>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 06:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Western Ancient Forest Campaign <wafcdc at igc.apc.org>
>Subject: Opal Creek Comments Needed
>To: Recipients of conference <mlist.wafcdc at conf.igc.apc.org>
>
>
>SEN. HATFIELD PROPOSES TO PROTECT OPAL CREEK
>
> Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR) has introduced legislation that will
>protect 12,800 acres of the Opal Creek area as wilderness and
>provide lesser protection for 13,000 acres that will be designated a
>National Scenic Recreation Area. Environmentalists are calling for a
>larger wilderness of 31,000 acres that would includes the Little
>North Fork watershed. The timber industry has expressed support
>for Hatfield's proposed Wilderness area, but opposes the Scenic area
>and also insists that the Opal Creek Education Center now operated
>by the non-profit Friends of Opal Creek must be turned over to the
>Forest Service. But the industry and its allies in Congress may
>insist on more even though protecting Opal Creek will not decrease
>the federal timber base. Rep. Jim Bunn (R-OR) says the industry
>must receive something in exchange for allowing Opal Creek to win
>permanent protection. The City of Salem passed a unanimous
>resolution in favor of protecting Opal Creek saying that prohibiting
>further logging and mining is needed to protect their clean water
>supplies for 150,000 citizens. There will be a presentation
>concerning Opal Creek at 7:00 p.m. April 23 at the First United
>Methodist Church in Salem. Please contact Michael Carrigan at
>503/585-2767 for more information.
>
>
>HATFIELD BACKS OFF MASSIVE LAND EXCHANGE
>
> Senator Hatfield held a public hearing April 12 on his
>proposal to transfer 59,000 acres of BLM land in Coos County in
>SW Oregon to the Coquille Indian tribe and the BIA. The tribe has
>been working closely with an influential timber company on a
>scheme that would have freed this land from the current
>environmental laws which now govern this land and place it under
>less restrictive ones so the tribe would be able to remove much
>more timber from this land once it came under their control. The
>promise of permanently higher and more certain timber cutting
>levels has been one of the tribes main arguments throughout their
>aggressive and well funded campaign to acquire control of this land.
>
> Sen. Hatfield had earlier expressed his intention to attach this
>proposal to the Opal Creek bill and this hearing was thought to be
>the last hurdle before the introduction of a bill to accomplish this
>transfer. The hearing produced an overwhelming outpouring of
>emotional concern and testimony from the local residents and local
>elected officials opposed to this public lands transfer, including an
>appearance by Governor Kitzhaber who in his testimony modified
>his original support considerably. The whole proceeding made a big
>impact on the Senator who seemed to the attendees to withdraw
>his support for the original plan as the meeting progressed. ONRC,
>there to testify on the Opal creek bill, said they would withdraw
>their support for the Opal creek bill if the Coquille land transfer
>was attached to it as Hatfield had previously said he intended to
>do. Other supporters of the Opal creek bill supported this position.
>
> This proposed transfer is one of a series of wholesale
>transfers of public lands into private hands being proposed by the
>104th Congress. Rep. Frank Riggs has proposed similar legislation
>that would impact the Headwaters forest and open up the Ancient
>Forest Reserves to experimental logging. The Coquille exchange had
>been gathering considerable momentum in recent months and had
>been considered by many a done deal until the hearing. The next
>chapter in this saga is a county wide referendum on the transfer
>scheduled for the May 21 ballot. It appears likely that Hatfield will
>still pursue some arrangement with the tribe over this land short of
>actual land transfer such as providing the tribe a percentage of
>timber receipts from the area.
> Jim Britell, Kalmiopsis Audubon Society
>
>
>COMMENTS NEEDED TO ENSURE FULL PROTECTION OF OPAL
>CREEK
>
> Senator Hatfield convened a Senate field hearing in Salem,
>Oregon on April 12 to discuss two sections of Senate bill. 1662,
>THE OMNIBUS OREGON RESOURCES CONSERVATION ACT,
>which he introduced in March. The hearing gave Governor
>Kitzhaber, the mayor of the city of Salem, the facilitator of the Opal
>Creek Working Group, ONRC and Friends of Opal Creek the
>opportunity to support that portion of the bill which would save
>this last intact watershed on the west side of the Cascades from the
>chainsaw.
>
> The bill would convert recent administrative protection to
>permanent legislative protection through creation of new Wilderness,
>a new Scenic-Recreation area and designation of Elkhorn Creek as
>a Wild and Scenic River. No green or salvage sales would be
>permitted anywhere in these protected areas. Opal Creek has long
>been the symbol for the forest protection movement and represents
>many of our highest values. It is best known for the staggering
>beauty of its ancient forest and pristine waters - home to precious
>salmon and providing clean drinking water for rural communities
>and the Salem, the state capital.
>
> Logging and logging roads elsewhere in Salem's watershed
>set the stage for the devastating impacts of February floods, when
>waters became so muddy that Salem had to divert them, lest they
>destroy the city's filtration system and carry waterborne disease to
>residents. The food processing industry, the semiconduct or
>industry, the breweries, the commercial fishing industry and
>community residents suffered millions of dollars in losses.
>
>
>COMMENTS ARE DUE APRIL 26 AND ARE TO BE SUBMITTED
>TO:
>
> Sen. Mark Hatfield, 121 SW Salmon, Suite 1420 Portland,
>OR 97204 We are pleased that Senator Hatfield has moved again to
>protect this gem. We recommend some additions to the bill which
>would fulfill his intent to fully protect this watershed. The first is
>to add the important Cedar Creek sub-basin to the Scenic-Recreation
>area, ensuring protection of a watershed which provides drinking
>water to the city of Salem. We support the protection of the
>Elkhorn River as a Wild and Scenic River and would like to see it
>classified in the legislation as a Wild River. In addition, add
>language requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with all
>municipalities drinking from the Little North Fork when making
>decisions affecting the land and water protected through this
>legislation. In addition, the interests of both salmon fisheries and
>indigenous peoples should be represented on the Advisory Council.
>
> We also want you to know that we have reservations about
>the Klamath and Deschutes Basin Working Groups and will oppose
>the Title IV Land Transfer, having no choice but to oppose the
>entire legislation should Title IV move forward. Public land should
>stay in public ownership.
> Oregon Natural Resources Council
>