[House Report 106-425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-425
======================================================================
EMIGRANT WILDERNESS PRESERVATION ACT OF 1999
_______
November 1, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 359]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 359) to clarify the intent of Congress in Public Law 93-
632 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to continue to
provide for the maintenance and operation of 18 concrete dams
and weirs that were located in the Emigrant Wilderness at the
time the wilderness area was designated in that Public Law,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 359 is to clarify the intent of
Congress in Public Law 93-632 to require the Secretary of
Agriculture to continue to provide for the maintenance and
operation of 18 concrete dams and weirs that were located in
the Emigrant Wilderness at the time the wilderness was
designated in that Public Law.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Between 1931 and 1954 local sporting enthusiasts and back
country users, led by Tuolumne County resident Fred Leighton,
built and constructed a series of 18 dams and concrete weirs
throughout the portion of the Stanislaus National Forest which
later came to be known as the Emigrant Wilderness Area. These
dams were built from native rock so as to blend in naturally
with their surroundings. Most of these dams do not exceed two
feet in height. The largest dam is approximately seven feet
tall. Until the utilization of air stocking, both local
sporting groups and later the California Department of Fish and
Game stocked the lakes with fish. The last dam was built in
1954, 20 years before wilderness designation was considered for
the area.
The Emigrant Wilderness Area was designated in 1974 by
Public Law 93-632. At the time, many local users and groups
were opposed to wilderness designation, because of the
restrictions which accompanied the new status. As federal
wilderness, no motorized activity is allowed within the
wilderness boundaries, even for search and rescue purposes.
Although not specifically indicated within the legislation,
it is generally believed to have been the intent of Congress to
preserve and leave in place the 18 ``check dam'' structures.
Among others, the Chief Recreation Officer for the Stanislaus
National Forest, has repeatedly gone on record as stating it
was his belief these dams were to be maintained. Additionally,
report language for the 1974 Act explained:
Within the area recommended for wilderness
designation, there are drift fences (5 miles) which
will be maintained, but several cabins and barns will
be removed within ten years. Two snow cabins will be
retained. The weirs and small dams will likewise be
retained.
House Report No. 93-989, p. 10, April 11, 1974 [emphasis
added].
In 1990, the Stanislaus National Forest staff, under
direction from then Regional Forester Blain Cornell, prepared
and put out for public comment an updated management plan for
the Stanislaus National Forest. Among other items, staff's
final recommendation was to preserve 12 of the 18 dams and
allow the remaining six to deteriorate naturally. The final
draft of the document received two appeals. The Wilderness
Coalition in Davis, California, appealed the decision because
it did not remove all 18 dams. The local president of the
Tuolumne County Sportsmen's Association appealed because the
decision did not preserve all of the dams. In a series of
letters from the Wilderness Coalition to Cornell's office,
legal action was threatened if their position was not upheld.
Despite the best evidence, the Deputy Regional Forester,
overturned the local staff's findings and directed that all the
dams be removed within a five-year period. After a large public
outcry on the part of the County Board of Supervisors, local
staff, and dam supporters, the Forest Service Regional office
reversed its findings and directed the Stanislaus staff to redo
the entire management plan. In the interim, no further
maintenance, at public or private expense, would be allowed.
The Forest Service subsequently completed a new management
plan for the Emigrant Wilderness. Under the selected
alternative, the Forest Service will continue to maintain eight
of the dams for their historical value and allow the rest to
deteriorate through a policy of non-repair.
H.R. 359 provides for the Secretary of Agriculture to enter
into a cooperative agreement with a non-federal entity to
retain, maintain and operate at private expense the 18 small
check dams and weirs located within the Emigrant Wilderness
boundary. The work would be done under terms and conditions
established by the Secretary and without use of mechanized
transport or motorized equipment. The bill authorizes $20,000
to be appropriated to cover administrative costs incurred by
the Secretary to comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act.
A number of conservation, fisheries and recreation
organizations, as well as local governments, support H.R. 359,
including the Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and
Environment, California Trout and the Backcountry Horsemen of
California. The Central Sierra Wilderness Watch opposes the
bill.
In the 105th Congress, the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 1663, nearly identical to the current H.R. 359, by a vote
of 424 to 2. The legislation failed to reach the Senate Floor.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 359 was introduced on January 19, 1999, by Congressman
John T. Doolittle (R-CA). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. On February 23,
1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill, where the
Administration opposed H.R. 359 for technical reasons and
concerns about recovering all costs of maintenance of the small
structures. Witnesses from the Backcountry Horsemen and
California Trout supported the bill, while Central Sierra
Wilderness Watch testified against it. On April 27, 1999, the
Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were
offered and the bill was favorably reported to the Full
Committee by voice vote. On May 5, 1999, the Full Resources
Committee met to consider the bill. No amendments were offered
and the bill was favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority
to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 359, the Emigrant
Wilderness Preservation Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Victoria Heid
Hall.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 359--Emigrant Wilderness Preservation Act of 1999
CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting the bill
would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-
as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 359 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. State and local governments might
incur some costs as a result of the bill's enactment, but these
costs would be voluntary.
H.R. 359 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to enter
into a cooperative agreement with a nonfederal entity to
retain, maintain, and operate at private expense 18 concrete
dams and weirs in the Emigrant Wilderness within the Stanislaus
National Forest, California. According to the Forest Service,
under a management decision made in 1998 the Forest Service
will continue to maintain 8 of the 18 structures and allow the
others to deteriorate without repair. Under H.R. 359, all 18
structures would be maintained at private expense. The bill
would authorize the appropriation of $20,000 to cover the costs
of environmental reviews. Based on information from the Forest
Service, CBO estimates that the total cost to conduct such
environmental analyses could exceed the amount authorized.
Nevertheless, we estimate that implementing the bill would cost
less then $50,000 over the 2000-2004 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary sums.
The CBO contact for this estimate is Victoria Heid Hall.
This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt State, local, or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.