr. Chairman.
I do believe this is a beautiful area that should be preserved. And
I think we have to be open to ideas about how we can reach the common
objective and that's to provide resources for people in the future and
but also access for all. So, I'm pleased to be with you. I look forward
to listening to the witness and gaining the testimony--the benefit of
the testimony--of all who are here to day and I thank you for letting
me sit on the panel and being a participant.
______
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Nethercutt. I appreciate
the kind words. I am sure that your constituents and Mr.
Larsen's constituents that are here today that have been
following this issue with such great interest in the Washington
press expected to walk in this morning and see me in a red suit
with horns and a pitchfork.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But I do appreciate your kind words.
Mr. Larsen, we have a slight issue. We are going to recess
the Committee for about 5 minutes, and Mr. Larsen and I are
going to run down the hallway, and we will be right back.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. I would like to introduce our first witness.
We have the primary author of the legislation, Rick Larsen, who
represents the Second District of Washington, and as I
understand it, in whose district most, if not all of this, Wild
Sky area is included.
Mr. Larsen?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICK LARSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chairman Pombo, and Ranking Member
Inslee and members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you,
Chairman, for holding this hearing today. It has been a long
road to get here, and it has been a rocky one in some respects,
a smooth one in other respects, but I really do appreciate the
chance to be here and the opportunity to have this hearing.
As the bill's prime sponsor, I am asking you today to
support H.R. 822 and to pass it favorably, with some
modifications, which I will discuss in my testimony. I would
also like unanimous consent to enter into the record a packet
that I think you may have already, but there have been some
additions, a response to your letter outlining the criteria
that you had hoped for in wilderness areas. I have that packet,
plus some additions, and with unanimous consent, I would like
to enter that in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. H.R. 822 represents the next step in
a long line of successful bipartisan efforts in Washington
State to designate wilderness areas where people can be assured
of clean places to hunt and fish in the future. The Wild Sky is
a hands-on wilderness.
Congress passed the last Wilderness Act for Washington
State in 1984 when a bipartisan effort brought a bill to
President Ronald Reagan or signature that created, among other
wilderness areas, the Henry M. Jackson Wilderness.
It is now time to create the next generation of wilderness
for Washingtonians.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act is unique. It is unique in that
it includes lowlands around the Skykomish River and its
tributaries, easily accessible to the surrounding population.
As a result, it has earned the support of the Washington
Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities. Inclusion of lowlands
has the added benefit of providing protection for fish in these
tributaries, leading groups like the Wild Steelhead Coalition
to endorse it.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act has strong bipartisan support.
Our colleague, Representative Jennifer Dunn, is a co-sponsor.
In the packet, you will find a letter signed by seven local
Republican legislators, including the Washington State Senate
Majority Leader. Former Republican Governors and our current
Democratic Governors support passage. Likewise, the packet
includes a letter of support from Democratic State legislators.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act has local support. The mayor of
the town of Index, the closest local Government to the proposed
wilderness said he believes the Wild Sky wilderness will be the
best thing that ever happened to his valley. The cities of
Monroe and Snohomish, both located on Highway 2 heading out to
the Wild Sky, have passed resolutions of support.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act has strong business support.
REI, Incorporated, the Nation's largest consumer cooperative,
with its focus on the outdoor adventure industry, is an
endorser, as are David and Lynn Meier, co-owners of A Stone's
Throw Bed and Breakfast and A Cabin in the Sky vacation rental.
Additionally, the Snohomish County Economic Development Council
supports the proposal.
I want to provide two words about the process that got us
here: inclusiveness and compromise.
My staff and Senator Patty Murray's staff, the prime
sponsor in the Senate, have worked over the last 3 years to
answer many of the concerns brought by several groups. The
result has been that an original idea of 120,000 acres became a
106,000-acre bill proposed in H.R. 822. Additionally, over the
last 6 weeks, my staff, Senator Murray's staff and
Representative George Nethercutt's staff, have worked very hard
to further refine the bill.
Although that work is not now reflected in the map that
currently accompanies H.R. 822, I support these changes that
cut an additional 2,500 acres from the bill since they address
issues related to roads, private property, snowmobile access
and a proposed repeater site.
This inclusiveness has led many outdoor groups to support
the bill or express neutrality, when traditionally they may
have generally opposed wilderness.
As you can tell, the Wild Sky proposal is a product of
compromise. I would argue that now we are in the ``nip and
tuck'' stage of the proposal and any major changes would
represent an ``extreme makeover'' and undercut the value of
this bill.
A recent poll in my district shows that the public views
the Wild Sky proposal favorably by a 79-percent to 18-percent
margin. My office has received 3,684 letters and e-mails in
support, and I have received 142 against.
Now, I do not want to minimize remaining opposition to the
Wild Sky bill nor do I want to overstate it. It should be put
in the context of the 3 years of hard work that has gone into
creating this next generation of Washington State wilderness.
This work has resulted in a bill that has gained broad support
from local communities, businesses and a strong bipartisan
group of elected officials in the best tradition of past
Washington wildernesses.
So I ask the Subcommittee to consider H.R. 822, with these
modifications, and schedule a markup as soon as possible so
that we can celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness
Act with an excellent addition to the Nation's wilderness
areas.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington
Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Inslee, and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 822, the Wild Sky
Wilderness Act of 2003. As the bill's prime sponsor, I ask you to
support H.R. 822 and pass it favorably with modifications, which I will
discuss in my testimony.
H.R. 822 represents the next step in a long line of successful
bipartisan efforts in Washington state to designate wilderness areas
where people can be assured of clean places to hunt and fish in the
future. The Wild Sky is a hands-on wilderness.
Congress passed the last Wilderness Act for Washington State in
1984 when a bipartisan effort brought a bill to President Ronald Reagan
for signature that created among other wilderness areas the Henry M.
Jackson Wilderness.
It is time to create the next generation of wilderness for
Washingtonians.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act is unique. It is unique in that it
includes lowlands around the Skykomish River and its tributaries easily
accessible to the surrounding population. As a result, it has earned
the support of the Washington Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities.
Inclusion of lowlands has the added benefit of providing protection for
fish in these tributaries, leading groups like the Wild Steelhead
Coalition to endorse it.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act has strong bipartisan support. Our
colleague, Representative Jennifer Dunn, is a co-sponsor. In the packet
you will find a letter signed by seven local Republican legislators,
including the Washington State Senate Majority Leader. Former
Republican Governors and our current Democratic Governor support
passage. Likewise, the packet includes a letter of support from
Democratic state legislators.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act has local support. The Mayor of the
Town of Index, the closest local government to the proposed wilderness,
said he believes the Wild Sky wilderness would be the best thing that
ever happened in his valley. The cities of Monroe and Snohomish, both
located on Highway 2 heading out to the Wild Sky, have passed
resolutions of support.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act has strong business support. REI, Inc.,
the nation's largest consumer cooperative with its focus on the outdoor
adventure industry, is an endorser as are David and Lynn Meier, co-
owners of A Stone's Throw Bed and Breakfast and A Cabin in the Sky
vacation rental. Additionally, the Snohomish County Economic
Development Council supports the proposal.
I would like to provide two words about the process: inclusiveness
and compromise.
My staff and Senator Patty Murray's staff, the prime sponsor in the
Senate, have worked over the last three years to answer many of the
concerns brought by several groups. The result has been that the
original idea of a 120,000-acre proposal became a 106,000-acre bill
proposed in H.R. 822. Additionally, over the last six weeks, my staff,
Senator Murray's staff and Representative George Nethercutt's staff
have worked to further refine it.
Although that work is not now reflected in the map that currently
accompanies H.R. 822, I support these changes that cut another 2,500
acres from the bill since they address issues related to roads, private
property, snowmobile access and a proposed repeater site.
This inclusiveness has led many outdoor groups to support the bill
or express neutrality when they traditionally might have generally
opposed wilderness.
As you can tell, the Wild Sky proposal is a product of compromise.
I would argue that we are in the ``nip and tuck'' stage of the proposal
and any major changes would represent an ``extreme makeover'' and
undercut the value of this bill.
A recent poll in my district shows that public views the Wild Sky
proposal favorably by a79 percent to 18 percent margin. My office has
received 3,684 letters and e-mails in support. I have received 142
against.
I do not want to minimize remaining opposition to the Wild Sky. Nor
do I want to overstate it. It should be put in the context of the three
years of hard work that has gone into creating this next generation of
Washington state wilderness. This work has resulted in a bill that has
gained broad support from the local communities, businesses and a
strong bipartisan group of elected officials in the best tradition of
past Washington wildernesses.
I ask the Subcommittee to consider H.R. 822 with modifications and
schedule a mark-up as soon as possible so that we can celebrate the
40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act with an excellent addition to
the nation's wilderness areas.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
I realize that you have been working on this bill for a
long time and, as just about anything that we do, in order to
get a good bill through, it takes a lot of compromise in order
to get there.
I guess the major question I have for you is the purpose of
doing this in Wild Sky, the purpose of having a bill to protect
that area, I am assuming it is so that an area that is
relatively pristine in its nature would be protected from
logging, mining, development of any kind and that that is
really the underlying goal that you have.
Mr. Larsen. I think it is more than that, Mr. Chairman. The
fact that this is located relatively close to Highway 2, and it
is within an hour's driving distance of a large part of the
Central Puget Sound population, and that the inclusion of its
lowlands mean that we have accessible wilderness area, that is,
it is not just rocks and ice, but it is places that people can
get to and preserving that area, so that we know that that area
will always be there for accessibility, I think that is more
the driver, as opposed to just trying to create a wilderness to
stop logging, stop mining and so on.
My view is that we have an opportunity that creates an
accessible wilderness area that is unique, and we should take
that opportunity.
The Chairman. You stated, in your statement, that any major
changes would represent an extreme makeover and undercut the
value of the bill. On the areas that, in my mind, don't qualify
as wilderness, and I have had this discussion with you before,
I can see the value in protecting those, and you and the others
from Washington State have all made it perfectly clear that you
wanted that area protected.
If we can come up with a designation that protects that and
maintains it in its current state, but does not classify it as
wilderness, would that not satisfy your desire to have those
lowlands protected and reserved for future generations?
Mr. Larsen. I would like to see H.R. 822 with the
modifications that we have developed over the last 6 weeks that
have passed. Recalling the conversation that we had earlier
this week, I think we ought to see where this hearing takes us,
have the hearing and see where it takes us. I think that is
maybe some of the language that we have used. We are probably
going to need a breather after today would be my guess, and
probably a well-deserved and well-earned breather. But I would
like to, we have worked very hard on this bill over the last 3
years. I understand that obviously others will want to see
changes in it as well. I would like to see H.R. 822 passed,
again with the modifications that we have worked out over the
last 6 weeks.
The Chairman. Well, I look forward to working with you and
the rest of the Washington delegation to try to iron this out
and figure out if there is a way that we can move a bill
forward that everybody can be happy with. So thank you very
much for being here to testify.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
First, thanks, Rick, for your diligence on this and all of
the other Members, Senator, Congressman Nethercutt, and
everybody who has been working on this so hard because I think
you have put a lot of sweat equity into it, principally in
listening, which has been pretty important in this process.
Later in the day, there might be one individual who
expresses a concern about traffic on Highway 2. This is the
highway that goes in the Southern part of the wilderness. It
has about 20- to 40,000 people a day use it. There was a
concern or maybe a concern expressed that this would create
enormous safety issues.
Could you comment on that, what may be done to resolve any
issues on Highway 2 that we have been working on?
Mr. Larsen. Sure. I think it is obviously going to be
important to hear from Councilman Sax on the specifics, and I
appreciate those concerns.
To understand U.S. Highway 2, it is not a country road. It
is a U.S. highway, and it stretches from Everett to Boston and
is a major East-West corridor in Washington State. So it does
get a lot of traffic. Traffic issues on Highway 2 have been
longstanding. Whether or not the Committee acts on this bill,
the traffic issues won't go away. They are mainly consisting of
safety and of congestion.
Addressing them is important. And just for the record, in
the Transportation Equity Act bill that we are all working hard
to try to get through Congress, there is $1.4 million
identified for the Cities of Monroe and Sultan for both traffic
safety and traffic congestion improvements on Highway 2 to
address these longstanding concerns.
In addition, I think it is important to note that not only
the mayor of Index, but the Cities of Monroe and Snohomish on
Highway 2, have passed resolutions in support of the Wild Sky
bill, despite ongoing concerns about traffic on Highway 2. So I
think it is a good story to tell about the work that is being
done to address these issues of safety and congestion.
Mr. Inslee. Just a comment. My sort of belief is that 20-
to 40,000 people use that highway now. At the most, if you
figure another 100 cars might come into the wilderness because
it is wilderness, that is about the biggest number I have ever
seen on a wilderness trail. That is at the Snow Lakes
wilderness over in the Alpine Lakes wilderness. That is .005.5
percent increase. I don't see this as a reason to hold up this
Wild Sky.
Could you just enumerate a little about, you know, this is
a finished product or we hope to be a finished product, could
you just enumerate, with some more specificity, the changes
that you made in response to local constituents' concerns in
regard to the boundaries in application of this.
Mr. Larsen. Since the 106,000-acre proposal?
Mr. Inslee. Well, you can start at the beginning. How about
since the first inception of the idea?
Mr. Larsen. The first idea, the 120,000-acre proposal
included an area basically southeast of the current proposal,
Windy Ridge, and is largely used by outdoor recreational folks,
snowmobilers and so on, and we just took that entire part out,
about 14,000 acres. So that never actually made it into the
bill.
Since introduction of the bill, and over the last 6 weeks,
I have been working with Representative Nethercutt and Senator
Murray to cut an additional 2,500 acres out to accommodate
concerns about the location of a proposed repeater site that
would have been inside the boundary of the proposed wilderness
and required helicopter access. Well, that repeater site has
been switched to a site, and we basically carved out that area,
so it is not in the wilderness at all.
There have been some road issues that cropped up on the map
when it was redrawn that we carved out as well. There is a
section in the northeast part of the bill, 1,800 acres or so,
where there are roads that we carved out that are used by
snowmobilers. And there are areas inside, some private
inholdings inside that have roads leading to them, where the
roads have, we have basically ``cherry-stemmed'' along those
roads to get to the private inholdings, so those roads are not
included in the changes.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Chairman, you have been very gracious
already, and I look forward to your continued graciousness on
this issue.
The Chairman. Well, I look forward to working with you and
the rest of the delegation to get this through, and I
appreciate you taking the time to testify before the Committee
this morning.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I am going to head back to our other
committee. And I may be back, if I may get permission to sit up
on the dais, if I get a chance to return.
The Chairman. Yes. Hopefully, you will have a chance to
return. I am not trying to cut off any of the other Members
from having a chance to ask Mr. Larsen questions, but we have
been called for a vote down the hall, and we are going to
recess temporarily.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee will now come to order. I would
like to introduce Panel 2. We have The Honorable Mark Rey,
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment at
the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Rey, again, welcome back to the Committee. When you are
ready, you can begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the three bills on your docket this
morning. I will simply summarize my complete statement and
submit that for the record.
With regard to H.R. 822, the Administration does not oppose
the passage of the legislation, the designation of Wild Sky
wilderness as a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. We recognize and commend the Washington
delegation for its ongoing collaborative approach and local
involvement to contribute to the bipartisan support for the
bill. There are some issues that we would like to work with the
Committee and the bill sponsors on to improve H.R. 822.
While the vast majority of the lands described in H.R. 822
are appropriate for wilderness designation, the 16,000 acres of
the bill would not be considered suitable for wilderness
designation under the existing Forest Service regulations and
planning directions and that the current allocation of these
lands could be protected in another way.
The Department supports the administrative provisions in
the bill, particularly provisions for a repeater site to
provide communication for safety and health purposes. The
Department also supports the provisions for land exchange in
the Glacier Peak wilderness and provisions for management of
the existing SNOTEL site in that wilderness. So, in sum, the
Department does not oppose enactment of H.R. 822.
The Department does not oppose enactment of H.R. 4806, the
Pine Springs land exchange.
With regard to H.R. 4838, the Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps Act, I am testifying today not only on
behalf of the Department of Agriculture, but the Department of
Interior as well. The Departments are supportive of the
concepts embodied by H.R. 4838, particularly the recognition of
the importance of the work conducted by State's Natural
Resources, Agriculture and Forestry Departments, and we
recognize the values associated with providing opportunities
for Youth Corps to be more proactive in Healthy Forest work.
We would, however, like to bring to the Committee some
issues the departments have identified with H.R. 4838 that
might require further consideration.
We have significant concerns, for example, with the
inclusion of youth, Age 16 and 17, in some of the programs
authorized by H.R. 4838. Wildland fire suppression or forest
and watershed restoration work authorized under H.R. 4838 pose
threats to their safety that cannot be mitigated. As you are
well aware, firefighting is an arduous and dangerous job that
requires a certain amount of maturity, decisionmaking
capability and perspective in order to perform safely. Federal
firefighting agencies recognize that this level of maturity
cannot be expected of 16- and 17-year-old individuals and,
through policy, will not place these individuals in hazardous
roles.
We would like to work with the Committee to address that
issue and others in this legislation. And, with that, I would
be happy to respond to any of the questions of the members of
the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 822, Wild Sky
Wilderness Act of 2003; H.R. 4806, Pine Springs Land Exchange Act; and
H.R. 4838, Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps Act of 2004
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to provide the Department's view on H.R. 822 to enhance ecosystem
protection and the range of outdoor opportunities protected by law in
the Skykomish River valley of the State of Washington by designating
certain lower-elevation Federal lands as wilderness; H.R. 4806 to
provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands in the Lincoln
National Forest in the State of New Mexico; and H.R. 4838 to permit
young adults to perform projects to prevent and suppress fires, and
provide disaster relief on public land through a Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps.
H.R. 822--Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003
H.R. 822 would designate approximately 106,000 acres of additional
wilderness on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in the State of
Washington. It directs the Secretary to assure adequate access to
private in-holdings within the Wild Sky Wilderness and establish a
trail plan within and adjacent to the wilderness. The bill authorizes
the use of helicopter access to construct and maintain a joint Forest
Service and Snohomish County repeater site to provide improved
communication for safety, health, and emergency services.
H.R. 822 also requires the Secretary to exchange specified lands
and interest in land with the Chelan County Public Utility District. If
the District offers to the Secretary approximately 371.8 acres within
the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, in exchange for a permanent
easement, and the Secretary accepts title, the Secretary must convey to
the District a permanent easement including helicopter access,
consistent with such levels as used as of the date of this bill's
enactment, to maintain an existing SNOTEL site on 1.82 acres on the
Wenatchee National Forest. The SNOTEL site is currently used to monitor
the snow pack for calculating expected runoff into hydroelectric
projects. If, after the exchange occurs, Chelan County notifies the
Secretary that they no longer need to maintain the SNOTEL site, the
easement will be extinguished and all rights conveyed pursuant to the
easement would revert to the United States.
The Department does not oppose the designation of the Wild Sky
Wilderness as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System. We recognize and commend the delegation for its collaborative
approach and local involvement that contribute to bipartisan support
for this bill. However, the Department would like to work with the
Committee to improve H.R. 822.
While the vast majority of the lands described in H.R. 822 are
appropriate for wilderness designation, the Department has significant
concerns with approximately 16,000 acres. These acres would not be
considered suitable for wilderness designation under the provisions of
the 1964 Wilderness Act or under existing Forest Service regulations
and planning direction. The Department believes that the current
allocation of these lands under the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan
continues to be the most suitable designation for these acres.
The lands that we believe are appropriate for designation under the
Wilderness Act, approximately 90,000 acres, consist of all of the Eagle
Rock Roadless Area and portions of Glacier Peak A, B, K, and L. These
areas retain their undeveloped character and are largely without
permanent improvements or human habitation. Limiting the wilderness
designation to these lands would address many of the Department's
concerns.
The areas we propose for exclusion from wilderness designation
include low elevation forests that have been utilized for timber
harvest and mining over the last 80 years, still showing visible
evidence of road building, logging and mining activities. The areas
also include approximately 27 miles of existing roads, some of which
are all weather, drivable, and graveled. Several of the roads receive
significant visitor use associated with recreation opportunities. The
Rapid River Road is such a travel way and we recommend excluding it, in
its entirety, from wilderness designation. The types of recreation
experiences enjoyed by users along the Rapid River Road corridor
include driving for pleasure, nature photography, fishing, picnicking
and dispersed camping at a number of pull-off sites along the road. In
the winter snowmobiles use this road as a part of the snowmobile trail
system, traveling to its end point.
Another concern lies with roads, both outside and adjacent to the
proposed wilderness boundary that have narrow corridors subject to
landslide and river bank erosion. This situation poses significant
public access and resource management issues, as the proximity of the
proposed boundary could result in constraints related to necessary
repairs and road reconstruction work. We would like to work with the
Committee on more appropriate boundaries.
Further, we propose the exclusion of most of the approximately
2,400 acres of private patented mining claims and private timberlands.
A boundary adjustment in the Silver Creek drainage would remove most of
the private lands from the proposed Wilderness.
Finally, the approach to naming these disconnected areas of land
collectively as the Wild Sky Wilderness may cause public confusion,
particularly since some of the areas proposed for designation are
immediately adjacent to the existing Henry M. Jackson Wilderness. In
order to minimize administrative costs and reduce public confusion, the
Department suggests designating only Eagle Rock Roadless Area as Wild
Sky Wilderness. The Glacier Peak Roadless Areas A,B,K, and L should
become additions to the adjacent Henry M. Jackson Wilderness.
The Department supports the administrative provisions in the bill,
particularly provisions for a repeater site to provide improved
communications for safety and health purposes. The Department also
supports the provisions for land exchange in the Glacier Peak
Wilderness and provisions for management of the existing SNOTEL site in
that wilderness.
H.R. 4806--Pine Springs Land Exchange
H.R. 4806 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange
with the Lubbock Christian University all right, title and interest in
approximately 80 acres of National Forest System land within the
Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico upon receipt of acceptable title
approximately to 80 acres of non-federal land. The University has
operated a summer camp in the Lincoln National Forest on 40 acres that
it owns for over 40 years. The University seeks to exchange 80 acres
that it owns elsewhere in the Forest for 80 acres immediately adjacent
to its existing camp. The bill directs that the exchange be equal in
value, that the appraisal conform to federal appraisal standards and
that the proponent of the exchange and the United States share the
costs of the exchange equally. The bill authorizes cash equalization
payments in excess of 25% of the value of the federal land and
reduction in the amount of land offered by the United States to
equalize values.
The Forest Service and Lubbock Christian University have discussed
an administrative land exchange since 2001, roughly comprising the
lands described in the bill. While the Department is not opposed to the
exchange, we would like to work with the committee and the bill's
sponsor on amendments to insure potential issues related to
floodplains, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, water rights
and outstanding mineral rights are adequately addressed.
H.R. 4838--Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps Act of 2004
H.R. 4838 would establish a Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps
and would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with
existing state, local, non-profit conservation corps, or Indian Tribe
or state natural resources, agriculture, or forestry departments, to
carry out projects to prevent fire and suppress fires, rehabilitate
public land affected or altered by fires, and provide disaster relief.
The bill directs the Secretaries to give priority to certain projects,
including those that will: (1) reduce hazardous fuels on public lands;
(2) restore public land affected or imminently threatened by disease or
insect infestation; (3) rehabilitate public land affected or altered by
fires; (4) assess windthrown public land at a high risk of reburn; and
(5) work to address public land located near a municipal watershed and
municipal water supply.
As to H.R. 4838, I am testifying on behalf of both the Department
of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior today. The
Departments are supportive of the concepts embodied by H.R. 4838,
particularly the recognition of the importance of the work conducted by
state natural resources, agriculture, and forestry departments, and we
recognize the values associated with providing opportunities for youth
corps to be more proactive in healthy forest work. We would however,
like to bring to the Committee some issues the Department has
identified with H.R. 4838 that may require further consideration by the
Committee.
In many respects, with the exception of including youth aged 16 and
17, the goals of H.R. 4838 are consistent with already existing
authorities that the Department has supported, including the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) [P.L.108-208], Public Land Corps Act of
1993, P. L. 103-82 Title II, and the Youth Conservation Corps Act of
1970, P. L. 91-378.
However, we have significant concerns, with the inclusion of youth
aged 16 and 17 in the programs authorized by H.R. 4838. Wildland fire
suppression or forest and watershed restoration work authorized under
H.R. 4838 pose threats to their safety that cannot be mitigated. The
Administration has concerns about the Committee's expectation regarding
the authorization of specific appropriations contained in the bill
given current and future funding constraints.
As you are well aware, firefighting is an arduous and dangerous job
that requires a certain amount of maturity, decision-making capability,
and perspective in order to perform safely. Federal fire agencies
recognize that this level of maturity cannot be expected of 16- and 17-
year-old individuals and, through policy, will not place these
individuals in hazardous roles.
While some states allow individuals under the age of 18 to perform
hazardous fire suppression duties on the fire line, this practice is
not allowed by federal fire agency policy. In August 2003, the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior each established the policy
that persons under the age of 18 years old will not perform hazardous
or arduous duties during wildland fire management operations on federal
jurisdictions, even if the minors are supervised by states or other
entities. While legal minors are not to be employed in hazardous fire-
line positions, the policy does allow them to perform fire prevention,
support, logistical, or other duties away from the fire-line--
activities which, if performed under agreements with existing state,
local, and non-profit youth conservation corps, are consistent with
H.R. 4838.
Similarly, hazardous fuels reduction treatments or restoration
activities require operating power equipment such as chainsaws,
brushsaws, or using prescribed fire. This is extremely hazardous work,
frequently on steep terrain in dense forest environments. We do not
support an authorization for 16 and 17 year olds to use chainsaws or
other power equipment in such hazardous situations.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rey. I am going to claim my
time and yield to Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for testifying, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your
experience in these kinds of areas and issues. I heard you
testify that certain acreage in the proposal, as presented in
822, is not suitable for wilderness designation--I think that
is what you said--but could be protected in another way. What
do you mean by that, as you testify to that extent?
Mr. Rey. It could be protected by another designation
incorporated into the statute, either a national recreation
area or a backcountry nonmotorized use designation. It would
have the same net effect in terms of how the area is protected.
It just wouldn't assign the wilderness title to an area that
arguably lacks wilderness attributes.
At the same time, as I have testified and have testified
before the Senate, we don't oppose enactment of the bill as
written. There are--and there have been in the past--instances
where Congress has included areas in wilderness designations
that lack wilderness attributes and indeed had roads. So we
haven't been exactly purists in the past. So the Department is
not a purist at this point.
Mr. Nethercutt. What impact, if any, would there be on the
Forest Service of wilderness designation versus other
designation of protection?
Mr. Rey. Probably minimal impact would be my guess.
Mr. Nethercutt. You indicated the President, you expected,
would be willing to sign 822. Would he also be willing to sign
a measure that could be agreed upon by this Committee or by the
Chairman, after consultation and discussion? Anything that you
know of that would prevent him from signing legislation?
Mr. Rey. No. We are supportive of the bill as introduced.
If additional refinements can be made, we would be supportive
of that as well.
Mr. Nethercutt. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Rey. I just want to make sure
that I understand. As far as you know, the Members of Congress
from Washington in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth,
Seventh, Eighth and Ninth support the underlying bill. The
Member from the Fourth does not oppose it. The Executive Branch
of the U.S. Government does not oppose the bill as currently
written; is that your understanding?
Mr. Rey. That is correct. I don't know for sure about the
Members, but I will take your word for it.
Mr. Inslee. I think I counted them pretty well.
You said, quite candidly, that there have been occasions
where Congress has adopted wilderness that includes area that
have been affected at one time by human intervention. Would you
agree with me that, in fact, that actually may be even almost a
majority of wildernesses have had some property included in
them that, in some fashion, at one time or another, have been
changed in a visible way by human intervention?
Mr. Rey. I don't think I could agree that the majority do,
particularly if you consider the large acreage of wilderness
estate in Alaska, which are pristine. But I think it is fair to
say that it is not highly unusual for Congress to have included
in previous wilderness bills areas that have had evidence of
human impact, including road construction. I--
Mr. Inslee. So, when Congress--I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Rey. I sort of view that as an affirmation that the
construction of a road doesn't unalterably destroy the wild
nature of an area.
Mr. Inslee. So, when Congress, in 1964, adopted the Shining
Rock wilderness in North Carolina, which almost the entire
wilderness had been railroad logged between 1906 and 1926, and
38 years later Congress suggested and declared it wilderness
area, you don't think that created any difficulty for the
Forest Service or was an adverse decision by Congress, do you?
Mr. Rey. I am not sure what position the Administration in
place at that time took in that bill, but I think that the area
now, having regrown from that turn-of-the-century logging,
doesn't exhibit much impact of human influence, except to
someone who is a specialist and can go back and look at and
look for the relatively limited evidence of human intervention.
Of course, in our Eastern forests, they recover very
quickly. The movie ``Last of the Mohicans'' was shot on Duke
Power Company-managed timberland.
Mr. Inslee. So, in the Mission Mountains wilderness area in
Montana, in 1975, when it included acreage that had been
logged, you don't think that creates any difficulty for the
Forest Service, does it, that Congress declared that to be a
wilderness area?
Mr. Rey. Again, I don't know what the Administration in
place in 1975 said about the passage or enactment of that
legislation, but we are managing that area as a wilderness now
without differentiation.
Mr. Inslee. How about the 1984 wilderness designation of
the Boulder Creek wilderness in Oregon that had old harvest
units in it that are now included in the wilderness, does that
cause the Forest Service any difficulty in managing the
wilderness?
Mr. Rey. I think my answer to that would be the same as my
answer to the two previous questions.
Mr. Inslee. How about the Great Swamp wilderness New Jersey
adopted in 1968 that had miles and miles of road that were in
the wilderness, does that cause you any difficulty?
Mr. Rey. No. In fact, I think that it demonstrates that
road construction does not necessarily decimate the wild
character of an area.
Mr. Inslee. The fact of the matter, I think what we come up
with is the conclusion that wilderness has been successful in
designation of areas that at one time or another have been
changed by humans, and it becomes old growth over time, and the
Forest Service enjoys its responsibility; is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Rey. We have been fully willing to implement the
wilderness designations that Congress has enacted.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I didn't ask you whether it was
truthfully willing, but that is OK.
Mr. Rey. I would say cheerfully willing.
Mr. Inslee. That will do.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Rey.
Mr. Rey. Thank you.
The Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Larsen
be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rey, I find it somewhat ironic that, as we go through
this hearing, that we hear, on the one hand, the argument that
all of these areas that have been designated wilderness in the
past have roads in them and that they are in their pristine,
natural beauty and natural condition, and yet in the midst of
all of the huge debate over roadless areas and how that if a
road is built in an area it destroys it, and I find that
somewhat ironic in going through this debate.
But I do want to ask you one question. If I could have Mr.
Inslee's picture on with the two kids, if you have that one
there.
Do you see anything in that picture that would be
inconsistent with a wilderness area?
Mr. Rey. Well, I think that was taken at a trailhead, so I
wouldn't expect to see an automobile in a wilderness area, but
I am assuming that that was the trailhead that led to the
wilderness, and that is probably our parking area adjacent to
what would be the wilderness boundary.
The Chairman. In terms of access to these areas--and on
this I do agree with Mr. Inslee that we need to have better
public access into some of these areas because of pictures like
that where kids have the opportunity to go in--I have concerns
about, in terms of the designation of so many different areas
as wilderness, about what impact that has on public access. And
if you could clarify for the Committee, in terms of public
access into a wilderness area, what are the limitations on
that?
Mr. Rey. No motorized use.
The Chairman. So it is at the edge and as far as you walk
in?
Mr. Rey. Right. And in the past, where Congress has
included areas with roads as wilderness, we have generally
closed the roads, not generally, unless the legislation
specified otherwise, we have closed the roads and started to
restore them to natural condition.
The Chairman. The Wilderness Act is pretty specific about
what wilderness is. In reading directly out of the Act, ``The
earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where
man himself is a visitor who does not remain. Undeveloped
Federal land, retaining its primeval character and influence
without permanent improvements, the imprintment of man's work
substantially unnoticeable.''
In part of this area, and I believe that we are all in
agreement on 90,000 acres or 90-plus thousand acres in this
particular bill, but in part of this area that is included,
there are roads, bridges, culverts that are built in those
areas. Do you believe that that fits the definition of
wilderness?
Mr. Rey. Again, it doesn't fit the statutory definition or
the definition that we use in the Forest Service's planning
regulations, which is why those areas weren't recommended by
the Forest Service for wilderness inclusion. But the question
of how expansive or restrictive you want to make that
definition, as far as it relates to specific areas, is
ultimately a congressional prerogative not an executive branch
prerogative.
The Chairman. I am fully aware we have the ability to do
that. We have done it in the past, but in terms of protecting
an area--and Mr. Larsen, Mr. Nethercutt and others have told me
that they really do believe that that 16,000 acres needs to be
protected--if it was designated as a national conservation
area, national recreation area, backcountry area, would there
be development, logging, mining, any activities that would
destroy the pristine nature of the area that Mr. Inslee so
eloquently described?
Mr. Rey. In the current Forest Service, nonmotorized
backcountry use designation for the area, none of those
activities would be allowed. If, as a matter of creating an
alternative designation for the purposes of this legislation
you were to do so, it would help if you stipulated what you
didn't want to have happen in those areas as well because we
wouldn't have the immediate reverence to the Wilderness Act to
draw upon, so it would probably be best to be more expressed in
the legislation if you choose an alternative designation.
Should you decide to do so, the simpler approach would be
either backcountry nonmotorized use or a national recreation
area. Those are both designations with which the Forest Service
is familiar.
The Chairman. So, as long as we are specific about what is
allowed and what is not allowed, you believe the Administration
would be able to enforce that?
Mr. Rey. I don't think we would have any trouble with doing
that, no.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I would like to recognize Mr. Udall.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Rey. Good to have you here today.
I am asking questions on H.R. 4838, which I think is a part
of your testimony, also--
Mr. Rey. That is correct.
Mr. Tom Udall.--the Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Act.
And my first question is you already have a policy in place
about 16- and 17-year-olds working in these hazardous
situations, is that correct, both in the Department of Interior
and the Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Rey. That is correct.
Mr. Tom Udall. And our legislation, the legislation I am
working with Representative Walden on, doesn't have anything in
it that would waive that policy or push that policy aside in
any way. Our legislation doesn't conflict with that, so I just
wonder why you even raise that issue. We are not trying to
violate that policy. I don't think we are advocating that we
send young people into that situation. If you have that policy,
I would assume you would, with this legislation, be able to
make it consistent with the legislation, couldn't you?
Mr. Rey. I think, obviously, we can work on this because I
think we share the same intent. Our reading of the legislation
is that it would provide the opportunity for 16-and 17-year-
olds to engage in all of the activities listed in the
legislation. And a fair reading of that would be that it would
contravene the existing policy we have in place, but if that is
not the intent, we can easily work on language to correct that
situation.
Mr. Tom Udall. That would be good. And you don't have any
problem with young people, and I am reading here from Page 3 of
the bill, with young people performing rehabilitation and
enhancement projects to prevent fire.
Mr. Rey. No.
Mr. Tom Udall. And here are some of the additional tasks,
rehabilitating public land affected or altered by fires or
providing disaster relief, those kinds of activities you
wouldn't have a problem with these Youth Conservation Corps
carrying out.
Mr. Rey. Correct. Those are all inherently nonhazardous. In
the existing Youth Conservation Corps work that we do, we
obviously keep the young people that work on the national
forests or the Department of Interior lands out of hazardous
situations, and we limit the amount of mechanized equipment
that we allow them to operate. We don't let them operate
chainsaws very frequently or any other equipment that could end
up causing them harm.
Mr. Tom Udall. Now, shifting to funding, in your statement
on Page 4, the third paragraph from the bottom, you talk about
funding constraints. And I am not sure what that language means
there. Are you saying you oppose it because there is a $25
million appropriation for successive fiscal year in there? I
don't understand that language. It is very amorphous. Could you
just come out and flat say what you mean? You know, the budget
is in such a bad situation, you don't agree with spending any
money on this, I mean, what is the--
Mr. Rey. I think the simplest way to express the concept
embodied in there is that we don't necessarily believe that we
will meet a $25-million authorization with a similar amount
budget request, and we don't want anybody to have the
expectation that if this bill passes this year, that there will
necessarily be $25 million available for this kind of work.
That having been said, typically, when Congress passes a
new piece of legislation with an authorization, it is an
incentive, when we put together the next year's budget, to
reflect that with some financial support for the program, but
we are not in a position at this moment to tell you how much
that is going to be.
Mr. Tom Udall. But one would think that, from your
testimony, you believe that these are worthy activities and
something worthy of being supported in terms of budget
resources.
Mr. Rey. Yes. And there are a lot of options we can look
at. Assuming the bill is enacted, some of the work that we do
through commercial contracts right now could be done through
these kind of Youth Corps, and we can use some of the money
that we would use for commercial contracts to support this. So
there are some allocations that can be made if the bill is
enacted.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Rey.
I would yield any additional time to Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Some of these questions precipitate
a couple.
The Chairman. If the gentleman would suspend for a minute.
I recognize Mr. Inslee for 5 minutes for a second round of
questions.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
First off, I just want to note Mr. Pombo asked about this
picture. It is actually kind of interesting. Where this picture
was taken, it is at a trailhead, and it would be outside the
boundaries of the wilderness, but interestingly enough there is
a trail from that location that goes into Barkley Lake--it is
about a mile or two--which was consciously excluded from the
wilderness.
And the reason the drafters excluded it is they wanted to
preserve the right for like Boy Scout groups to go in there
with 15, 20 kids, which has historically been the situation,
but which was not allowed in the wilderness without a
particular permit. That is just one sort of more example I
think that the drafters have been careful to preserve
individualized recreation that these kids can enjoy.
But that leads to my next question. I guess what I sort of
hear you say, Mr. Rey, that you think if you called these
16,000 acres nonmotorized recreation areas, it would be
functionally equivalent to a wilderness designation. But I am
not sure that is true. There are distinctions in management of
wilderness and nonmotorized recreational areas, are there not?
Mr. Rey. I will speak now to the Forest Service
administrative nonmotorized backcountry recreation designation.
The primary differences in management go into some of the
preventive activities regarding fire suppression and also fuel
reduction work. We won't do fuel reduction work in a wilderness
area. We may do fuel reduction work, if it is necessary, in a
backcountry, nonmotorized recreation area. But aside from the
Forest Service administrative designation, which is just one
example of near functional equivalent to wilderness, whatever
alternative designation you choose, should you choose to do so,
you can stipulate what the Congress wants done or not done as
you wish.
Mr. Inslee. So there are differences on fires, there are
differences on fuels reduction. There is also a difference on
actually campfires. You can't have a campfire in a wilderness
area, can you?
Mr. Rey. Yes.
Mr. Inslee. You can. How about size of parties? There is a
requirement on size of parties in a wilderness area, at least
the ones I am familiar with in Washington.
Mr. Rey. Yes, that is not a universal requirement.
Limitations on party size are usually done on a case-by-case
basis.
Mr. Inslee. Let me ask you about trails. Mr. Pombo has
expressed a need for access to people, which I agree with in
wilderness areas. I have hiked on literally hundreds of miles
of maintained trails in wilderness areas, including the Alpine
Lakes wilderness. We do a 25-mile, 1-day jaunt through there,
with all kinds of pretty well-maintained trails. There is
nothing in a wilderness designation that prevents building a
foot trail in the wilderness, is there?
Mr. Rey. No. We maintain foot trails in wilderness areas,
generally.
Mr. Inslee. But you do it through hard, manual labor
without using mechanical. Is that basically the situation?
Mr. Rey. That is right. This is a little bit more
expensive.
Mr. Inslee. And if you see those sherpas hauling that stuff
around, would you thank them for me? That is tough work.
Mr. Rey. Well, we will put some of the youth, in this Youth
Conservation bill on that task.
Mr. Inslee. There you go. Thank you.
The Chairman. Does anyone have any further questions they
would like to ask Mr. Rey before I dismiss him?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Rey.
Mr. Rey. Thank you.
The Chairman. Again, we appreciate, as always, your
willingness to come before the Committee and testify.
I would now like to call up our third panel. On Panel 3, we
have Jeff Sax, Councilman with Snohomish County; Ed Husmann,
Sky Valley Resident and Snohomish County Farm Bureau member;
Mike Town, Friends of the Wild Sky; Gene Chase, Snohomish
County resident; Chris Fadden, Vice President, Washington State
Snowmobile Association; and Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County
Executive.
I would like to remind the witnesses that, under Committee
Rules, you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but
your entire written statement will appear in the record. And to
make that easier for you, the series of lights on that little
box that you have got in front of you there gives you an
indication. The green light is when your time begins, the
yellow light, it is time to wrap it up, and then the red light
I would appreciate it if you would conclude your statements.
Mr. Sax, thank you for being here. We are going to begin
with you.
STATEMENT OF JEFF SAX, COUNCILMAN,
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, DISTRICT 5
Mr. Sax. Good morning, Chairman Pombo, members of the
Committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jeff Sax, and I
live in Snohomish, Washington, and represent the Fifth Council
District on the Snohomish County Council. I am here today to
testify on behalf of the Snohomish County Council to enter our
concerns about H.R. 822, the proposed Wild Sky bill.
Much of the proposed Wild Sky area lies in Snohomish County
and in my council district. Snohomish County covers 2,090
square miles and is one of the largest counties in Washington.
Snohomish County's varied topography ranges from saltwater
beaches, rolling hills and rich river bottoms in the West to
dense forests and alpine wilderness in the mountainous East.
Looking at the beauty of our county, it is no surprise that
you would seek to protect it. While 106,000 acres may seem like
a small proposal, let me put that size into perspective for
you. In Washington State, we are required to manage our
planning under the Growth Management Act. The GMA was adopted
because Washington State found that uncoordinated and unplanned
growth posed a threat to the environment, sustainable economic
development and quality of life in Washington. Known as the
GMA, the Act--Chapter 36.70A RCW--was adopted by the State
legislature in 1990 and has been amended several times.
The GMA requires State and local Governments to manage
Washington's growth by identifying and protecting critical
areas and natural resource lands, designating urban growth
areas and preparing comprehensive plans and implementing them
through capital investments and development regulations. This
approach to growth management is unique among States.
Within the framework provided by the Act, local governments
have many choices regarding specific content of comprehensive
plans and implementing development regulations, all of which
are required to be evaluated through the State Environmental
Policy Act, SEPA, which is Washington State's version of the
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA.
As such, under GMA, we have currently set aside 189 square
miles out of the 2,090 square miles in our county to be
designated for urban growth and intend to add only 11.9 miles,
at the maximum, square miles to that in planning for the next
20 years of growth, as required by State law. The proposed Wild
Sky area encompasses 165.6 square miles, nearly equivalent to
all of the area in our county that will allow growth. Thus, for
the Nation, this is a small impact. For our county, the impact
is very large. It is an impact that should be evaluated through
the SEPA and NEPA process.
However, our primary concern is not the size of the
proposal or the designation, but that Wild Sky proposal does
not follow the intent of the 1964 Wilderness Act. I have read
the letter from Chairman Pombo to Congressman Larsen with my
fellow council members and representatives from neighboring
King County. Several of them were original supporters of the
Wild Sky bill and remain supportive of some type of protection
for the area. However, they too share Chairman Pombo's
concerns.
Opposition to the current Wild Sky proposal by Congressman
Larsen and Senators Murray and Cantwell is based on
straightforward requirements of Federal law. Federal law
provides explicit criteria which must be met to justify
wilderness area designation. The problem is that the bill
doesn't meet these criteria.
I will pass by some of my written testimony, since it is
already entered, and I would like to get down to the
transportation side that we have discussed in earlier
questions. I would like permission to enter into the record, if
possible, letters from delegation member cities and the county
with reference to transportation on Highway 2.
Snohomish is the third-most populace county in the State
and one of the fastest-growing. The county's population, as of
April 2001, is 618,000. Between 1990 and 2000, the population
grew by about 30 percent. The unincorporated outside of urban
areas' population is about 294,000. The incorporated inside of
cities is 324,000. The Federal Government's NPO Puget Sound
Regional Council, the population forecast for Snohomish County
for Year 2010 is about 706,000; in 2002, 833-.
We are in the process of laying the plans out now,
according to the GMA, to accommodate an estimated 250,000 new
residents to the county over the next 20 years. Much of that
growth will be in cities near Wild Sky, and one of the
obstacles facing it is providing transportation infrastructure.
Senator Murray has publicly commented that the intent of
the legislation is to protect the area for outdoor enthusiasts.
In Washington State, outdoor recreation is more than just a
leisure activity. It is also a key part of our economy. If the
estimates quoted by Senator Murray are indeed accurate, this
wilderness designation will provide access to almost 2.3
million Puget Sound residents and an untold number of tourists
to Wild Sky. We simply can't accommodate this project traffic.
It is essential that we improve access to this area if this
bill becomes law, particularly U.S. Route Highway 2, which is
part of the Cascade Scenic Loop, encompassing three Federal
highways, U.S. 2, I-90 and I-405. Doing so will make it easier
for visitors to enjoy the area and support the local economy by
purchasing goods and services in neighboring communities.
I have met with members of the Highway 2 Safety Coalition,
and they too share my concerns about this corridor. You will
see some of those concerns in the record.
In the past 20 years, Washington State DOT statistics
indicate a total of 7,400 collisions and approximately 113
deaths; 5,135 persons injured on the corridor between Snohomish
and Stevens Pass. The average daily vehicle through Monroe is
approximately 44,000. These figures increase substantially on
special and holiday weekends to over 104,000 vehicles in Sultan
alone.
Highway 2 is a two-lane road, locally known as ``the
highway of death.'' In the past 35 years, there have been no
capacity improvements to this highway yet. East Snohomish
County--my district--has grown and will continue to grow
substantially.
Mr. Chairman, if I could, could I continue for a few more
minutes, if possible?
The Chairman. I would really prefer that you wrap it up.
Mr. Sax. Let me wrap it up then, sir.
In the end, with all of the flaws of the proposal duly
noted, it is not wholly impossible to revise the legislation so
that it can meet the requirements of Federal law and gain true
bipartisan support at the local level, State and Federal
levels.
I ask you to consider suitable alternatives that may be
worked out in order to achieve true bipartisan support of Wild
Sky and bring before a bill that meets the intent of the
Wilderness Act, allows access to the area and, above all,
allows the voice of the community to be heard.
That concludes my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sax follows:]
Statement of Jeff Sax, County Council Member, District 5
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, Ladies and
Gentlemen. My name is Jeff Sax and I live in Snohomish, Washington, and
represent the Fifth Council District on the Snohomish County Council. I
am here today on behalf of the Snohomish County Council to enter our
concerns about the H.R. 822, the proposed Wild Sky bill.
Much of the proposed Wild Sky area lies in Snohomish County, and in
my council district. Snohomish County covers 2,090 square miles and is
one of the largest counties in Washington. Snohomish County's varied
topography ranges from saltwater beaches, rolling hills and rich river
bottom farmlands in the west to dense forest and alpine wilderness in
the mountainous east. Looking at the beauty of our county, it is no
surprise that you would seek to protect it.
While 106,000 acres may seem like a small proposal, let me put that
size into perspective for you. In Washington State, we are required to
manage our planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
The GMA was adopted because the Washington State Legislature found
that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to the
environment, sustainable economic development, and the quality of life
in Washington. Known as the GMA, the Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) was
adopted by the Legislature in 1990 and has been amended several times.
GMA requires state and local governments to manage Washington's
growth by identifying and protecting critical areas and natural
resource lands, designating urban growth areas, preparing comprehensive
plans and implementing them through capital investments and development
regulations. This approach to growth management is unique among states.
Rather than centralize planning and decision-making at the state
level, the GMA built on Washington's strong traditions of local
government control and regional diversity. The GMA established state
goals, set deadlines for compliance, offered direction on how to
prepare local comprehensive plans and regulations and set forth
requirements for early and continuous public participation.
Within the framework provided by the mandates of the Act, local
governments have many choices regarding the specific content of
comprehensive plans and implementing development regulations, all of
which are required to be evaluated thru the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA), Washington State's version of NEPA.
As such, under GMA, we have currently set aside 189 square miles,
out of 2,090 total square miles, in our county to be designated for
urban growth and intend to add only 11.9 miles to that in planning for
the next 20 years of growth, as required by state law. The proposed
Wild Sky area encompasses 165.6 square miles, nearly equivalent to all
of the area in our county that we will allow growth. Thus, for the
nation this is a small impact, for our county the impact is very large.
It is an impact that should be evaluated through the NEPA/SEPA process.
However, our primary concern is not so much the size of the
proposed designation, but that Wild Sky proposal does not follow the
intent of the 1964 Wilderness Act. I have reviewed the letter from
Chairman Pombo to Congressman Larsen with my fellow council members and
with representatives from neighboring King County. Several of them were
original supporters of the Wild Sky bill and remain supportive of some
type of protection for the area, however, they too share Chairman
Pombo's concerns.
Opposition to the current Wild Sky proposal by Congressman Larsen
and Senators Murray and Cantwell is based on the straightforward
requirements of federal law. Federal law provides explicit criteria
which must be met to justify wilderness area designations. The problem
is that this bill doesn't meet these criteria.
In his letter, Chairman Pombo laid out a set of principles that all
proposals for wilderness designation must meet before passing out of
committee. Among them, proposals should adhere to outstanding
Wilderness Study Area recommendations, including those areas deemed
unsuitable.
As you know, the National Forest Management Act requires the Forest
Service to draft and implement forest plans and revise them every 15
years, analyzing and identifying potential wilderness. Of the 106,000
acres in the Wild Sky proposal, Abigail Kimbell of the U.S. Forest
Service reports that currently 16,000 acres are unsuitable for
wilderness designation as they include 35 miles of roads that are in
predominantly low elevation forests that have been utilized for both
timber and mining in the last 80 years. In fact, her proposal suggests
that based on the 1994 forest plan only 33,000 acres are truly suitable
for wilderness designation.
The Northwest has long relied on the revenue and economic activity
produced by management activities on our national forests. As you may
know, the Northwest experienced extreme economic, political and social
upheaval in the early 1990's following the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
listing of the northern spotted owl. As a result, the Clinton
Administration developed the Northwest Forest Plan in an attempt to
balance the important goals of species protection, management of our
national forests and much needed economic activity.
Prior to the ESA listing of the northern spotted owl and the
Northwest Forest Plan, nearly one-third of the Northwest's federal
timberlands were available and allocated to sustainable management.
Today only twelve-percent of the Northwest's federal timberlands are
allocated to management activities as ``matrix'' lands. The current
Wild Sky proposal would remove 5,002 acres of matrix suitable/available
for scheduled timber harvest, both full and partial yields, from
management activities.
Snohomish County and Washington State also rely on timber
harvesting revenues. Harvested timber in Washington State yields
revenues that fund our education system and public service agencies,
including city and county government. The Department of Natural
Resources is the steward of approximately 3 million acres of state
uplands in Washington State. As such, we have a vested interest in
ensuring that access is maintained to property held by the county and
the state Department of Natural Resources.
These trust lands also provide revenue from the sales of timber,
leases, and other resources. In the last fiscal year, DNR generated
$260 million in non-tax revenue, including $67.9 million for statewide
school construction and $58.2 million for counties and other local
taxing districts.
If we are not allowed to maximize our abilities to access and
harvest these lands, forecasted revenue and programs funded by those
monies are affected. Furthermore, wildfire, floods, insects and disease
simply do not recognize federal-state land boundaries and any inability
to manage our federal forestlands only puts state, local and private
lands at greater danger from the risks of catastrophic events. I submit
to you a breakdown from our Public Works department outlining the
damage and cost of repair from a flood that took place on October 19,
2003.
The City of Index, population 157, which lies in my district and
would be nearly surrounded by the proposed Wilderness Area, is one
example of a local jurisdiction partially funded by timber revenue.
This raises two curious questions. First, how would a community so
small be able to absorb any impacts from lost timber harvest dollars?
Second, and following on another concern raised by Chairman Pombo in
his criteria, is risk assessment. How would the city of Index be able
to mitigate fire and protect their city when they are surrounded almost
entirely by a wilderness area?
All large federal government projects normally go thru the NEPA
process to determine impacts. Wilderness legislation does not require
the NEPA process as was required in the Interstate 90 Land Exchange Act
of 1998. I have not seen plans that call for risk assessment in my
district, which must be consistent with fire management plans and allow
for appropriate mechanized access for wildfire containment or disease
control. Given our region's current drought condition and numerous
fires already this year, this principle must be addressed.
Abigail Kimbell, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service and
John Phipps, Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor, have both
raised questions about Wild Sky's adherence to the original 1964
Wilderness Act, bringing attention to the issue of man's already
noticeable imprint in the area.
To remove that imprint, John Phipps, Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National
Forest Supervisor wrote to Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn on June 5, 2002,
``...the estimated cost to restore these roads to a wilderness
character and convert 12 miles to trail is estimated at $6.5 million.''
The Congressional Budget office estimated that the total cost of Wild
Sky between 2004 and 2008 will be $18 million.
As an elected official, I cannot justify using hard earned taxpayer
dollars to remove infrastructure that they already paid for. Our state
is starved for transportation infrastructure dollars and it just
doesn't make sense to take $18 million to remove roads in order to
restore ``wilderness character.''
Rather, I would suggest that you consider removing these
questionable areas from the legislation and dedicate funds to improving
access to the area. It would make more sense to use those dollars for
improvements in the Cascade Scenic Loop, namely U.S. Highway 2, so that
visitors could more easily and more safely access the proposed
wilderness area.
The need for safety improvements in that corridor has been stated
time and time again. Multiple appeals have come to Congress from our
local mayors, State Representatives Kirk Pearson and Dan Kristiansen
and State Senator Val Stevens. I am asking you today to consider
funding a corridor study for U.S. Highway 2 between the city of
Snohomish and Stevens Pass, the area bordering the proposed Wild Sky
area and serves as its only access road. This is the initial step
needed in a process to improve safety and capacity on this highway.
Snohomish is the third most populous county in the state, and one
of the fastest growing. The county's population as of April, 2001 was
618,600. Between 1990 and 2000, Snohomish County population grew by
about 30%. The unincorporated (outside cities) population is 294,088
and the incorporated (inside cities) population is 324,512. According
to the Puget Sound Regional Council (1995), the population forecast for
Snohomish County for year 2010 is 706,959, and for 2020 is 833,661.
We are in the process of laying out plans now, in accordance with
the Growth Management Act, to accommodate an estimated 250,000 new
residents to our county over the next twenty years. Much of that new
growth will be in the cities near Wild Sky and one of the biggest
obstacles we face is providing transportation infrastructure.
Senator Murray has publicly commented that the intent of this
legislation is to protect the area for outdoor enthusiasts. In
Washington State, outdoor recreation is indeed more than just a leisure
activity it is also a key part of our economy. If the estimates quoted
by Senator Murray are indeed accurate, this wilderness designation will
bring nearly 2.3 million visitors and untold numbers tourists to the
Wild Sky area. We simply can't accommodate this projected traffic.
It is essential that we improve access to the area if this bill
becomes law, particularly U.S. Route 2, which is part of the Cascade
Scenic Loop, encompassing three federal highways, US-2, I-90 and I-405.
Doing so will make it easier for visitors to enjoy the area and support
the local economy by purchasing goods and services in neighboring
communities.
I have met with members of the Highway 2 Safety Coalition and they
too share my concerns about this corridor. This coalition is comprised
of local elected officials, businesspersons, administrators and
concerned citizens working in partnership with the Washington
Department of Transportation, Snohomish County, and all five city
officials in the area.
In the past 20 years, Washington State Department of Transportation
statistics indicate a total of 7,454 collisions with approximately 113
deaths, and 5,135 persons injured in the corridor between Snohomish and
Stevens Pass. The average daily vehicle flow through Monroe is
approximately 44,000; through Sultan 24,000 and Goldbar 12,000. These
figures increase substantially on special and holiday weekends to over
104,000 vehicles in Sultan alone.
U.S. Highway 2 is a two-lane roadway known locally as ``the highway
of death.'' In the past 35 years, there have been no capacity
improvements to this highway, yet East Snohomish County--my district--
has grown and will continue to grow substantially.
I would like to submit for your review letters from our Washington
State Senator Val Stevens, Representative Dan Kristiansen,
Representative Kirk Pearson, the Highway 2 Safety Coalition, Snohomish
County Committee for Improved Transportation, Snohomish County Economic
Development Council, local chambers of commerce, local business leaders
and constituents in support of the corridor study.
Another question that still lingers with the legislation is
allowances for property protections if they exist within or adjacent to
a potential wilderness area. It is my understanding, again from
Chairman Pombo's correspondence, that all exceptions, such as those for
snowmobile use, should be specifically called for in the legislation.
Currently they are not. The area is frequented by snowmobiles, off road
vehicles and private property holdings accessed by float plane. While
it is my understanding that these stakeholders have been assured
access, I cannot find those exceptions in the legislation as it is
currently drafted.
Finally, Chairman Pombo calls for community involvement, approval
from the entire congressional delegation and adequate notice and local
public hearings. To date, despite requests from the public and the
Snohomish County Council, not a single Congressional hearing has been
held in the district to collect input from the citizens it would
affect. Meetings that were held were based on pending legislation, not
the actual bill and maps before you. In the past few weeks, we've read
about possible compromises in the newspaper, but have yet to see the
alternatives on a map or in writing.
Most disconcerting is the fact that the bill's sponsor, Congressman
Larsen, a former member of the Snohomish County Council, has yet to ask
for the opinion of the Council on this bill. Neither has Senator Murray
or Senator Cantwell. Senator Murray promised last year at a Wild Sky
Senate hearing on June 4th that she would seek local input and yet
we've seen no efforts put toward that promise. In fact, neither Senator
Murray or Cantwell, nor Congressman Larsen have responded to letters
sent by our Council to their offices. Our new young executive, Aaron
Reardon, who is here to testify on behalf of the County, also has yet
to discuss this matter with the Council. Clearly this is not community
involvement, involvement that would have come thru NEPA & the EIS
process.
However, we hear regularly from Forests for People, who have over
1,400 members directly impacted by this legislation, about their
opposition to Wild Sky in their backyard. The Snohomish County Farm
Bureau as well as the Washington State Farm Bureau Board of Directors
has also contacted my office in opposition to Wild Sky. One of the
bill's original proponents, King County Council Representative Kathy
Lambert, whose district would also include the Wild Sky area, has taken
a second look at the current bill and raised the same questions as I
have before you today in opinion editorials in our state. Many who are
listed on the proponents list are taking a second look at the
legislation.
The original intent of the Act, which we would like to see
preserved, says among other things that Wilderness is ``...an area
where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, ...an
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, ...with
the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.''
This is not to say that there aren't lands in the Mount Baker-
Snoqualmie eligible under the 1964 Wilderness Act that would help meet
the goals of Wild Sky. I am not opposed to that. In fact, limiting the
designation to these boundaries is an alternative that should be
considered, along with ensuring a transportation infrastructure that is
safe and can accommodate Senator Murray's predicted increase in traffic
as we open this wilderness to 2.3 million local residents and untold
tourists. Perhaps the 16,000 acres in question by the U.S. Forest
Service could be maintained as national forest, or a national
recreation area or other designation as a means of compromise--one that
allows this bill to become reality.
With all of the flaws in the proposal duly noted, it is not wholly
impossible to revise the legislation so that it can meet the
requirements of federal law and gain true bipartisan support at the
local, state and federal government levels. I ask you today to consider
suitable alternatives that may be worked out in order to achieve true
bipartisan support of Wild Sky and bring forward a bill that meets the
intent of the Wilderness Act, allows access to the area and, above all,
allows the voice of the community to be heard.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here to today and welcome any questions you or the
committee may have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Husmann for his
statement.
STATEMENT OF ED HUSMANN, SKY VALLEY RESIDENT AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FARM BUREAU MEMBER
Mr. Husmann. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members, ladies
and gentlemen. I am Ed Husmann, and I have lived a few miles
from the Wild Sky area for more than 25 years in Sultan,
Washington. I am here today on behalf of the Snohomish County
Farm Bureau, the Chelan/Douglas County Farm Bureau, more than
2,000 citizens who have joined Forests for People, myself and
many others who have entrusted me to convey to you our
opposition to the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003, H.R. 822.
I would formally like to request, with the Chairman's
consent, to submit into the hearing record the following
letters, memos, petitions in opposition to H.R. 822, as well as
other supporting documents.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included as
part of your testimony.
[NOTE: Numerous letters and statements submitted for the
record on H.R. 822 have been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
Mr. Husmann. I have here more than 100 letters just
recently written, of particular note from former Speaker of the
House Clyde Ballard, who served 20 years in our legislature and
7 years as speaker, also letters from State Senator Val
Stevens, Representative Christensen, Pearson, Commissioners Ted
Anderson, Don Munks, the mayor of Skykomish, and of course
Skykomish resides right next to the wilderness area.
I would submit that we do not need any more wilderness in
Snohomish County, as for that matter, the State of Washington.
Forty-seven percent--our national forest here in the State of
Washington is 47 percent designated wilderness right now. Just
exactly how much wilderness do we need?
Snohomish County's portion of the Mount Baker--Snoqualmie
National Forest will be 63-percent wilderness if Wild Sky
passes into law. Is this appropriate or fair? Is this really
the right thing to do?
I believe the more appropriate question that we should be
addressing is how much wilderness do we need? I am finding
that, even today, after more than 3 years of Wild Sky, very few
people know of it. Even fewer know what a wilderness is. In Mr.
Ballard's letter, the second sentence says it all. ``The more
details I become aware of--'' he is just becoming aware, and 47
percent of our State is now wilderness. How did we get there?
How unaware are we?
Two meetings in Snohomish County in over 3 years on Wild
Sky. Testimony? No testimony was taken, no wilderness
education, no economic studies, no EIS or NEPA, no studies on
access or impact studies to the surrounding communities. In
fact, the EDC letter that you have contains no factual or study
information. It was merely a letter written from the lady who
wrote it. I don't think that is much community involvement.
Is the area suitable? Well, if you obey the law, the 1964
Act, which I think is fairly clear, the answer is, no. You may
find a 5,000-acre piece here or there that comply with the
provisions, but is that a mandate to designate?
Now, I don't think anyone in this room is implying or
plotting to destroy this wonderful area, certainly no one I
know. I am not so sure that Mr. Town and I don't want the same
things here--a beautiful forest that we can access and enjoy,
forests that are safe, healthy forests that radiate their
majesty. Now, I don't know about virgin forests or pristine or
former glory or poor habitat or ancient, and actually I should
know about ancient. The kids say I am older than dirt.
What I do know about this place, the area of Wild Sky, is
that it is beautiful. I also know that there has been lots of
mining and logging up there not so long ago. And as Mr. Town so
accurately points out, this area has recovered, even to its
former glory, whatever that means. And all this happened under
the stewardship and watchful eye of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest. I say bravo to the national forests and their
employees. That brings me to the point why this exercise if it
is already pristine?
The place where Mr. Town and I seem to part company is in
the area of trust. Now, as I recall, the Wilderness Act says
that only the forces of nature are to work in a wilderness
area--forces like fires, floods, insects, and viruses.
Actually, the way I read it, attempting to restore habitat,
trammeling, is definitely against the law. The National Forest,
like us, can only watch, at least the way I read it. No work or
managing is to be done. I believe the National Forest is doing
a good job, and I trust that they will continue to do so; Mr.
Town and the Wild Sky supporters don't.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Husmann follows:]
Statement of Ed Husmann, Sky Valley Resident,
and Snohomish County Farm Bureau Member
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Members, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am Ed
Husmann and I have been a resident of Sultan, Washington for 25 years,
which is located a few miles west of the proposed Wild Sky wilderness
area. My wife and I own twenty-three acres, with a small orchard
operation, that has a direct view of the western edge of the area we
are discussing today. I recently retired after 30 years of service as a
Captain with United Airlines. I was also a Navy Pilot and served in
Vietnam and retired in 1984 with a rank of Commander. I have a BS
degree in Metallurgical Engineering, from the University of Nevada-
Reno. I also completed my teaching certification at Trenton State
College and Postgraduate studies at Rutgers University. I taught at
Somerset County Vocational High School, New Jersey for approximately 5
years in the 1970's. I have 4 daughters and one son, along with two
stepsons and a stepdaughter. My wife and I have 6 grandchildren. I
currently am a Board Member of the Snohomish County Farm Bureau.
I am here today on behalf of myself, the Snohomish County Farm
Bureau, the Chelan/Douglas County Farm Bureau, the more than 2,000
local citizens who have joined Forests for People, as well as many
others who have entrusted me to voice their opposition to H.R. 822, the
Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003. I would like to point out that our
State Farm Bureau Policy book includes Forestry in the definition of
Agriculture (Encl. 1) and that this policy book contains many policy
statements that preclude support for this most restrictive federal land
use designation. For clarity, I would also indicate to you that Chelan
County is directly east of Snohomish County and shares a boundary line
through the neighboring Sen. Henry M. Jackson Wilderness Area.
Recently, Chelan County has suffered devastating forest fires and as we
meet here today yet another forest fire is burning in the Icicle Creek
drainage area. The citizens of Chelan County maintain a keen interest
in any activity that may increase their exposure to losses from
catastrophic wildfires.
I would like to formally request, with the Chairman's consent, to
submit into the hearing record the following letters, memos, and
petitions in opposition to H.R. 822 as well as other supporting
documents.
Having lived and recreated in the Wild Sky area for the last 25
years, I know the area very well. Furthermore, my wife, children, grand
children, and I have all participated in both motorized and non-
motorized recreational activities in the proposed ``Wild Sky'' area
over these years. I have day hiked, backpacked, off road motorcycled
and mountain biked throughout this area. I have backpacked into Lake
Isabel and my children and I have flown into Isabel for a picnic in a
friend's floatplane. We enjoy these diverse activities and do not want
to change any recreational opportunities afforded us, or for that
matter, anyone, in this area. We only hope that the people using this,
or any outdoor area, would use common sense, and are considerate of
both the land and others in the area. Unfortunately, these qualities
cannot be legislated.
I would like to point out that the list of organizations in support
of the ``Wild Sky'' (Encl. 2) might not, necessarily reflect the views
of its members or patrons. The list published on the Wild Washington
Campaign website lists, in particular, REI (Recreational Equipment
Inc.), The Mountaineers and WTA (Washington Trails Association). I have
been a member of REI for more than 30years and have spent an enormous
amount of money at their stores and through their catalogue. I can tell
you that my wife would rather shop at REI than Nordstrom's. We do not
appreciate REI spending ``our'' dividends on lobbying ``Wild Sky'' into
existence. We also belong to the Mountaineers and the WTA (Washington
Trails Association). As a member in good standing of all of these
organizations, I can report that the membership was never asked about
taking a position on this legislation. We participated in ``National
Trails Day'' both last year and this year. It was very interesting that
one of the repair projects this year in the Darrington area was in a
wilderness area. My friend and I volunteered for the ``extreme'' repair
project and were among the 8 of the 75 volunteers that agreed to endure
the ``tough day''. Mind you, both my friend and I are over 60 while the
others were much younger. Wilderness areas are not friendly to us older
folks! As a point of interest, the Forest Ranger stated that they used
dynamite to move deadfalls and stumps in wilderness areas. That
surprised me, but I was told that it was not ``mechanical transport''.
Although I have tried, I have yet to understand why this area needs
to be protected. What is the threat to this area? All of this land is
part of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie (MBS) National Forest. Are the
``Friends of Wild Sky'' implying that the Federal government and the
Forest Service are plotting to destroy this beautiful area? Last year,
as well as today, Mr. Town testified (Encl. 3) on behalf of ``Friends
of Wild Sky''. In his testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Town described the Ragged Ridge area as
``wilderness in the truest sense'' and an area of ``core security
habitat.'' He states the lower North Fork of the Skykomish Valley
contains ``beautiful ancient forests.'' He describes extensive
``virgin'' forests in the upper Trout and Howard Creek areas. He
reported that the areas that were logged around 1920 are now recovering
naturally and that previously harvested stands in the North Fork area
had grown back on their own, without protection, and have now almost
returned to their ``former glory.'' ``Other than the occasional stump,
these forests appear quite natural to almost all visitors as they
assume the characteristics of true ancient forest.'' The truly amazing
statement here is that Mr. Town claims this area has returned to a
``true ancient forest'' and I find that confusing. Am I to understand
that the loggers were correct all along--we can harvest the resources
and these areas will return to their natural ancient state? Sounds like
we owe a ``BRAVO'' to the employees of the Forest Service for a job
well done. This is certainly contrary to environmentalist claim that
once harvested these lands are somehow ``lost forever.''
Contrary to the claims you may have read, local community
involvement concerning this issue has been severely lacking. To date
there have been only three quasi-public meetings in Washington State
and all occurred before the Wild Sky legislation was crafted and the
formal maps prepared. There was no public testimony ever heard at these
meetings nor was there opportunity for such, and there are no
mysterious file cabinets containing such materials as was claimed
during the Senate hearing I attended in 2003. Furthermore, the meeting
held in Seattle clearly cannot be considered local ``community
involvement.'' The Wild Sky wilderness proposal is the quintessential
example of a devil hiding in the details
It is certainly not a bipartisan issue here in Snohomish County,
which by the way, is where the land in question is located. You have
letters on record from the Snohomish County Republican Party, Snohomish
County Council, and elected officials from the 39th Legislative
District, Sen. Val Stevens, and Representatives Kristiansan and Pearson
(Encl. 4) Also, at the 2004 Snohomish County Republican Convention, a
NO-Wild Sky resolution was passed unanimously.
U.S. Highway 2, commonly referred to as the ``Highway of Death'',
is the only access to this proposed wilderness area. It is deplorable
that Senator Murray and Congressman Larsen would consider legislation
that they say would generate additional traffic to this highway
without, at the same time, working on ways to improve highway safety.
It is ironic that if Wild Sky becomes wilderness, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates the Federal government will have to spend
millions of our tax dollars to destroy roads and any other evidence of
man, in an attempt to create a wilderness where one presently doesn't
exist. In addition, and to add to this ridiculous travesty, no formal
studies have been done to determine either the environmental or
economic impacts on surrounding communities served by the Cascade Loop
Scenic Highway. Even more disturbing, is the misunderstanding of the
impact this bill will have on the recreational opportunities in this
area. I fail to understand why the supporters of the Wild Sky proposal
did not first request to have this proposal reviewed under the National
Environmental Policy Act as was recently done with the I-90 wilderness
proposal in my state. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I
urge you to ask the Wild Sky proponents if they would object having
Wild Sky go through the NEPA process just like any other major proposal
affecting public lands. I would hate to think that management of our
Federal lands has gotten to the point where there was more formal
environmental analysis done for the last outhouse placed on the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest than there was for the Wild Sky
Wilderness proposal.
Let's be truthful. The 1964 Wilderness Act is really quite clear.
It is the law and the intent is easily understandable. I believe in the
``purity'' of this law, it clearly states wilderness areas are for the
enjoyment of the American people the only actual species mentioned in
the Act. This important legislation states that areas of wilderness, in
their natural state, may be set aside and protected from the works of
man, untrammeled by man. Wilderness areas are to be managed so as to
maintain their natural condition, affected primarily by the forces of
nature. Now, that's pretty clear, a wilderness has to have these
characteristics prior to consideration for designation. Going into an
area with bulldozers and track hoes to create a wilderness is
definitely not what Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson had in mind when
this law was passed. It has to be wilderness to start with, no advanced
degree required to understand that. Only the forces of nature may work
in these areas, no chain saws and travel is by foot or horse, no
mechanized transport. The American people may visit, you may look and
enjoy the quiet but that is it, it is not a recreational (Enc. 7, pg3,
Q2) area, it is a museum, look but don't touch. Pretty simple, and it
makes the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal an entirely different
proposition.
The National Visitor Use Monitoring Results (Encl.5) indicates
wilderness use is a relatively small percentage and narrow demographic
portion of the Forest visitors. Nationally, there were 257 million
(Encl.10, pg 8) visits that included 14.3 million wilderness visits.
Additionally, another 258 million people enjoyed viewing National
Forest scenery from non-Forest Service managed travels ways. I strongly
suspect that the bulk of travel ways refers to roads and vehicles.
These numbers strongly demonstrate that people use roads. More people
enjoyed the National Forest via ``travel ways'' then all other visits
combined. How can you justify closing roads in the face of these
figures? And, wilderness visits, we have nearly half our National
Forest locked up in wilderness now and only 5% of the site users go
there. Even more graphic is adding those who basically sight see from
their cars--wilderness visits become 2%. These are sobering statistics
when considering the destruction of our forest roads, infrastructure,
in the Wild Sky area at a cost of $18million or more to the taxpayers?
Specifically, in the MBS area (Encl. 5, pg 8,9) there were 10.3
million site visits of which .779 million were to wilderness. That's 7%
of the site visitors use wilderness. This does not count the visitors
that drive though for the scenic value of the Forest, which may be a
figure that exceeds that of the site visitors. Why are you considering
more wildernesses?
In summary, this area is not wilderness to start with. Wilderness
already comprises 47% of our National Forests in our State. Isn't this
enough? If Wild Sky is enacted the National Forest in Snohomish County
alone will be 63% wilderness designated land. Is that reasonable? This
proposal is fraught with technical and legal problems. Many citizens
including our elected officials are ignorant regarding this proposal
(Encl. 6), its implications and even it's location. Those who do
understand agree that this legislation will not enhance the economy.
Either way, I am at a loss as to understand how you could make an
educated decision without any formal studies or data.
Officials at the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest do not
appear to be excited about endorsing this idea and have clearly stated
that no new trails would be constructed in this area regardless of Wild
Sky (Encl 7, pg3, Q2). In addition, the cost of building trails in this
area would exceed $100,000 per mile. New trails were one of the key
promises made by the proponents of this bill. It now appears that this
area is a habitat area for the Grizzly Bear, which, among other things,
requires that no new trails be built.
The Farmers and Cattleman (Encl. 8) who are traditional stewards of
the land do not support this proposal. The issues of right of way,
private property and safety all spell litigation. A potential lawsuit
has already been filed (Encl. 9). In all the information that I have
seen, read and heard, I am unable to find any compelling reasons to
continue expending valuable energy on this legislation that further
restricts our individual freedoms. Given the campaign season in full
swing, this proposal has become a political issue and its merits good
or bad are completely obscured by the politics of the day. Lastly and
most sadly if this legislation is passed, some of the recreational
freedoms that I, and my neighbors enjoy in this area will become
Federal criminal offences, except walking and horseback riding. I
strongly believe that the ``Peoples House'' should view this bill for
what it is and give it no further action. Just say NO for ``we the
people''.
As Teddy Roosevelt once stated ``If your horse is dead, dismount''.
As a postscript to my testimony, I would like to share with you a
true story that I believe you are familiar with. This story is about
consequences of our political meddling with Nature.
There is a coined phrase that I hear often ``...we need to
`preserve, protect, the owls, fish, trees, etc, the list is endless,'
for our children and future generations.''
This is a story about children, my children and their children and
the ``children's pool'' in La Jolla California. One of my daughters and
her family, two grandchildren, all reside in La Jolla. The children's
pool was built a long time ago, in fact it all started in June of 1931.
Ellen Scripps Browning donated an enormous sum, at that time, of money
and in conjunction with the State of California, built a wall on the
sea shore in the city of La Jolla. The surf in the area was rough and
dangerous for the children. The wall was constructed to form a pool--a
tide pool--for the children to swim, play, explore and discover sea
life.
This pool was built and put into a trust ``to be forever'' held by
the City of San Diego (Encl. SD). The purpose being spelled out
explicitly;
1) Exclusively for a public park and bathing pool for Children
2) The absolute right to fish
3) The state retains the mineral rights
In trust forever, the Children's Pool.
This was a wonderful thing for about 50 years. Beginning in the
1980's and furthered by the enlightened plant and animals FIRST
movement, occasional visits to the area by Sea Lions became a concern
for the Fiends of Sea Lions. It seemed that human activity in the
children's pool disturbed the Sea Lions and it made the creatures
nervous and shy about entering the children's pool. So, off to the City
Council the Friends of Sea Lions marched, with their complaint. All
this human activity was in fact disturbing the Sea Lions and the City
needed to correct the problem.
After many meetings, with the Friends of Sea Lions attending in
force, the children and their parents were at the pool, a bipartisan
agreement was forged--Sea Lions Yes, children No.
As no one was allowed to hassle the Sea Lions, they populated the
pool in force. Since these are marine mammals worthy of special
recognition, the children's pool became a Marine Preserve. Well this
activated the Marine Mammal Protection Act provisions, everyone out of
the pool, and no fishing either.
Well, the water in the pool was polluted with Sea Lion fecal
material and, in reality; no children were in the pool anyway. For the
past few years no one would want to go there anyway because of the
smell and the mess--except a few angry Dads. They donned their
wetsuits, masks, fins and snorkel, and entered into the pool. Of course
the police had been tipped and the ``invaders'' were arrested as they
exited the waters. No one went in after them, not in that water. They
were handcuffed and carted off to jail.
The status at this time, well, I believe some of the human
``invaders'' were forced to pay the $1,000 fine imposed by the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Apparently you can now merely stroll in the
area, gas mask recommended, while populations of sea lions are
exploding all over the west coast.
To me the parallels are frightful. What in fact are we doing?
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee
today.
______
The Chairman. With all apologies to our witnesses, we have
been called over to the House Floor. We have a series of three
votes. It will probably be about 30 minutes that we will be in
recess. Again, I do apologize to you for it, but we have no
control over what they do on the floor. So as soon as we
complete the votes, we will come back into the hearing and Mr.
Town will be recognized for his testimony.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Walden. [Presiding.] I am going to call back to order
the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. When we, as I
understand it, when we left off, we have heard from two of the
witnesses; is that correct? And we have four to go.
I would now recognize Mr. Town for his statement. Good
afternoon, and thanks for bearing with us on a rather hectic
day. And we do appreciate Mr. Town's testimony. Let us move on
now. We will get to him in a minute.
Shall we go to Mr. Chase?
STATEMENT OF GENE L. CHASE,
SNOHOMISH COUNTY RESIDENT
Mr. Chase. Good afternoon. I have to change my speech. It
originally said good morning.
Mr. Walden. That is the way my day has gone too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Chase. Yes, that is true.
My name is Gene Chase, and I have lived, and worked and
recreated in this Wild Sky area for the past 59 years. I am a
lifelong resident of Snohomish County, having grown up in
Everett, Washington, attended the University of Washington's
College of Forestry, and now reside in Arlington. There are two
Arlingtons--Arlington, Washington, and Arlington back here. I
was a board member of the Arlington School District and
currently a trustee of the Everett Community College.
Since the 1950s, I have fished, hiked, hunted and worked in
these areas. In addition, my family and I have owned 5 acres on
the North Fork of the Skykomish for 45 years. Because of my
lifelong attachment and commitment to the local communities of
Snohomish County, the reason for my coming back here today, and
the focus of my testimony, is to stress with each of you how
important it is to study the Wild Sky wilderness proposal very,
very carefully.
I first began to practice forestry in the Wild Sky area in
the 1960s, where I was surveying, working as a young forester
for State Forestry and surveying some mining claims. I then
went on and worked on some Forest Service timber sales in all
of these areas and processed them.
A side that amazes me is I realize now that the people I
practiced forestry with in the 1960s and 1970s, we did a better
job than we thought we were doing because now they are being
considered for wilderness area. So we think we did a pretty
good job, but maybe we are patting ourselves on the back.
Since 1986, I have owned and operated my own boat-building
company, specializing in timber sale road construction, road
decommissioning, putting in fish-friendly culverts on portions
of the Wild Sky, other areas of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, the
Olympic National Forest and o on.
I also want the Committee to know that Congressman Rick
Larsen, whose family are friends of mine, and I have privately
met on several occasions to discuss my deep concerns with this
wilderness proposal. While I retain a high regard for
Congressman Larsen, who represents our district well, I have to
admit that I have some serious concerns about the suitability
of the lands included in this legislation.
I want to talk briefly about the apparent lack of process
in this. We have really only had two, not hearings, but as I
have sort of worked it, meetings out there on it, and there
hasn't been enough, I feel, hearing and input involved in it.
The original Wild Sky was not drafted until 2002. Whereas,
those meetings were held I believe in 2000 and 2001. I would
like you to take time to hold an important hearing out on the
West Coast, if possible. That may not work, but I would like to
have you look at it.
I am trying to acquaint you with the area and stress that I
have worked this area as a forester, as a road builder as a
road decommissioner. When I was a young man, and a lot thinner,
I used to crawl around and crawl up and down these trails and
fish them and so on. So I do understand it.
Portions of this area butt up against the Henry Jackson
Wilderness Area. Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson was another
good old Everett boy. As an Eagle Scout, he hiked many of these
areas. Scoop understood what wilderness was, and he understood
what wilderness wasn't. In my opinion, the proponents of this
legislation do not understand wilderness the way that Scoop
Jackson understood the meaning of wilderness.
Presently, the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
administers eight wilderness areas, totaling 720,000 acres.
Nearly 42 percent of the 1.7 million acres on the forest are
not wilderness yet they are reportedly used by only 13 percent
of the national forest visitors, even though 55 percent of
Washington's population lives within an hour drive of a
wilderness area.
I want the Committee again, and we have touched on it here
earlier, to realize that there are entrances of man involved
there. There is substantial human improvements within the Wild
Sky area. There are 29 miles of road, 99 culverts, 60 of them
rated as high risk of failure, 7 bridges, 1 concrete one which
you have seen the picture of, and there is 6,000 acres that
were previously harvested for timber. There are 3 dams, some
that are abandoned, and there are cabins and so on. So this
area is not untrammeled or so on. The issue, again, is of it
has been visited by man, it has been worked by man, and so I
think that those areas should be looked at.
The next area I would like to talk about a little bit is
the new trails. It has been bandied about by the Forest Service
and so on, on building new trails. I think the issue here that
should be studied is on this issue of the grizzly bear habitat.
Even if you designate it and want to do it, I suspicion that
you are going to have some serious problem with the grizzly
bear habitat and the ability to build trails.
I have, as a taxpayer and so on, I have sort of a question
about building new trails on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie. Right
now, we have several trails closed. We have major roads that
were washed out in the winter flood, and those are not being
handled, so why set up expectations with more things when you
can't take care of what you have already?
I think as a professional forester--and I look upon myself
as that, in that I graduated in forestry, though the Everett
Herald thinks I am a logger--I have one thing to look at is the
wildfire issue. This has to be addressed more carefully of how
you handle it. Mr. Rey addressed it a little bit, but we should
do some more studying on how we are handling fuel loading and
so on in there.
I am trying to make sure that I--thank you. I am going to
wind it up.
In the end, I guess I would ask you--in closing, I ask you
to delay moving this legislation forward so as to allow further
analysis and study. In my opinion, this is precisely what NEPA
process is all about, and this Subcommittee needs to look no
further than the proposed I-90 Wilderness in Washington in
1998, where Congress requested an EIS to be involved. To me,
this seems like a very prudent and responsible path forward and
will go a long ways toward ensuring that Wild Sky receives
appropriate protection.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chase follows:]
Statement of Gene L. Chase, C & C Contracting, Inc.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, ladies and
gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss my perspective,
experiences, and concerns with the Wild Sky wilderness proposal. My
name is Gene Chase, and I have lived, worked and recreated in the Wild
Sky area for the past 59 years. I am a lifelong resident of Snohomish
County, having grown-up in Everett, Washington, attended Forestry
School at the University of Washington, and now reside in Arlington,
Washington (yes, there is another Arlington and another Washington). I
am a former Board Member of the Arlington School District, and I am
presently a Trustee for the Everett Community College.
Since the 1950's, I have hiked, fished, camped, and worked in most
of the areas now proposed for inclusion in the Wild Sky wilderness
designation. In addition, my family and I have owned 5 acres on the
North Fork of the Skykomish River adjacent to the Wild Sky area near
Index, Washington for 45 years. Because of my lifelong attachment and
commitment to the local communities of Snohomish County, the reason for
my coming back here today and the focus of my testimony is to stress
with each of you how important it is to study the Wild Sky wilderness
proposal very, very carefully.
I first began to practice forestry in the Wild Sky area in the
1960's where I was initially involved with surveying several of the
former state forestlands mining claim parcels that you now see on the
current wilderness proposal map. Beginning in the 1980's, I worked
throughout the entire Skykomish River area as a forest manager for a
now-closed plywood company. More specifically, I was personally
involved in the administration of Forest Service timber sales in areas
that are now surprisingly being proposed for wilderness designation
under the legislation before you today. As an aside, I must be a better
forester than I thought if lands I was involved in previously
harvesting are now somehow now eligible for wilderness designation
under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Also during the 1980's I was a very
active participant in our local roadless area review process, more
commonly known as RARE I and RARE II, as well as an active participant
in the process of creating the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and Henry M.
Jackson Wilderness areas.
Since 1986, I have owned and operated my own road contracting
company. For the past 18 years, my firm has constructed roads and
trails, decommissioned roads, abandoned roads, and installed fish
friendly culverts on several portions of the Wild Sky area, as well as
other forested areas of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, the
Wenatchee National Forest, and the Olympic National Forest.
I also want the Subcommittee to know that Congressman Rick Larsen
and his family are friends of mine, and that he and I have privately
met on several occasions to discuss my deep concerns with this
wilderness proposal. While I retain a very high regard for Congressman
Larsen who normally represents our District very well, I have to admit
that I have some very serious concerns about the suitability of the
lands included in his legislation.
I want to bring to the Subcommittee's attention the apparent lack
of process with this legislation. Although you have heard testimony
about alleged extensive public involvement and local public hearings
concerning Wild Sky, the truth of the matter is there has never been a
public hearing in Washington State concerning this, or any other
legislation, specifically pertaining to Wild Sky. At best, there were
three local information sessions during the summer and fall of 2001
during which time a map was distributed showing ``wilderness areas
under consideration.'' The original Wild Sky legislation was not even
drafted until the spring of 2002, well after these information sessions
occurred. For the record, this is only the second public hearing on
Wild Sky that has ever occurred--the first being before the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee in June, 2003. I would hope this
Subcommittee will take the time to examine the record of the Senate
committee hearing as many key concerns were entered into the record at
that time. As you know, the companion legislation to H.R. 822 has twice
passed the Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate has a long tradition
of adopting wilderness legislation that is supported by both Senators
from the affected state regardless of the merits of the legislation,
and in exchange Senators from other states do not introduce wilderness
legislation affecting states other than their own. Incidentally, Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank you and this Subcommittee for taking the time
to hold this important hearing to allow a full and fair airing of both
the problems and opportunities with Wild Sky.
The 1964 Wilderness Act explicitly defines wilderness to be
``Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and
managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which generally
appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, and
with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.'' In my
opinion, the plain meaning of this statute precludes creating
wilderness areas for lands that previously that have had logging roads
and spur roads constructed on them. In the case of Wild Sky, I have
built and then decommissioned some of these roads that are now a source
of controversy at today's hearing.
As we all know, the 1964 Wilderness Act was a watershed event for
land conservation in America. At the time of its passage, one of the
Act's prime sponsors, Idaho Senator Frank Church, ideally hoped that
one day the wilderness preservation system would grow to be 50 million
acres. Well, today we have over 100 million acres of wilderness in our
country. Portions of the proposed Wild Sky wilderness are adjacent to
the Henry M. Jackson Wilderness Area named in honor of another Senator
who understood and was a strong supporter of wilderness. Senator Henry
``Scoop'' Jackson was an Everett, Washington native and as an Eagle
Scout he hiked many of these areas adjacent to the wilderness that now
bears his name. He understood wilderness. He knew what was wilderness
and what it wasn't. I have serious doubts as to whether those who were
involved with this proposal understand the meaning of wilderness the
way that Scoop Jackson did. Presently, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest administers 8 separate Wilderness Areas now totaling
721,781 acres. In fact, nearly 42% of the 1.7 million acres on the
Forest are now Wilderness yet they are reportedly used by only 13% of
the national forest visitors even though 55% of Washington's population
now lives within a one-hour drive of a local wilderness area.
I was also an active participant in the development of the current
Forest Plan for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The Forest
Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) specifically analyzed the
wilderness attributes of 29 separate roadless areas on the Forest and
concluded that only 6 roadless areas had demonstrable wilderness
potential. Only one of these areas, Eagle Rock, is located within the
current boundaries of the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal. The Eagle Rock
roadless area encompasses only 33,177 acres (vs. 106,349 acres in H.R.
822).
It is important for this Subcommittee to clearly understand there
are substantial human improvements within the proposed boundaries of
Wild Sky. These include:
29 miles of roads
99 culverts (60 rated as high risk of failure)
7 Bridges, including 1 Concrete Bridge in West Cady Creek
6,600 acres that were previously harvested for timber
Old Dam (not functioning) at Lake Isabel
Breached Concrete Dam at Rock Lake
Dam and pipeline at Simms Lake
Dam and pipeline at Sunset Lake
Concrete foundation for ore processor in West Cady Creek
USFS Cabin at Lake Isabel
USFS Fire Lookout on Evergreen Mountain
Cabins and Mining Equipment on private property in the
Silver Creek area
Furthermore, the actual number of older roads within the Wild Sky
may actually be at least 60 miles, as the above-referenced mileage
comes from Forest Service system roads that did not include unnamed and
unnumbered so-called temporary roads that were also built for
harvesting purposes. The Forest Service estimates the mileage of this
type of road is likely greater than the 29 miles of system roads
identified above.
I believe this Subcommittee needs to grapple with whether or not
some of the lands within the Wild Sky proposal are actually suitable
for designation as wilderness as described in the 1964 Act. I am not
alone in this view. In a June 2002 letter to Congresswoman Dunn
concerning the Wild Sky wilderness proposal, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
Forest Supervisor wrote, ``within Washington state wilderness areas
this definition has never included such substantially noticeable
imprint of man's (sic) work. I feel that including these areas would be
a change in the standard used by Congress in considering wilderness
suitability (emphasis added).''
In this same letter, the Forest Supervisor also addressed the issue
of the costs of changing the current recreational access within the
Wild Sky area if it were to be designated as wilderness. Specifically,
the cost of new trail construction, if any were to occur within the
wilderness proposal area, was estimated to be approximately $100,000
per mile. In addition, the cost of converting about a third of the
existing roads in the Wild Sky area to trails was estimated at $6.5
million. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of the Wild
Sky wilderness legislation to be approximately $18 million, principally
because of the cost of removing roads. Based on my experience, these
cost estimates are likely conservative.
Although H.R. 822 specifically calls for a new trail plan and
system of hiking and equestrian trails within the Wild Sky, according
to the Forest Service this language is likely in conflict with existing
requirements based on the Endangered Species Act for protection of
grizzly bear core habitat that would actually limit any new trail
construction in the proposed wilderness area. In addition, the Forest
Service reports that spotted owl habitat requirements for Late
Successional Reserves under the Northwest Forest Plan would also limit
new trail construction. In fact, in the aforementioned letter, the
Forest Supervisor stated, ``contrary to popular belief, congressionally
designated wilderness areas are not recreation resources per se.'' In
this letter the Forest Supervisor goes on to say, ``if designated as
wilderness it is likely that the Forest would adopt the position that
no new trails should be built inside the Wild Sky (emphasis added).'' I
have a hard time understanding how the public is served through
limiting access by visitors to the Wild Sky area.
I seriously question the need to decommission roads and make them
into trails. Presently, there remains a serious backlog of needed road
maintenance and trail work on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
and this situation was made significantly worse by the storms of this
past winter which resulted in over $10 million in damage on the forest.
Even before this storm event, several existing trails were already
``closed'' on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie due to lack of money. Therefore,
I recommend to this Subcommittee that these restrictions and
limitations be further analyzed before adopting this legislation so as
to avoid creating unreasonable, or unobtainable, public expectations
for outdoor recreation in the Wild Sky area.
In addition, there are approximately 2,200 acres of private land
within the proposed wilderness area. The Forest Service estimates it
would cost approximately $2.2 million to acquire these private lands.
As a professional forester, it is important for the Subcommittee to
understand that although the Wild Sky area is in western Washington
which normally does not experience regular forest fires, there is and
will remain a very real risk of catastrophic loss of this area to
wildfire. The 1990 Forest Plan identified that most ecosystems of the
Western Cascades developed under a fire regime of infrequent but very
large, and high intensity, stand replacement fires on a return interval
of once every 250 to 500 years and these fires were often catastrophic.
Therefore, catastrophic wildfire in the Wild Sky area it is not a
question of ``if'', but ``when''. At this point I am unaware of any
efforts by local communities to develop Community Wildfire Protection
Plans under the recently enacted Healthy Forests Restoration Act. In my
opinion, development of these plans may be warranted as the Forest Plan
Record of Decision anticipates that under current wilderness standards
and guidelines, ``it is possible that once every 20 years or so, an
individual fire may approach 1,000 acres in size.'' Without adequate
regard to the threat of wildfire in the Wild Sky area, we put
neighboring private and state lands, as well as the local communities,
in very real danger.
Although the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is one of the
most productive national forests in the United States, there are sadly
only 53,740 acres, of out of 1.7 million acres, allocated to matrix
management under the Northwest Forest Plan. Of these matrix lands,
7,653 acres or over 14%, now reside within the Wild Sky proposal area.
I have personally had to suffer the hardships of the timber depression
following the spotted owl crisis of the early 1990's when my former
employer had to close a local plywood mill. Somehow, it appears
patently unfair to me, my former co-workers, and friends in rural
Snohomish County to further reduce the now minimal amount of federal
lands allocated for multiple-use management. In addition, designating
these matrix lands as Wilderness would require an amendment to the
Northwest Forest Plan. Recently, environmental supporters of the Wild
Sky wilderness proposal appealed the proposed Sky Forks Thin Project,
in part citing that the proposed thinning units were adjacent to the
proposed Wild Sky wilderness area. The Forest Service negotiated with
the appellants to resolve this appeal by removing thinning units that
were adjacent to the proposal area that resulted in a significantly
smaller project. Thus, even the prospect of a wilderness proposal has
resulted in precluding Forest Service activities and uses up to the
boundary of the actual area.
It is also important for the Subcommittee to understand that all
wilderness areas on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest are
designated Class I Airsheds under the Clean Air Act. If the Wild Sky
proposal were to be enacted, it is presumed the Wild Sky area would be
similarly designated as a Class I Airshed. The future impacts of such a
designation on nearby private lands (up to a 50-mile radius) for
current and future agricultural, forestry, commercial, and industrial
activities are unknown at the present time and need to be evaluated.
H.R. 822 does not provide for a specific exemption that would allow
for the use of motorized equipment to decommission roads and bridges
inside the wilderness proposal area. It is my understanding this issue
was identified as a needed exemption during the June, 2003 hearing on
S. 391 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. There
are numerous culverts within the Wild Sky area that need to be
maintained, cleaned, etc., which can be done by hand labor. However,
culvert replacement or removal can only be done by machine and current
wilderness designations all restrict mechanized equipment. The
proponents of this legislation like to cite the potential protection of
important salmon spawning habitat as a benefit of wilderness
designation. Unfortunately, if a culvert were to become blocked or
washed out in a wilderness area, miles of salmon spawning habitat could
be lost without the ability to bring machines in to make needed
repairs. For example, two years ago it took almost a day to get
permission to bring in a medic helicopter to simply take an injured
hiker out of one of the wilderness areas.
I could not help but note that the Wild Sky wilderness proponents
recently stated to Chairman Pombo that the Forest Service is 10 years
overdue on making wilderness recommendations under their NFMA planning
obligations and use this argument to state that the Congress should
move forward with legislative action. This is incorrect. The Record of
Decision for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Land and Resource Management Plan
was signed on June 8, 1990. The 1984 Washington Wilderness Act stated
that ``the Department of Agriculture shall not be required to review
the wilderness option prior to the revision of the plans, but shall
review the wilderness option when the plans are revised, which
revisions will ordinarily occur on a ten-year cycle, or at least every
fifteen years...'' Thus, the wilderness suitability analyses, forest
plan standards and guidelines, and NEPA analyses associated with the
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan (which included substantial public
involvement) are still fully within the timeframes described by the
National Forest Management Act.
In closing, I ask that you delay moving this legislation forward to
allow for further analysis and study. In my opinion, this is precisely
what the NEPA process is intended for, and this Subcommittee needs look
no further than the proposed I-90 Wilderness in Washington State where
in 1998 Congress directed that an Environmental Impact Statement be
completed before finally deciding on which areas to formally designate
as wilderness. To me, this seems like a very prudent and responsible
path forward and will go a long way towards ensuring that Wild Sky
receives appropriate protection.
That concludes my written testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to be here today and would be happy to
attempt to answer an questions you or the committee might have.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chase. I am a little
disappointed in your comments. However, you left out the most
important Arlington, and that is Arlington, Oregon, which is my
district.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Chase. My apologies.
Mr. Walden. Yes, we will work on you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Town, welcome. Please give us your
comments, sir.
STATEMENT OF MIKE TOWN, FRIENDS OF WILD SKY
Mr. Town. Chairman Pombo, Congressman Inslee, and members
of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for giving me
the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the proposed Wild
Sky Wilderness bill. I would also like to thank Congressman
Larsen, Senator Murray and other members of the Washington
congressional delegation who have championed this important
legislation and would like to ask that my full statement be
included in the Committee record.
My name is Mike Town, and I am testifying today on behalf
of Friends of the Wild Sky, an association of local residents
and concerned citizens who support permanent protection for the
Wild Sky country. My background includes an undergraduate
degree in terrestrial ecosystems analysis and work experience
in silviculture with the United States Forest Service. My wife
and I are both science teachers, and we moved into the
beautiful Skykomish Valley in 1988, and we continue to live in
the shadows of the Wild Sky.
I am testifying today based on my personal experience and
knowledge of the Wild Skykomish Country. As an avid
outdoorsman, I have spent the last 16 years exploring this
beautiful area.
Within the boundaries of the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness
are lush old-growth forests, thousand-foot cliffs, pristine
rivers, and secluded alpine lakes. The proposal protects over
25 miles of the Skykomish River, which provides habitat for
endangered species, world-class white water and renowned
fishing. Other watersheds in the proposal contribute to clean
and safe drinking water for the city of Everett, and the
forested slopes reduce the potential for downstream flooding.
Recreation abounds in the Wild Sky, as backcountry skiers,
anglers, hunters, hikers, horseback riders and campers flock to
this spectacular area. This steady flow of visitors is
important to the economic stability of small towns in the
Skykomish Valley.
To prepare for today's hearing, I went out and investigated
on the ground issues raised in testimony last year before the
Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources. Last year,
it was claimed that approximately 27 miles of existing roads
would be impacted. This overstates the effect of the proposed
wilderness by not taking into account roads that have already
been permanently decommissioned by the Forest Service or
otherwise closed by the Agency or closed by acts of nature that
prevent access. In reality, the Wild Sky Wilderness would
impact only about 2 miles of roads that are currently passable
by passenger vehicles.
Small areas within the Wild Sky proposal had been affected
by railroad logging in the 1920s. These areas are already
recovering naturally from this impact. These stands, left to
grow back on their own, have now almost returned to their
former glory. Other than the occasional stump, these forests
appear quite natural to almost all visitors as they assume the
characteristics of true ancient forests.
These previously impacted areas are crucial to protect
stream habitat and to help ensure the survival of salmon,
steelhead and bull trout.
Concerns raised last year were appropriately rejected by
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on a
bipartisan basis and later by the full Senate. I hope that this
Committee will similarly reject those claims.
Mr. Chairman, local support for Wild Sky is strong in the
valley and includes endorsements by many local officials,
businesses and over a thousand local valley residents who have
voiced their support for the creation of the Wild Sky
Wilderness.
I would also like to add that this area serves as a leading
laboratory for students of my wife and I who have taken to them
into the Wild Sky to enjoy the beauty of this country while
learning lessons about geology, history, culture, ecology and
botany.
My favorite memory of the Wild Sky is introducing my
students to a wild salmon spawning site, one of the few places
left in the Cascades where spawning salmon are so numerous that
you can walk across the river on their backs. This river's
headwaters is in the Wild Sky which still allows for one of the
greatest spectacles of nature. Watching this display of nature
with my students, I am reminded that the wilderness is not just
about the present, but rather is about the preservation of the
ancient attributes of nature.
I cherish the hope that my teenage students will have the
ability to share this experience with their grandchildren.
Permanently protecting the Wild Sky Country lets this happen.
It is a gift to the ages and a powerful legacy of this
Congress. I urge the members of this Committee to support
passage of the Wild Sky Wilderness bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Town follows:]
Statement of Mike Town, Friends of the Wild Sky
Chairman Walden, Congressman Inslee, and other Members of the
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity
to testify today on behalf of H.R. 822 the Wild Sky Wilderness Act. I'd
also like to thank Senator Murray, and Congressman Larsen for
sponsoring this important legislation and working diligently over the
past three years to develop and promote the Wild Sky Wilderness
proposal and House Members Jennifer Dunn, Jay Inslee, Norm Dicks, Brian
Baird, Adam Smith and Jim McDermott for co-sponsoring this important
legislation. I would like to further thank Congressman Nethercutt for
his willingness to collaborate with staff from Senator Murray and
Congressman Larsen's offices to work out differences in the boundaries.
My name is Mike Town and I am testifying today on behalf of the
Friends of the Wild Sky, an association of local residents and
concerned citizens who support permanent protection for the Wild
Skykomish Country. My background includes an undergraduate degree in
Terrestrial Ecosystems Analysis and work experience in silviculture
with the USDA Forest Service. Currently I am a high school science
teacher. My wife, who is also a science teacher, and I first moved into
the beautiful Skykomish valley in 1988, and we continue to live in the
shadows of the Wild Sky country.
I am also testifying today based on my extensive personal
experience and knowledge of the Wild Skykomish Country. As an avid
outdoorsman I have spent the last 15 years exploring the beautiful
Skykomish area. Each year I hike, ski, and snowshoe more than 200 miles
to the forests, high country meadows, secluded lakes and numerous
mountain streams in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness. My wife and I
have written a newspaper column on the wonders of the Wild Sky region
for our local newspaper the Monroe Monitor. Each summer I teach college
courses on mining, ecology, and history within the boundaries of this
wilderness proposal.
I would like to take the entire Committee to see this special
place, but the best I can do today is to try to describe in words why
the Wild Skykomish Country is a perfect candidate for designation to
our National Wilderness Preservation System.
Within the boundaries of the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness are lush
old growth forests, high peaks over 6000 feet tall, breathtaking
waterfalls, 1000-foot cliffs, pristine rivers and secluded alpine
lakes. The proposal protects over 25 miles of the Skykomish River,
which provides habitat for endangered species, world-class white water
and renowned fishing. Other watersheds in the proposal contribute to
clean and safe drinking water for the City of Everett and the forested
slopes reduce the potential for downstream flooding. Recreation abounds
in the Wild Sky as backcountry skiers; anglers, hunters, hikers,
horseback riders and campers flock to this spectacular area. This
steady flow of visitors is increasingly important to the economic
stability of small towns in the Skykomish valley.
Since the Members of the Committee can't go there, I'd like to
describe this special place--moving west to east:
Ragged Ridge
The wild country directly north of Gold Bar and Index is an area of
high lakes and ridges. From Arsenic Meadows to Northstar Mountain, one
can wander through some of the loneliest terrain in the Cascades.
Extensive middle elevation forests, mostly western hemlock and silver
fir, cover the hillsides, with scenic parklands of mountain hemlock
above. This is an area without established trails--this is wilderness
in the truest sense, a great big blank spot on the map. It's a place
where just about nobody ever goes, or, in more scientific terms, ``core
security habitat,'' for many kinds of wildlife. This area also includes
many streams, which form the headwaters of the Sultan River, which
provide clean drinking and irrigation water to the City of Everett, and
many residents in southern Snohomish County.
Lower North Fork Skykomish Valley
The lower fifteen or so miles of the North Fork valley contain
beautiful ancient forests with several trees over 8 feet in diameter.
Some of this area was railroad logged in the 1920's and 1930's. During
this time only the highest value trees were taken and much of the
biological legacy survived. Most importantly, these areas were never
replanted, and a diverse, naturally regenerated forest has grown back.
There are many miles of these forests along the North Fork road, and
from high vantage points in the Wild Sky they form a continuous green
blanket over the entire lower valley. Many areas within this area
include low elevation forest, which lie close to the river and are
important for water quality and fish health.
Eagle Rock Roadless Area
This country inside the Jack's Pass road loop is east and south of
the lower North Fork, west of the Beckler River valley and north of
Highway 2. The Eagle Rock area contains some of the most rugged
mountain terrain in the Skykomish area, with sharp, jagged Gunn,
Merchant and Baring peaks prominently visible from highway 2. Only one
formal trail enters the area, to scenic and popular Eagle Lake at the
end of Paradise Meadow.
This is a place of many diverse attractions. On its southern edge,
some of the most impressive old growth forests in the Cascades grows on
low, south facing slopes just north of the village of Grotto. A large
area of Alaska cedar forest is found near Eagle Lake, and further
north, the valleys of upper Trout and Howard creeks support extensive
virgin forest. Seldom visited lakes like Sunset and Boulder lay at the
heads of valleys, offering outstanding fishing. Botanically significant
areas like Paradise Meadow display rare orchids, and carnivorous
sundews as well as a bouquet of flowers in the early summer. The
central and northern reaches of the Eagle Rock area are little visited,
and mysterious. Summits such as Conglomerate Point and Spire Mountain
see only a few visitors in any year while other places like Bear
Mountain and upper Bear Creek valley may go a decade or more without
seeing any humans.
West Cady Ridge
As one moves further up the North Fork Skykomish, the land begins
to change. Rather than the sharp peaks, and fearsome brush and cliffs
of Eagle Rock, the terrain opens up and the mountains grow gentler.
Long ridges topped by extensive flower meadows provide extensive bear
habitat and important wildlife corridors to other areas in the
Cascades. This is a friendly, inviting country, slightly drier than
areas further west. There are a number of popular trails, such as West
Cady ridge and Scorpion Mountain. Certain other areas lend themselves
well to off-trail wandering through open forests and meadows.
As you can see, the Wild Sky country is a land of contradictions.
It is rimmed by powerful mountains, cut by turbulent streams,
punctuated with biologically diverse forests and meadows and filled
with habitats for a wide range of common and rare species. Its pure
waters provide adventure for white water rafters, habitat for fish,
drinking water for Snohomish County, and flood control for downstream
residents. Its recreational benefits are endless and its ecological
significance so valuable that this area demands permanent protection.
Unfortunately, the Wild Sky area was excluded from consideration in
the 1984 Washington Wilderness legislation and left hanging at the end
of the 107th Congress. However, 20 years after the creation of the last
wilderness in Washington State, Congress can revisit the Wild Sky and
grant the protection this unique and beautiful area deserves.
Some have tried to portray the Wild Sky Wilderness area is not
worthy of protection. I have had a chance to review their testimony
submitted last year to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands and
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. For the past 6 months, I
investigated on the ground the issues raised. Here's what I've seen:
It was pointed out that a small portion of the Wild Sky area had
been previously logged. However, almost all of these areas are mostly
at lower elevations, and most are already recovering naturally from the
railroad logging that occurred during the 1920's and 1930's.
For example, along the North Fork of the Skykomish there are forest
stands that were logged about 80 years ago. These stands, left to grow
back on their own rather than being reforested with a monoculture of
Douglas fir, have almost returned to their former glory. Now they
feature species diversity, multi-layer canopies and an abundance of
ecologically important reproductive niches. These forests are in direct
contrast to the second growth forest started from reforested trees,
which are so abundant throughout the portions of the Cascades, which
have been previously logged. Other than the occasional stump, these
forests appear quite natural to almost all visitors as they assume the
full characteristics of ancient forests.
Another example of past logging is seen in the area of lower West
Cady Creek, a tributary stream of the North Fork Skykomish River. This
valley was partially logged, but extensive areas of old growth forest
remain. Ten years ago the most significant logging road in this valley
was decommissioned and the logged areas have now stabilized soils and
begun to contribute significant ecological values. This vibrant lowland
valley must be included in the Wild Sky Wilderness to protect the
integrity of the remaining old growth and mature second-growth forests,
water quality, and important wildlife corridors. It also provides a
logical and manageable Wilderness boundary by excluding a non-
Wilderness finger intruding deeply into the proposed Wilderness.
It is important to include these previously impacted areas in the
Wilderness in order to protect stream habitat to help ensure the
survival of salmon, steelhead and bull trout. It is also important for
these low elevation forests to be better represented in Washington's
Wilderness Areas, to fully reflect this especially important type of
ecosystem and wild landscape, which promotes biodiversity and is absent
in so many other wilderness areas in the state.
It was claimed that the area includes approximately 27 miles of
existing roads, some of which are all weather, drivable and graveled.
Actually, the Wild Sky Wilderness would impact only about 2 miles of
roads that are currently passable by passenger vehicles. The objections
overstate the effect of the proposed Wilderness by not taking into
account roads that have already been decommissioned--i.e., non-drivable
and permanently closed by the Forest Service--and other roads that are
currently gated or otherwise closed by the agency to prevent access.
Landslides, washouts, and vegetation close a number of other road
segments, or other random acts of nature.
It was also suggested that the Rapid River road receives high
levels of visitor use for recreation purposes, and should be excluded.
It's important to clarify that the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal would
only impact approximately 1 mile of the upper section of this road. The
lower 5 miles of this road would remain open.
The last mile of the Rapid River Road, which passes through
towering stands of ancient forest, actually gets very limited
visitation because it is rough and accesses only one dispersed
recreation site. Many drivers stop at the Meadow Creek trailhead that
is located outside of the wilderness boundary. In fact, last year I
spent 4 hours along this section on Saturday of Memorial Day weekend--a
beautiful sunny day, and did not see a single vehicle on the upper
section of this road. In any case, it is important to close the upper
portion of Rapid River Road for a number or reasons: the closed road
could be converted into a barrier-free trail that is wheelchair
accessible; closure will protect significant ancient forest and
important riparian areas; and it will leave this low elevation area,
which is open almost all year, accessible by a short hike. Indeed,
leaving the last mile of this road in the Wild Sky provides a great
opportunity for a family wilderness experience.
Past mining activity was raised as an issue but it is not as
significant as is contended. While large areas of the Cascades have
experienced the region's mining history, no major mine site ever
existed in the Wild Sky proposal. Mining in this area was mostly
limited to small claims that were worked sporadically for short periods
up until the 1950's. Today the visible evidence of mining activity is
limited to an occasional mine portal, some old road disturbances and
rare dilapidated miner's shacks, and most of these are actually on
private lands which are surrounded by National Forest land.
What the critics of the Wild Sky choose not to discuss is the
strong local support for the Wild Sky in the valley and its endorsement
by many local officials, businesses and over 1000 valley residents who
signed a petition asking for the creation of the Wild Sky Wilderness.
The Monroe City Council unanimously passed a resolution in support of
Wild Sky and the Mayor of Index, the closest town to the proposal,
testified before the Senate committee in 2002 in support of wilderness
designation.
Clearly, people in Snohomish County and eastern King County care
about the quality of life they get from the Wild Sky country whether it
be in the form of accessible wilderness oriented recreation, pure
drinking water or the knowledge that the ancient forest and salmon will
continue to provide solitude, serenity and enjoyment which is
guaranteed with Federal Wilderness protection.
The critics also ignore the open process Congressman Larsen and
Senator Murray pursued in drafting the Wild Sky legislation. I attended
the public meeting at Monroe where about a hundred interested people
asked questions and gave input on the proposal. From my observations,
most of the questions and observations were typical for a proposed
Wilderness Area. I believe all the concerns have been addressed through
the process. One example was the inclusion of a beautiful and
ecologically significant grove of ancient cedars, which was added from
a request from a local, Index resident. Another example was the
deletion of many acres on Johnson and Windy Ridges brought about
through meetings conducted by Senator Murray and Congressman Larsen
with the snowmobile association.
Finally, I would like to add that as science teachers this area
serves as a living laboratory for our students who enjoy the beauty of
the Wild Sky while also learning lessons about geology, history,
culture, ecology and botany. My favorite memory is introducing my
students to a wild salmon spawning site, which is one of the few places
left in the Cascades where spawning salmon are so numerous that you
could walk across the river on their backs. This river's headwaters are
in the Wild Sky and it is the wilderness character of the forests along
its banks, which still allow for one of the greatest spectacles in
nature.
When I am watching this display of nature with my students, it
often dawns on me that wilderness is not just about the present, but
rather is about the preservation of the ancient attributes of nature. I
cherish the belief that with federal protection my teenage students
will have the ability to share the experience of spawning wild salmon
with their grand children. Permanently protecting the Wild Sky country
lets this happen. It is a gift to the ages and a powerful legacy of
this Congress. And it is my hope that the lowland forest, which makes
up the heart and soul of this Wilderness proposal, continue to provide
the inspiration to old and young alike, as an integral part of the Wild
Sky Wilderness.
In closing, I want to commend the members of the Washington State
delegation for bringing disparate interests together--from timber
companies, backcountry horsemen and environmentalists to residents and
elected officials from local communities--to support this legislation.
Washingtonians are committed to Wilderness and preserving our State's
natural heritage. The members of the delegation deserve thanks for
crafting this wilderness bill and for continuing the bipartisan
tradition that has been so successful for wilderness protection in
Washington State during the last 4 decades. I urge members of this
Subcommittee to accept the boundaries of the current proposal as
modified by our delegation from the original H.R. 822 and advance the
Wild Sky Wilderness Bill to the House Floor for immediate action.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Town. I appreciate your comments
this afternoon.
Mr. Reardon, you are up next. I look forward to your
comments. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF AARON REARDON,
SNOHOMISH COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Mr. Reardon. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Pombo,
Chairman Walden, Representative Inslee and other members of the
Subcommittee, I am honored for the opportunity to testify
before you today on such an important issue for the citizens of
Snohomish County.
I am testifying today to express my strong support for the
Wild Sky Wilderness Act, H.R. 822. This is an issue that I have
followed closely over the last 3 years, first, as a member of
the Washington State House of Representatives and then as a
State Senator and now a Snohomish County Executive.
The support for Wild Sky Wilderness is incredibly strong in
Snohomish County. Thirty-five current elected officials, both
Republicans and Democrats, representing Snohomish County
citizens at the city, county and State Government level, have
enthusiastically endorsed this proposal, and currently more
than 30 local businesses support the proposal as well.
This proposal's support extends far beyond our county
boundaries. All told, more than 120 current and former elected
officials across Washington State have endorsed this proposal,
including the Republican majority leader of the Washington
State Senate, and nearly 70 businesses and more than 50
organizations have also lent their support to this issue.
There has been an inclusive public process on H.R. 822.
This support has been evident early on and has only grown over
the last 3 years, as Senator Murray and Representative Larsen
reached out to members in the Second Congressional District. In
late summer, early fall of 2001, before the proposal was even a
bill, Senator Murray and Representative Larsen organized two
informational meetings in Index and in Monroe, two areas close
to the proposal. Both meetings were well-intended. And in true
Snohomish County spirit, dialog was healthy. Issues came out of
these two meetings that were then included in the proposal.
Other local meetings took place when the Cities of Monroe
and Snohomish considered and passed resolutions in support of
the Wild Sky Wilderness bill in 2003.
Of course, in Washington, D.C., this proposed legislation
has also been carefully considered and reviewed by the public
and elected officials alike in both the Senate and the House.
In fact, it has been heard five times prior to today's hearing.
Senator Murray and Representative Larsen have done an
exceptional job of crafting this legislation. It takes into
account all sides of an issue and in particular those raised in
public meetings. What stands out to me in this process is the
public nature and the thoughtful deliberation in which all
parties sought agreement.
This proposal will protect 106,000 acres of snow-capped
peaks, alpine meadows, old-growth forests and wild streams and
rivers. The north folk of the Skykomish River, which runs
directly through the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness, is one of
the most productive salmon streams in the Puget Sound area. And
as municipal Governments struggle to meet the challenge of
restoring salmon habitat, preserving this ecologically critical
area will go very far as we try to promote salmon recovery.
The wild areas conserved as part of this proposal will
ensure the protection of our water and air quality as well. In
many cases, safe, clean drinking water depends on permanent
protection of wild watersheds. The Wild Sky proposal includes
part of the Sultan River basin watershed, which supplies
drinking water for the city of Everett and most of the smaller
communities in the South part of Snohomish County.
Ray Stephanson, the mayor of Everett, has made this point
abundantly clear. If I may quote, ``Protecting the Wild Sky
area as wilderness is important for the citizens of Everett. In
additional to local economic and recreational benefits, the
proposal would permanently protect the headwaters which fed
Spada Lake, the primary source for the city of Everett's
drinking water.''
As the population of Snohomish County grows, permanently
protecting wild areas like those in the Wild Sky is critical in
order to safeguard the quality of life that we enjoy here in
the Pacific Northwest. From large cities like Everett to small
towns like Index, from as far south as Lynnwood and as far
north as Stanwood, this proposal defines the enduring values of
our communities.
Increasingly, wild areas are critical to sustaining local
economies in Snohomish County. Wilderness means jobs,
sustainable jobs--sustainable jobs in industries like tourism,
recreation and vacation rentals that have always shown steady
growth over the last decade. A recent report, ``Prosperity in
the 21st Century West,'' analyzed Federal economic statistics
from 400 western counties and found that new businesses,
investments and residents tend to locate near public lands.
Treport found that the better protected those public lands, the
more they contribute to the economic vitality of a region.
More than 30 local businesses, ranging from restaurants to
sporting goods, vacation rentals, have all endorsed the Wild
Sky proposal and, in part, because of the expected benefits to
their business. Washington State, of course, is renowned for
our wild forests which bring thousands of dollars and visitors
to our communities and our cities. Many of these communities
serve as gateways to national forests and wilderness areas.
In closing, as one who was born and raised in Snohomish
County and who now serves in its chief elected capacity, I
marvel at the industrious nature and competitive spirit of our
citizens. Whether it is landing the Boeing 7E7 or competing
against the rest of the country for the 21st Century
biotechnology jobs, our citizens know what they want, and they
go after it.
Snohomish County citizens are strong-willed, independent
and earnest. We are that way because of our heritage. From
commercial fishermen to loggers, from building the best
airplanes in the world or working to find a cure for cancer,
our families embrace the origin of our community.
The Wild Sky Wilderness proposal reminds us who we are,
from where we came, and why we have worked so hard. We work
hard to build a better community for our children and to
preserve those values indicative to Snohomish County spirit.
The Wild Sky Wilderness proposal is emblematic of the
enduring values of every citizen of Snohomish County, and I
urge this Committee's support.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reardon follows:]
Statement of Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County Executive
Chairman Walden, Representative Inslee and other members of the
Subcommittee, I am honored for the opportunity to testify today on such
an important issue for Snohomish County and our citizens.
I am testifying today to express my strong support for the Wild Sky
Wilderness Act (H.R. 822). This has been an issue that I have followed
closely over the last three years as a member of the state House of
Representatives, then as a State Senator and now as Snohomish County
Executive.
Snohomish County is a special place to live, in large part because
of its unique natural heritage. Its varied topography ranges from
saltwater beaches, rolling hills and rich river bottom farmlands in the
west to dense forest and alpine wilderness in the mountainous east.
The people who live here are equally impressive. Whether from urban
areas like Everett or Edmonds or small rural communities in the
Skykomish River Valley Cascade foothills like Index and Monroe,
Snohomish County residents value our communities, our families and our
environment.
Unprecedented Local Support
As a result, the support for the Wild Sky Wilderness is incredibly
strong in Snohomish County. Thirty-five current elected officials (both
Republicans and Democrats) representing Snohomish County citizens at
the city, county and state government levels have enthusiastically
endorsed this proposal. More than 30 local businesses located in the
Skykomish Valley in the small communities of Monroe, Sultan, Gold Bar,
Index and Skykomish, and Baring in neighboring King County, have joined
the chorus of support for this proposal.
Of course, the support for this proposal is not limited to county
boundaries. All told, more than 120 former and current elected
officials throughout Washington State have endorsed this proposal.
Nearly 70 businesses and more than 50 organizations have also expressed
their strong support.
Inclusive Public Process
Moreover, this support has been evident early on and has only grown
over the last three years as the proposal has been carefully developed
by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA) and
others in the Washington Congressional delegation.
In late summer and early Fall of 2001, before the proposal was even
a bill, Senator Murray and Representative Larsen organized two public
informational meetings for local citizens who live closest to the
proposal. A packed house met in the scenic town of Index adjacent to
the proposal and another well-attended public meeting took place in
Monroe, the largest city within 15 miles of the proposed area. In true
Snohomish County fashion, there was a healthy debate on both sides of
the issue, including calls for protection of an old growth grove that
had been left out of the initial proposal and concerns about impacts on
snowmobile use.
Other local public meetings took place when the cities of Monroe
and Snohomish considered and unanimously passed resolutions in support
of the Wild Sky Wilderness bill in 2003. Both city councils talked
about the importance of protecting this unique natural treasure to
preserve the quality of life that our citizens enjoy.
In Washington, D.C., this proposed legislation has also been
carefully reviewed by the public and elected officials. Committees in
both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives have
considered the Wild Sky legislation five times prior to today's
hearing.
Senator Murray and Representative Larsen have done an exceptional
job of crafting this legislation. It takes into account all sides of
the issue, and in particular those raised in public meetings. What
stands out in this public process is the thoughtful deliberation by
parties on all sides. This began early in the process--even before the
introduction of the bill into Congress. For example, language was added
after Representative Dunn worked with the Sea Plane Pilots Association.
Because of her hard work, the Sea Plane Pilots Association endorses
this proposal.
Similar discussions were had to successfully address potential
concerns raised by mountain bikers, back country horsemen, timber
companies, private inholders, youth groups and disabled individuals.
Thanks to the bi-partisan work of the Washington State congressional
delegation, this bill has an unprecedented level of public support.
Benefits of a Wild Sky Wilderness to Snohomish County
The Wild Sky Wilderness will bring a host of benefits to the
citizens of Snohomish County.
Preserving our Natural Heritage
This proposal will protect 106,000 acres of snow capped peaks,
alpine meadows, old growth forests and wild streams and rivers. The
north fork of the Skykomish river which runs directly through the
proposed Wild Sky Wilderness is one of the most productive salmon
streams in the Puget Sound area. As municipal governments struggle to
meet the challenge of restoring salmon habitat, preserving this
ecologically critical area will go along way to promoting salmon
recovery.
Safe & Clean Drinking Water
The wild areas conserved as part of the proposal will ensure the
protection of our water and air quality. In many cases safe, clean
drinking water depends on permanent protection of wild watersheds. For
example, the Wild Sky proposal includes part of the Sultan River basin
watershed, which supplies drinking water for the City of Everett and
most of the smaller communities in the southern part of the county.
Ray Stephanson, the Mayor of Everett has made this point abundantly
clear, ``Protecting the Wild Sky area as Wilderness is important for
the citizens of Everett. In addition to local economic and recreational
benefits, the proposal would permanently protect the headwaters which
feed Lake Spada, the primary source for the City of Everett's drinking
water.''
Quality of life
As the population of Snohomish County grows, permanently protecting
wild areas like those in the Wild Sky is critical in order to
safeguarding the quality-of-life we enjoy here in the Pacific
Northwest. From large cities like Everett to small towns like Index,
from as far south as Lynnwood to as far north as Stanwood, this
proposal defines the enduring values of our communities. Residents of
larger cities also value these wild areas as a welcome escape from the
hustle and bustle of urban life.
As Donnetta Walser, the Mayor of Monroe put it, ``Wilderness is
important to Monroe not just because of the economic opportunities it
will bring but also because it is essential to the quality of life that
our residents enjoy. We enjoy having a foot in both worlds--being close
to a big city like Seattle while being minutes away from permanently
protected mountains, forests and rivers.''
Economic benefits
Increasingly, wild areas are critical to sustaining local economies
in Snohomish County. Wilderness means jobs--sustainable jobs, in
industries like tourism, recreation and vacation rentals that have
shown steady growth over the last decade. A recent report, Prosperity
in the 21st Century West 1, analyzed federal economic
statistics from 400 western counties and found that new businesses,
investments and residents tend to locate near public lands. The report
found that the better protected those public lands are, the more they
contribute to the economic well being of local families and businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prosperity in the 21st Century West, Sonoran Institute. 2004.
http://www.sonoran.org/programs/prosperity.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this reason, more than 30 local businesses, ranging from
restaurants to sporting goods to vacation rentals have endorsed the
Wild Sky Wilderness proposal, in part, because of the expected economic
benefits to their businesses. Washington State is renowned for its wild
forests which provide world class opportunities to hunt, fish, kayak,
horseback ride and relax. These visitors bring thousands of dollars
each season to our cities and towns, many of which serve as gateway
communities to national forests and wilderness areas.
Kem Hunter, the current Mayor of Index, located adjacent to the
proposed Wild Sky Wilderness put it this way, ``I've lived in this area
for 26 years...I'm interested in an economy that's based upon jobs that
stay with us such as those tied to the recreational opportunities that
this Wilderness area would protect.''
In closing, as one who was born and raised in Snohomish County and
now serves in the capacity of its chief elected official, I marvel at
the industrious nature and the competitive spirit of our citizens.
Whether it's landing the Boeing 7E7 or competing against the rest of
the country for 21st century biotech jobs, our citizens know what they
want and they go after it.
Snohomish County's citizens are strong willed, independent and
earnest. We are that way because of our heritage. From commercial
fisherman to loggers, from building the best airplanes in the world or
trying to find a cure for cancer, our families have seen the good times
and they've learned from the bad. The Wild Sky Wilderness proposal
reminds us who we are, from where we've come and why we work so hard.
We work to build a better community for our children and to
preserve those values indicative to the Snohomish County spirit. The
Wild Sky Wilderness proposal is emblematic of the enduring values of
every Snohomish County citizen.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from 34 elected officials in
Snohomish County who support this bill. I would like to ask that the
letter be included as part of the official hearing record.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Reardon.
Now, we need to hear from Mr. Fadden. Thank you for coming
today. We look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS FADDEN, VICE PRESIDENT,
WASHINGTON STATE SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Fadden. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Committee members.
I would like to thank you for allowing the Washington State
Snowmobile Association the opportunity to testify on H.R. 822
Wild Sky. WSSA became involved almost 3 years ago when several
members attended a Wild Sky workshop in Monroe. WSSA was asked
by those members to take action against this legislation. WSSA
officials and members wrote letters and sent e-mails to
Congressman Larsen and Senator Murray's offices asking that
alternatives be sought out, such as a National Recreation Area
or a new concept of a Backcountry Recreation Area.
On December 5th, 2001, members of WSSA met with the aides
from Congressman Larsen, Congresswoman Dunn, and Senator
Marry's offices to discuss the wilderness area proposal. We
supplied maps of the 2001 proposal with overlays that
illustrated areas of motorized use. We suggested that for those
areas an NRA would be a more appropriate designation, but were
informed that the areas we had identified would be too small to
manage as NRAs.
When we offered the idea of Backcountry Recreation Area, we
were told that the designation did not exist and that they
would not spend the time writing the legislation for it.
During the meeting, we were told by the Congressman and
Senator's Aides that other user groups, including
motorcyclists, mountain bikers and horsemen had met with them
that day and had conveyed that they had little or no user areas
inside the proposed boundaries. They did not foresee any
conflict for their recreation and the proposed wilderness.
After several failed attempts at getting other motorized
groups back at the table, WSSA found itself the solitary
motorized group in opposition to the proposed legislation. At
that point, WSSA board members asked that I take the lead and
try to negotiate motorized user areas out of the proposal.
I then met several times with Senator Murray's aides,
drawing lines on maps and discussing terrain features. When I
brought up any other motorized use of an area, I was advised to
remember that I was there to inform them only of snowmobile
areas. After 5 months of bargaining, WSSA was asked to support
the legislation for all the areas but one snowmobile area was
removed. Eagle Lake area is inside the boundary still, and
basically it was pointed out to us that if we removed it, it
would be ``cherry stemming,'' and it caused an issue with the
boundaries. I replied that WSSA would not support the
wilderness bill, but offered that the Association may agree to
remain neutral.
After speaking to several WSSA board members, I was
directed by the president at the time, Glenn Warren, to draft a
letter agreeing to a stance of neutrality that he then approved
for me to deliver to Senator Murray on May 16th, 2002.
For clarification, the definition of ``neutral'' is not
taking sides; not belonging to, favoring or assisting in any
side of war, dispute, contest or controversy. We have seen in
the past where we have been marked as supporting the bill, and
I don't think that is quite true.
Since that time, WSSA has haggled over a few boundary lines
on maps that were added after the initial agreement, and they
have since been removed. WSSA has had some internal turmoil
over the neutral stance that the previous board had taken on
Wild Sky. Earlier this year, at our annual meeting, a motion
was made and passed to send a letter to Chairman Pombo, stating
that in general WSSA does not support wilderness, without
specific reference to Wild Sky, and that WSSA questions the
validity of the 16,000 acres in the Wild Sky bill that
apparently does not meet the wilderness definition. A member
sent a letter out stating that we were opposing Wild Sky
without the knowledge of the board, when in fact we were only
asking that the Resource Committee take a closer look at the
16,000 acres in question.
I would like to state for the record that the Washington
State Snowmobile Association will remain neutral on H.R. 822
``Wild Sky'' through the end of this 108th Congress. If this
bill does not pass during this Congress and is reintroduced in
the 109th Congress, WSSA will reconsider its position.
I would like to close by stating that WSSA has worked hard
to represent snowmobilers in Washington State and negotiate a
favorable outcome for our membership through involvement in
drafting this legislation. While WSSA has agreed not to support
nor oppose Wild Sky, recent opposition from other user groups
and local Government representatives should indicate that a
more careful review may be warranted. It is my sincere hope
that you, the Resources Committee, carefully consider and
evaluate the concerns brought forth today, knowing that over in
Washington, the choices you make will have a very real impact
on the people who currently recreate in the area known as Wild
Sky.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Chris Fadden follows:]
Statement of Chris Fadden, Vice President,
Washington State Snowmobile Association
Chairman Walden and Committee Members,
I would like to thank you for allowing the Washington State
Snowmobile Association the opportunity to testify on H.R. 822 ``Wild
Sky''.
WSSA became involved almost 3 years ago when several members
attended a ``Wild Sky work shop'' in Monroe, Washington, on September
6, 2001 and were asked to take action against this legislation. WSSA
officials and members wrote letters and sent emails to Congressman
Larsen and Senator Murray's offices asking that alternatives be sought
out such as a National Recreation Area or a new concept of a Back
Country Recreation Area.
On December 5th, 2001, members of WSSA met with aides from
Congressman Larsen, Congresswoman Dunn, and Senator Murray's offices to
discuss the Wilderness area proposal. We supplied maps of the 2001
proposal with overlays that illustrated areas of motorized use. We
suggested that for those areas, a National Recreation Area (NRA) would
be a more appropriate designation but were informed that the areas we
had identified would be too small to manage as NRA's. When we offered
the idea of a Back Country Recreation Area we were told that the
designation did not exist and that they would not spend the time
writing the legislation for it. During the meeting we were told by the
Congressman and Senator's Aides that other user groups including
Motorcyclists, Mountain Bikers and Horsemen had met with them that day
and had conveyed that they had little to no user areas inside the
proposed boundaries. They did not forsee any conflict with their
recreation and the proposed Wilderness.
After several failed attempts at getting the other motorized groups
back at the table, WSSA found itself the solitary motorized group in
opposition to the proposed legislation. At that point WSSA board
members asked that I take the lead and try to negotiate motorized user
areas out of the proposal.
I then met several times with Senator Murray's Aides, drawing lines
on maps and discussing terrain features. When I brought up any other
motorized use of an area I was advised to remember that I was there to
inform them only of snowmobile areas. After five months of bargaining
WSSA was asked to support the legislation all but one of the snowmobile
areas was removed (Eagle Lake, an area pointed to as being essential,
included to prevent ``cherry stemming''). I replied that WSSA would not
support the Wilderness bill, but offered that the Association may agree
to remain neutral.
After speaking to several WSSA board members, I was directed by the
President Glenn Warren to draft a letter agreeing to a stance of
neutrality that he then approved for me to deliver to Senator Murray on
May 16th 2002.
For clarification, the definition of ``neutral'' is: not taking
sides; not belonging to, favoring, or assisting any side in a war,
dispute, contest, or controversy.
Since that time, WSSA has haggled over a few boundary lines on the
map that were added after the initial agreement, and they have since
been removed. WSSA has had some internal turmoil over the neutral
stance that the previous board had taken on Wild Sky. Earlier this year
at our annual meeting, a motion was made and passed to send a letter to
Richard Pombo, as House Resource Committee Chair, stating that in
general WSSA does not support wilderness (without specific reference to
Wild Sky), and that WSSA questions the validity of the 16,000 acres in
the Wild Sky bill that apparently does not meet the wilderness
definition. A member sent a letter out stating that we were opposing
Wild Sky without the knowledge of the board, when in fact we were only
asking that the Resource Committee take a closer look at the 16,000
acres in question.
I would like to state for the record that the Washington State
Snowmobile Association will remain neutral on H.R. 822 ``Wild Sky''
through the end of this 108th Congress. If this bill does not pass
during this Congress and is re-introduced in the 109th Congress WSSA
will reconsider its position.
I would like to close by stating that WSSA has worked hard to
represent snowmobilers in Washington State, and negotiate a favorable
outcome for our membership through involvement in drafting this
legislation. While WSSA has agreed not to support nor oppose ``Wild
Sky'', recent opposition from other user groups and local government
representatives should indicate that a more careful review may be
warranted. It is my sincere hope that you, the Resources Committee,
carefully consider and evaluate the concerns brought forth today,
knowing that over in Washington, the choices you make will have a very
real impact on the people who currently recreate in the area known as
``Wild Sky''.
Thank you for your time.
______
Mr. Walden. Mr. Fadden, thank you for your time and for
your work on this legislation and your comments today.
I would like to enter into the record now correspondence we
have received, some 265 letters and e-mails from people who are
opposed to the legislation in its present form. And so without
objection, those will be entered into the record.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Walden. I have wrestled with whether to say this or
not, but I am going to because I think Mr. Reardon said, he
talked a lot about process and the open process that has
occurred here in the hearings and all, and I am not aware of
any hearings in this Congress on the House side, other than
this one, on this particular bill.
You know the frustration I have had is back last fall,
Senator Murray put a hold on a bill of mine to help provide
some refunds to farmers who had not gotten water in 2001, yet
paid for the delivery of that water. It was late at night. I
was back in Oregon, and I got a call from my senior Senator.
She apparently wanted a hearing on this legislation. And I
wasn't Chairman of the Subcommittee at the time, but I
indicated I don't have a problem having a hearing on any bill.
I couldn't pledge to support the bill without ever seeing it.
I never heard again from Senator Murray or her staff to my
staff until about a month ago, when we had a bill that Senator
Wyden and I had been working on to transfer some forest land to
a parks and metro rec district in Bend, Oregon, the most
rapidly growing county in my State. It had unanimous support in
the Senate. She put a hold on that bill and never called. The
staff never called us. Suddenly, there is a hold on this bill.
Now, we worked around it because we had an identical bill
on the House side that Senator Wyden had sent over, so we sent
that through. So she has still got a hold on my parks bill. It
doesn't matter now. So I called her. I said, ``Why? What is
going on here.''
``You know what you have to do.''
It is like, ``Do you ever think about coming over, sitting
down and talking? I mean, I told you I have actually made
requests for a hearing and talked to the Chairman about it.''
So anyway that conversation went nowhere.
So I just want you to know that, that in this process it
always seems to me to be more productive when it is open,
hearings occur, and discussions occur like among I am sure the
three Washingtonians that are here today. And, frankly, I don't
like to deal with people in that sort of ``take a hostage and
put a gun at your head'' mentality, and I just hope in this
process, as you all work out your differences here, and among
yourselves--these two gentlemen, especially, I know, put a lot
of work into this, and I assume my Ranking Member here has as
well. And so I think that is a better process to go through,
and my faith in them is why I certainly have supported holding
this hearing.
I want to ask each of you, I have seen various studies that
show wilderness is good for local economies and bad for local
economies. This is that seesaw, yin-yang, I say it is good, you
say it is bad. The Mount Baker-Snoqualmie already has 42
percent in wilderness is my understanding, but recreation
statistics show only 13 percent of recreationists visit it, and
so I guess the question from each of you that I would like--
that and one other--is will creating more wilderness truly add
more jobs to the economy? And I know that is important.
The second question I have comes about from some work we
are doing up on Mount Hood on a wilderness proposal. An initial
proposal came out, and we all kind of learned quickly that you
can't mountain bike, and I don't mean motorized, other than by
muscle power, in a wilderness area. And I wonder if that issue
has come to light here and if it is an issue at all. In my
hometown, mountain biking has become a huge sport, and again
muscle-powered mountain biking, and I just wonder if there are
mountain bike trails here and if you all are looking at that,
if that has become an issue.
So maybe if you could address both of those questions and
just kind of go--we will start, well, I assume snowmobile
folks, if you want to start out, Mr. Fadden.
Mr. Fadden. Wilderness, obviously, we are a motorized
group, and wilderness would stop us from using any of those
areas which would, in fact, hurt the local economies because we
wouldn't be visiting those areas any more. I don't have the
exact numbers, but we do spend per person at least $2,000 a
year on overnight-type accommodations. So it would be a big
economic impact.
Mr. Walden. Do you know anything about nonmotorized
mountain biking?
Mr. Fadden. The nonmotorized mountain biking, we have spoke
with them, on occasion, about those areas, and they don't have
any current trails in there, but this would stop them from
creating any new trails.
Mr. Chase, I believe.
Mr. Chase. Yes. I am not an economist, but I perceive that
wilderness would do less because it is going to be more
restrictive. You are not going to have snowmobilers in there.
You are not going to have other people in there. And I am
another step down the road because you might say I wear the
resource flag of building roads and so on. But if you skip over
that and just stay with the current situation, it will be less
dollars going into there because there will be less visitors
and less things to do.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you. And do you know anything
about mountain biking issues?
Mr. Chase. No, that is the new generation.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. It sure is. Those bikes are a couple thousand
bucks I have discovered, too.
Mr. Reardon?
Mr. Reardon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I referenced in my
testimony, a recent report of ``Prosperity in the 21st Century
West'' does identify economic investment following public
lands. In terms of the details of wilderness, I don't have that
information on me, but would be happy to forward that to the
Committees.
I also point to a document in the record from the Snohomish
County Economic Development Counsel, which the whole focus is
to expand the economy to generate revenues without having to
raise taxes, and they are indeed supportive of this
legislation.
In terms of mountain biking, as the owner of a specialized
``stump jumper,'' it does not at all discourage me that I can't
mountain bike in the wilderness. There are plenty of places in
Washington State that afford me that opportunity, in fact,
around the Pacific Northwest. And as a resident of the
community, and a lifelong resident of the community, I am more
than happy to designate this as wilderness, to keep it open for
hiking, so my daughter, and my wife and I can enjoy it.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Mr. Town?
Mr. Town. On your mountain bike question, first, we have
a--the local mountain bike group has supported the Wild Sky
since the very beginning. There also is language in the bill
that does a trail study in surrounding areas, not within just
the Wild Sky area itself.
I am a mountain biker and do considerable mountain biking,
and I would find it very difficult to mountain bike anywhere
within the Wild Sky area business of the steepness of the
terrain. However, there are roads that go through the Wild Sky
area that will remain open that I have mountain biked quite
peacefully and happily.
On the economic issue, just a real quick one. I am also not
an economist, but it seems that a lot of wilderness areas are
pretty remote, and the reason the visitation numbers are
probably low is because of the remoteness. On the Wild Sky,
this is much closer to populated areas, and I think that it
will increase some visitation, and there will be some economic
benefits because of that.
Mr. Walden. I am going to have to excuse myself. I have to
go chair yet another subcommittee, the one I have been chairing
before. So I am going to turn the gavel over to Mr. Flake at
this point, and then I will look to the record for the
responses from the other two gentlemen.
Thank you, again, for all of your input on this
legislation, and to Mr. Nethercutt and Mr. Larsen for your work
on it as well.
Mr. Flake. [Presiding.] Thank you.
I will now recognize Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Just on that note on bicycling, it
was interesting, when I was coming back Sunday from this climb
of Mount Baring, on the ferryboat I ran into a pal of mine who
had just been mountain biking at Gold Bar. There is a lot of
great mountain biking at Gold Bar, and he thought the Wild Sky
was a great idea as long as we have facilities outside the
wilderness, which we have got plenty of, and he is happy about
it.
I want to address this issue of National Recreation Areas,
which I am opposed to, as far as being a solution here, because
I think they are kind of a half-baked quasi wilderness that
really don't cut the mustard here for three reasons:
One, they do allow other uses that are not allowed in the
wilderness, at least in some circumstances. In fact, in the
Eagle Cap wilderness, the statute actually would allow logging,
mining and grazing. Now, that may not be, here, specifically
the situation, but I don't think we should muddle that.
Second, there is a public understanding, when you declare
something a wilderness, the people in the State of Washington
get it. They know what that means. If we start muddling around
with different designations, you don't know what you are
talking about.
Third, you have got really just little slivers. If you cut
out 16,000 acres of this, it is just little, tiny slivers, and
it would just drive everyone nuts to manage them. In fact, if
somebody could put the map up--could we put the map of it up
there just to show what we are talking about if we cut these
little slivers out of it. And maybe, Mike, could you just show
where those little slivers would be if you cut 16,000 acres
out? I don't think it is designated on the map, but I think you
know where it would be. This is going to be an approximation,
but just to give you--
[Mr. Town approached the map and was speaking off-
microphone.]
Mr. Flake. Excuse me. Could the gentleman speak with a mike
so it can be on record?
Mr. Inslee. I don't know if it is possible. Why don't you
just point it out quietly, and then go back and speak. How is
that?
[Mr. Town pointed the area out on the map.]
Mr. Inslee. The point I want to make is these are
noncontiguous little, tiny parcels, sometimes 200 feet wide,
and the Forest Service would have to manage three different
types of forests sometimes within 350 feet. And people are
going to be going from regular Forest Service land to national
recreation land, to wilderness designation, within about 300
feet, with different rules on whether you can start a campfire,
how many people can be in your party. I just think that is
really, really bad policy to carve up our forests in such
little, tiny spots. I think it creates unnecessary problems.
I want to ask, Mr. Town, if you could--this may be
difficult because we don't have a mike--but if you can describe
all of the accommodations that were made from day one to
accommodate people's concerns about recreation and resource use
issues.
Mr. Town. If I may use the map again.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Chair, could we try that if he speaks very
loudly?
Mr. Flake. I will ask the recorder if that is possible.
Would you bring the map over closer to the mike.
Mr. Inslee. Yes, why don't you bring the map over where he
is.
Thank you.
Mr. Inslee. Just hold it behind him.
Mr. Town. If I talk as loud as I can from here, is the mike
picking me up?
Mr. Flake. Yes. It sounds like that is OK.
Mr. Town. The original proposal, which was submitted at a
public meeting in Monroe a number of years ago, was over
120,000 acres, and a lot of people had input on that. And based
upon the input of the people who were at that meeting and
subsequent meetings, what happened is this area here was, and
this area in here, and a portion of this area here was taken
out of the proposal because of concerns raised predominantly by
local snowmobilers.
This area here was taken out of the proposal because of
this issue that Mr. Inslee mentioned before about group sizes--
church groups and Boy Scouts--in order to get to Barkley Lake.
This area here was taken out of the proposal in order to
accommodate some concerns raised by the timber industry.
This area here was taken out of the proposal because of
some mineral issues on some old mining claims and some private
land issues.
These areas along the North Fork corridor were expanded,
based upon concerns raised by the Forest Service and some other
folks.
So it started out as 120-, and then a lot of areas have
been taken out, based upon public involvement, public
discussion, to get to the original 106,000-acre proposal. And
then, subsequently, another 2,000 acres was taken out just
recently based upon some other issues that were raised,
predominantly access issues, like, for example, this area here.
I may also add that there was some additions that were made
because of public input, and basically there is a great stand
of old growth that was added in this area because of a local
citizen who discovered that particular stand of trees.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I don't know what our situation is.
I do have some more questions, but I will defer.
Mr. Flake. We need to move along at this point.
Mr. Nethercutt?
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony. We really appreciate your
being here.
I notice that Mr. Reardon, and Mr. Sax, and Mr. Town
mentioned the likelihood of increased visitation, steady
growth. Is it your conclusion that the growth will be increased
if this area is preserved, as opposed to having it occur
without it being preserved? Do you understand my question? Are
you assuming that there is going to be an increase in growth
and an increase in visitation because of it?
Mr. Sax. Would you like me to--
Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, sir. Maybe Mr. Sax or Mr. Town or Mr.
Reardon or anybody else who wants to testify.
Mr. Sax. Thank you very much, Representative Nethercutt,
for the question.
On a personal note, I would like to thank you, as the only
statewide elected representative at the Federal level, to come
and actually speak with me about the Wild Sky proposal.
I look at Highway 2 in the corridor from Seattle all the
way to Chelan as kind of the driveway for recreation in the
Puget Sound area. Enormous amounts of people leave the urban
metropolitan area on the weekends and on holidays and travel
over. There are many opportunities for wilderness recreation on
that driveway.
Putting Wild Sky within a wilderness area, in its present
form--the 106,000 acres as proposed--I think will actually
diminish, it is my belief that it will diminish the activity
for the cities of Index, perhaps increase Index, but decrease
for Gold Bar, Sultan, because people will choose to bypass,
those people that would like to recreate in a way that a
wilderness perhaps prohibits. They will go over the mountain
into Chelan County to participate in those activities.
So my thought is the wilderness would probably restrict and
decrease the activity in the national forest should it become
wilderness.
Mr. Nethercutt. How about you, Mr. Town? What is your take
on it or do you see any change or any difference between one or
the other?
Mr. Town. Well, I don't know if I can answer anything
specifically on growth. But in terms of visitation, I think
that visitation will increase by a slight factor in this area
because of it becoming wilderness.
I disagree a little bit with the idea that people won't
come here because it is wilderness. If this was an area in
which we were taking user groups that were using this area, for
example, dirt bikers and snowmobilers, and saying that they no
longer could use this area, perhaps they would recreate in
another area. But, realistically, right now within this
proposal, the dirt bike crowd, for example, the ATV crowd, most
of the ATV in this area, in the Highway 2 corridor, occurs
outside of the proposal in a place called Reider Pit. It is a
tremendously fabulous place to dirt bike. So I doubt people
will leave because Wild Sky is part of it.
On the snowmobile side, most of the snowmobile activity in
the Highway 2 corridor also occurs currently outside of the
wilderness proposal. And when the wilderness proposal becomes
law, it still will occur in those areas. I doubt people will
bypass those existing areas just because they are gone.
Mr. Nethercutt. How about you, Mr. Reardon?
Mr. Reardon. Snohomish County is a fast-growing place. it
is going to keep growing regardless of Wild Sky or not. I think
what it comes down to, Congressman, is the kind of growth that
we are looking to attract. This designation of wilderness gives
us an opportunity to identify it, to work toward it. That is
why the local mayors of Index, Monroe and the outlying areas
support the proposal because the old type of growth isn't
coming back. It is not sustainable, and we are looking for
options that are sustainable.
So I think, in terms of that, growth is going to occur, but
it gives us a chance to really identify the future that is
possible in Snohomish County and go after it.
Mr. Nethercutt. Let me ask, quickly, in the 30 seconds I
probably have left, would you all support, assuming there is
some bill that gets through this system and is preserving this
area, would you support, and do you think there is a need for
additional infrastructure assistance, highway money or other
assistance that might help meet whatever growth or whatever
changes might come with respect to this legislation?
Mr. Reardon. In terms of the transportation side, as a
former State lawmaker, both in the House and the Senate, I can
say that, regardless of Wild Sky or not, the State of
Washington needs money. We need to move on the transportation
bill that is before the Congress, before the President, and the
State of Washington needs to do their job as well.
Wild Sky, I don't want to say is irrelevant, but it is, at
this juncture, not a piece of the puzzle that is going to make
a significant difference in my opinion.
And you had a second question, Congressman? I am sorry.
Mr. Nethercutt. No, that was it. I was just going to make
sure--Mr. Sax, would you agree, as a public official?
Mr. Sax. I would agree with our executive that we are
transportation starved. And as Congressman Larsen talked about
$1.4 million coming to two local communities, that is a nice
help.
We have been told, in order to provide true infrastructure
enhancements on the Highway 2 corridor, we need to do a
corridor study, 68 miles of Environmental Impact Study--it is
an $8-million, 2-year study--just to start receiving Federal
State allocations of funds to improve the roads. It is a
terrible highway, and I would say that with or without Wild
Sky, infrastructure does need to come to Snohomish County.
My question is why spend $18 million, as Congress has
forecasted, to remove the infrastructure should we put this
wilderness in place, rather than spend that $18 million
creating access to something that would be enjoyable to attend
or to participate in.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
Mr. Flake. Thank you. We need to move along here, quickly,
if we can.
Mr. Udall, if you could go quickly, if we can. I believe we
need to end at 2:00, and we have two more quick witnesses.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, and let me thank the panel for
being here and say that I applaud Rick Larsen, and
Representative Nethercutt, and Senator Murray for working in a
bipartisan way on this legislation.
And with that, I would yield to Representative Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I will just hopefully make a couple
of points.
First, I want to make sure that we heard the words of
Senator Henry Jackson's son, Peter Jackson, who in the record
wrote to say, ``The argument that evidence of past human
impacts of old logged areas, roads, culverts, lookout stands,
cabins and the like disqualify those Federal lands from
designation as wilderness, pursuant to the Wilderness Act of
1964 is simply wrong. I am troubled and surprised that it would
be raised again, fully 3 decades after my father,'' Senator
Jackson, ``Congressman Saylor, Republican architect of the
wilderness bill, and others who actually wrote the Wilderness
Act said exactly that, and the entire Congress agreed.''
I think that is powerful language from the son of the
fellow who wrote the Act.
I want to ask Mr. Town about the recovered areas, areas
that originally were logged and now are growing back. I think
we have a picture. If you could bring that picture, Mr. Town, I
just want to ask you about that. I am told this is a picture
taken in an area that had been logged. If you can just tell us
what we see there.
Take that over to Mr. Town, if you will, please, so he can
point to it if he wants to.
Mr. Town. This picture, Congressman Inslee, shows an area
that was logged in the 1920s, and now it has returned to
basically what most people would consider somewhat of a
pristine state. It is right near the banks of the North Fork of
the Skykomish River.
And I think one of the issues of this 16,000 acres is that
a lot of this acreage is right on the banks of the river, and
the river itself maintains its water quality because of these
forests.
If I may draw an analogy in terms of the Wild Sky, the Wild
Sky is like a human being. The North Fork of the Skykomish
River is basically the most important portion of what is coming
out of the Wild Sky to downstream residents. If you remove
those low-elevation forests along the banks of the North Fork
of the Skykomish River, what you really are doing is you are
taking the heart and soul out of this proposal just like as if
it was a human being. And that is what this issue, in terms of
previously logged areas, most of those previously logged areas
look exactly like this photograph.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I have one more question for Mr.
Sax, briefly.
I have real, real trouble with people asserting there
hasn't been a lot of public input in this process. Eighteen
Snohomish County elected officials support this. Sixty-five
mayors within an hour of this area support it. Eight members of
the congressional delegation, two Senators and one Governor
support this.
There have been multiple, multiple public meetings on this,
and I just really can't understand Mr. Sax's statement. I
understand there was a meeting in Monroe, one in Index. Did you
go to those? Did you have an opportunity to attend those?
Mr. Sax. I was not able to attend those meetings.
Mr. Inslee. Is that Mr. Larsen's fault?
Mr. Sax. That is not Mr. Larsen's fault. I did not receive
an invitation to the meetings.
Mr. Inslee. But other people showed up, didn't they?
Mr. Sax. And there was also a great deal of opposition that
showed up to the meetings.
Mr. Inslee. And I am sure they were listened to with
great--in fact, a lot of their ideas were taken into
consideration.
Anyway, thank you very much, and I appreciate all of your
testimony.
Mr. Flake. Thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Washington wanted to make a closing
statement.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to again thank Chairman Pombo and Chairman Walden
for helping to make this hearing happen. And I want to thank my
colleague from Spokane, Congressman Nethercutt, as well as
Senator Murray, for all of the work that everyone has been
doing on this, and of course Mr. Inslee as well.
I want to thank all of the attendees who, I think, going
through my list, I think all of them are constituents, and we
live about as far north and west as you can get from this place
in the Continental United States, and for them to make a trip
out here for 4 hours of hearing is a great feat on their part,
and you all deserve a lot of thanks for that.
Chris Fadden, I want to thank you very much. We have had
this issue of snowmobiles, snowmobilers and where are you on
these issues, and I think you cleared it up very well today,
and I really do appreciate that.
We also ought to note that not only is Gene Chase not a
logger, but a road contractor, not only a family friend, but
was selected this year as Washington State's Community College
Trustee of the Year and deserves a lot of thanks for his
efforts on behalf of higher education in Washington State as
well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, and I would like to thank the panel.
You are done. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Flake. I knew that would draw applause. Thank you. I
thank the members for their questions as well.
Mr. Flake. Since Mr. Neugebauer is not yet here, we will go
ahead and call Art Pope. Mr. Pope is here, right?
[Pause.]
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Pope, for coming. He is the
Executive Director of the Northwest Youth Corps. And before
getting to your testimony, and I apologize, we won't have time
for questions, given our congressional schedule. We need to be
finished at 2:00, but Mr. Udall wanted to make a statement
quickly or enter a statement into the record.
Mr. Tom Udall. I will just be very brief here, Mr.
Chairman.
This is a bill that Representative Walden and I are both
working on, which would allow the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior to contract directly with the Youth Service and
Conservation Corps to carry out rehabilitation and enhancement
projects in our parks and forests, placing a priority on those
projects that prevent and suppress wildfires in the wild and
urban interface.
This partnership between the Federal Government and the
Nation's Service and Conservation Corps will provide cost-
effective assistance in preventing forest fires and providing
disaster relief to at-risk communities.
I have one of these conservation corps, called the Rocky
Mountain Conservation Corps, in my district. You have
disadvantaged youth working in a variety of situations. I think
working in the forests could make a real difference to their
lives and to healthier forests.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my full
statement be put in the record, and let us proceed with the
panel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tom Udall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico, on H.R. 4838
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding a hearing on
H.R. 4838, The Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps. This
legislation will allow the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
contract directly with Youth Service and Conservation Corps to carry
out rehabilitation and enhancement projects in our parks and forests,
placing a priority on those projects that prevent and suppress fires.
This partnership between the federal government and the nation's
service and conservation corps will provide cost-effective assistance
in preventing forest fires and restoring damaged forest lands.
In addition to providing additional resources to control forest
fires, the program will offer important work experience to low income,
disadvantaged, and often minority youth between the ages of 16-24 who,
through the corps, will develop the skills and habits they need to
become productive citizens.
Research has shown that youth who complete corps programs have
higher rates of employment and earn more than their counterparts. Corps
members also score higher on measures of personal and social
responsibility and are more likely to earn a college degree. Finally,
not even taking into account the obvious cultural and financial
benefits to society from protecting at-risk youth, corps generate $1.60
in immediate benefits for every dollar in costs.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps Act to enable local youth corps to work with the
federal government to protect their communities. This is an opportunity
to utilize cost-saving human resources to conserve, maintain and
protect Federal land. It is an investment in our environment and in our
country's youth. I look forward to working with you, your staff, and
Congressman Walden on this legislation that will help provide a
positive, long-term solution to a pressing need in our Nation's
forests. Thank you very much.
______
Mr. Flake. All right. We will do so. And because of time
constraints, we will actually go to Mr. Neugebauer first and
welcome his statement in explanation of this bill.
Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, NINETEENTH DISTRICT
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for allowing me to testify today regarding H.R. 4806.
This bill provides for a land exchange between the Lincoln
National Forest in New Mexico and Lubbock Christian University
in my district. I believe this land exchange is in the best
public interest, and it is fair and provides mutual benefit for
both parties.
Lubbock Christian University owns and operates Pine Springs
Camp, which is located on 40 acres in the Lincoln National
Forest. LCU also owns 80 acres of undeveloped land, which is an
in-fill tract northwest of the camp, and this tract is
surrounded fully by national forest land and has limited
access.
LCU would like to expand Pine Springs Camp in order to
accommodate the growth of the number of campers since 1994. At
that time, about 650 youth attended summer camp at Pine Springs
each summer. Today, almost 1,250 young people are attending
Pine Springs.
In order for Pine Springs to have room for additional
campers and activities, LCU has proposed to exchange the 80
acres of undeveloped land that they own for 80 acres of land
which borders the existing camp. The land that LCU proposes to
acquire from the Forest Service is composed of two 20-acre
tracts and one 40-acre tract. Pine Spring Camp would use the
land for athletic fields and for possible amphitheater and new
housing in the future.
LCU is a nonprofit entity. Pine Spring Camp was deeded to
the university in 1996 and has become an important part of LCU.
Each summer, 10 1-week camp sessions are held at Pine Springs,
and in the off-season the camp is used for college youth groups
and church retreats. Summer camp sessions are staffed by church
and youth minister volunteers and LCU students. Camp fees cover
operating costs and camp improvements are made by volunteers
through donations. Just like the university, Pine Springs camp
is operated on a nonprofit basis.
Without the land exchange with Lincoln National Forest,
Pine Springs Camp has really no effective options for
accommodating any increased demand for the programs that they
are offering at the camp. The option of developing the 80-acre
tract inholding that the camp has would be cost prohibitive and
really I don't think is in the best interests of the national
forest because, like I said, it is completely surrounded by
national forests, and this would be a development that would be
adjacent to a national forest all the way around it. Selling
the inholding and using the proceeds to purchase additional
land would also be difficult.
LCU first met with the Forest Service regarding possible
land exchange in April of 2001, and LCU worked with the Forest
Service on an initial proposal and resolved the outstanding
issues with a camp deed. As LCU learned more about the land
exchange process, the length of time involved and possible
expenses, they contacted my predecessor, Congressman Larry
Combest, to further discuss that process.
Last year, LCU asked me to work on a legislative exchange
in order to expedite the process and help reduce the expenses
that would make the exchange infeasible for them. Through this
proposal and preliminary feasibility process, LCU informs me
that Lincoln National Forest has remained interested in the
exchange and supportive of the university's request because the
forest would like to acquire the LCU's undeveloped 80 acres.
H.R. 4806 moves this land exchange forward and helps reduce
the expenses to both parties. As I mentioned previously, as a
nonprofit, LCU has been concerned with the uncertainty in cost
and time involved in the direct exchange with the Forest
Service.
Mr. Chairman, I will put the rest of my statement in the
record, in order for time here, but I think you begin to get
the gist that all of the parties have agreed to that. What the
university would like to do is not spend all their money with
lawyers in the long-term process of working through this
exchange, and since all parties have agreed to go ahead and
make the exchange, allowing the Forest Service to have this 80
acres of pristine land back and not have a donut hole in the
middle of it, and it would also provide growth opportunity for
the church to operate that camp.
I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Randy Neugebauer, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, on H.R. 4806
Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Inslee and members of the Forest
and Forest Health Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify
today regarding H.R. 4806.
This bill provides for a land exchange between the Lincoln National
Forest in New Mexico and Lubbock Christian University in my district in
Texas. I believe this land exchange is fair and provides benefits for
both parties.
Lubbock Christian University (LCU) owns and operates Pine Springs
Camp, which is located on 40 acres in the Lincoln National Forest. LCU
also owns an undeveloped 80-acre inholding a few miles northwest of the
camp. This tract if fully surrounded by National Forest land.
LCU would like to expand Pine Springs Camp in order to accommodate
the growth in the number of campers since 1994. At that time, about 650
youth attended summer camp at Pine Springs each summer. Today, more
than 1250 youth attend the week long sessions.
In order for Pine Springs Camp to have room for additional campers
and activities, LCU has proposed to exchange its undeveloped 80-acre
inholding for 80 acres of National Forest land that borders the
existing camp. The land LCU proposes to acquire from the Forest Service
is composed of two 20-acre tracts and one 40-acre tract. Pine Spring
Camp would use the land for athletic fields, an amphitheater and new
housing.
LCU is a non-profit entity. Pine Springs Camp was deeded to the
University in 1996, and has become an important part of LCU. Each
summer, 10 one-week camp sessions are held at Pine Springs, and in the
off-season, the camp is used for college, youth group and church
retreats. Summer camp sessions are staffed by church and youth minister
volunteers and LCU students. Camp fees cover operating costs, and camp
improvements are made by volunteers and through donations. Just like
the University, Pine Springs Camp is operated as a non-profit.
Without the land exchange with the Lincoln National Forest, Pine
Spring Camp has no effective options for accommodating the increase in
camper demand. The option of developing the 80-acre inholding as a new
camp would be cost prohibitive. Selling the inholding and using the
proceeds to purchase additional land near the camp would also be a
difficult process.
LCU first met with the Forest Service regarding a possible land
exchange in April of 2001. LCU worked with Forest Service on an initial
proposal and resolved some outstanding issues with the camp deed. As
LCU learned more about the land exchange process, the length of time
involved and the possible expenses, they contacted my predecessor,
Congressman Larry Combest, to further discuss the process.
Late last year, LCU asked me to work on a legislative exchange in
order to expedite the process and help reduce expenses that would make
the exchange infeasible for them. Through this proposal and preliminary
feasibility process, LCU informs me that the Lincoln National Forest
has remained interested in the exchange and supportive of the
University's request.
H.R. 4806 moves this land exchange forward and helps reduce
expenses for both parties. As I mentioned previously, as a non-profit,
LCU has been concerned with the uncertainty in costs and time involved
in a direct exchange with the Forest Service. The legislation helps
move the process along yet still includes a full land appraisal and
review of the exchange. H.R. 4806 also allows the National Forest
Service to reduce the amount of land conveyed to LCU in order to
equalize the value of the land exchange, if necessary.
By expanding Pine Springs Camp from its existing location through
acquiring the federal lands, LCU will have space to allow for future
growth. By acquiring LCU's inholding, the Lincoln National Forest will
increase the Forest Service's undeveloped land within the forest.
Ownership of the inholding will facilitate the Forest Service's
management of this area of the Lincoln National Forest and give the
Forest Service full discretion over how this land is used in the
future.
H.R. 4806 provides for the straightforward exchange of a small
amount of land between the Forest Service and LCU. This legislation is
non-controversial, and the exchange provides significant benefits to
both parties. A lengthy and expensive exchange, however, reduces
benefits and makes this exchange less appealing to both sides.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my constituents at LCU and Pine Springs
Camp, I ask that your Subcommittee help move this exchange through the
legislative process during the remainder of this session of Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Flake. Thank you. We decided to forego questions so
that we can get through the panel, and we will enter the entire
statement into the record.
Thank you for testifying on behalf of your bill today.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
Mr. Flake. We appreciate it.
We will now go to Mr. Pope and ask you to summarize, in 5
minutes, your statement, and the entire statement will be
entered into the record.
Thank you so much for being here.
STATEMENT OF ART POPE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST YOUTH
CORPS
Mr. Pope. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, I am honored to be here today to testify in support
of H.R. 4838, the Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps Act
of 2004.
I want to thank Representative Walden, from my home State,
and Representative Tom Udall for sponsoring this bill.
I am the Director of Northwest Youth Corps. And though our
offices are located in Eugene, Oregon, our youth crews work on
projects throughout the State, as well as in Washington,
Central Idaho and Northern California.
I am also testifying on behalf of the National Association
of Service and Conservation Corps, NASCC, which represents more
than 100 corps programs and 23,000 corps members in 32 States
and the District of Columbia. I have attached detailed
descriptions of Northwest Youth Corp and NASCC for the record.
As of July 8th, five Western States--Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico and Washington--all reported large, active
fires. At that time, 40,470 fires had consumed 2.9 million
acres since the start of the year. Right now, large, highly
active fires are burning in Alaska and California. Fire danger
in the West remains high, and continued drought conditions are
expected to extend the West's fire season again this year.
The National Fire News notes that once firefighters control
a wildland fire, another group of quiet heroes move into the
area to start the healing. After a fire, extensive work is
often needed to control erosion and protect water quality. Land
management professionals often turn to corps programs for the
resources they need to start the stabilization and
reforestation process.
For example, in 2003, the 1,000 corps members in our
programs built or maintained 367 miles of trail, pruned 257
acres of conifers, completed fuel reduction work on 147 acres,
removed noxious weeds from 1,000 acres, planted 8,230 trees and
covered 45 acres, collecting seeds needed for habitat
restoration work.
In 2001, the Southwest Youth Corps in Durango, Colorado,
thinned or cleared 175 acres, created defensible space around
20 structures, removed 33 truckloads of wood and created a
series of fire breaks 1 to 4 miles long and 40 to 400 feet
wide.
In 2003, the Youth Corps of Southern Arizona partnered with
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, the Coronado National
Forest and the Chiricahua National Monument to cut and pile
excess fuels in order to reduce the potential for catastrophic
fire.
The nearly 90,000 alumni of the California Conservation
Corps have dedicated more than 50 million hours to protecting
and enhancing the environment and another 6 million hours to
responding to emergencies like fires, floods and earthquakes.
Corps programs offer Federal, State and local land
management agencies a flexible, experienced workforce able to
respond to emergencies and disasters on short notice. In 2001,
16 Corps programs engaged more than 1,400 Corps members who
provided 500,000 hours of service in our national forests.
During this period, the Forest Service invested $4.2 million in
these partnerships, while Corps programs contributed an
additional $2.4 million in matching dollars.
Today's Corps programs are direct descendants of the
Civilian Conservation Corps of the Depression era. Like the
legendary ``C's,'' corps programs are proven strategy for
giving people the chance to change their communities and their
lives. Corps give young people a chance to step up to a
challenge, a chance to make a difference and sometimes just a
vitally needed second chance.
Working under the leadership of adults who serve as mentors
and role models, Corps participants discover the pride in their
abilities, learn the importance of teamwork and experience the
recognition that comes from making a positive investment in
their communities.
Nationally, approximately 60 percent of Corps members are
young people of color, 50 percent enroll without a high school
diploma or GED and 55 percent come from homes where the annual
income is less than $15,000.
H.R. 4838 provides the additional resources needed to
prevent and fight forest fires, protect rural communities and
restore fire-damaged land. It will help Corps programs to meet
the needs of our youth and help our young people to become
productive members of society.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on this important legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pope follows:]
Statement of Art Pope, Director, Northwest Youth Corps,
Eugene, Oregon, on H.R. 4838
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to be
here today to testify in support of H.R. 4838, the Healthy Forest Youth
Conservation Corps Act of 2004. I want to thank Chairman Walden, from
my home state of Oregon, and Rep. Tom Udall for their leadership.
I am the Director of the Northwest Youth Corps (NYC). The NYC is
headquartered in Oregon but also does work in Idaho, Washington State,
and California. I am also testifying on behalf of the National
Association of Service and Conservation Corps (NASCC) which represents
the corps movement in Washington and consists of more than 100 corps,
enrolling 23,000 corpsmembers in 32 states and the District of
Columbia. I have attached detailed descriptions of the NYC and NASCC
for the record.
Based on our work in Oregon and reports from my colleagues around
the country, I am convinced that corps have an important role to play
in preventing forest fires and other natural disasters that endanger
our forests, providing appropriate assistance to communities threatened
by fires, and helping communities recover from the devastation caused
by fires.
As of July 8, five states--Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
and Washington--were reporting large, active fires and almost 300 large
fires had been contained since January 1, 2004. In addition to these
large fires, the National Interagency Fire Center reported that there
had been 40,470 fires consuming 2.9 million acres since the start of
the year. According to press reports, the extreme drought is expected
to extend the West's fire season and drier than normal logs and trees
are expected to fuel further fires as the heat wave conditions
continue.
According to the National Fire News ``as firefighters control
wildland fires, another group of quiet heroes move into the area to
start the healing. After a wildland fire, the land may need
stabilization to prevent loss of topsoil through erosion and prevent
the movement of dirt into rivers and streams. Land management
specialists and volunteers jump start the renewal of plant life through
seeding and planting with annuals, trees, and native species that help
retain soils and fight invasive weeds. It's a long term process that
comes alive as the wildland fires die down.''
This is exactly the kind of work at which corps excel. In fact, we
are already doing this work. Legislation such as H.R. 4838 will provide
the federal government with the resources necessary to continue to
utilize corps and cost-effectively fight wildfires. At the same time,
this bill targets disadvantaged youth and encourages them to help
themselves by helping their communities. For example:
In 2003, NYC Corpsmembers built or maintained 367 miles of trail,
pruned 257 acres of conifers, performed fuel reduction on 147 acres,
removed noxious weeds from 1,000 acres, planted 8,230 trees, and
collected seeds on 45 acres.
Between April and October, 2001, the Southwest Youth Corps in
Durango, Colorado thinned or cleared 175.5 acres, created defensible
space around 20 structures, removed 33 truckloads of wood, and created
a series of fire breaks that extended between one and four miles and
were between 40 and 400 feet wide.
In the past year, the Utah Conservation Corps did thinning in a
wildland fire-urban interface zone outside of Park City that was a
partnership between a homeowner's association and Utah Department of
Forestry. In the past, it has carried out ``soil stabilization''
projects in the Bridger-Teton National Forest that included the
rehabilitation and re-routing of trail in burn areas and building
drainage structures.
In 2003, the Youth Corps of Southern Arizona have partnered with
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, the Coronado National Forest, and
Chiricahua National Monument. Corpsmembers cut and piled excess fuels
in preparation for a burn as part of a hazardous fuel reduction
project. They also thinned and removed trees for habitat improvement on
the Apache-Sitgreaves. The YCOSA worked with Ramsay Canyon, a facility
of The Nature Conservancy in southern Arizona to remove hazardous,
flammable material from buildings. Work to create defensible space was
conducted several weeks prior to a fire and the Corps has received
credit for saving the buildings. In the past, three camp crews were
sent to fires on BLM and USFS areas (once in Wyoming and twice in
Arizona.)
The Coconino Rural Environment Corps located in Flagstaff, Arizona
thins hundreds of acres of federal, state, county, city, and private
lands every year. The Corps has created multiple partnerships in local
communities to mitigate the hazards of catastrophic wild fires. Summit
Fire Fuels Reduction Partnership has thinned land around more that 30
homes in its local community. The Partnership also provided the local
Native American Reservations with more than 400 cords of fire wood.
Partnering with County and City Waste Management the partnership found
a way to transport fire wood to community members in need with little
to no cost to the project. The partnerships have also increased
community awareness to the dangers of wildfire and the risks that may
be associated with living in one of the most fire prone forests in the
world, thus creating a more fire wise community.
The CREC thins more than 500 acres a year and returns more than
4000 acres to native grasslands. Forest restoration has also been a
large portion of the forestry work CREC has done over the last several
years.
The Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC) has done access and
egress in urban interface in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park housing area to insure safe passage for emergency response
workers. Corpsmembers have been trained in firescaping around new
suburban neighborhoods as cities spread into rural areas to provide
both visually aesthetic and fire resistant landscape around structures
of value and along the avenues of emergency response.
In 2003, The Minnesota Conservation Corps responded to 45 wildfires
that totaled 30,656 acres. It completed 920 home and property
assessments (fire wise) relating to wildfire danger and defensible
space and made recommendations to the home owners on how to make their
property safer in the event of a wildfire.
Corpsmembers also provided about 8,720 hours in indirect fire
suppression activities including 5 miles of fire break construction,
400 acres of timber stand improvement, and 5,560 acres of prescribed
burns.
In any given year, MCC plants 150,000 plus trees in areas that may
or may not have been impacted by previous fires. MCC also completes 150
Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) plots each year for the Minnesota
Department of natural resources Division of Forestry. These plots are
then used in a variety of Forestry models including a wildfire model.
The California Conservation Corps (CCC) is the nation's oldest,
largest and longest-running youth conservation corps. Nearly 90,000
young men and women have worked more than 50 million hours to protect
and enhance California's environment and communities and have provided
six million hours of assistance with emergencies like fires, floods and
earthquakes.
This June the CCC laid plastic and sandbags on Delta levees to
prevent flooding; fought fires in Santa Barbara and Madera counties and
surveyed for the glassy-winged sharpshooter (a major agricultural pest
that cause Pierce's disease in grapevines and other diseases in other
plants and has caused the loss of millions of dollars to wine grape
growers) in Solano County. At the request of the San Joaquin County
Office of Emergency Services and the state Department of Water
Resources, 200 corpsmembers and staff were dispatched. The 15 crews
placed heavy plastic sheeting and sandbags to protect 13.5 miles of
interior levees not designed to hold flood waters. Corps headquarters
or satellites sending crews included Chico, Delta, Fresno, Los Angeles,
Monterey Bay, Norwalk, Placer, Pomona, Redding, San Luis Obispo,
Siskiyou and Tahoe.
At the same time, the CCC responded to the Delta levees, three
crews were dispatched to the Gaviota Fire in Santa Barbara County.
Corpsmembers from the Los Padres and Pomona centers assisted the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection with logistical
support.
As crews finished up with the Gaviota Fire this month, the CCC was
called upon to respond to the Source Fire in the Sierra National
Forest, under the direction of the U.S. Forest Service. Fresno and
Pomona corpsmembers provided assistance at the fire camp. As I have
indicated, corps have experience working with federal, state, and local
land management agencies. In 2001, 16 NASCC Corps engaged more than
1,400 corpsmembers in projects in national forests and corpsmembers
provided more than 500,000 hours of service. Indeed, the Forest Service
invested $4.2 million in partnerships with Corps and leveraged an
additional $2.4 million in match.
Corps do fee-for-service work and meet the test of the marketplace
everyday. If we don't meet or exceed expectations our partners go
elsewhere. Enactment of H.R. 4838 and corresponding funding will enable
us to do more.
Corps are the direct descendents of the Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) of the Depression era. Like the legendary CCC, today's Corps are
a proven strategy for giving young men and women the chance to change
their communities, themselves, and their families. By providing
opportunity to young people who need a second chance, corps turn
potential problems into valuable resources.
Approximately 60% of NASCC corpsmembers are young people of color,
50% enroll without a high school diploma or GED and 55% come from homes
where the annual income is less than $15,000. A rigorous, random
assignment evaluation conducted by Abt Associates/Brandeis University
reports positive outcomes for young people who join a corps. The Abt
Associates/ Brandeis University study also found that:
significant employment and earnings gains accrue to young
people who join a corps;
arrest rates drop by one third among all corpsmembers;
out-of-wedlock pregnancy rates drop among female
corpsmembers; and
corps generate $1.60 in immediate benefits for every
dollar invested.
Corps engage primarily young people ages 16-25 in service, training
and educational activities. The corps model places young people under
the leadership of adult leaders who serve as mentors and role models.
In return for their efforts to restore and strengthen communities,
corpsmembers receive: 1) a stipend; 2) classroom education to improve
basic competencies and secure credentials; 3) technical skills
training; 4) supportive services; and 5) a post-service educational
award. Young men and women learn to value their personal contribution,
learn the importance of teamwork and experience the recognition that
comes from making a positive investment in their community.
Corps are established pathways to re-integrate vulnerable young
people into society. The supportive environment, the power of providing
service to their own neighborhoods and the value of paid work to self-
esteem combine to strengthen the ties between a young person and his or
her community.
H.R. 4838 provides needed additional resources to meet the
challenges posed by forest fires. Funding corps to thin forests
generate community volunteers, and restore land after a fire occurs is
a cost-effective way to reduce the danger of fires and their aftermath.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify on
this important piece of legislation.
______
Mr. Flake. Thank you for your testimony.
I live in Arizona, just off the Rodeo-Chediski fire or I
grew up in that area and saw so many youth groups come up after
the fire and continuing to help out in the area there.
Do you want to make any statement after this, quickly,
before we thank the witness?
Mr. Tom Udall. No, I just want to thank the witness and
appreciate your courtesies, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flake. Thank you.
Thank you so much for waiting so long for the other panel
and for delivering your testimony, and it will be printed in
the record. And any questions that members might have, if you
could respond to that in writing, I believe the hearing record
will be open for 10 days for additional questions and answers.
So thank you, and there being no further business before
the Subcommittee, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden submitted for the
record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon, on H.R. 4838
As sponsor of the Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps, I'd like
to say that the original intent was to include this provision in the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act but could not do so because of a last-
second agreement during conference to exclude all extra provisions. The
primary purpose of this bill is simply to provide at-risk and low-
income youth a chance to learn skills and become educated in forest
restoration. Hopefully, then, these young adults will be able to join
the existing and expanding workforce being deployed on our federal
forests in fuels reduction, post-fire rehabilitation and other forest
health projects. This is not only important for broadening
opportunities for young people but it should also help provide new
recruits for private companies as we greatly expand the size and number
of fuels reduction projects authorized in HFRA. So it is not the intent
of this bill to create competition for existing jobs but rather to help
provide a pool of trained workers for companies to draw from. As we
address the massive scope of the forest health problem on our federal
lands,--190 million acres at risk of catastrophic fire--we will need to
apply a broad array of projects and partnerships, private and public,
across the landscape. The Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps will
play a small but important role in this important endeavor.