More protections sought for Mt. Hood, Rogue River and Oregon Caves

A run-down of Oregon Wilderness legislation currently pending in Congress.

Moving to protect the state's natural but threatened "treasures," four Oregon Democrats offered legislation Wednesday that would provide the highest level of protection to thousands of acres surrounding Mount Hood and the Oregon Caves as well as more than 140 miles of tributaries feeding the Rogue River.

"These are places that merit special protection so that not only this generation of Oregonians can continue to enjoy them, but future generations of Oregonians and Americans for all time," Rep. Peter DeFazio said in announcing the plan.

He was joined by Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Darlene Hooley and David Wu, all of whom said they expect strong support. "The movement today is for more protection rather than less, and I expect it to be bipartisan," Blumenauer said.

The legislation, collected in two bills, would add about 132,000 acres of wilderness to the Mount Hood National Forest by attaching acreage to eight existing wilderness areas. It would also add 79.6 miles of new wild and scenic river protection to nine Mount Hood rivers. Finally, it would designate another 34,550 acres as national recreation areas.

Another bill adds more than 4,000 acres to the Oregon Caves National Monument outside Cave Junction. It includes wild and scenic river status for the River Styx, which runs through the caves. If approved, the Styx would be the nation's first underground stream to gain that protection.

In addition, about 143 miles of tributaries of the lower Rogue would be designated as wild, scenic or recreational in order to protect them.

A blizzard of proposals

The Oregon proposals are the latest in a blizzard of wilderness plans circulating through Congress. DeFazio said he hopes the Oregon package will move quickly through the House.

"I would hope to move these as noncontroversial bills," he said.

It wasn't long ago that such a quest would have been considered a fool's pursuit. Not now. In one of the lesser known developments in Congress this year, wilderness legislation affecting public land across the country is surging through the House and Senate, collecting big votes and bipartisan support.

In all, conservation advocates say Congress is likely to propose more than 2 million acres of federal land for extra protection this year. Many of those bills, they say, are powered by lopsided support at home and bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Bills have been introduced by both Democrats and Republicans and carefully negotiated to win backing from both environmental and business interests.

"There is a realization that there needs to be some accommodation," said David Dreher, a former DeFazio staffer who now handles government affairs for the Campaign for America's Wilderness, an interest group that is working across the country to negotiate deals to protect federal lands. "We always try to work with as many interests as want to work with us," he said. "That's snowmobilers, that's bikers, that's ranchers. It's Republicans, and it's Republicans in Congress."

All of this is a stark -- and, according to some, a remarkable -- contrast to recent years, when any legislation to expand wilderness protections was met with quick and virtually complete defeat.

"The pace has definitely picked up," said Mike Matz, executive director for Campaign for America's Wilderness.

Matz and others suggest several reasons for the change, but all agree that the 2006 election was the biggest. That's when Republicans lost control of the House and Senate and when Republican Rep. Richard Pombo of California was defeated. Pombo strenuously opposed most wilderness proposals. He also chaired the House Resources Committee, which handles those issues. In that position, he could single-handedly derail even the most carefully negotiated plans.

"That committee hated the concept of additional wilderness for 12 years while the Republicans were in charge," said DeFazio, who sits on the Natural Resources Committee and often battled Pombo.

Another reason is also a result of the election. With Democrats in control of the Senate, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden became chairman of the subcommittee that handles wilderness bills. He's been busy.

"I've always said, 'When I get a gavel in my hands, I don't think Oregonians send me here to fill a chair.' They send me here to go after the things that are important to them. "And wilderness is very, very high on that list."

So far this year, Wyden has pushed the Mount Hood wilderness bill and the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act through the committee. He's introduced four other bills that are virtually assured of gaining committee approval.

"Essential protections"

The House, meanwhile, has passed and sent to the Senate seven wilderness bills. Those bills cover nearly 500,000 acres in states that include Oregon, New Mexico, Virginia and West Virginia.

Economics and demographics have also changed the congressional climate. With sparsely populated areas of the West drawing new residents, attitudes about government and environmental protection have begun to shift. So have the economic arguments. Mining, logging and other extractive industries no longer dominate local economies. Today, many areas rely on tourism and recreation, providing economic incentives for preserving natural places.

"I think this will be a huge economic engine for our state," Wyden said. "When you look at the economic multipliers, it's very significant."

Despite the change of fortune, the path isn't entirely clear. Senate rules allow a single senator to stop legislation. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has bottled up several wilderness bills, including Wyden's cherished Mount Hood proposal. But unlike previous battles that centered on policy and environmental ideology, Coburn's objection is money. He opposes the federal expenditures needed to designate and manage land as wilderness.

Wyden doesn't buy that, and he's confident now that wilderness bills will ultimately pass.

"Somehow," he said, "a country that can find hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for the war in Iraq, billions of dollars more in subsidies for oil companies drilling on the people's land, should also be able to find the money for essential protections in our wilderness areas."