I don't think I know any of them who would knowingly attempt to do anything like that. Ultimately I suppose some actions taken appear to violate the Constitution, and on occacion the Supreme Court tells us that we did. But, knowingly it won't happen, anyhow.

From any or all of you, earlier today I tried to pose a couple of goals, to see where we were in general agreement and where we began to diverge. Would the essential statements that the Columbia Gorge area is a special place, unusual in its natural attributes, and that it probably has within it some criticial areas that need special protection; would there be general agreement with those two statements?

Mr. FISHER. Well, that's probably true, but a good share of the State of Washington could be put in that classification. If we're going to start taking this area just because it's pretty, I think that there's going to be an awful lot of your constituents that are going to be facing similar proposals along the way.

Senator EVANS. I'm not suggesting taking, or anything else. What I am saying, though, is the gorge as an entity, and I guess different people can put different boundaries around what constitutes the gorge, but the fact that it does represent a major river flowing through a mountain range, and seldom do you find that kind of major change in geography, major change in climate between the eastern and western side of the gorge; and then along with that, some of the areas that may well be areas deserving of protection. You can protect in a lot of ways; some would suggest you zone it, some others would suggest that you have scenic easements, others would suggest if you have scenic areas or places you want to preserve, buy them.

But, I guess I'm trying to find whether there's general feeling that the gorge is a remarkable place.

Mr. NICHOLS. I think those of us who live here couldn't agree with you more. We wouldn't be here if we didn't want to be here. It has a lot of attractions for us.

One of the points you make is that it covers a lot of ground, a lot of different environments, ecosystems, and whatnot and we agree; which is why I object personally to the inclusion of vastly different areas within its boundaries. I live in The Dalles right now. It rains 12 inches a year in The Dalles. It's the beginning of high desert country. The type of farming, the type of operations, the type of the country is totally different than what it is here in Stevenson, Cascade locks, or Hood River. It seems to me kind of silly to lump them all together and call it what we want, because we've set our borders as big as we can possibly set them and we'll accept less later if we get trimmed down.

Senator EVANS. I suppose to some degree that's part of the remarkable nature of the Gorge, that in a relatively short span it does go from a Western-type environment to an eastern, more desert-like environment. But, the questions then come how do you approach that whole thing. I'm sure that's where there's great divergence. At least I've heard a lot of divergence today.

Mr. NICHOLS. Senator, I think that Dr. Schwartz' group is one of the prime examples of that divergence, when the zirconium plant attempted to locate in The Dalles. I'm familiar with that, having

been involved in that. In his watchdog zeal, he prevented it from happening. He didn't need Federal Government control. He was really good at it. We're happy to have him as part of our community. These folks appearing here on behalf of further Federal control have done a marvelous job. I don't see that they need any help from Washington.

Ms. ROYCE. Another thing I didn't get to mention, and I'd like to ask if there's something that could be done. We have about 50 acres that have disappeared into the Columbia River from the dam washing it away. We have not been able to get any help on stopping this. Can you give us some suggestions on how this could be done?

Senator EVANS. Well, it would be helpful if you could let us know more precisely where the area is and

Ms. ROYCE. At Dodson.

Senator EVANS. Right at Dodson, OK. Well, before we leave, if you can let some of the staff know more precisely we'll sure take a look at what appears to be the problem and what can be done. Sometimes things happen that you'd like to be able to correct, and you find that nature's just bigger than we are and you can't correct them. But, we ought to take a look, and we certainly will.

Ms. ROYCE. Also, I don't know if it could be done, but I sure wish that somehow the Columbia Gorge could be cut away from Multnomah County and put into a county of its own, because we don't get any of the benefits from town at all.

Senator EVANS. I've heard that a lot of times, from counties to counties, reshuffling State borders and everything else. I think that's a fairly common complaint. I'm not sure once you did that whether people would feel any better, and might want to start recarving it again.

OK, thank you, very much, for your testimony. We'll call the next group up now, and have in the front row Columbia Gorge United, Joel Skousen, David Aldridge, Esson Smith, Gerald Vasbinder, and Joe Wrabeck.

Now, coming up to the podium, Dave Cannard, Yvonne Montchalin, Jim Canon, Bob Straub, Bowen Blair, and Michael Frome. Dave Cannard.

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. CANNARD, COCHAIRMAN, FRIENDS OF THE COLUMBIA GORGE

Mr. CANNARD. Thank you, very much, Senator, for coming to Stevenson and asking our opinion. I'm Dave Cannard of Vancouver, WA. I've been in the insurance business there for 28 years. Additionally, I've been active in civic life in our area, for I feel it's a citizen's obligation to participate in the democratic process.

I wanted to be a part of the historic gorge protection effort. As a result of my interest, I was one of four citizen founders of Friends of the Columbia Gorge. I have served as Washington cochairman of the organization since its incorporation in February 1981. We now have 3 offices, 4 staff people and 3,500 paying members.

The board of directors that shaped the national scenic area legislation included a minimum of three participants from each gorge county. If you were to examine the board membership list, you

would find that in terms of the population represented, Washington was represented to a greater proportion than Oregon. Also, 35 to 50 percent of that board was from the gorge itself. I'm dwelling on this a bit because it is absolutely not true that Friends of the Columbia Gorge represents one State or the other. Our organization represents the interests of all citizens in one geographic landscape and it always has.

It is important to recognize that the NSA legislation was not developed in a vacuum. Our group attended meeting after meeting in the gorge where we explained the outline of our proposal, and listened carefully as gorge citizens expressed themselves. We heard people say they felt comfortable with the Forest Service. That is why Friends of the Columbia Gorge legislation names the Forest Service as the administering agency. We heard people say they did not want the gorge to change and they wanted to continue to live the way they always have. NSA legislation was drafted with that in mind. Witness the provision grandfathering in lands used primarily for single family, residential purposes, farming and grazing. Provisions for strict limitations on the use of eminent domain, the broad-based scenic area commission and the use of conservation easements were also developed with the gorge citizens very much in mind. S. 627 is comprise legislation. It is the solution born of careful consideration of the needs of gorge residents. Any weakening of its protective provisions will render it impotent in terms of guiding the future welfare of the Columbia Gorge.

Gorge protection attempts have a long history, a history of half attempts and failed promises. Attached is a chronology of the protective efforts. In 1980, the Park Service published its excellent and comprehensive study. An announced subdivision in 1980 across from Multnomah Falls, in flagrant violation of county and State procedures, was the catalyst that caused the formation of Friends of the Columbia Gorge, and was graphic confirmation of all that the Park Service had predicted.

We can wait no longer for constructive action on behalf of the gorge. There has been much said and little done. February 10, 1983, I attended Senator Bob Packwood's hearing in Hood River and listened to Bill Benson, chairman of Skamania County Commission, say Skamania County in conjunction with Klickitat and Clark Counties has signed an interlocal agreement to develop a plan and guidelines for Washington's side of the gorge. What actions came from these words? Absolutely nothing. Skamania County backed out of the interlocal plan soon after the hearing.

We must come to grips with our responsibilities and move forwrd with fair-minded, workable, Federal legislation, the national scenic area legislation. Good citizens worked late hours over many months to craft the legislation. It is the best hope for the future of the gorge and I'm proud to have played a role in its development. I have some answers to some of the questions you posed earlier, and I'd be willing to go into those if it's appropriate.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannard follows:]

My name is David L. Cannard, and I am a citizen of Vancouver,

Washington. I have been in the insurance business there for 28 years. Additionally, I have been active in the civic life of our area, for I feel a citizen's obligation is to participate in the democratic process.

I initially became acquainted with the Columbia Gorge issue from a newspaper article about a group that was forming to work for the Gorge. I nted to be a part of such an historic Gorge protection effort, an effort that would bring a long lasting benefit to my southern Washington home. As a result of my interest, I became in November 1980, one of the four citizen founders of Friends of the Columbia Gorge. I have served as Washington Co-Chairman of the organization since the incorporation in February 1981. We now have 3 offices, 4 paid staff and 3,500 paid members.

I want to explain that Washington State's interest in Gorge protection has been represented in policy making since the very beginning. As a matter of fact, Washington's interest has been represented in a greater proportion than Oregon's. The Board of Directors that shaped the National Scenic Area legislation included a minimum of three representatives from each of the

orge Counties.

If you were to examine the Board membership list, you would find that in terms of the population represented, Washington was, as I said, represented in the greater proportion. Also, 35% to 40% of that board was

from the Gorge itself. I am dwelling on this a bit, because it is absolutely not true that the Friends of the Columbia Gorge represents one State or another; our organization represents the interests of all citizens A one geographic landscape, and it always has.

It is important, I think for you to know how the Friends of the Columbia Gorge legislation for a National Scenic Area was developed.

In the early days, in January 1981, our two-State board had drafted a "Discussion Paper" containing the broad outline of the N.S.A. proposal. This document was widely circulated and commented on. Press clips of the time reflect that. By May 18, 1981, our group had developed a second paper, "Legislative Concepts for a National Scenic Area in the Columbia Gorge." This May 18 paper specified the National Park Service as administrator of the N.S.A. and refined many provisions that became, finally, embodied in the N.S.A. legislation of the last Congress (S627). However, the administering agency was changed to the Forest Service by the time the N.S.A. legislation was introduced into Congress in March 1982.

It is important to recognize that the N.S.A. legislation was not developed in a vacuum. Our group attended meeting after meeting in the Gorge where we explained the outline of our proposal and listened carefully as Gorge citizens expressed themselves. We heard people say they felt comfortable with the Forest Service, which was an agency they were familiar with and respected. That is why Friends of the Columbia Gorge legislation names the Forest Service as the administering agency. We heard the people y they did not want the Gorge to change, and that they wanted to continue to live in it as they always had. N.S.A. legislation was drafted with that in mind; witness the provision grandfathering in lands used primarily for single family residential purposes, farming and grazing. Provisions for strict limitations on the use of eminent domain, the broad-based Scenic Area