Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy
Chief, National Forest System, US Forest Service, United States Department
of Agriculture Before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources United States House of Representatives October 27,
2005 Concerning H. R. 3603 – Central Idaho Economic Development and
Recreation Act
NH.R. 3603 - Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act
H.R. 3603 is intended to promote economic development and recreational use
of National Forest System lands and other public lands in central Idaho
Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) and the Salmon – Challis National
Forest. We support the intent of the legislation to balance long-term
conservation, expressed in the wilderness designation, with the needs to
provide rural economic development opportunities and assistance in central
Idaho.
We recognize the bill sponsor has conducted a considerable amount of
outreach and has worked collaboratively with an array of communities of
interests in the development of H.R. 3603. In addition, we understand that
the sponsor may be considering modifications that could address some of
the concerns we have with the bill as introduced. Our comments today are
based in part on the preliminary maps that we have been provided, and the
Department would like the opportunity to review final maps cited in the
legislation to ensure that they accurately identify the National Forest
System lands designated for wilderness, parcels identified for conveyance,
motorized roads and trails, and the management area boundary. In addition
to the specific bill sections outlined below, we would like the
opportunity to address minor technical changes as well.
In general we are concerned about the extent of appropriation
authorizations throughout the bill (sections 109, 112, 114, 301, 302, 304,
and 403), the conveyance of National Forest System lands without
compensation to the taxpayer, the conveyance without consideration of
lands purchased through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
permittee compensation for grazing allotment. The bill authorizes
approximately $20 million in appropriations without identifying any source
for these funds or proposed offsets. We are concerned about our ability to
absorb these costs within our current programs to implement the bill and
are concerned about how these costs may affect the ability to carry out
other planned priorities of these affected programs now and into the
future. We are also concerned the proposed land conveyances and permittee
compensation aspects of the bill will establish a disadvantageous
precedent. The administration has concerns with several provisions that
are inconsistent with the President’s budget.
I will limit my remarks to the provisions of the bill related to the lands
and activities managed by the Forest Service and will defer to the
Department of the Interior on provisions relating to the lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management.
TITLE I - Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Promotion
This title would direct the Forest Service to convey certain lands without
consideration within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA). In
general, the Department does not support the conveyance of Federal lands
without consideration.
For 31 years, the Federal government has made a strategic investment of
almost $65 million in the SNRA for land and scenic easement acquisition to
protect its resource values. Conveyance of these lands within the SNRA is
at odds with our investment, the public interest, and the purposes for
which the SNRA was established under P.L. 92-400.
Section 101 would direct the conveyance of 86 acres, including a road
encompassing about 15 acres, to Custer County. The Department does not
support this conveyance. This conveyance could disrupt the continuity of
recreation access and use for which the SNRA was established and could
compromise areas acquired to protect natural, scenic, historic, and fish
and wildlife values. Lands conveyed in this area would also affect the
Stanley Basin Allotment by reducing suitable grazing acres.
Section 102 would direct the conveyance of three parcels totaling 3.47
acres to Blaine County. The Department does not support this conveyance.
The 2-acre Smiley Creek parcel and the 0.47 acre parcel are in the
immediate foreground of the Sawtooth Scenic Byway and were purchased with
Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations in 1977. The conveyance of
these parcels would have visual impacts for the SNRA and create
administrative and management burdens on the agency. In addition, a bus
turnaround intended for the Eagle Creek Road parcel, located on the
Ketchum Ranger District, could be authorized without the need to convey
the parcel.
Section 103 would direct the conveyance of approximately 8 acres in parcel
A and another approximately 68 acres in parcel C to the City of Stanley.
The Department would not oppose conveyance of parcel A with consideration
equal to market value established through an appraisal that conforms to
appropriate standards. Although parcel A was purchased with Land and Water
Conservation Fund appropriations, its location—within the City of
Stanley—warrants conveyance at market value. To protect the public
investment of these dollars for conservation purposes, we recommend
conveying this land at market value, with receipts derived from the
conveyance being deposited in the Sisk Act funds. The Department does not
support the conveyance of parcel C as described. Parcel C is adjacent to
the Ponderosa Scenic Byway and is important elk and other wildlife
habitat. The conveyance of this land, as currently described, would
disrupt the continuity of recreation access and use for which the SNRA was
established and could compromise areas necessary to protect natural,
scenic, historic, and fish and wildlife values.
It should also be noted the bill requires the Secretary to bear the cost
to survey and develop legal descriptions for the parcels conveyed under
sections 101, 102, and 103. The Department does not support these
provisions. All costs related to the transfers, including surveys and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and compliance with other
applicable environmental laws, should be borne by the benefiting entity
rather than the federal government.
Along with each conveyance, there are extensive restrictions and
limitations on the use in the legislation, many of which coincide with
current limitations within SNRA. However, this title sets up future
conflict amongst the local government, the Forest Service and the private
landowners who acquire the conveyed property. The bill rightly positions
the county or City to enforce the land use restrictions, could place the
Secretary in a position of having to determine that the deed restrictions
are not being met. We recommend dropping this reversion provision.
Section 108 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to design,
construct, and maintain a paved trail between the City of Stanley, Idaho
and Red Fish Lake. The Department is not opposed to this section if an
offset is provided, but would recommend several modifications to improve
its implementation including the use of the existing Forest Service
30-foot easement across private lands to accommodate this direction.
Section 110 would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
to grant 10-year permit extensions for guides and outfitters within the
wilderness area and the Boulder-White Cloud Management Area established by
the bill. The agency already has authority to issue 10-year permits. We
would prefer to renew or issue new permits under our established
authority.
Section 111 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to complete and
submit to Congress a Red Trees Phase II Study evaluating approaches to
identify forest health projects that would mitigate major fire risks on
lands included in the SNRA. Any proceeds derived from these projects in
excess of costs incurred to administer the project, would be available to
carry out conservation projects in the Boulder-White Cloud Management
Area. The Department does not oppose this section. However,the Forest
Service is currently analyzing the SNRA for similar purposes through its
“Sawtooth Valley Landscape Assessment.” We would like to work with the
committee and bill sponsor on amendments to this section and to ensure the
direction in section 111 is not duplicative of the existing Agency
analysis.
As was stated previously in our testimony, the Department has concerns
with the amount of appropriations authorized by the bill. In addition,
section 112 would authorize funds to make direct grants to Custer County,
Idaho to support sustainable economic development and to the State of
Idaho and for acquisition of Bayhorse Campground. The Department does not
support this section. We believe other rural and economic development
funds are suitable to this purpose.
Section 113 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to construct a new
road and bridge on National Forest land to ensure the continuation of
public access to Bowery National Forest Guard Station. The estimated
construction costs are approximately $950,000. The Department supports
continued access to the Bowery site, but it opposes this section and would
prefer to provide access by using the Forest Service’s existing fee strip.
TITLE II – Central Idaho Wilderness Areas
This title would add additional areas in central Idaho to the National
Wilderness Preservation System – 96,700 acres in the Sawtooth and Challis
National Forests to be known as the “Ernest Hemingway - Boulder
Wilderness,” 73,100 acres in the Sawtooth and Challis National Forests to
be known as the “White Clouds Wilderness,” and approximately 131,700 acres
in the Challis National Forest and Challis District of the Bureau of Land
Management to be known as “Jerry Peak Wilderness.” The Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior would collaborate to develop a Comprehensive
Wilderness Management Plan for the designated wilderness areas.
The Department supports the wilderness designations as proposed with some
minor modifications. We would like to work with the committee and bill
sponsor to modify the boundaries to better align with natural landscape
features and to reduce the potential for conflicts between motorized and
non-motorized users. We have concern with some management provisions in
sections 204, 205, 207, 208 and 209. These provisions could be interpreted
as authorizing non-conforming uses. The applicable provisions in the
Wilderness Act of 1964 are adequate for administering the areas designated
as wilderness by this title. We also would like to work with the committee
and bill sponsor to clarify language on adjacent management, wildfire
management, wildlife management, Native American culture and religious
uses, and military overflights.
Section 202(e)(1) would require the construction of two trailheads. The
construction of new trailhead facilities is not desirable given current
public use and cost. The existing Big Boulder trailhead is currently
shared between motorized and non-motorized forest visitors with little or
no conflict and is appropriately sized given its current use . The Wickiup
Trail is a primitive low-maintenance trail, and we prefer to keep the
trail at this experience level.
Section 202(e)(2) would authorize the establishment of primitive,
non-paved wheelchair accessible trails into wilderness. The proposed
interim directive that would require compliance with the Forest Service
Trail Accessibility Guidelines strives to make new or altered trails
accessible while maintaining the natural setting. We think this direction
is adequate to maximize accessibility while protecting wilderness values.
Section 206 is intended to protect the wilderness values of the areas
designated as wilderness by title II by means other than a federally
reserved water right. While the Department does not oppose the definitions
regarding water rights, we would like to work with the Committee and bill
sponsors to clarify the relationship between subsections (c) is pertaining
to statutory construction and (d) requiring the Secretary to adhere to
procedural and substantive requirements of described Idaho Water Law.
Also, the Forest Service has recently concluded a settlement with the
State of Idaho and other parties over federal reserved water rights for
the Salmon Wild and Scenic River (SW&SR). The SW&SR is located downstream
of most of the proposed conveyances in title I. As part of the SW&SR
settlement, the parties agreed to certain subordinations to water rights
for future uses. Land conveyances under H.R. 3603 may have the potential
to create water withdrawals from the Salmon River in amounts greater than
those anticipated during negotiations. The land conveyances may result,
over time, in reduced instream flows and degraded water quality, with the
potential to adversely affect the protections afforded fish and recreation
reached through this agreement. We would like to work with the Committee
and bill sponsors to insure the subordinations for future waters rights
are maintained.
TITLE III – Boulder-White Cloud Management Area
This title would establish a “Boulder-White Cloud Management Area” for
certain lands not designated as wilderness under title II, and provides
for management for roads, timber harvest, trails, and land acquisition and
designation of motorized trail access. The Department supports the
designation of the management area since the area would continue to be
managed in accordance with existing management plans of the individual
units that it overlays – the SNRA and Sawtooth, and Salmon-Challis
National Forests.
The Department is concerned about the extent of specific direction
regarding road and trail use, closure, and management, such as section 303
which authorize specific roads and trails to be closed to both motorized
and non-motorized uses with limited options for future modifications. We
would prefer to manage motorized and non-motorized opportunities through
the existing September 1, 2003 Travel Management Plan, making adjustments
based on user demand and resource conditions as needed.
Section 302 prohibits the use of condemnation within the area. This
direction would create an inconsistency within the SNRA. Without the
ability to enforce SNRA standards through condemnation proceedings, the
likelihood of non-conforming uses may increase, to the detriment of SNRA
values. We recommend that the section be amended to retain this tool
within the SNRA.
TITLE IV – Waiver of Grazing Permits
This title would provide economic options for livestock permittees through
a voluntary grazing permit waiver program. The Department is opposed to
this title of the bill. We have serious concerns about the policy and
proposed system for compensating permittees for the use of these
allotments. Grazing on National Forest System land has been determined by
the courts to be a privilege, not a right. The Department does not believe
grazing privileges should be compensated since Forest Service regulations
allow for a grazing permit to be canceled, modified, or suspended, in
whole or part, where lands grazed under the permit are to be devoted to
another public purpose including disposal. This fundamental change in
national policy and federal law would be a costly precedent that we do not
support.
Also, livestock grazing is a legitimate use of National Forest System
lands. We believe that continued access for grazing in this area is
compatible with resource management for vital and healthy ecosystems and
important to help ensure that these lands remain working landscapes and as
open space. We recommend retaining the opportunity to reallocate these
allotments for future livestock grazing.
