Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP)

              United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Sawtooth
Nstlonal
Forest
2647 Kimberly Road East
Twin Falls, ID 83301·7976
Telephone: (208) 737·3200
J 0 .~IJ.: ! <' '~I ,I , ~" ' I ' ',I File Code: 1500 i' I' , ,
: . .~.· I
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Governor of the State of Idaho
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Cecil:
Date: December 8, 1994
The Sawtooth National Forest employees would like to extend their very best to you as you leave the
office of Idaho's Governor, You have served this state and its people extremely well.
You have been a great friend of the National Forests in ldaho,..a friend that not only supported us, but
offered good advice where you felt we needed to rethink things. Those of us that have had the opportunity
to work with you over the years will truly miss your leadership and contributions to Idaho's •great outdoors, •
In addition to your involvement with resource management issues, your support of recreation and
tourism has made Idaho a leader in the nation. The annual Idaho Governor's Conference on Recreation
and Tourism takes a back seat to no other state.
Please know that you always have a personal invitation from us to be a frequent visitor to the Sawtooth
National Forest. If in the future there is anything we can do to help you plan a trip to this area, please
contact us.
Again, from all of us here on the Sawtooth National Forest, please accept our sincerest, best wishes to
both you and Carol on a long and enjoyable retirement.
Kindest gards,
( eiiLe2~t
.BILLS q
Caring for the Land and Serving People
FS·6200·28b(4/l!lll
CECIL 0. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
Donna Spotts
Rt- 1, Box 66BB
Ashland, WI 54806
Dear Ms. Spotts:
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 83720-1000
1208) 334-2100
November 21, 1994
I received your letter concerning the draft environmental
impact statement covering commercial activities within the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness. Maintaining the quality
and integrity of this outstanding area is critically important
and is an issue we have followed closely for many years.
It is my understanding that recently-revised guidelines for
commercial operators in the Wilderness require them to use lowimpact
camping techniques and equipment, do not allow for any
permanent structures, and stipulate that caches of equipment and
supplies are not permitted.
Every agency involved with assessing the viability of
commercial operations on public lands is struggling with
identifying effective ways to determine the need for these
services. The State of Idaho Outfitters and Guides Licensing
Board, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management are
all trying to deal with the concept of measuring the need for
client services when considering license and permit applications.
It is a difficult issue and one that will require considerable
analysis.
With best regards,
CDA:aba
F/ !--IJG F
Sincerely,
Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
Governor Cecil D. Andrus
State Capitol
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
October 24, 1994
[ffiE@~~~EID)
OCT 2 71994
oFFICE~ft~ER
Please support a strengthened Alternative #4 in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement relating to commercial activities within
the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness within the Salmon
National Forest in Idaho, and otherwise work to stop the continued
use of permanent structures by commercial outfitters.
Attached is a copy of my letter responding to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. I hope you find this letter of interest.
I also hope that you share my strong belief that the U.S. Forest
Service should be doing a much better job of protecting the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Salmon River.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Encl. 1
Route 1, Box 66BB
Ashland, WI 54806
Donna Spotts
October 23, 1994
Charles C. Wildes, Forest Supervisor
Salmon National Forest
P.O. Box 729
Salmon, ID 83467
Re: Input on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) relating
to commercial activities within the Frank Church-River of No
Return Wilderness.
Dear Mr. Wildes:
This letter contains my comments and recommendations on the abovereferenced
DEIS. Please consider my input, and include this letter
in the appropriate administrative record.
At the outset, I believe that the U.S. Forest Service has not properly
regulated commercial activities within the Frank ChurchRiver
of No Return Wilderness and the associated river corridor
ostensibly protected under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System Act. For example, I understand that commercial outfitters
built a lodge and cabins along the Salmon River, without obtaining
any permits. These structures include hot and cold running water,
showers, flush toilets, and electric lights.
This type of commercial development is clearly not appropriate in
a federal wilderness area and/or a river corridor-designated under
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act. Indeed, until a
recent lawsuit, it appears that the u.s. Forest Service was "asleep
at the switch" in terms of adequate monitoring and enforcement to
ensure compliance under federal laws and regulations.
With this background in mind, I am disappointed that the DEIS proposed
action appears to be to allow inappropriate commercial developments
to continue. This would be adding insult to injury.
Please support and implement the DEIS Alternative #4. This Alternative
#4 would eliminate all of the permanent structures and require
outfitters to pack their equipment in and out whenever they use
their camps. This is consistent with the treatment of all private
parties and flow trip outfitters. Implementing Alternative #4
would be consistent with the federal protection for this area, and
would be fair in terms of treatment among other visitors and outfitters.
However, I recommend that Alternative #4 be strengthened. For example,
the need for commercial hunting and fishing services should be demonstrated
before any permits are issued. In addition, permits should
not allow outfitters to operate from the same location for every trip.
Alternative campsites should be required to rotate use, so that
adverse impacts can be avoided or mitigated. With the strengthening
improvements, I believe that Alternative #4 is the only approach
..
2.
that will ensure future compliance under the Wilderness Act and the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act.
• Thank you very much for your consideration.
cc: Interested parties
Route 1, Box 66BB
Ashland, WI 54806
Sincerely,
D~::;;;~~
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Honorable Cecil Andrus
Governor of Idaho
Statehouse Mail
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
Boise
National
Forest
1750 Front Street
Boise, ID 83702
File Code: 5100
Date: November 21, 1994
~~[Gj~~~~IDJ
NQV 25 1994
FAG-F
OFFICE OF GoVERNOR
On the afternoon of September 6, 125 members of several Type I and Type II crews
and their supervisors moved to a predetermined safe area at Graham guard
station, Boise National Forest, pushed off the firelines by erratic and violent
fire behavior.
Forest Service fire photographers were with the crews and were able to provide
an often intense, but very educational, look at what it means to "have escape
routes" and to use them.
The video entitled "GRAHAM" is neither a review of fire strategy nor tactics.
We purposefully do not attempt any analysis of what happened or why. We believe
the tape is eloquent testimony that our people are well led, well trained, and
well equipped to deal with firefighting contingencies. A key point is that
preplanning and orderly execution of the plan prevented a dramatic, but not
uncommon, large fire event from becoming an emergency.
Offered without narrative, the sound and radio traffic you hear, and the
pictures you see, are "live." The time period represented in the four-minute
tape is mid-morning on September 6 to late that same afternoon.
Because we believe "GRAHAM" will have the broadest possible application in
helping to educate firefighters across the Nation, we will submit the tape to
the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, via the appropriate working team, for
distribution through the National Interagency Fire Center's Publications
Management System.
Sincerely,
Supervisor
Enclosure
Caring for the Land and Serving People
FS-6200· 28b(4!881
IDAHO DEPARTMENT
Of
PARKS& RECREATION
CECIL D. ANDRUS
Governor
YVONNE S. FERRELL
FRANKLIN E. BOTELER, Ph.D.
Deputy Dlrec:tor
IDAHO PARK AND
RECREATION BOARD
Robert M. Haakenson
Region One
Thomas L. Neal
Region Two
Sheila Robertson
Regimr Titree
Glenn Shewmaker
Region Fmlr
Ren E. Thomson
Region Five
Monte Q. Later
Region Six
P.O. BOX 83720
. BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0065
(208) 33-1--1199
FAX (208) 334-3741
TDD 1-800-377-3529
Street Address
5657 \\'arm Springs Al·enue
Equal Opportunity Employer
November 15, 1994
Paul Reis, Area Ranger
USDA, Forest Service
SNRA, Sawtooth National Forest
Star Route
Ketchum, ID 83340
Dear Mr. Reis: ~ ••
Re: Redfish Lake Visitor Center
File Code: 1950/2330
Your letter was referred to this department by Governor Andrus.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond on this issue.
The Redfish Lake Visitor Center is an exceptionally interesting
historic building. That it is the second oldest in the National
Forest System (constructed in 1963) will make your decision
making process more difficult. From my experience with the NPS
and State Parks, I have found that people expect the visitor
centers and ranger stations to have the feel of the era in which
the area was developed. It is not always financially responsible,
as we have found in the State Park system, to remodel buildings
to accommodate current laws such as ADA . It can be much
more cost effective to construct new facilities. Those elements
need to be weighed when you address the feel you wish to keep
in the area. It is extremely important to accommodate the ADA
standards in all construction. An accessible parking area should
be added. If the potential to add-on to the current structure
exists, and at the same time make improvements to the existing
structure which would allow you to extend the season of use,
that would seem to be a viable option.
The winter recreational use season at Redfish Lake seems to be
receiving increased use. Some type of Forest Service presence
could benefit both the Forest Service and the user. If you decide
to improve the existing structure, the potential for opening a part
of the visitor center to provide information and possibly
emergency radio or phone service should be addressed .
The Fishhook Creek trail needs to be modified to be more
conscientious of the Kokanee Salmon and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). All bicycles should be removed. There are
currently Paul Reis, Area Ranger
November 16, 1994
Page 2
signs saying that it is closed to bicycle use, but that needs to be
enforced. The trail is heavily used, and the SNRA should be
concerned about reducing the potential for a take under the ESA.
Building a boardwalk to contain the trail user may assist that
effort. More interpretation of the impacts of humans on salmon
need to be incorporated into the length of the trail as it parallels
the spawning area. People should be informed as to the journey
the salmon have taken, and legal and financial impacts of a take.
This is an extremely good opportunity to educate through
interpretation.
The safety issue involving straightening road #214 is an
important one. Rehabing the area if this work were to take place
should be a priority.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
'"""'trtl { L-1 ~(j_~l'ht~'f::-
Mary Lucachick
Natural Resource Specialist
SNRA.SNF
cc: Andy Brunelle, Office of Governor Andrus
SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST
SCOPING DOCUMENT
Redflsh Lake VIsitor Center Reconstruction
UNIT: Sawtooth National Recreation Area
DATE: October, 5, 1994
BACKGROUND: The need for improvements at Redfish Lake Visitor Center (RLVC) has been
recognized for over a decade. The goal of the current project is to improve visitor service and to
update 30 year old interpretive exhibits. Equally important is the need to improve accessibility and
address safety and maintenance problems. The existing building is not accessible. The steep
pathway from the parking lot is nearly impossible for people in wheelchairs and challenging for elderly
people or those in poor health. The building itself has several sets of steps both inside and outside
and leading to the restrooms. The heating and water systems tor the building are adequate only for
summer operation which limits the opportunities for winter or even early and late season use. The
popular Fishhook Creek Boardwalk, adjacent to the parking lot, requires nearly constant maintenance
to make it safe for use.
PROPOSED PROJECT/ACTION:
Possible improvements in the Redlish Lake Visitor Center Area include:
- renovate and/or add to the existing building
- abandon or remove existing building and construct a new visitor center near the
'!-intersection• of the old road to the lodge and the curve in the present road ( #214)
- provide winterized utilities for the visitor center
-relocation of Redfish Lake Road (#214) to straighten the curve and improve safety
- reconstruction of Fishhook Creek Boardwalk
- construction and/or improving trails in the area (improving and extending the old roadways
along the lake, constructing a new interpretive trail along the road from the lake to Hwy 75. )
- upgrade amphitheater to make it accessible and more •user-friendly"
- provide accessible parking area
- renovate existing guard station for housing or program use
RELATIONSHIP TO FOREST PLAN AND OTHER DOCUMENTS: The Sawtooth NRA was created
to assure the preservation and protection of natural, scenic, historic, pastoral and fish and wildlife
values, and to provide for the enhancement of associated recreational values in accordance with
Public Law 92-400. The visitor center site is located within management unit 4A-11 of the Forest Plan.
General Forest Plan direction addresses making visitor information facilities accessible to all visitors
(IV-18). Specific direction for the Sawtooth NRA includes enlarging the VIS program and facilities to
better meet user needs (IV-96). Direction for management area 4-A places a priority on construction
and reconstruction of facilities in these popular, high use areas. The Interpretive Master Plan lor the
Sawtooth NRA also places a high priority on enhancing the interpretive program at Redfish.
OBJECTIVES (NEED FOR ANALYSIS), CONSTRAINTS, AND DECISION(S) TO BE MADE:
- Maintain a visitor contact and interpretive center in the Redfish Complex
- Improve visitor services and accessibility
- Update interpretive exhibits, signs and trails
- Address safety concerns (people vs cars and RV's)
-The decision to be made is how best to meet the goals of improving visitor service. accessibility
and interpretive opportunities in the area.
United State•
Department of
Agriculture
Governor Cecil D. Andrus
State House
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
Foreat
Service
Region 1
~k a
Federal Building
P.O. Box 7~69
Mluoula, MT 59807
File Code: 1950/2430
Date: Novembe~, ~9~ ~ ~ W ~ [D)
NOV 141994
r=-A&F OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
In 1994 there were 1 ,982 fires In the Northern Region affecting almost 195,000 acres. Approximately 0.5% of the
National Forest lands In our region, or 118,000 acres, are included in that total figure.
Early in October, I Initiated a post-fire study to gain a better understanding of the cumulative effects of the 1994
fire season. The focus of this study dealt with effects on natural resources.
The enclosed report, entitled 'Post Fire Evaluation and Characterization Report' was finalized earlier this week.
The purpose of the report is to characterize post-fire conditions at the broad region level. This information will
be used by individual Forests as they consider management opportunities in and around the burned areas.
This report is based upon our ecosystems approach and contains ecosystem management principles. In it, fire
is recognized as a major influence on the ecosystems within our region.
The report provides four products: 1) bibliography, 2) information, 3) considerations, and 4) a priority setting
process. The bibliography will provide sources of information the Forests can use when completing their finer
landscape analyses. The information section provides tabular and spatial information about fire size and
location. The considerations section provides a list of items Forests should consider when looking at
opportunities for management in and around burned areas. These items are based on ecosystem management
principles. Finally, the priority setting process provides a process Forests can follow when setting priorities for
analysis of burned areas.
Mhough this report is designed primarily for internal use, it contains information that will be of great interest to
many people throughout the northwest. We look forward to sharing what we have learned, and what we will
continue to learn about the effects of the 1994 fire season with those who are interested.
Please call us if we can answer any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
'~7~·{ /}'-/; 7~~ /
i .· DAVID F. JOLLY /' r::__../
~V Regional Forester
Enclosure
m
FlffiGF /
United States
Department of
A riculture
Honorable Cecil Andrus
Governor of Idaho
St[lte C.c1pitol
Boise, ID 83 720
Dear Governor Andrus:
Forest
Service
Intermountain
Region
324 25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401-2310
File Code: 1510
Date: NOV 0 4 1994

NOV 0 91994
FffG-F
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
The final report of management actions following the fatal South Canyon Fire
was released October 28 by the Chief of the Forest Service and Director of the
Bureau of Land Management. Enclosed is a fact sheet about the report prepared
by the Interagency Management Review Team. The team was appointed as a result
of the South Canyon Fire in Colorado this summer and the investigation of the
irtc~iclcrtt. The report is also enclosed.
If you have further questions, please contact:
Tom Allen (State Director of Alaska BLM), Team Leader, 907/271-5076
Mike Edrington (Director, Fire & Aviation, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region), 503/326-2931
Sincerely,
ReBi<liJnl Forester
Enclosure
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper ..A.
FS-6200·28b (12/93) ,_.r
-
Interagency Management Review Team
South Canyon Fire
Fact Sheet, October 28, 1994
Following the tragic South Canyon Fire on July 6, 1994, in Colorado, an
Interagency Accident Investigation Team was convened. The group released a
report on August 22, 1994 that identified the causes of the accident and
recommended actions that should be implemented to prevent similar future
occurrences. An Interagency Management Review Team (IRMT) was appointed to
take immediate corrective actions, develop an action plan for implementing the
recommendations of the investigation report, and make recommendations on
related fire program management issues.
The attached report of the IMRT has the concurrence and support of the
directors of all the Federal wildland firefighting agencies. It has also been
accepted by the senior safety and health officials of the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture. Implementation of the report's recommendations will
be accomplished in cooperation with all state partners in wildland firefighting
operations.
The IMRT found a dire need to create a passion for safe firefighting practices
Lo be generated by leaders showing a clear and steadfast commitment to safety.
The team emphasized the importance of training and qualifications for agency
managers at all levels in wildland fire management. It also identified the
need to more strongly emphasize accountability among agency leaders, fire
manrtgers, and firefighters.
The IMRT took several steps to improve safety for firefighters during the
remainder of the 1994 fire season. For example, the team requested that each
wildland fire agency director personally convey the importance of agency
management involvement in wildland fire suppression, particularly to emphasize
that "Safety is Job #1." The team requested that each successively lower level
of management convey the message to the next level until all employees in
lE'adcrship and other fire suppression roles received the message.
The IMRT prepared a plan to implement more than 30 corrective actions that
wildland firefighting agencies need to implement, most of which are expected to
be implemented by next year's Western fire season. These actions will affect a
variety of areas including the use of weather and fire behavior information,
training and involvement of leaders and fire management personnel, management
of firefighting programs, and planning of firefighting operations for
above-average fire seasons. Among other things, the team stressed the
importance of having qualified personnel at all levels of wildland firefighting
operations, including senior agency officials.
The team identified three major issues of fire management policy that have
implications for firefighter safety and operational effectiveness:
preparedness, fuels management, and wildland/urban interface. These areas have
ramifications beyond the immediate scope of the report. However, the team
strongly recommended that the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture take
actions to address these issues.
Interagency Management Review Team Fact Sheet 2
In the report, the team identifies work groups and specific personnel from all
Federal wildland firefighting agencies as responsible for implementing the
recommendations. The report sets deadline~ for implementing each
recommendation and calls for regular progress reports from each group.
CECIL D. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
Mr. Steve Hayden
Supervisory Civil
North Fork Ranger
P 0 Box 180
North Fork, Idaho
Dear Mr. Hayden:
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 83720-1000
October 6, 1994
Engineer
District
83466
(208) 334·2 I 00
It is my understanding that a controversy continues to boil
over the use of Mr. Norm Guth's land immediately adjacent to the
Salmon River. Because I am personally familiar with the
property, the issues, and the personalities involved, I would
like to express my opinion that to cause Mr. Guth to vacate the
mining claim property and thereby lose his substantial personal
investment would be a travesty and a violation of the Idaho code
of honor, which is that a man's word is his bond. I think this
code also covers the U. S. Forest Service, and if you would ask
your colleagues their personal opinions, without injecting the
bureaucratic legalese, they would agree.
I have been intimately involved in protecting the Salmon
River corridor, the creation of the Gospel Hump Wilderness Area,
and the creation of the Frank Church River of No Return
Wilderness. Perhaps I am one of the few governmental officials
left who has been through it from start to finish. I visited the
fishing camp in question prior to the time that Mr. Guth
purchased the claim. Although I supported moving it back away
from the river, I then recognized and do now recognize an
existing historic use of this area as dictated by law and
historic uses.
I was aware at the time Mr. Guth purchased the property that
he did so with the full knowledge and approval of the U. S.
Forest Service and the clear understanding among all parties that
they wanted the old facilities removed from the bank of the river
to a less conspicuous site on the claim. Here again, the Forest
Service told him where to place the new structure and signed off
on many other details including the color of paint to use on the
completed structure.
{continued~< ./ _ Ju
~ l[~~~y
16 September 1994
Governor Cecil Andrus
State House
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus,
OFFIC:I: OF GOVERNOR
Enclosed is a letter that the Hells Canyon CMP Tracking Group has recently sent to
Robert Richmond, Forest Supervisor of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. It is our
· Mr. of the CMP for the Hells Canyon
In the enclosed letter, we are attempting to get straight answers from Mr. Richmond.
Any help you can offer in reinforcing the need for clarity from Mr. Richmond will be
appreciated.
Your support for a comprehensive review of the ecological conditions of Hells
Canyon and the wisdom of reorienting management of Hells Canyon toward wildlife and
ecosystem restoration, non-motorized recreation, and environmental protection will be
appreciated .
. It may be of interest to you, as well, that the of ·.·~ =:=;:~~f~llcl~c··~;:, continue to pursue such standalone
designation, because the NRA continues to be subordinated to the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest and treated as such.
P.O. Box 12056
Eugene, OR 97440
Sincerely,
N\lllv6 ~. D' ~
Mary H. O'Brien ~~
for the Hells Canyon CMP Tracking Group ~ ·,~ S~~ t,
~ ~ o.:'l: '-Y ~Y-'
~ .S· c;r
14 September 1994
Robert Richmond
Forest Supervisor
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
P.O. Box 907
Baker City, Oregon 97814
Dear Mr. Richmond,
The Hells Canyon CMP Tracking Group1 is writing to you, the Supervisor of the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, in an attempt to obtain clear answers to some specific,
fundamental questions about whether the Forest Service intends to revise the first (and ohly)
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) Comprehensive Management Plan
(CMP)2
• As you know, this CMP was frrst released in its present form fifteen years ago, in
1979.'
As we have indicated since our formation, the Hells Canyon CMP Tracking Group is
committed to providing ideas and suggestions as the Forest Service revisits the 1979 CMP,
and to communicating widely with the public regarding the significance of this revisitation.
We must therfore fully understand what this CMP process does entail and what it does not
entail.
The three most fundamental questions we have are:
1. Whether the Forest Service is "revising" the CMP or "adjusting" the CMP;
2. The difference between an "amendment" to a Forest Plan and a "significant
amendment" to the Forest Plan;
3. What "adjustments" and "amendments" mean in terms of real changes in the
new CMP.
We ask these questions in more specific form below.
' The Hells Canyon CMP Tracking Group consists of representatives of fourteen local, regional, and
national environmental, fishing, and hw\ting organizations and tribes ..
2 U.S. Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman, Nezperce, Payette National Forests .. 1981. Comprehensive
Managmenl Plan for Hells Canyon NatioMI Recreation Area, p. 2.
' Even though the existing CMP was finally signed in 1984, the information on which the CMP is based,
the vast majority of its contents, and the standards and guidelines that constitute the CMP were put forth five years
earlier, in 1979. The Assistant Secretary of Agriculture made adjustments in some mansgement direction in 1984.
Revision of the CMP?
The current CMP states, "A mqjor revision of this plan will take place in 1990;
minor revisions may be undertaken as necessary at any time prior to 1990" (CMP, p. 2,
emphasis added).
On September 23, 1993, you spoke at a hearing on management of the HCNRA
before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, chaired by
Rep. Bruce Vento. At that hearing you indicated a "new" CMP would be prepared for the
HCNRA, beginning January 1994. Subsequent press releases issued by the Forest Service
echoed this commitment.
On March 23, 1994, Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas wrote a letter to Dr.
Mary O'Brien of our Hells CanyonCMP Tracking Group in which he said, "I am confident
Mr. Richmond and his staff will be very cooperative in working with you and others in
preparation of a new comprehensive management plan for the HCNRA • (emphasis added).
The Congressional FY'94 Interior Appropriations bill stated that Congress
cencourages the Forest Service "to proceed with the [CMP] revision as expeditiously as
possible. • .
"Adjustment" of the CMP, Rather Than Revision?
2
Beginning with a March 1994 public mailing and a March 28, 1994 meeting with the
Hells Canyon CMP Tracking Group, representatives of the Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest now studiously speak of an "adjustment" and indicate they are IlQ1 going to "revise"
the fifteen-year-old CMP.
Our Questions of You
We are not clear what this means, and so we request direct answers to the following
eight questions (the specific questions are italicized and bold):
1. What is the legal or administrative precedent for and definition of an
"adjustment" of a CMP as opposed to a "revision" of a CMP?
2. We have heard from some in the Forest Service that the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest does not want to "open up" the Wallowa-Whitman Forest
Plan, so the CMP must be "adjusted,_" not "revised. •
(a) What does "open up" the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan mean?
'
(b) Is it true that you intend to avoid "opening up" the Wallowa-Whitman
Forest Plan during the process of revisiting the 1979 CMP?
3
3. Do you intend to make only "non-significant" amendments to the Forest Plan
via the CMP revision, or are you willing to undertake "significant"
amendments as a result of revisiting the 1981 CMP?4
4. Are changes to the existing HCNRA CMP that would qffect land and
resources throughout a large portion of the Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest considered feasible during this revisitation of the CMP? (The HCNRA
constitutes approximately 30% of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest land
base.)
We note in your Forest Service Manual (1922.52) that changes that~
affect a large portion of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would
constitute significant changes to the Forest Plan.
5. Are changes (other than "minor" changes) in any of the standards and
guidelines in the rifteen-jear-old CMP, or changes which would significantly
aller the multiple-use goals for management of the HCNRA considered
feasible during this revisitation of the CMP?
We note in your Forest Service Manual (FSM 1992.51) that only "minor"
changes in standards and guidelines and actions that do not significantly alter
the multiple-use goals and objectives are allowed for non-significant changes to
a Forest Plan.
Note: Questions #2-#5 are crucial, because the existence of the Hells Canyon
National Recreation Area as a subdivision of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest appears
to be creating a clear planning conflict. The HCNRA Act requires that the HCNRA have its
own CMP, and yet it appears that you are treating it as a satellite of the overall WallowaWhitman
Forest Plan. If this is the case, then having the HCNRA as a subdivision of the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is dragging down the HCNRA CMP process by placing
constraining "sideboards" (to use a Forest Service term) around the planning process.
6. Will we be able to appeal the new CMP?
We note in the new rule regarding appeals of National Forest system projects
and activities' that "non-significant amendments" to a Forest Plan are not
subject to appeal (Section 211.4 "Decisions not subject to appeal").
• According to May 1993 Regional Office direction regarding Amending Forest Plans, "Changes
that ... affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period"; changes
other than minor changes in standards and guidelines; and 'any changes that significantly alter multiple-use goals and
objectives for long-term land and resource management are considered "significant" amendments. (U.S. Forest
Service. May 4, 1993. Regional Office Memorandum re: Correcting Forest Plans. Portland, Oregon[?()
' 46 CFR Section 215. Notice, comment and appeal procedures for National Forest System projects and
activities; Requesting review of National Forest plans and project decisions; Final rule. Federal Register 59813
(November 4, 1993).
D!> you intend that your revision (or, as you call it, your "adjustment") of the
CMP will constitute a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan, and that
the revision will thus be exempt from appeal?
7. Do you feel management direction for the HCNRA needs to be rewritten to
the extent that a "significant" Forest Plan amendment is necessary in order
to address any or aU of the foUowing issus that have come to a head since
1979 and to address new scientific and ecological information:
a. Adherence to the new regulations established for public and private
lands in the HCNRA?
b. Listing of fall and spring chinook salmon as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act?
(Note: The Imnaha and Snake Rivers in the HCNRA and Grande
Ronde and Salmon Rivers are critical spawning habitat for these
salmon.)
c. Deterioration of forest health and the unraveling of the Blue
Mountain forest ecosystem, including the forest system of the
HCNRA?
d. Invasion of the HCNRA grasslands by noxious weeds?
e. Explicit federal policy requiring consultation and close coordination
with tribal governments nd protection of tribal trust resources?
f. Vandalism and substantial degradation of tribal resources and sites?
4
8. In the past 15 years, new scientific information and changing public understanding of
the disappearance and fragility of wild areas and wildlife may be leading to the need
for quite different management emphases than have been practiced by the Forest
Service in the HCNRA since 1975.
Please indicate (a) which of the foUowing you would consider to be
"revising" the CMP, and which you would consider to be "atijusting" the
CMP, and why; and (b) which of the foUowing would "open up the Forest
Plan" and which would not, and why:
a. Adopting management direction that would foUow closely Alternative
F (an alternative that was !M1 chosen by the Forest Service in 1979) of
the 1979 CMP Drqft Environmental Impact Statement:
Establish high priority for primitive recreation opportunities with
provisions for only minimum recreation and road improvements;
manage and harvest timber solely to enhance wildlife, recreation, and
visual values. Manage grazing so as to achieve an ecological
dominance of native species for proportionate use by wildlife and
permitted deomestic livestock; recommendation of roadless areas for
addition to the National Wilderness System; and power and floatboat
use regulations with exclusion of powerboats during the peak season
from Pittsburg Landing to Hells Canyon Dam.
b. Adopting ecosystem restoration, recovery, and protection as the
primary management direction for the HCNRA, with fundamental
modification or exclusion of those human uses that impede with the
attainment of defined and significant ecosystem restoration goals
(including significantly increasing the populations of native wildlife
species and plant associations that have decreased significantly since
1900) or with maintenance of healthy ecosystem features.
5
c. Clear emphasis on and priority for non-motorized human uses of the
HCNRA, including extensive road closures, no new road construction,
and maintenance only of current road surfacing and conditions;
establishment of a foot trail along the western rim of Hells Canyon
from Overlook I to P.O. Saddle; and a halt to additional modern tourist
developments.
d. Management direction that requires that for any given human use (e.g.,
access to the rim areas of Hells Canyon), the option of least harm to
the longterm social and biological "wildness" of HeUs Canyon will be
adopted. ·
e. Manaiing the HCNRA as a seamless ecosystem by disbanding the
management areas such as Dispersed Recreation; Timber; and Forage.
f. Explicit consideration of Native American traditional activities and
settings as traditional uses of the HCNRA and increasing tribal
management roles in the HCNRA for restoration and protection of
traditional Native American cultural resources and uses.
g. PoUcy and statutory requirements for consultation and protection of
tribal trust resources.
h. Adoption and implementation of management practices and desired
conditions that are quantified where feasible or otherwise concretely
stated, so that when such practices are not undertaken or conditions are
not being met (e.g., because of lack of funding, failure of management
practices to achieve predicted conditions, or failure of Forest Service
personnel to undertake particular practices), there are consequences for
. the continuation of relevant human uses of the HCNRA.
(An example is worth noting. Although the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest admits to being unable to fulfill many wildlife
6
· monitoring commitments because of the lack of funding for its wildlife
biology program, it is intending to proceed with a $2.1 million
motorized tourism development on the western rim of Hells Canyon, in
the absence of having monitored the wildlife effects of other, recent
motorized tourist roads and developments on the rim and elsewhere in
Hells Canyon.)
Your answers in each of the above .cases will:
1. Help us understand the difference between what the Wallowa-Whitman Forest
is calling a "revision" of the CMP and what it is calling an "adjustment" of the
CMP;
2. Help us understand which~ of CMP cha.1ges can be "on the table" for
serious consideration during this revisit of the overall condition of the HCNRA
and its CMP and which cannot;
3. Assure us that those who are overseeing this CMP process in the WallowaWhitman
National Forest are clear on the difference between a "revision" of
the CMP and an "adjustment" of the CMP and about what is on the table and
what is not.
Thank you for responding to the above eight questions as quickly and candidly as
possible. If you have a clear understanding and policy as to what you are doing as you and
the public look at current vs. potential conditions in Hells Canyon and revisit the HCNRA 's
fifteen-year-old CMP, then it will not take much time at all to respond to the above
questions. We hope that you will be able to respond no later than Monday. October 3,
approximately three weeks from your receipt of this letter.
As Dr. Mary O'Brien is facilitating the work of the Hells Canyon CMP Tracking
Group, please contact her at: (503) 485-6886; P.O. Box 12056, Eugene, OR 97440. She
will communicate your responses to the rest of the Tracking Group. She will be contacting
your office during the coming week to see if you have any questions about what we are
asking with these questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
mill"'~ H . c · ~1~,
~FL The Hells Canyon CMP Tracking Group*
NO. 34 **
Rafts of Ire
U.S. Forest Service
Finds Itself Bedeviled
By Hells Canyon Plan
Agency Seeks a Compromise
For Boaters and Floaters,
But Bad Blood Abounds
Gunplay and Voodoo Dolls
By CHARLEs McCoY
Sto.jf Reporter oj TKIC WALL 8TP.BET JOURNAL
HELLS CANYON, Idaho- R,!c Bailey,
river rafter and environmentalist, stands
near the banks of the Snake River at the
bottom of North America's deepest .canyon,
musing about the rough beauty of the
place. "Wilderness is disappearing fast In
this country, but we can still save this
canyon, if we ... "
"Ahhh, bull-!" bellows a man wearing
a red shirt. "Get the hell out of Idaho!"
adds Claire Drexler, a retiree from Twin
Fails. The two are among a group just
returned from a thundering run upriver on
one of a fleet of jet boats that race daily
through the canyon. Between floaters and
boaters here, hell pretty much describes
the relationship.
In fact, It Is turning out to be a long, hot
summer In Hells Canyon on a lot of fronts.
Here, against a
spectacular scenic
backdrop, the full
panoply of the
West's increasingly
bitter land-use conflicts
is being fought
out - fights over
grazing and logging;
over roads
and dirt bikes; over
disappearing
salmon and wild
trout. And like the
feud between river · Ric Bailey
rafters and powerboaters,
these feuds are becoming Increasingly
nasty - there have been shouting
matches, death threats and even occasional
gunplay.
THURSDAY, AUGUST \8, 1994
Such matters are coming to a head now
because the U.S. Forest Service, the federal
agency charged with overseeing Hells
Canyon National Recreation Area, Is wrestling
with final details of a plan It says will
better balance rival uses of the place over
the next decade. For the Forest Service,
the plan is an early test case for the new,
gTeener ethic that Jack Ward Thomas, the
reform-minded biologist named to head
the agency last year, wants to Instill.
Echoing decades of environmentalists'
complaints, Mr. Thomas says that the
service for too long has tilted toward the
interests of timber companies and
ranchers, neglecting ecosystems and wild·
life on much of Its 232 million acres of
federal land. There Is also a personal
element to the push for Hells canyon: Mr.
Thomas spent 20 years working out of a
nearby Forest Service office, and has hiked
and hunted It many times.
"It's a magnificent place," he says.
"There's no question we have an obligation
to assure that Its essential character Is
protected."
At the Boning Point
But the new Hells Canyon pian Is
already under attack from all sides, and
the Forest Service's progress here to date
raises questions about how successful Mr.
Thomas will be In reorienting the agencyand
how far a divided public will allow the
agency to go In that regard. For example. a
move by the Forest Service to reduce sheep
grazing in Hells Canyon - domestic sheep
have been linked to a virus that Is wiping
out wild bighorn sheep herds - has triggered
a legal challenge from grazers'
groups and howls from pro-grazing politicians.
More troubling Is that midnight
hunters have shot several bighorn, leaving
· carcasses to rot, in an apparent protest.
At first glance, the Hells Canyon area
seems a promising proving ground for new
public-lands policies: some 652,000 stunning
acres along the Idaho and Oregon
borders, flanking a gash up to 7,900 feet
deep - a fifth deeper than the Grand Canyon-
and 71 miles long. It contains myriad
ecospheres, from evergreen forest to redrock
desert, and diverse wildlife, including
some species that exist nowhere else.
Unlike many Forest Service lands, much of
the canyon has its wild character still
intact despite pressure from logging. grazIng
and other intrusive uses.
FEDERAL WAY, WASIIL"'GTtlN
It is also seemingly well-insulated by
conservation laws. The Hells Canyon Na·
tiona! Recreation Area Act, passed In 1975,
ended plans to dam the last stretches or
free-flowing Snake River, which would
have flooded most of the canyon. The act
also designated 67 miles of the Snake In
Hells Canyon as a protected wild and
scenic river, and called for the Forest
Service to manage the canyon principally
for "enhancement . . . of ecological
values" and recreation.
Pressure Points
But under pressure from timber and
ranching interests, Congress tacked on
last-minute amendments that permitted
continued togging and grazing as long as
they were "compatible" with ecology protection
and recreation. That has turned out
to be a loophole big enough to drive a
logging truck-or a cattle herd-through.
Since the act was passed, the Forest
Service has Jogged more than 160 million
board feet of timber from the canyon rims'
ponderosa pine forests. Clear-cutting has
been the preferred technique; much of the
canyon's old-growth pine Is gone. Thousands
of sheep and cattle graze Hells
t"''"" -+c> l,a.t.~
C.c"-t · f.-o.., "'""" "'-
and veteran canyon hiker. "We don't need
to make this Disney World."
Vandals Strike ,
At Pittsburgh Landing, where the
canyon opens up and the river calms
down, such criticism seems rooted in real
concerns. Here, the Forest Service recently
spent more than $2 million to build
a recreational-vehicle park and to cut a
paved road to a collection of ancient pet.
roglyphs regarded as one of the most significant
archaeological sites In the Northwest.
Environmentalists and Indian tribal
leaders railed against the ptoject, fearing
vandalism. Sure enough, two months after
the road opened, the petroglyphs were
carved up by vandals. On a recent visit,
the RV park was defaced as well-by beer
· cans, cigarette butts and potato-chip
bags.
Late one evening on a beach at Brush·
Creek, deep In the canyon beneath a starflooded
sky, Mr. Bailey talks about his
group's proposal that Hells Canyon be·
turned over to the National Park Service,
a more eco-frlendly agency. The Forest
Service opposes such a move, which would
require an act of Congress. But "someone
has to take a stand for the wild soul of this
place," Mr. Bailey says.
In the morning, sunlight creeps down
the towering canyon walls, Chasing shadows,
shifting colors, The river murmurs.
An eagle glides overhead. It Is 6:27 a.m.,
still half-dark at the bottom of the canyon,
when the first jet boat of the day thunders
past.
AlO THE WALL STREI!."T JOURNAL THURSDAY, AUGUS1' lH, 1994
Rafts of Ire: Forest Service Finds Itself Bedeviled
B. y Hells Canyon Plan as Its Compromises Flounder .
Continued From Front Page man who stands a little funny these days; finding a tree. Mr. Lonsdale lost his pri-
Canyon each year, tramplln&' the range he has broken his back twice In jet-boat mary race by 360 votes, roughly 0.001% of
and erod!ng sensitive riverbank areas. crashes. "Bad luck," he says. the vote. He 1s stiU pursuing a libel lawsuit
Meanwhile, wild salmon, native trout and By contrast, river rafters are strictly against one of the newspapers that jumped
other fisheries are disappearing, In part limited by the Forest Service. It can take on the Salt Creek story.
because of habitat degradation from both years lor would·be floaters to get a spot on As 1! tensions weren't high enough, a
logging and grazing. The Forest Service's a river trip because the service severely recent spate of gunplay has ratcheted
budget for Hells Canyon underscores Its. limits the number of· raft operators. More them up. weapons float up and down the
eniphasls: In many years, more than 95% exasperalln&' for the floaters 1s the fact river with jet-boaters and rafters alike;
ot the money set aside lor the canyon bas that the jet boats are simply ear-spllttlng; the Forest Service doesn't restrict them.
b~en spent on logging and grazing pro- they c&~~ be heard !rom mUes away, their As a result, rangers say they have had
grams, as opposed to recreation-related throaty rumble growing Into a lull roar as problems with jet-boaters using their spotamenities
Uke trans and camplii'Ounds. they approach. They spew foul-smelling Ughts at night to attract bats-so they can
Sitting on a remote canyon beach one fumes, and lllelr wakes, even jet-boaters blast them with guns. And on several ocevenlng
at a place known as Johnson's acknowledge, are· contributing to river- castons, rangers have had to intervene In
sandbar, Ed Cole, the canyon's top ranger, bank erosion. "They aren't compatible campground dust·ups alter jet-boaters and
concedes the Forest Service has made mls· with the notion of wild Iande that we em· floaters In adjacent camps began shooting
takes in the past. But he says it is hard to brace," says Mr. BaUey. vaguely toward each other. "We're con·
get around the multiuse provisions of the Jet-boaters like Rich Rogars, a Lewis· cerned about what things like that could
Hells Canyon law. "We're trying to brln&' ton car dealer, counter that jet boats pro- lead to," says ranger Usa Dahlquist.
better balance and find compromises," he · vide quick and easy access to the canyon · Roars of controversy
says. "But it's not easy .... We're catch· for people who might not otherwise have a The tensions are evident on a recent
lng hell from au sides." chance to experience its splendors. He morning. One of Mr. Bailey's floater.
Chasms of Confllct ·notes that jet boats are banned from other -·ps 1s overtaken by a pair of 1· et·boaters
· wUd and scenic rivers that welcome •· ·~ Among the chief accusers 1s Mr. Bat·· floaters, llke the pristine upper reaches of within 15 minutes of putting into the
h!y. A former logger and former member. the nearby Salmon River. Jet-boaters also Snake. One blows by the right side of Mr.
of the Forest Service's eUte smOke-jumper Bailey's dory, within 20 feet. The other
ltre·fighting teams, Mr. Bailey took up the accuse Mr. Batley and others of being blasts by the left side. Their wakes slam
crusade for Heils Canyon over a decade back-country ellttsts. "This canyon 1s a Into the dory. Passenger Karen
ago. Now he makes his living as a river- public resource, and it's for everyone to Anspacher·Meyer, a documentary filmraft
guide when he Isn't agitating for experience, not just people who have. the maker, 1s almost !tung overboard. "Bas·
clll'bs on uses-logging, grazing and jet· time and phystcalabtl1ty to shoot raptde In tartls!" Mr. Baney shouts at the fast·disb.
o a tl ng among th em-that he bellev es a raTfht,e"s eM dri. ffReorignegr sv sieawyss. lead to frequent appe ar1 ng je t • b o at e rs. With! n th e nex t t wo
spon the canyon's wUd character. He says confrontations. In the 1980s, a commercial hours, the group will be buzzed four more
that In Joseph, Ore., a Umber community times.
ol1,100 where he lives, the town mechanic jet·boat operator deliberately rammed a Floaters and jet-boaters alike were
refuses to fix his car and the town dentist river raft-alter one of its occupants looking to the Forest Service's new plan to
won't ltx his teeth. Besides telsphone mooned him. <The man's COII)merctal jet· possibly cool tempers, but 11 appears only
death threats, Mr. BaUey has twice re- boating license was suspended as a result to have Inflamed them. Consider one recently
discovered kewpte dolts, stuck with of the incident, the Forest Service says.) cent proposal: a jet·boat ban for three
pins and drenched In red, dangling from Accidental rammtngs and swamplngs, in- days a week during the peak summer seahis
mailbox. One bore a sign: "Envlro- volvlngbroken bones and near-drowntngs, son-a total of 24 days a year. Though
nazi-Beware!" are more cominon, say river guides. weekends would be excluded, the ban is
Mr. Bailey has had run·tns with log- Naked FrlcUon "totally unacceptable," says Mike Luther,
gei-s and ranchers, but he says jet-boaters Then there was what has become a commercial jet·boat operator. "That's a
top the llst. Indeed, of an the canyon's known as the Salt Creek Massacre. In direct attack on my livelihood."
conmcts, none is more Ulustrative than 1992, Mr. BaUey took a group, Including Mr. Bailey and many floaters think the
the clash between river rats like Mr. Bat· U.S. Senate candidate Harry Lonsdale, proposal doesn't go far enough. They want
le~ and jet-boat enthusiasts. Jet boats are through the canyon. Jet·boater Dennis jet boats banned entirely from a 30·mile
sturdy, alumlnum·hulled craft powered by Gratton, camped at Salt Creek near the stretch of the river that contains some of
V-8 engines that shoot jets of water out party, captured .video-camera footage Of its best raptde and is· classified as "wild"
tfie boats' stern. Propenerless, they can one of the noaters relieving himself In under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The
run In water as shallow as four Inches at the Snake River. He alao filmed 1!8Veral law Is generany meant to keep such rivers
speeds of up to 80 m.p.h.-ideal for bar- people bathing in the river •. They were free from uses that detract from "the vesrellng
up and down the Snake's pounding nude. tlges of primitive America" they still bar·
raplde. Mr. Gratton and other jet·boaters went bor. "We don't think jet boats !1t any con-
Under the 197o Helts Canyon law, jet·. ·back to town and railed. about the "1m· cept of primitive America," says Mr. Batboats
were permitted on the river. But the morality" and envlronmental"hypocrisy" ley, whose group, the Hens Canyon Preserlaw
caned for the Forest Service to regu· of Mr. Lonsdale and the noaters. Gossip vation Council, plans to test the issue in
late them. The service tried once In 198~ . had it that the ltgure answering nature's court.
butwasoverruledbytheReaganadmlnts; call. was Mr. Lonsdale himself; he and,. Otheraspectso!thenewForestService
!ration. Since then, it has twice been sued · many witnesses emphatically dented that, plan suggest the agency is stili stuck In its
by environmental groups seeking to Ioree and the grainy footage was Inconclusive. old habit of overly favoring development,
it to come up with jet·boat rules. Those Nonetheless, the press In pro-jet·boat environmentalists say. Although logging
rilles have yet to be oll1clally adopted stronrholds had a field day. Mr. Lonsdale, and grazing are likely to decline in the
p~ndlng publlc hearings. As of now, there In the rnldlt of a heated Democratic prl· canyon in coming years, the service wants
are vlrtuany no restrictions on how many mary race against former Conrressman to pave mUes of new roads, build more
jet boats can be on the river, no Speed 11m· Les AuCoin, was painted as uncouth and parking lots and open an airstrip for
Its and almost no safety rules. worse. tourist flights-an things likely to further
"Jet boats are very sale," says Daren As It happens, the Forest Service actu· erode Hens Canyon's wild spirit. "The
Bentz, a jet·boat builder from Lewiston, ally recommends the noater's alleged act problems In Hells Canyon are the result of
Idaho, the sel!·proclaimed "Jet Boat Cap!· at Salt Creek as environmentally prefer- too much management," says Mary
tal of the World." Mr. Bentz is an affable able to the usual back·country options, like O'Brien, a University of Montana scientist
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
CECIL 0. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
Mr. David Jolly
Regional Forester
U. S. Forest Service
P o Box 7669
Missoula, Montana 59807
Dear Dave:
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 83720-1000
September 12, 1994
1208) 334-2 I 00
Thanks very much for the support provided by your staff at
the Nez Perce National Forest during the recent discovery of
mammoth remains near Grangeville, Idaho. This find has already
been recognized as an important one and will undoubtedly provide
much valuable information in the future.
The fragile nature of the remains requires immediate
recovery and stabilization, and I am writing to ask whether your
people at the Nez Perce could continue to help in this regard.
The head of the Idaho Historical Society, John Hill, can provide
me with more detailed information on the kind of assistance
needed, but your people on the ground are probably aware of the
situation.
Again, all of us appreciate your agency's efforts in this
matter and hope it will be possible for them to continue. Give
me a call if you need any more information.
With thanks and best regards,
cc:Mike King
Jo~n ~1
CDA:c/ I
y\~y
~~·,~1~:_~·~0~~----Cecil
D. Andrus
Governor
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
LOt: HOMES~
Ron. Max Baucus,
United States Senate,
511 Hart Building
2nd & C Streets, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Ron. Conrad Burns,
United States Senate,
10 August 1994
183 Senate Dirksen Office Building
washington, D.c. 20510
Hon. Pat Williams,
United State Congress,
2457 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence & s. Capitol Street,s.w.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Marc Racicot,
Governor, State of Montana
Capitol Station,
Helena, Montana 59601
Cecil Andrus,
Governor, State of Idaho
Boise, Idaho
Jack Ward Thomas,
Chief, USDA Forest Service
14th & Independence SW
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090
Re: the Forest Fires of 1994
Gentlemen:
tP6 ~a» ~u w ~ [[])
AUG 121~!:14
FAcqp
OFFICE; OF GOVE:RNOFt
The states of Montana and Idaho, along with others, are severely
being impacted by major forest fires this year. Lack of dead
timber salvage sales by the Forest Service throughout the
intermountain region has combined with dry lightning to produce
fire storms that cannot be successfully prevented or controlled by
the hand of man alone.
Consider the Payette National Forest, out of McCall, Idaho. The
most frustratingly sad fact concerning these fires were that they
1883 Highway 93 South Hamilton, Montana 59840 Phone 406/363-5680 Fax 406/363-2109
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
LOt: HOMES.£.
2
were predictable. The Spruce bark beetle epidemic's existence has
been well documented. The Payette had begun an effort to salvage
the dead spruce, and reduce the risk of these types of fires a few
years ago. Unfortunately, Bull Trout, Salmon, Three toed
woodpeckers, and God only knows what else combined to stymie the
USDA Forest Service from developing additional salvage sales in
this forest. As I write this, there are over 50,000 acres of
beetle killed spruce, and what were green, living mixed conifers
now burnt, and its only the tenth of August. The fire season could
easily last well into September, and this one area alone could burn
up 250,000 acres or more if Mother Nature doesn't take pity on us
all.
Gentlemen, the laws passed by Congress over the last 30 years with
the very best intentions have been so convoluted in administrative
and judicial interpretation that the net result is near total
gridlock, with no action.
If felling a dead Spruce within 100 ft of an intermittent stream on
my just completed Hershey Scribner Timber sale in the upper reaches
of the French Creek drainage ( ten miles away from the Salmon
River) could impact Salmon, as was proported by National Marine
Fisheries biologists, what about the burning of all vegetative
cover out of the entire drainage? Where is common sense? Where is
the comparable risk assessments?
Vested interest management of federal lands by some specialists, or
"ologists" should be recognized to be similar to micro economic
analysis; which is to say that one issue is viewed singularly,
without consideration that there are dynamic interactive active
forces in real life that cannot be assumed static or non existent.
All the laws passed by Congress the past 34 years concerning the
Forest Service were very well intentioned. Actually, on an
individual basis, none of them seem to me to be too difficult to
implement; however, taken as a whole, there is utter chaos with
absolutely incredible costs, personal suffering, and wasted
opportunities for mankind.
There are two purposes for my letter, an immediately plea as well
as a request for longer term consideration:
1) The 1994 fire season will be history in a few weeks from
now. The loss of growing, green timber stands intermixed with
the dead volumes are enormous, and have an extremely short
time period for salvage by sawmills. ( Houselog facilities
have some extra opportunity time ). Only by congressional
1883 Highway 93 South Hamilton, Montana 59840 Phone 406!363-5680 Fax 406/363-2109
ROeiCVMOUNTAIN
LOt: HOMES.£.
3
action can the USDA Forest Service be relieved of the
harassment of fringe preservationist groups seeking either
long drawn out EIS procedures, or appealing the agency's
efforts to timely salvage the burnt timber. I offer my time
to meet with your staffs anywhere to further present my case
on this issue.
2) The USDA Forest Service has so many legal directives that
conflict, the only hope for rectification of this situation
is by congressional action. There needs a clear mandate
directing the land management agencies. Today's perceived
risk on any specific project cannot overrule tomorrow's
catastrophic consequences associated with little or no current
action. Ecosystem management cannot be successfully
implemented with the legal morass now present. Certainly,
society is not benefiting to the level that it should expect
from the National Forest System under current conditions.
As a professional forester, I implore you to act on this matter for
the benefit of all Americans.
Patrfck Connell
Vice President, Resource Operations
1883 Highway 93 South Hamilton, Montana 59840 Phone 406/363-5680 Fax 406!363-2109
United States
Department of
A rieulture
Jesse J. Mason
Forest
Serviee
1248 W Pleasent View Dr
Ogden, UT 84414
Dear Mr. Mason:
Sawtooth National
Recreation Area
Star Route
Ketchum, 10 83340
Reply to: 2210
Date: September 1, 1994
In regard to your letter of August 18, we sympathize with your plight on being
surrounded by sheep at your campsite, and regret that your vacation was spoiled
by sheep grazing operations,
The area which you described as approximately four miles up Pole Creek is a
beautiful camping area, but it also happens to be located very near a sheep
corral and shipping point. Unfortunately, the time at whieh you were camping
there is also the time when sheap are gathered into the area for staging prior
to shipping lambs. The sheep herders generally camp at the same sites as they
move sheep through the Pole Creek Allotment, year after year, This use is
authorized by permit and Annual Operating Plans.
The entire headwaters of the Salmon River, including Pole Creek, Upper Salmon
River and tributaries as far as Vat Creek are established sheep grazing
allotments, and have been grazed annually sinee the early 1900's. These
allotments are also highly used by dispersed recreational campers. In order to
utilize the forage, it is impractical for the sheep herders to deviate much from
their planned gra~ing pattern to avoid recreational eampers, This is one
example where, in effect, livestock use •come before people" as you stated.
However, there have been very few reported conflicts in this area, and we feel
that sheep operations and recr@ational use have been quite eompatible. No
doubt, some people have probably had to move their camp in response to sheep
movement, but we're assuming that the great amount of alternative sites in this
area and in ungrazed areas on the NRA offers ample eompensation, We have
intentionally not established any developed campgrounds, except at Chemeketan,
in these sheep allotments,
Though we cannot ensure there will be no recreation/livestock conflicts on
Sawtooth NRA grazing allotmeents, we do wiah to prevent them as much as
possible. Your letter points out that individual recreationists can be
profoundly impacted by current grazing operations, and perhaps we had better
take a fresh look at how and where they are eonducted in regard to popular
dispersed eamping areas. We will work on ways to better inform people about
sheep locations and herding plans, in order to avoid surprises and
disappointments when a band of sheep shows up, It may also be prudent to
identify specific highly desirable dispersed camping sites, and develop plans to
avoid them as much as possible.
To that end, would you ca~e to contact us again and p~ovide us wieh a ~ore
specific location of your campsite? We would also be interested in any
suggestions or comments you may have for us to better avoid these kind of
conflicts in the future. Please feel free to contact Sawtooth NRA ~ange
personnel by phone at 208 774-3681. Thank you for relating your concern.
Sincerely,
~ J PAUL RIES
1
v Area Range~
I
CECIL D. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
Mark Sterkel
Dinosaur National
Box 210
Dinosaur, CO 81610
Dear Mr. Sterkel:
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 83720-1 000
(208) 334-2 t 00
September 2, 1994
Monument
Thank you for your letter concerning the Cove-Mallard area
in the Nez Perce National Forest.
The timber sales in the Cove-Mallard area are the result of
the decision to designate the 2.2 million-acre Frank Church-River
of No Return Wilderness Area in 1980. Recognizing that a vast
forested area deserved wilderness protection but also that the
future of timber jobs relies on a supply of timber into the
future, Congress made the decisions both to designate the
wilderness and to release the Cove-Mallard from wilderness
consideration and for future timber harvest.
As Secretary of the Interior during the Carter
Administration, I was involved in the negotiations that led to
determining the boundaries of the River of No Return Wilderness
Area, including deciding which areas were to be excluded from
wilderness designation. That decision was made and was a fair
and just decision to all at the time. It should continue to
stand. Arguments that timber-cutting in this area somehow
threatens the adjacent wilderness areas are false. The adjacent
wilderness areas have statutory protection from human
development. As for development outside wilderness areas, that
is a fact of life and is part of the compromise that society must
make if we are to have wilderness--because all the land cannot be
wilderness.
Permit me to point out that the survival of the salmon does
not depend on the increased regulation of timber sales that will
result from its listing under the Endangered Species Act. The
impact of the federal hydropower dams on the lower Snake and
Columbia rivers is so sweeping that the salmon are disappearing
even in the pristine wilderness streams of central Idaho.
lffldf
Mark Sterkel
September 2, 1994
Page 2
Enclosed for your information is a brochure on the Snake
River salmon issue. The system of federal dams and reservoirs on
the Snake and Columbia rivers is the greatest threat to the
future existence of the salmon.
With best regards,
CDA:abc
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Cecil D. Andrus
Governor
IDAHO SOIL
CONSERVATION -- . ----------
COMMISSION
P.O. Box 83720
1215 West State Street
Boise. Idaho
83720-0083
(208) 334-0210
Governor:
Cecil D. Andrus
Commission Members:
Lee Eldredge
Lowell Grim
Don Heikkila
Robert Hull
Sud Morishita
Administrator·
Wayne Faude
Printed on Recycled Paper
August 26, 1994
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Governor, State of Idaho
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
This report is written in response to the letter
received from Mary Jo Churchwell of Challis,
Idaho. Her letter related problems with the water
source for their home and how it is being impacted
by livestock grazing in the Morgan Creek Cattle
Allotment on the Challis National Forest.
A member of my staff talked with Robert Gardner,
District Ranger, Challis Ranger District, about
this problem. Mr. Gardner stated that this and
many other issues have been long running problems
between the Forest Service and the Churchwells and
he did not feel the problem was as serious as Ms.
Churchwell had stated.
The allotment lies within an area targeted for
salmon recovery. Utilization standards for
streamside areas have been strengthened in recent
years. Mr. Gardner feels that the current
utilization standards now being used, the
rotational system being employed, and the existing
exclosure are adequately protecting the water
source that the Chuchwells use.
Mr. Gardner also states that the area would not
easily be fenced off and that if it were, a new
source of water would have to be developed for
livestock. The cost of fencing the rest of the
creek and the development of a new water source in
the area would be an expensive undertaking.
Additionally, Mr. Gardner stated that the cost of
any fencing or additional water sources would be
the responsibility of the Churchwells.
lGovernor Andrus
August 26, 1994
Page 2.
Due to the nature of the conflict and the long running history of
other issues with the Forest Service, I do not believe it would
be advantageous to refer this complaint to the local Soil
Conservation District for conflict resolution.
The Commission would recommend the Churchwells discuss this
problem with the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) if they
believe the beneficial uses of the water source have been
impacted. DEQ is the appropriate legal authority for making a
determination on impacted beneficial uses and causes.
We did not make an on-site inspection of this problem due to
previously scheduled commitments. We can possibly make a visit
to the site in mid September if the Governor feels it would be
helpful in resolving this situation.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Wayne R. Faude, Administrator
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission
WRF/dms
INLAND EMPIRE PUBLIC LANDS COU CIL
P.O. Box 2174, Spokane, WA 99210
Phone: (508) 327·1699
•
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus, Governor
The State of Idaho
Dear Governor Andrus,
w. 315 ~~~~<;tM ~trw ~ IDJ
SEP 121994
t-Ar..p
Of'FICt OF G~RNOil
September 9, 1994
As early as September 30, the Clinton Adainistration will issue a
report on implementing 11foreat health" projects in western National
Forests, including the Columbia River region. Major decisions on
aalvage logging are also pending after big forest fires this
summer. Conaervationiata are concerned that these and other forest
decisions will be driven once again by timber politics rather than
baaed on science and on the need to restore failing forest
ecoayatema.
I am enclosing for your review "Salvage: Forest Health or Forest
Death?" Worth noting (page 9 and following) is that only two years
ago during the 1992 election, Preaident Buah was willing to further
sacrifice forests and public process to the timber lobby. The
Clinton Administration now faces a similar decision.
I personally have witnes-d the corrupting power of timber politics
at work with the u.s. Forest service. During the past decade I
have helped coordinate the conservationists' response to the
federal governaent 1 s plana for National Foruts in north Idaho and
eastern Washington. As the lead author of administrative appeals
challenging the Forest Service's plans for the Colville and Idaho
Panhandle National Forests, I reviewed over 60 feet of planning
·files ·and wrote about a thousand pag .. of appeal documents.
Reviewing extensive government files led me to conclude that Forest
service officials, under intense pressure froa the timber lobby and
politicians, used pre-deterained, inflated tiaber targets and then
spent years and millions of tax dollars writing 8 pound forest
plans to justify these unachievable timber targets.
During this decade I also watched the wealth and adroit skills of
the timber lobby influence Congress and Adainistrations, Examples
include huge rallies, logging truok convoys, "public education"
campaigns, direct attacks on conservationists, and contributions to
political caapaiqns. The timber lobby's latest campaign attaoking
conservationists and proaoting "thinning" and salvage logging is
part of a continuum to overcut forests that stretches baok into the
last century.
Today, our forests in the Columbia River region are in critical
condition. watersheds are falling apart from massive clearcutting
and road-building; damaged forests release floods in the winter
and burn in the summer; salmon, qrizzly bears, woodland caribou,
and bull trout (among other species) face extinction. The list of
symptoms is growing.
In meetings over the years with Speaker Foley, conservationists in
eastern Washington have conveyed that if the federal government
cuts trees for "forest health," then such loqging should actually
restore damaged forest ecosystems and be based on science.
Roadless areas, riparian zones, and other ecologically important
areas need to left alone -- especially in the face of the betrayal
of public trust by the u.s. Forest Service. And, thanks to Speaker
Foley and the Clinton Administration, scientific analysis is
underway in the form of the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project
(EEMP). The EEMP will lead to amending forest plans of the
Columbia River region, thereby possibly correcting the botched
forest planning process of the 1980s.
The timber lobby's latest major campaign of distortions and
fictions should raise a red flag for everyone concerned about the
future of the Columbia River region. Pending u.s. Forest Service
decisions on salvage and thinning aay preempt the EEMP, crippling
the EEMP just as timber politics corrupted Congress 1 s well-intended
forest planning process during the 1980s.
Executive Summary
"Powerboating in Hells Canyon"
Powerboating is not new in Hells Canyon. The Canyon has a long and rich
tradition of powerboating that spans more than a century. In 1865 Captain Tom
Stump took the 110 foot Colonel Wright up river into what is now the HCNRA,
turning around at point 25 miles above the Salmon River. He had two paying
passengers so he was not only the first powered boat captain but also the first
commercial outfitter. Five years later Captain Sebastian Miller brought the 136
foot steamboat Shoshone the full length of Hells Canyon from Southern Idaho to
Lewiston.
TI1e many homesteaders and miners who called the Hells Canyon area home
in the early 1900's needed transportation for people, supplies, and produce. The
Snake River was a ready highway for them to use. In 1919, Ed MacFarlane met
the need by providing a commercial operation that delivered supplies and took
tourists into the canyon.
The first Snake River Route mail delivery contract was awarded to Press
Brewrink in 1919. Weekly delivery of the mail from Lewiston to Johnson Bar
continues today.
The first jet propelled boat was introduced onto the scene in the late SO's.
By the mid 1960's, the aluminum jetboat was becoming a familiar sight in Hells
Canyon. This boat was able to run through shallows and rapids, was light in
weight and tough enough to withstand the rigors of Hells Canyon's whitewater.
Two important industries have developed as a result of this boat. The first is the
manufacturing of welded aluminum jetboats. In the Lewiston/Clarkston area there
are 10 manufacturers, and two in the Boise area. The second is tourism. On the
Snake River in the HCNRA 19 outfitters carry over 20,000 people annually in
powerboats. There are of course many other businesses and services which
support powerboating.
The Snake River in Hells Canyon was until 1973 largely unregulated. The
area was managed as part of the Hells Canyon-Seven Devils Scenic Area. A float
operator at this time became concerned about the growing float traffic and the
shortage of beaches in the upper Wild River. He requested the Forest Service to
impose a moratorium on the issuance of any new float outfitter permits and
restrict the number of launches from the dam each day. Powerboating was not an
issue in any of these discussions so no restrictions were placed on their use.
In 1975, the first management plan was completed. The limit of 5 launches(3
private and 2 commercial) per day was based on campsite availability. These
numbers are still valid today because presently only 71% of the float allocation is
being used.
In December, 1975, Hells Canyon became a National Recreation Area. The
law designated 652,000 acres in Oregon and Idaho as the HCNRA. Included in the
bill was 214,000 acres of wilderness and 171 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers.
None of the Snake River was within wilderness but all but 1/4 mile was
designated Wild or Scenic. At the insistence of Senators Frank Church and James
A. McClure, language was included to protect the historic powerboat use on the
river. The legislation also called for completion of a comprehensive management
plan (CMP) by December, 1980. A planning team was assembled and began its
task in 1976.
The CMP was completed in 1980. The plan turned out to be controversial
because it included a control period closure of a section of the Wild River to
powerboating. The plan generated 20 appeals and outrage from powerboaters
who had worked out a compromise with floaters to limit powerboat access in the
Wild River, but not eliminate it. On April21, 1983, Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture John Crowell signed a decision on the 1iver management part of the
CMP. Mr. Crowell lifted all limits on day-use by powerboats. It did, however,
allow the Forest Service to monitor powerboat numbers and, if necessary,
through the appropriate process, limit them at such time as river capacity was
reached.
In 1990, because of the increase in powerboat traffic, a review of the river
management portion of the CMP, utilizing the Limits of Acceptable Change
Process (LAC) began. A 22 member task force met 19 times and hammered out a
compromise recommended river management plan. This task force consisted of
representatives from all interested groups. The plan recommended by the task
force included limits for powerboats on the same river segment where floaters
were limited. The process was completed in September of 1991.
In 1992, the NEP A process began with a series of town meetings. The LAC
plan was the proposed action. The Forest Service determined that an
Environmental Assessment(EA) would not be sufficient because of the level of
controversy and began work on an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released in August,
1993. For those who had worked so hard on the LAC and those who supported
shared use of the canyon,the preferred alternative was shocking. It called for
restricted use on both the Wild and Scenic River segments, changed management
objectives and provided for exclusive use on alternating weeks--one week to
floaters and one to powerboaters. The decision to separate users, according to
Forest Service personnel, was based on the incompatibility of floaters and
powerboaters. Another series of public meetings were held at which both floaters
and powerboaters expressed dismay at the proposal. As a result of this preferred
alternative, the Hells Canyon Alliance was formed. It brought together floaters,
powerboaters, and other interested groups that shared the philosophy of
responsible shared use in the canyon. The Alliance submitted comprehensive
comments about the DEIS, challenging the preferred alternative and supporting
the LAC proposal. They told the Forest Service that both types of boaters were
adults, quite capable of getting along and sharing the river. They insisted and
demonstrated through sheer numbers of letters that conflict in the canyon was a
perception rather than a reality.
In July, 1993, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was
released. A record of decision was not included--it is scheduled to be released in
September. The preferred plan in this document is even worse than the
alternating week plan. The problems with it are many. A few are listed below:
* There is no equity in the plan. Powerboaters and floaters are treated
differently. Powerboaters have been relegated to the status of second-class
citizens. As an example, a launch for a commercial powerboater is one day with
one boat on the river; for a floater it is one trip with up to eight boats for as long
as they want to stay. During the months of July and August, the high use months,
powerboaters are prohibited from using 21 miles of the wild river 41% of the
time. This section contains the best fishing, rapids, and campsites. Floaters have
access to the entire river all season long.
* The plan grossly over-manages boating use. For example,, floaters
cannot possess a motor when floating through the wild river, even if the motor is
stored out of sight for use in the lower end of the scenic river. Some outfitters
can go to Pittsburg only, some trips can go to Kirkwood, some can go to Hells
Canyon Darn, some must turn around at Wild Sheep, some cannot go beyond the
Salmon River, some can camp, some cannot, some can originate passengers at
Pittsburg before 10:00 A.M., others cannot. Boaters will have to travel with a
management plan at their side in order not to violate any of the multitude of new
regulations. No one as yet figured out the under-funded, under-staffed Forest
Service will ever be able to enforce this plan.
* The heavy-handed restrictions placed on the commercial powerboaters
were done without proper economic analysis. No outfitters were even contacted
before the release of the plan. Most outfitters will not survive. Use allocation has
been slashed to unreasonable levels without any consideration given to its impact.
The Forest Service has admitted that the plan on the average will.Q.llU_ reduce
each outfitters business by between 13% and 18%! The actual impact will
actually be far greater and the resulting damage unnecessary. The commercial
powerboat outfitters have the least amount on the environment and provide the
greatest number access into the canyon.
*The decisions were not based on environmental concerns but rather on the
desires of a few to create a wilderness experience in a recreation area. According
to Woody Fine, Assistant Area Ranger for the HCNRA, " .... twice as many people
could enter the HCNRA as in our highest year, and there would be no increased
measurable environmental impact, this is a social issue, the floatboaters do not
want powerboats in the canyon." During the DEIS, the Forest Service said
floaters and powerboaters were incompatible. When they were proven wrong,
when 76% of the respondents to the DEIS said they wanted to share the canyon,
they changed their story and said now it was because a few didn't like
powerboats.
Addresses:
Senator Dirk Kempthorne
304 N. 8th
Room 338
Boise, Idaho 83702
T: 208/334-1776
F: 208/334-9044
Senator Dirk Kempthome
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20150
T: 202/224-2752
F: 202/224-5893
Senator Larry Craig
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
T: 202/224-2752
F: 202/224-2573
Congressman Larry LaRocco
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
T: 202/225-6611
F: 202/226-1213
Governor Cecil D. Andrus
P.O. Box 852
Boise, Idaho 83701
T: 208/334-2100
F: 208/334-2175
Mr. Bob Richmond
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
P.O. Box 907
Baker City, Oregon 97814
T: 503/523-1315
F: 503/523-6391
'
INLAND EMPIRE PUBLIC LANDS COUNCI
P.O. Box 2174, Spokane, WA 99210 • W. 315 Mission, Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: (509) 327·1699 FAX: (509) 328-4380
tRl~((O~~W~[l]
August 12, 1994 AUG 15 1994
The Honora})le Cecil Andrus, Governor C: fl f-. P
State Of IdahO OFFii:E OF GO\,ERNOft
Dear Governor Andrus,
During recent days I and other conservationists have })een pUblicly
accused of })eing personally responsil3le for forest fires now
})urning in the Col\lllll)ia River region of the Pacific Northwest.
Actually, part of my life was spent as a fire fighter. Rather than
wild and false accusations, what our damaged forests now need is
rain -- and reform of Forest Service fire policies.
During the 1970s I fought forest fires in the western United
States, working as a member of "hot shot" fire crews })&sed on the
Sawtooth, Payette, and Boise National Forests in Idaho. During the
tragic summer of 1979, our fire crew's DC-3 crashed into Moose
creek in the Selway Wilderness, killing our pilot and most
passengers on })card. Later that summer on the Ship Island Fire in
central Idaho, a mem})er of a fire crew working down the ridge from
us })urned to death when the fire })lew-up in the steep canyons
:below.
Based on my years of fighting fire, my studies of American fire
history, and witnessing the recent firestorms in the western united
states such as those in Spokane, I pUblished "Fire and Forest
Health: Policy in Evolu~ion."
"Fire and Forest Health" is enclosed. Although I wrote the fire
history section (pp. 63-87) in 1979 while attending Al})ertson•s
College in Caldwell, Idaho, the leuons of fire history are
painfully relevant during this tragic fire season of 1994.
Following the great fires of 1910 in the Pacific Northwest, the
u.S. Forest Service aqqressi vely pursued policies of totally
excluding fire from forests throughout the nation. 'I'his policy was
first reversed in the Allerican. southeast during the 1940s when
"prescribed" fire was restored to the commercial pine plantations
})ecause of mounting scientific evidence and major wildfires from
accumulated fuels.
Today in the Pacific Northwest -- also in the face of mounting
scientific evidence and major wildfires from accumulated fuels -the
region needs to reexaaine the use of prescri})ed fire to restore
fire-dependent forest ecosystems.
_/
Reform of the Forest Service's fire.policies can be accomplished in
several ways. one option is the federal qovernment' s "EEMP"
(Eastside Ecosystem Manaqement Project) now underway in Walla
Walla, Washinqton with a new office openinq in Boise, Idaho.
Failure of the EEMP to thorouqhly involve the Pacific Northwest's
fire ecoloqists and other scientists when planninq the future of
our fire-dependent forests ecosystems would be truly a missed
opportunity.
•
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest
P. 0.
Baker
Go\W\M'\-
Box 907 -r-vt:r City, OR 97814
r
L
State of Idaho
Honorable Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
Reply to
lffi ~ (!] ~ ~ \W ~ flJ)
JUL 281994
r'/lG
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
1950
July 22, 1994
The release of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for
recreation management of the Wild and Scenic Snake River on the Hells Canyon
National Recreation Area (HCNRA) has created a great deal of interest. We
mailed a news release and a summary of the proposed recreation plan to your
office on July 5, 1994.
I anticipate that you will hear from citizens regarding the proposed
recreation management plan. This letter is intended to assist you in
responding to constituents by providing you with a few commonly discussed
points and by explaining some of the expected consequences of the proposed
recreation management plan; i.e., Alternative G in the FEIS.
Private Powerboat Use
The proposed plan does not reduce the number of private powerboat launches.
It does, however, limit daily launches to avoid overcrowding on peak use
days--usually weekends and holidays. Under Alternative G, launches could
feasibly increase 83% over the 1991 primary season total and 60% over the
1993 primary season total.
There were 1,364 private powerboat launches in the wild and scenic river in
1991. Launches totaled 1,339 in 1992 and 1,555 in 1993. If the river had
been managed under Alternative G in 1994, 2,493 permits would have been
available.
In the scenic river, an average of 11 private powerboats per day were
launched in 1991. Alternative G allows for 25 launches per day Friday
through Sunday and 10 launches per day during the week (Monday through
Thursday).
Commercial Powerboat Use
Under Alternative G, the maximum number of launches can increase 5% over the
1991 and 3% over the 1992 primary season totals but are scheduled by day and
area of operation. Permittees would need to adjust their operations to meet
scheduling requirements, but our economic analysis indicates a possible
small reduction in outfitting business.
FS-6200-11b (7/81)
2
Non-Motorized Period
Commercial and private powerboats would have access to the entire wild and
scenic river for 341 days of the year, albeit limited to approved allocation
levels during the primary season. Only the wild river has non-motorized
periods; the non-motorized period is 22% of the primary season.
The non-motorized periods would be implemented on approximately 21 miles of
the 31.5-mile wild river from the top of Wild Sheep Rapid to the upper
landing at the Kirkwood Historic Ranch (roughly 66% of the wild section)
Monday through Wednesday for eight weeks (a total of 24 days) in July and
August.
A concern of residents within close proximity to Hells Canyon is why
Alternative B was not chosen for implementation. Alternative B was the
initial proposal brought forward at the beginning of the EIS process to
identify issues in the management of the corridor. The Forest Service
planning team developed Alternative B using recommendations from interested
river users through a "limits of acceptable change" planning process. I
have enclosed a comparison of management attributes for Alternatives B and G
highlighting that many Alternative B components were carried forward to
Alternative G.
Personal briefings for you or your staff can be arranged to explain the
effects of implementing preferred Alternative G. Please contact Kurt
Wiedenmann, Forest Planning Team Leader, at (503) 523-1296, for more
information or to schedule a briefing session.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
Environmental Impact Statement
Wild and Scenic Snake River Recreation Management Plan
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED ACTION (ALTERNATIVE B)
AND THE FEIS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE G
Guidelines Proposed In Alternative B FEIS Preferred Alternative G Proposal
Information and education Would fully implement
Safety Would fully implement
Portal access and development Proposes additional guidelines for portal management
Aircraft access Would fully implement (within constraints of partial closure
on Sluice Creek) and provide additional guidelines
lor commercial aircraft use
Development Proposes additional guidelines for development
Equitable access: Proposes a variation to equitable use allocations:
Private powerboat
- Wild River-maximum 635 private launches in primary -Wild River-maximum 648 private launches lor
season primary season while providing 24 days of nonmotorized
use periods
- Scenic River-no restrictions on use levels - Scenic River-maximum 1,800 private launches lor
primary season
Commercial powerboat
- Wild River-maximum 1,320 commercial powerboat - Wild River-maximum 746 commercial powerboat
launches launches
- Scenic River-unlimited commercial launches -Scenic River-would allow a maximum 01220 launches
Float launches
5 float launches per day Would fully implement
Commercial outfitter permits Would fully implement with the exception of eliminating
temporary special use permits
One-day float Eliminates one-day floats during during the primary
season
Campsite Would fully implement except that picnic tables are generally
excluded from the wild section
Campsite competition Proposes a variation to resolving campsite competition
Human waste and litter Would fully implement
Nat ural aspects Proposes additional guidelines lor protection of river's
outstandingly remarkable values
• UnHed States
Department of
AgrlcuHure
Potlatch Creek #38
Dr. Howard L Hake
N. 1014 Pines, Suite 203
Spokane, WA 99206-4935
Dear Dr. Hake:
Forest
Service
Clearwater
National
Forest
12730 Highway 12
Orofino, ID 83544
(208) 476-4541
Reply to: 2220
Date: June 22, 1994
~m;r · · · - ~/ :;·~~
~1,\ l JUN 2 21994 •,,···;
\\ lri; I u _______ _j~
In regard to your concern of livestock occupying your parcel of land at the Forks of the Potlatch River, I
would like to offer the following explanation.
The livestock you are referring to is authorized to graze under a National Forest Grazing permit, a State
of Idaho lease, and a lease from Potlatch Corporation. The Helmer Cattlemen's Association is the grazing
permittee in the area and has been for approximately 30 years. Members of the Helmer Cattlemen's
Association have been very cooperative with many of the landowners over the past years in attempts to
resolve the situation of livestock getting onto the private tracts. At one time there was even a working
agreement in which the private landowners paid the range rider for the Association to maintain the fence
around the whole 160 acre tract. The reason for this is that the 160 acre parcel in which you have acquired
your small tract Is located In what is recognized as open range by Idaho State law. This means that If a
private landowner wants to restrict livestock from their properly, the private landowner is responsible for
the fences to fence the cows out.
Regarding the Forest Service constructing fences, the United States Is not responsible for Intrusion of
permitted livestock upon private lands, nor the settlement of controversies between the owner of permitted
livestock and the owner of private land. Federal courts have rendered decisions that the United States
is not required to fence it's lands either to protect them against unauthorized livestock or to control the
livestock permitted to graze. What all this means is that many court cases have consistently upheld the
position that the Federal Government is not responsible for fencing it's boundaries.
There is still the possibility that the landowners within the parcel could arrange some type of working
agreement with the Helmer Association that could be satisfactory to both parties. The Palouse District
Ranger would be willing to arrange and coordinate such a meeting If you are Interested in discussing the
matter with the cattlemen.
I hope this will clarify the questions and concerns you have expressed, and If we can assist in arranging
a meeting, please feel free to call Hank Johnson at the Palouse Ranger District (208-875-1131).
Sincerely,
~~~
.%'se District Ranger
C.rlng for the Land and Serving People
FLOAT TRIPS
HELLS CANYON ADVENTURES .
1
. ··- · , n)l
P.O. Box 159 1M It lliJ ~ ~ w lt J1
Office of the Govenor
State Capital
Cecil D. Andrus
Boise, ID. 83720-1000
The Honorable
Cecil D. Andrus,
Oxbow, Oregon 97840
Ph. 503-785-3352 AliG 0 4 1994
1-80G-422-3568 r:: /J- f.. FOFFlcflii
OF GOii"ERNOR
08/01/1994
The recently released Final Environmental Impact Study on the Hells
Canyon N.R.A. will have a significant financial impact on the area, and deny
many folks from ever experiencing Hells Canyon.
It appears that the general public has been left out by a recent
decision the U.S. Forest Service has made. The Forest Service seems to be
giving into a minority river (24% according to Bob Richmond forest
supervisor) user group rather than to manage the canyon in a manner that
allows all user groups of the public to see it. The Minority user group
appears to be some of the rafters who raft Hells Canyon, some are the
same people who are also trying to eliminate livestock grazing and logging
on public land. Why was Hells Canyon turned into a National Recreational
Area? What was congresses intent when they created the Hells Canyon
N.R.A. act in 1975? Was it for just certain people? It appears the Jet
Boats, the Horses, the Back packers, the Drop Camps and Airplane people
have been left out because of a vocal minority group.
Hells Canyon Adventures also does one day white water rafting trips
into the canyon. We have consistently over the years run more raft trips
and taken more people on a raft trip than any other rafting outfitter in
J
Hells Canyon. Currently many mutli day rafting permits get used very
little, we are quite often having to tell folks who would like to
participate in a raft trip "sorry we are full." We feel that we are
providing a service that the public has shown need for. Our one day
whitewater raft trips into Hells Canyon will be eliminated, in 1993 more
than 700 people enjoyed rafting the canyon on one day trip, a much larger
number of river users than Bob Richmond's 24% who wanted a
nonmotorized river experience. One day raft trips require the use of a Jet
Boat to get out of the canyon for it is to far to raft in one day to an access
road.
More than 24% of all the people who commercially rafted Hells
Canyon last summer on an outfitted trip were directly, or indirectly
through another outfitter, involved with Hells Canyon Adventures. More
than 30% of the private people who rafted Hells Canyon last summer road
back up on one of our Jet Boats (Jet Back) rather than shuttling there car
around to an access road. We turned away other Jet Back customers
simply because we can not keep up with the demand.
We have seen tremendous growth on the number of jet boat
passengers in the past two years, it appears largely due to the noise the
minority river users have made, the advertising, and improvements made
by the Forest Service. As of July 1st we are 52% above 1993 as far as
number of passengers we have shown Hells Canyon to from a Jet Boat.
1993 finished 37% above the largest previous year. Raft trips are running
pretty much full just like they did last year. The most common comments
we hear from the public who participate on our trips are. 1) I want to see
the canyon before the National Park takes it over and locks it up. 2) I
want to see the canyon before the environmentalist take it over. 3) I
want to see the canyon while you people can still run the river, because I
am not physically and/or financially capable of taking a multi day raft
trip. 4) I don't have the time to take a multi day float trip, your jet boats
offer me a short trip into the canyon.
Our company has been in existence for eleven years now, showing
Hells Canyon to the public who desire the use of our Outfitter services.
The special use permit we operate under has been limited to two Jet Boats
since the H.C.N.R.A. was created in 1 97 5. The only way we can grow is by
building a bigger boat, which the size of the river limits the size of the
boat. We do not feel that we are the ones adding to the conjestion of Jet
Boats in Hells Canyon. We are also the only Jet Boat company on the
South end of Hells Canyon, thus putting us at times in a position we don't
always care for. It was the Forest Services choice not to issue another
permit after revoking the second Jet Boat permit back in 1978. At times
it is very challenging to try and accommodate each persons wishes. Now
the Forest Service is proposing to break up our permit so when we sell we
have two permits to sell not one. Each permit must be sold to a separate
party without any financially ties. This will drastically reduce that value
of our business. Will we be compensated for this loss?
Both the private and commercial rafting people have used our Jet
Boats to haul them back up the river, after they have rafted down. We call
this service a Jet Back. Jet Backs have grown to a point where we have
given up trying to accommodate everyone, and have to say "sorry we are
full" at times. This has been especially hard on some of the commercial
rafting people, who need to get there passengers out on a tight schedule.
At times there are other rafters both private and commercial, who
look down on those that use our Jet Back services. One of these company's
had a heart attack with a customer on the 8th of July. The area they were
in was not accessible by helicopter. One of our jet boats and another boat
driver out of Lewiston with Beamers assisted the rafting company in
getting the person safely out of the canyon by Helicopter. He is alive and
well at this time. We are ready to provide this service when it is
unfortunately needed. Much to our disappointment the rafting company
chose not to support the fact that our Jet Boat was there to help out in an
emergency, the owner wouldn't even give us a thank you. This company
also refuses to support our Jet Boats on the river in the future.
In the latest FEIS the forest service has taken the total number of
days we had two boats on the river in the 1991 primary season to reach a
number of 21 7. Many of these 21 7 days the boats made two and three
trips up and down the river. Now the Forest Service is saying that this
217 number represents the number of boat trips HCA made in the 1991
primary season, but in all actuality HCA has made more like 600 boat trips
on the river during the primary season since purchasing the business in
1 983. Many days start with boat #1 doing a day trip to Pittsburg Landing,
then returning back down river in the afternoon to pick up a Jet Back some
where between Johnson Bar and Pittsburg Landing. Boat #2 takes in some
fisherman and/or campers in the morning. Then takes passengers on a
three hour scenic tour to Wild Sheep and back. Next it takes passengers on
a two hour scenic tour to Wild Sheep and back. Then at times it will go
back down to pickup a Jet Back and/or a drop of camp and/or fisherman.
Typically Boat #1 will make two trips to a down river destination some
where between Johnson Bar and Pittsburg Landing. Boat #2 will make
three trips to Wild Sheep and at times another trip to some where
between Wild Sheep and Pittsburg Landing. The number of boat trips
hasn't increased over the years, only the size of the boats and the number
of passengers. The Forest Service has come up with the following quote
in the FEIS.
"The commercial powerboat outfitter at the dam had 21 7 boat trips
during the 1991 primary season. Alternative G would allocate 222
launches from the Dam based on the 1991 primary season with 1 35 trips
allocated to Wild Sheep and 87 to Kirkwood. In 1991 58% of the
commercial launches from the Dam had the Kirkwood Historic Ranch as a
destination. This amounted to 126 boats. Forty-two percent of the
commercial boat trips had destinations above Wild Sheep. Assuming half
of the displaced boats going to the Kirkwood Historic Ranch would be
eliminated, with the other half included in the Dam launches going to Wild
Sheep or Pittsburg Landing launches, this scenario would result in a
decrease of commercial boat launches of 9%. Operator revenue would be
$1 33,452. Passengers would total 4,1 58 with associated expenditures of
$498,960.00."
This quote and many others concerning the FEIS is very twisted and
very in accurate.
Cutting us back to 222 allocated launches in alternative G would
significantly cut us by more than 60%. While the Forest Service says that
the prefered alternative G would only cut us 9%. No one seemed to have a
big problem back in the eighties with the number jet boats on the river.
Now there seems to be a few who do have. Here at HCA we don't feel that
we were the ones who created all the extra boat activity, since we have
had a cap of only being able two run two boats at a time. We feel that we
were already restricted and shouldn't have to take over a 60% cut now to
apease a few of the river users.
This canyon needs some use restrictions placed on it but if the
publics tax money is paying the bills to manage Hells Canyon then all user
groups should be able to see Hells Canyon. Restricting any part of the
canyon on certain days for a minority canyon user group is not in the
publics best interest. Further more if the minority user group did have a
few days a week for exclusive use of part of the canyon they would only
want more until the got it all.
The Forest Service put together a task force through the University of
Idaho. On this task force most Hells Canyon user groups and communities
around the area were represented. These people meant for 1 8 months at
different places around the country and come up with a plan called the
"LAC plan." To date the Forest Service seems to have scraped this plan and
come up with there own. Which is giving part of Hells Canyon to a vocal
minority river user group for three days per week during the peek use
period. What happened to the majority river user groups? What happened
to the time and effort everyone put into the LAC plan which for the most
part everyone agreed on? The LAC plan we are not in full agreeance with
but since so many people agreed to it, we give it our support.
Most rafting partys I have visited with so far this summer don't have a
problem with the Jet Boats, some times I hear the comment "there are to
many on the lower end." I also hear the Jet Boater at times say there are
to many rafts at times, along with a comment to the effect that we can
get along.
Unless there is a camera on Ric Bailey (Executive Director of the
Hells Canyon Preservation Council) that is against him, he is usually
trying to cause trouble. He quite often goes down the river with all the
rafts in his party strung across the river so as there is no way to get by
him with out coming close to his party. I see no effort what so ever on his
part to try and get along, he is continuously trying to create trouble.
Some of his supporters on several occasions have shown obseen naked
portions of there bodies and/or made obseen gestures. No body does
anything as far as enforcement goes. There is also four of the commercial
raft companys that project the same image to us as we pass in a Jet Boat.
Only when they need help are they freindly.
Another growing concern we have in Hells Canyon and the
surrounding area that Snake River flows through is the methods in which
the Chinook Salmon are being handled. We are not fish biologists but it is
becoming more apparent all the time that the other fish in Snake River are
being forgotten about. All the attention seems to be on bringing back the
Chinook Salmon. What about the Bass, Crapie, Trout, and the prehistoric
White Sturgeon. They seem to be getting less and less due to drastic
water fluctuations and draw downs to save the Salmon. We see from our
eyes the fishery people trying to save a fish that is pretty well already
extinct. Lets save what we have and not loose any more! Back through the
80's we had a decent Steelhead run thanks largely to Idaho Powers efforts,
now it looks as if we are loosing this species as well. We didn't have an
opportunity to comment on wether the dams should be put in. Now that
they are in and the effects have been realized I see the power companys
going to great lengths to try and compensate the public so they can come
to Snake River and catch some fish.
The farmers who feed us are being put into a secondary position for
water, because of the Chinook Salmon. Are they going to have to be put
out of business before the fishery people wake up to the fact that we
aren't producing enough food to feed ourselves?
Now that Snake River has 26 dams on it, one would think that the
fishery has been altered. Lets try and keep the sport fishery that we have,
and not loose any more. We all use the electricity these dams produce so
we must approve of the dams.
Some people in the area don't like all the tourists we bring into the
area, at times we question this ourselves. On the other hand we feel that
we are helping to support the local economy. There are currently 7 of us
working full time and 2 part time as a team to show the tourists an
enjoyable experience in Hells Canyon, if they desire the use of our
services.
Now that the Forest Service has spent millions of dollars in the past
few years developing sites in the canyon such as, a campground at
Pittsburg landing, an interpretive center below Hells Canyon Dam, the
scenic loop road, road improvement into Dug Bar, the purchase of the
Cache Ck. place which is only accessible by boat, plus the proposed new
house for the host(s) at Kirkwood Historic Ranch, Cache Ck., Pittsburg
Landing and others improvements as well. They choose to lock up the
canyon so only a few of the rich and physical fit can see many of these
improvements in the canyon. We don't think this is right, for the majority
of the public to be locked out of an area like Hells Canyon, as long as they
are respecting it, and having to foot the bill for all of these
improvements.
The forest service seems to be very concerned over the social
carrying capacity of the canyon not the environmental abuse or the
economic impacts to the area. They are headed towards the goal of
creating a wilderness river for the people who have lots of money, time
and the physical ability to participate in a multiple day raft trip through
the canyon.
Hells Canyon from our point needs to be keep a pristine place.
Running hoards of people through it who camp at night on the river bank
we feel is not the answer. If these people were taken into the canyon by
jet boat and only allowed off the boat in designated spots we feel the
pristine setting could be left in tac. With a very limited-controlled
number of people setting foot on the river bank. Setting management
goals to accomplish this would allow a pristine river bank to remain for
nature to use and the public to see, not abuse.
On be half of the general public, we are asking for your support. Any
questions please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Bret Armacost
Pres. HCA, Inc.
ACTUAL USE REPORTS
ACTUAL USE REPORTS
1994
1993
versus
versus
NEW PROPOSAL "G"
NEW PROPOSAL "G"
The following shows one week in July of 1 994 of the actual use, the
number of trips, and time of day each trip was run. This is a very typical
week during the summer months when we had good water flows (above
8,000 c.f.s.). If the water was lower the number of private Jet Backs
would be considerably less and the number of people participating on the 6
hour tour would be reduced to a maximum of 1 2 on Diablo instead of the
typical the 20 on Gusto. Water flows we do not have any control over!
Keep in mind that we are limited to only operating two Jet Boats at any
one time on the river. This type of use has not changed in the past 1 0
years for us here at Hells Canyon Adventures, the only changes have been
the number of passengers we handle and the size of the boats.
Maximum number of passengers allowed on our boats by the Coast
Guard, and the maximum of passenger we will run on our boats to the top
of Wild Sheep Rapids are as follows: Culebra 49, Gusto 26, Diablo 18.
Maximum number of passengers we feel safe in running through Wild Sheep
and Granite Rapids are as follows: Culebra 35, Gusto 20, Diablo 1 2.
Maximum numbers of passengers we feel is safe on our maximum of two
rafts for a one day float trip is 1 8.
The last two pages of use reports represents the changes, trips, and
passengers we would have to operate with, if the latest proposal goes
through. (Alternative G)
In addition to the people we did accommodate we also turned several folks
away because we were to busy, much of this reflects the time I have spent
away from the business working on stuff such as this. We certainly didn't
need this new plan thrust upon us during our busiest time of year.
July 21st Jet Back from Salt Ck. 2 jet boat trips.
July 22nd Jet Back from Pittsburg Landing.
July 23rd Jet Back from Pittsburg Landing.
July 24th Jet Back from Pittsburg Landing.
July 24th Jet Back from Johnson Bar.
Total turned away
$925.00
$640.00
$640.00
$640.00
$350.00
$3195.00
The total gross income and total passengers served we showed for this
week in 1 994.
Total number of passengers
Gross Income
692 passengers
$26,665.00
Under the new plan using the same number of passengers and the same
prices used in the 1 994 week the following would change.
Total number of passengers denied access
Gross Income
338 passengers
$13,000.00
As you can see this is about a 50% cut in both passengers who would be
denied access to Hells Canyon and Gross Income.
All this cut so 24% of the Hells Canyon rafters can have a nonmotorized
experience. From past experience I personally have dealt with these
people on several occassions. When they need something they have an
incredible ability to all of the sudden be very friendly, other wise they
usually are very rude and at times trying to create problems.
There is room for all of the Hells Canyon user groups, we support the LAC
Plan. This would have little affect on us. But would certainly limit the
peaks of both to many rafts and/or jet boats.
The total gross income and total passengers served we showed for this
same week in 1 993 using 1994 calender dates.
Total number of passengers
Gross Income
658 passengers
$25,955.00
Under the new plan using the same number of passengers and the same
prices used in the 1 994 week the following would change.
Total number of passengers denied access
Gross Income
31 4 passengers
$10,755.00
As you can see this is a little over a 50% cut in both passengers who
would be denied access to Hells Canyon and Gross Income.
All this cut so 24% of the Hells Canyon rafters can have a nonmotorized
experience. From past experience I personally have dealt with these
people on several occassions. When they need something they have an
incredible ability to all of the sudden be very friendly, other wise they
usually are very rude and at times trying to create problems.
There is room for all of the Hells Canyon user groups, we support the LAC
Plan. This would have little affect on us. But would certainly limit the
peaks of both to many rafts and/or jet boats.
Sincerely yours,
~~~~--
Bret Armacost
President, HCA, Inc.
•
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest
I
P. 0. Box 907
Baker City, OR
L
State of Idaho
Honorable Cecil Andrus
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Dear Governor Andrus:
Reply to 1950
Date
I want to draw your personal attention to a controversy surrounding the
management of the Wild and Scenic Snake River and our most recent management
proposal. The enclosed final environmental impact statement proposes to
emphasize shared use of the Canyon by powerboaters, floaters, and trail
users. In spite of our best efforts to hear all sides of the issue, to
fully and honestly analyze all pertinent data, and to select a preferred
alternative that gives people access without causing significant impacts to
the environment, we know our position is controversial. I am sure you will
be hearing from some of your constituents.
Please feel free to contact Kurt Wiedenmann, Planning Team Leader, at
(503) 523-1296 or Woody Fine, Assistant Area Ranger at Clarkston, at
(509) 758-0616 for a personal briefing for you or your staff.
Sincerely,
R. M. RICHMOND
Forest Supervisor
Enclosures
/
FS·6200·11b (7/81)