pulp and paper industries. The three national forest industry associations which comprise the Forest Industries Council are: the American Pulpwood Association representing consumers and suppliers of pulpwood throughout the nation; the National Forest Products Association, composed of seventeen regional, species and products associations, representing the lumber and wood products industry from coast to coast; and the American Paper Institute, composed of pulp and paper manufacturers, representing almost the entire paper making industry in this country. The members of these three national trade associations 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 effect the standard of forest management practiced by federal, state and private land managers. SUPPORT FREE-FLOWING RIVERS The forest products industry has been involved in development of the Senate's Wild and Scenic Rivers bill in both the 89th and 90th Congress. Some of our suggestions were adopted in S. 119 as passed by the Senate. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission recommended that "certain rivers of unusual scientific, esthetic, and recreational value should be allowed to remain in their free flowing and natural setting without man-made alterations." 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 timber lands to present high quality scenic values satisfactory to recreational needs and is in keeping with current economic conditions and silvicultural practices. While we support the concept of free-flowing rivers, we are concerned with certain provisions in the proposed legislation before this Committee which could remove large areas of land from private ownership and could remove large acreages of public and private timberland from timber production. LAND USE DEMANDS We are concerned that the compatability of timber production with scenic and recreation values is not adequately emphasized. This committee has recognized this compatability in general terms in legislation for national recreation areas and the proposed trails bills as well as the scenic rivers proposals, but the concept needs to be more forcefully stated. Recreation and scenic values must exist side by side with other uses if our land base, public and private, is to meet increasing demands being placed upon it. Every resource use points to steadily increasing demands and shows that each particular use will soon outstrip available land capability to produce commodities and social benefits if there is not clear recognition of the non-exclusive character of many essential uses. Other witnesses appearing before this committee on other occasions have pointed out that the increasing demand for forest products and the opposing increasing demand for land for recreation, roads, airports, urban areas and food production are on a collision course. This makes it even more important for a multiple use management which permits harvesting tree crops from areas which are used for recreation. The most recent projection of the demand for forest products is found in "Projected Demands For Paper and Board-Forest Resource Report #18" released by the Forest Service this year. It says, "The new demand projections for pulpwood in 1985 are about 44% above those in the Timber Trend 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 Trend 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 300,000,000 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. Increase utilization and improved management techniques can reduce this total required acreage somewhat, but we must recognize that we cannot continually reduce timber production by removing areas for single-use purposes and still meet our nation's future demands. We feel that it is imperative for the future of our forest industries and economic stability of our country, that not only a minimum amount of forest land be removed from production from now on, but that considerable amounts of forest land already "locked up" for some other single purpose, may have to be removed from that restriction and placed under a multiple-use type of management which would permit timber harvesting. RECREATION AND TIMBER PRODUCTION 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 oldgrowth 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. In strips along river banks a modified type of forest management might be desired and timing of timber removal would necessarily be coordinated and adapted to the types and periods of use. These practices are well understood and are presently carried out by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, by some of the States and by private timber growers where scenic conditions are being maintained. There is much successful experience in this type of forestry in recreation areas, along highways and streams and on selected watersheds. Many of the areas now proposed, or that may be considered, for designation as wild or scenic river areas encompass part of the raw material source for forest product industries. As such, they provide a steady flow of dollars into the private economy for products sold, as well as local taxes and an employment base for communities and other enterprises dependent on the forest products industry. It would be unwise to unnecessarily restrict the production of essential forest products from these lands. For these reasons we urge that a clear policy statement on forest management for river areas be included in the legislation reported by this Committee. The statement in Section 5(c) of S. 119 is the strongest statement in support of forest management in any of the bills now before this Committee. Section 10 (a) of H.R. 8416 is quite similar, but it does specifically mention items such as timber management and access across a free-flowing river. Section 5(a) of H.R. 6166 is even less firm and Section 4(g) of H.R. 90 is all too clear on its restrictions on timber management. CLASSIFICATION OF RIVERS H.R. 8416, H.R. 90, and S. 119 present different proposed categories of river areas. H.R. 8416 provides the most complete breakdown, spelling out the basic purpose of six river types and adjacent areas, with suggested management criteria. H.R. 90 proposes three classes of rivers, with management guidelines for each. S. 119 defines two classes and states broad management purposes. We have not attempted to weigh the various proposed categories, but do believe that a clear statement of Congressional intent on the flexibility of management practices to maintain current Timber management practices on lands bordering free-flowing rivers should be in any bill or report approved by this Committee. SCOPE OF ACQUISITION 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. In 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 halfmile wide swath, (1⁄4 mile or 1320 feet on either side of the stream) to comprise the total area; and an 825-foot wide swath (about 400 feet on either side of the stream) in fee acquisition. We recognize that flexibility in the creation of these areas is desirable; we also recognize that there may be areas where no land or rights in land may be acquired and that some sites valuable for public recreation might require a little larger area than could be accommodated in a riverside strip. However, the limits in S. 119 and H.R. 6166 are not just a riverside strips but a substantial swath, acquisition of which generally would not be required to maintain the values in a free-flowing river. We request that these limits on acquisition be established either in legislation or management guidelines to the administrators, at 50 acres in fee per mile and no more than 160 acres per mile total with provision for Congressional review and approval of any additional areas which the administration believes necessary to acquire. This would permit acquisition of all lands within narrow gorges to the rim line. The provision in S. 119 that land cannot be acquired by condemnation if more than 50 percent of the river area is currently in public ownership is sound and should be included in legislation approved by this Committee. SCENIC EASEMENT Our industry has supported the concept that the federal government should acquire or retain only those lands or rights in lands which are needed for essential government requirements. We are becoming concerned, however, with widespread use of scenic easements, restrictive covenants and other similar devices since costs of land management, including timber production under these circumstances are not well defined. H.R. 8416 and S. 119 provide for acquiring a combination of scenic easements and fee title to lands within the proposed river areas. Both bills indicate the restrictions that could be placed on lands covered by such easements. We prefer the definition in Section 5(e) of S. 119 which specifically provides for continuation of any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement. It is our understanding, that landowners who relinquish scenic easements to the government would be permitted to continue forest management programs not in conflict with maintenance of scenic and other values. We urge that the legislation clearly establish policy that every reasonable effort will be made to assure harvest of the full sustained yield consistent with maintenance of scenic values. And that the landower be adequately reimbursed for any loss of revenue or additional cost he may incur. The definition of the easement called a "conservation easement" in Section 16 (c) H.R. 8416 is much more detailed and appears to be more restrictive Since it prohibits "disturbance or modification of the surface or subsurface ... the growth, planting, removal destruction or damaging of vegetation . . ." without regard to the previous use of the land, it appears that this could prohibit such uses as timber harvesting and grazing. Acquisition of scenic or conservation easements as outlined in S. 119 can serve a twofold purpose. First, it keeps the land in private ownership, in a tax paying status, and in production of trees, food, etc. Second, it is a way to hold down the cost of setting up a wild or scenic river area, which is desirable in view of the estimated cost of recreation areas which some planners say are needed. EXCHANGES As you well know from previous hearings, our industry fully supports land exchange programs to accomplish several objectives: federal acquisition of needed sites; minimum cash outlay; and maintenance of the private land base on which industry investments and community facilities are based. All of these proposals provide for land exchange, with a restriction that the Secretary of the Interior is limited to exchanging lands which he controls within the state or states through which the river flows. We recommend that this exchange authority be expanded to include any lands consistent with the following criteria: 1. Efficient forest management including access to and full productivity of forest lands; 2. Maintenance of local private land and tax base; 3. Stability of dependent communities and industry; 4. Multiple-use management of resources, except where limited use management is needed to preserve rare or special values in the greater public interest; 5. Continuation of sale of public lands declared surplus; 6. Public access to information concerning availability of public lands for exchange, pending negotiations, and pending transactions; and 7. Full consultation with local public officials. (Amendments for the record submitted by the National Forest Products Association follow :) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 8416 Amendment 1, Page 11, Line 24, amend to read: “*** and carrying out the study. During his study of any river where acquisition of privately-owned land is considered necessary, the secretary will hold local public hearings. Explanation: This proposed amendment would require local hearings for all areas in which acquisition of private land is planned. Amendment 2, Page 12, Line 6, amend to read: **** act of Congress. In developing proposals for additional Scenic River Areas, the secretary shall limit his proposals for acquisition to no more than 160 acres per mile, of which no more than 50 acres per mile shall be fee title. Such Lands and interests in land, however . . .' Amendment 3, Page 13, Line 3, amend to read: "*** under his jurisdiction or any other federally owned land, with the concurrence of the Secretary having custody thereof. In the event that the Secretary of Interior cannot obtain that concurrence, the exchange may be effected by Executive Order of the President of the United States, or by Act of the United States Congress acting in the greater public interest." within the State or States in which the eomponent lies and which he elassifies as suitable for exchange or other disposal. Explanation: To broaden scope of federal lands available for exchange. "*** therewith limiting the construction of roads or bridge, timber harvesting and livestock grazing and other uses ***** Explanation: To provide specific mention of the propriety of timber management and having access across scenic river areas. Amendment 5, page 25, Line 21, amend to read: *** public enjoyment by present and future generations; Provided: such control shall not affect, without the owners consent, any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement." Explanation: These amendments would specifically provide that continuation of current land management practices would be permitted on lands covered by "conservation easements." Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions? The gentleman from Idaho has a question. Mr. EDGAR. I might also add that we do support the concept of the scenic rivers; we are in favor of it, but we wish to see that it is put together in a way which will not injure the production of pulp, paper, and lumber products. Mr. TAYLOR. Of course, we desire to do as little damage as possible to the forest industry, to farming, and all other operations. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. MCCLURE. What type of forestry management practices do you propose in the buffer strip? Mr. EDGAR. On our own operations we clear-cut where we are not in areas along highways, and other areas where scenery is important. In these areas we go to a selective logging system wherever the species of the trees permits reproduction from a proper forest cultural point of view. If the species had to be reproduced by clear cutting, as some species do, we have to go to small areas instead of broad swaths, and we have to cut in small areas. Mr. McCLURE. Would it still be your thought that there might be some areas that would require a different kind of operation? Mr. EDGAR. Well, some species-for example, pine-don't lend themselves to a system of selective logging. They are an intolerant species. Mr. McCLURE. And in the selective logging operations would it be as you ordinarily apply that, or would it be a modified type of selective cut within the buffer zone? Mr. EDGAR. I would suspect that this will all have to be worked out for every individual area under certain guidelines that would be set. up to maintain the values that you want. It is important, however, that with the pressure that is going to be on us with our increased population and demand that the door be left open for working out a reasonable settlement. Mr. McCLURE. I would assume from what you say that you are not talking about the kind of timber management that would occur in a park setting in which you merely remove the old, dead and dying, and dangerous. Mr. EDGAR. Right now I can say something that my own company is doing. In the area I work we have somewhat less than 600,000 acres. At the present time we are delineating all the areas along the stream. And where we have particular scenic values we are putting them out of our cutting plan for the time being, with the idea in the future that we can work out something that will preserve these values. We are doing this entirely voluntarily. Mr. McCLURE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you. On my list I have four additional witnesses. The bell that you heard ringing a minute ago was a signal to us that we are wanted on the House floor. So we will adjourn. I assume you all can come back at 2:00. The committee will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon for the purpose of hearing the other four witnesses. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., a recess was taken until 2 p.m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. TAYLOR. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation will now come to order. We appear to be late getting started, but we just had a rollcall in the House and we had to rush over there. I hope we can finish before we have another one. The first witness is Mr. Maurice Protheroe, Director of the Florida. Audubon Society, Jacksonville, Fla. |