Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Mr. THOMPSON. I am.

You mean our booklet of the study which Mr. Brown put into evidence?

Mr. McCLURE. Yes, that is what I had reference to.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. McCLURE. Are you in accord with the plans as thus developed? Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, this is a general study made by a development department at Ohio University for the State. That is its standing.

I would like to see the study made that is proposed in the bill, which would be far more comprehensive and in line with Federal policy. Mr. McCLURE. Without having a study made, we don't know exactly what is intended to be done with any given river do we?

Mr. THOMPSON. Not exactly, no. And of course we don't know the relationships between the Federal Government and the State government.

Mr. McCLURE. This leads us to the question of whether to go into the instant section or the study section, because we could not tell you now, and apparently you could not tell us now, exactly what would be done if it were placed in the instant section.

Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, if we had the option of getting all that was proposed in this study we would embrace it immediately. It is a novel approach not contained in any of the legislation. And it doesn't quite seem likely.

There is one other thing, that I at least asked for the upstretch of the river, which is not included.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCLURE. Sure.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you tell us how much it would cost?

Mr. THOMPSON. The cost?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. No, I cannot.

Mr. TAYLOR. Don't you think we need that before we create a scenic river?

Mr. THOMPSON. This is going to be a very inexpensive river. It would be hard to estimate the cost, Mr. Taylor, because we don't know, for instance, whether we will buy easements or titles or what width they will be. The main thing is protection of the river, which won't cost anything even if we go in for a study. If you will pull the whole stem in from its northern sources to the mouth of the river, then we have got much of what we want. That means we hold off until the real wisest use of this corridor can be developed.

Mr. TAYLOR. Of course, a dependable cost estimate is a very essential part of a study. And we want a cost estimate before we create a scenic river.

Mr. McCLURE. I would point out to the Chairman and the gentlemen here that any of the instant rivers do not have this study. We cannot make that statement that we will have this cost study before we make any scenic rivers, because if you make that statement, then you are opposed to any instant section.

Mr. TAYLOR. H.R. 8416 has a definite cost limitation, And when we adopt a bill out of this committee it will have such a limitation.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I hope the cost won't deter the committee. This is a pretty good study, and it only cost the State of Ohio $500.

Mr. McCLURE. That is the cost of the study and not the cost of development, however.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. McCLURE. Is there not the possibility that the State of Ohio could proceed more rapidly on this than the Federal Government

could?

Mr. THOMPSON. Unfortunately, no. As you know, we in the Midwestern States are organized counties and States. We have very few regional agencies capable of taking a job like this.

Now, there is in this area a Little Miami Conservancy District. But under the law almost its sole function is flood control. And unfortunately this one has been hauled into court, and its assessment for whatever purposes it has been wiped out. So you can see how helpless we are at getting the six counties strung together in an agency that can do the job.

Mr. MCCLURE. And there is nothing to prevent the State from creating such an agency?

Mr. THOMPSON. No. But it will take that time, you see, Mr. McClure. And I am afraid our rivers will be gone by the time we get it.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCLURE. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. Let me point out again that under the land and water conservation fund bill at least half of the money collected goes to the States for use in developing State projects, to be matched by the States.

Now, this bill, H.R. 8416, provides that the legislature can create a scenic river to be owned and controlled by the State. It has to come. up to the standard and be accepted by the Department of Interior. If this river meets that test, then you have got two doors you can go through. One is this bill, and the other is the action of your own State legislature.

Mr. MCCLURE. I want to point out not only that, Mr. Chairman, but also the fact that we have a half a billion dollars of backlog of recreational authorizations that have already passed Congress, and that this authorization under this bill will merely add to that backlog. It will be some years before we get all of that accomplished. Even at the Federal level, the passage of Federal legislation is not an instant accomplish

ment.

But I am very mindful of the fact that at least it will provide a limited degree of deterrence upon the use of misuse of the river sections during the period of time until something can be done.

However, the study section cannot and does not affect private property which abuts the river, and so you have no shield or protection on the change in use of land along that river through the study section.

I think that I would hesitate very much to take a river like the Little Miami, where the State has progressed as far as you have progressed, and put it into this bill, and then have everybody in the State of Ohio think it has been protected, because this bill cannot and does

92-560-6828

not accomplish anything more in this field than to prevent the construction of dams authorized by the United States, or that are under the control and authority of the United States. It does not protect the land uses within the area. I think it is a vital distinction. I think it is something that you might be able to progress upon more rapidly through the State than we can at the Federal level.

Mr. TAYLOR. Gentlemen, the recreational budget for the State of Ohio might be in a lot better shape than that of the organization we work for. And the State might get to it a great deal quicker than the Federal Government.

Mr. THOMPSON. As the Chairman pointed out, there are a number of doors that are available to us. I will answer by saying that we are banking on all of them. We will not let up a minute just because you put us in for study.

On the question of costs, one more word. Here most costs call for development. This cost calls for staying away from development. The greatest cost at any section would be the purchase of the flood plain. That plain is now in willows and bushes because the water gets over it. It is going to be the cheapest land in southwest Ohio. And we may not even have to buy title.

Mr. McCLURE. I would hazard a guess that by the time you acquired it it won't be any longer the cheapest land. Certainly if the Federal Government does the acquiring it will be even less cheap.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Douglas. You and Mrs. Germann have made a very effective case on behalf of the Little Miami River.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, could I make some literature available on behalf of the Little Miami River?

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. It will be placed in the file.

(The material referred to will be found in the files of the committee.) Mr. TAYLOR. Next, Mr. Robert Edgar, vice president, Bowaters Southern Paper Co., Calhoun, Tenn., speaking for the Forest Industries Council.

Who is with you, Mr. Edgar?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT R. EDGAR, BOWATERS SOUTHERN PAPER
CORP., CALHOUN, TENN., ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN F. HALL,
NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. EDGAR. This is Mr. John Hall, staff attorney for the National
Forest Products Association.

Mr. TAYLOR. He is not listed there as a witness here.
Mr. EDGAR. No; he will be with me to help me out.

I would like to correct the record. I am from Tennessee and not from Texas.

Mr. TAYLOR. That makes a difference.

Mr. EDGAR. I guess it does.

Mr. TAYLOR. I went to the same college in Tennessee as did Sam Houston.

Mr. EDGAR. We live right near Sam Houston's birthplace, near Venore, Tenn.

Mr. Chairman, this material was put together for presentation after lunch, and it is being presented before lunch. We will supply a copy

for each member of the committee when it has been duplicated this afternoon.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, the full statement will appear in the record.

Mr. EDGAR. I am R. R. Edgar, vice president of Bowaters Southern Paper Corp., Calhoun, Tenn., and president of the American Pulpwood Association.

I am here today as a representative of the Forest Industries Council which is the forest policy coordinating organization of the pulpwood, lumber, and pulp and paper industries.

The members of the national trade associations comprising the Forest Industries Council process a major portion of all forest products harvested annually in the United States. We are vitally concerned with any legislation which may affect the acreage of land available for forest management or which may affect the standard of forest management practiced by Federal, State, and private land managers.

The forest products industry has been involved in development of the Senate's wild and scenic rivers bill in both the 89th and 90th Congresses. Some of our suggestions were adopted in S. 119 as passed by the Senate.

The forest products industry supports the maintenance of certain rivers and river segments in a free-flowing condition, provided that (1) Government acquisition of private commercial timberlands is held to a minimum, and (2) timber management on both public and private lands, incorporated into the system, recognizes the capability of managed timberlands to present high quality scenic values satisfactory to recreational needs and is in keeping with current economic conditions and silvicultural practices.

We are concerned with certain provisions in the proposed legislation which could remove large areas of land from private ownership and could remove large areas of land from private ownership and could remove large acreages of public and private timberland from timber production.

We are concerned that the compatibility of timber production with scenic and recreation values is not adequately emphasized.

The most recent projection of the demand for forest products is found in "Projected Demands for Paper and Board-Forest Resources Report No. 18," released by the Forest Service this year. It says:

The new demand projections for pulpwood in 1985 are about 44 percent above those in the Timber Trends report. Given an increase in the cut of pulpwood of this magnitude, and assuming the cut of other timber products and levels of forest management would be about the same as assumed in the Timber Trends study, projected timber supplies would fall short of the total timber cut around 1980.

Mr. Chairman, 1980 is only 12 years away and, at best, a new forest started this year would not be ready for harvest by 1980.

By the year 2000 it is estimated that 300 million acres of commercial forest land will be required to meet pulp and paper demands alone. This does not include that acreage required to supply lumber, plywood, and other wood products demands.

Timber production can and must be maintained in areas devoted to recreational development if we are going to meet our Nation's need for wood and wood products. A growing forest adds as much to environmental quality as an old-growth forest. We urge that this be recognized

in proposals considered by this committee providing for Federal land acquisition or management restrictions on private and public lands.

Coupled with a clear statement of timber management, we urge that there be either congressional review of each proposed area or strict limits on the acreage to be included in each river area without specific congressional review.

The procedure in H.R. 8416 and H.R. 90 calls for initial river areas to be shown on specific maps which could be reviewed by this committee. Proposed additional areas would be the subject of local review and hearings, a point we had urged before the Senate committee, and would be presented to the Congress for its review. We strongly support this procedure.

We suggest an acres-per-mile limitation as contained in S. 119, H.R. 6166, and the proposed national scenic trails bill as a guideline in preparing such maps for wild or scenic river areas. We suggest that the proposed acquisition be reduced from S. 119's limit of 320 acres per mile total area including scenic easements and 100 acres per mile in fee acquisition.

În commercial timber areas with which we are concerned, this is an unreasonably wide swath. We have found in public and private forest management that a border strip 300 feet or less, often only 100 feet, with a modified degree of forest management, protects scenic values and does not overly reduce the acreage available for complete forest production. The limits in S. 119 amount to a half-mile-wide swath one-quarter of a mile or 1,320 feet on either side of the streamto comprise the total area; and an 825-foot-wide swath-about 400 feet on either side of the stream-acquisition in fee.

Mr. TAYLOR. Your time is up, Mr. Edgar.

May I remind you that this bill passed the Senate by unanimous vote. You might assume that some type of scenic rivers bill is going to pass Congress. And I might also say that it is our intention to mark up H.R. 8416, Congressman Aspinall's bill. And I would suggest that you take a copy of that with you, and if you have specific amendments which you think should be incorporated in it in order to better protect the lumber industry, and pulpwood, and so forth, that you submit those to counsel.

Will you do that?

Mr. EDGAR. Yes, we will.

Mr. TAYLOR. In other words, get your attorneys to study it carefully and come up with amendments which they think are needed. We want to be reasonable.

Mr. EDGAR. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that a bill was put before the Tennessee House of Representatives last night. It was amended on the floor to permit timber cutting within these boundaries. The legislature recognized the need for this management, and did permit

it.

(The complete statement of Mr. Edgar follows:)

STATEMENT OF R. R. EDGAR, FOR THE FOREST INDUSTRIES COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am R. R. Edgar, Vice President of Bowaters Southern Paper Corporation, Calhoun, Tennessee and President of the American Pulpwood Association.

I am here today as a representative of the Forest Industries Council which is the forest policy coordinating organization of the pulpwood, lumber, and

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »