[Senate Hearing 109-705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-705
EXAMINATION OF THE FOREST PLAN REVISION PROCESS IN REGION 1
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
DECEMBER 2, 2005--MISSOULA, MT
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-118 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
Professional Staff
Bruce Evans
Ginny James
Leif Fonnesbeck
Ryan Thomas
Rebecca Benn
Peter Kiefhaber (Minority)
Rachael Taylor (Minority)
Scott Dalzell (Minority)
Administrative Support
Michele Gordon
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Senator Conrad Burns........................ 1
Statement of Dale Bosworth, Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Statement of Charles E. Keegan, director of Forest Industry and
Manufacturing Research, Bureau of Business and Economic
Research, School of Business Administration, University of
Montana........................................................ 9
Prepared statment............................................ 12
Statement of Sherman Anderson, president, Sun Mountain Lumber
Com-
pany........................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Statement of John Gatchell, conservation director, Montana
Wilderness Association......................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Statement of Russ Ehnes, president, Montana Trail Vehicle Riders
Association, representing the National Off-Highway Vehicle
Council........................................................ 22
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Statement of Mike Hillis, senior wildlife biologist, Econsystems
Research Group................................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
EXAMINATION OF THE FOREST PLAN REVISION PROCESS IN REGION 1
----------
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Missoula, MT.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., at the University of
Montana, College of Technology, 909 South Avenue West,
Missoula, MT, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Burns.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We'll get things all settled down here. It's
10:30 in the morning, and that's the witching hour. We like to
start on time, and then we like to move out on time.
Thank you very much for coming. I want to thank the
witnesses for coming this morning to testify before this panel.
We had a couple of colleagues of mine that were going to come
out, and they took a look at the weather and one of them
cancelled a week ago and the other one cancelled this pretty
quickly. I guess they're not as tough as us in Montana.
They took--I can't imagine what it would be like in
Washington, DC, if we had these kind of conditions. We live in
an area back there that they'll cancel school on a forecast. It
doesn't have to be doing anything.
So, but nonetheless, we will get on. But I will tell you
that the record will be reviewed by everybody on the committee.
This is an oversight hearing of appropriations, and we have
several of the stakeholders here as we are looking at the
subject of Forest Planning in Region 1 of the Forest Service.
The Chief of the Forest Service is with us here today, Dale
Bosworth, right down in center field, and we appreciate you
being here. We have Charles Keegan from the University of
Montana; Sherman Anderson, of course, president of Sun Mountain
Lumber Company; John Gatchell, conservation director from the
Montana Wilderness Association; John, thanks for coming today.
I know you've got another event going on in Billings, and so I
appreciate you making the effort of being here today.
Russ Ehnes, executive director of the National Off-Highway
Vehicle Conservation Council and Mike Hillis, wildlife
biologist for Ecosystems Research Group. We appreciate all of
the witnesses being here today.
The National Forest Management Act requires that each
forest within the National Forest System revise its forest
plans every 15 years. The plans guide how the various parts of
each forest will be managed. In Montana, the Forest Service is
currently working, or will commence in 2006, five different
forest plans on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, on the Flathead,
Lolo, Bitterroot and Kootenai National Forests. The combined
area of these forests is over 11.1 million acres and, the
management decisions made in these plans and revisions are all
critical to us who live here in the State of Montana.
As the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that
controls the purse strings of the Forest Service, I have
criticized the forest planning process in the past as being
sometimes overly complex and expensive. Currently, the Forest
Service spends 6 to 7 years and several million dollars by
providing these plans every 15 years.
So I'm pleased the Forest Service recently issued new
planning rules that are designed to make the planning process
faster and less expensive. With the exception of the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge, the remaining forests in Region 1 will be
revised under the new rules. In my view, making this process
more efficient means that the excessive amounts that were being
spent on planning can now be spent on reducing our hazardous
fuels, treating our acres for invasive weeds and addressing the
bug infested timber stands that are now common throughout the
West. It is also important that adequate public involvement is
maintained in the revision process, and I will keep a watchful
eye on that to ensure that this happens.
While I'm pleased the Forest Service is trying to become
more efficient in its planning process, I have several concerns
about this process and how it moves forward. Unlike other
Federal management agencies, the Forest Service has a multiple-
use mandate, and it's not clear to me that the Agency is
following this mandate in its recent work on forest plans here
in Montana.
For example, in the draft environmental impact statement
for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge the Agency's preferred alternative
would reduce the allowable sales quantity of timber from 40
million board feet to 9 million, a 78 percent reduction;
increase in the number of wilderness acres from 174,000 to
249,000, a 43 percent increase, and impose many new
restrictions on public access, particularly motorized vehicles
like ATVs and snowmobiles.
Now, these numbers may be justified, and if they are, we'd
like justification for those numbers. That's the only thing
that we're questioning here is the justification for the
numbers. So I find the proposals troubling if we don't have
something or some way to backup those numbers and give us good,
solid reasons why they should come out a lot different when
they first went in.
I firmly believe that without a sufficient timber industry
infrastructure in the State, we harm our State. We have to
maintain a market place for wood fiber. We'll not be able to
address the forest health crisis in our Nation's forests if we
don't have an infrastructure.
I would tell you that in the current budget climate we have
to rely on Government to pay the entire cost of cleaning up the
national forest. Or, should we have another way to do this and
do it in an environmentally safe way, which provides jobs and
is also healthy to rural communities?
I'm also concerned about additional wilderness
recommendations. It's in the Beaverhead Plan, and I will tell
you why. Whenever those recommendations are made, the Forest
Service has a habit of managing these acres as wilderness, so
we get de facto wilderness without Congress taking any action
at all.
These designations limit the ability for many folks to
enjoy the areas in the forests. Not everyone has the physical
capability to access these areas without the help of motorized
vehicles. It also limits the agency's ability to fight fires in
these areas because motorized firefighting equipment is not
allowed in those areas.
So it's my intention to explore these and other issues here
today, get it on record and start the dialog as we complete
these plans. They should be consistent on every forest, and
there should be a standard operating system on how we make
decisions with regard to our land management.
In closing, let me also add that I know the issues that
we're discussing here are controversial and some of them are
very emotional, and we have a lot of people here that represent
a wide range of views. That is good, and I expect the people to
express those views. But this is a hearing, and a hearing is
where we get information on record and that's how we, as policy
makers, make our decisions.
So let me also add that the record will be kept open until
December 16, so any member or the public can submit comments
and testimony that will be included in the record of this
hearing today. Those comments may be submitted in my office
here in Missoula. If you can provide these comments
electronically as well as in written form that would be most
appreciated.
So I appreciate the folks coming out today. We haven't had
a good old-fashion winter in Montana in a long time. People
have got to understand that we live in a part of the country
that if it don't winter, it doesn't summer. So we are finally,
maybe, getting back to some normality here in this part of the
country.
So with that we will start off with our witnesses today.
Now, witnesses, identify yourselves, because we have a court
reporter over here, and he has a hard time sometimes
identifying voices. So you always want to say who you are and
also get your microphones into place so everybody can hear.
We're going to start off with Dale Bosworth, who is Chief of
the U.S. Forest Service.
Let me say up-front that we've worked a lot with the Forest
Service and Dale and his office in Washington, DC, and under
very difficult circumstances. They have to make some very
difficult decisions. But nonetheless, Dale has been one Chief
that I've really enjoyed working with because some way or
another we cut through some of the red tape and solve some
problems that should be solved.
So, Chief Bosworth, thank you for coming today, and we look
forward--if you would keep your testimony to about 7 minutes--
your full statement will be made part of the record and then we
will have a little question and answer period, and we'll start
a little dialog at the table and bring out some other issues.
So, Chief, thank you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bosworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the opportunity to be here. It's always good to be back in
Montana even if it's for a hearing. I really appreciate the
opportunity to talk about forest planning, and the revisions
here in Montana.
A series of legislative initiatives, dating back to 1960,
including the National Environmental Policy Act and the
National Forest Management Act would recognize the complex
nature of managing natural resources for the American people
and the changes that occurred to manage supply and societal
values over time.
Forest and grassland plans identify the availability of
lands and their suitability for resource management. The goal
of this planning is sustainable use of natural resources as
well as sustainable communities.
Five western Montana national forests now are currently in
the forest planning revision process. All the forests with the
exception of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are revising their plans
using the new 2005 planning rule. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge
continues this revision under the 1982 rule since it had
already completed this draft plan, which was ready for public
comment at the time the new rule was published.
Region 1 is using a zone approach that recognizes the
similar interests of communities within zones, along with their
similar resources, ecosystems, and opportunities in order to
spend planning dollars more efficiently.
The present Montana planning zones are the Kootenai
National Forest and the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, which
has some land in Montana. The Western Montana Zone, which
includes the Flathead, the Lolo and the Bitterroot, and then
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge is a separate zone on its own.
We began land management planning under the provisions of
the National Forest Management Act and the 1982 Planning Rule.
We believed at that time that the early forest plans would
provide the strategic framework for management of national
forests.
We also believed that the plans had the necessary analysis
and disclosure to implement forest management projects and
activities. Through a series of legal challenges we learned
that individual projects would need additional, extensive site-
specific analysis.
New legislation regulations and case law changed the
operating environment over time and those required changes to
forest plans in order to bring proposed activities into
compliance. The complexity of navigating through the process
became very lengthy. It became very difficult. I've referred to
it as the ``process predicament,'' and the Forest Service faced
many public challenges as we attempted to fit our management
proposals into plans that were quickly becoming out of date.
Several attempts were made over the past decade to develop
a new planning rule that would help better define the role of
forest planning or streamline the process for responding to
change and shorten timeframes. The current planning rule was
adopted in January.
The new rules require the Forest Service to engage the
public in a cooperative manner during the revision process and
continue that approach throughout the planning revision. The
old planning process required analysis of several alternatives
that displayed a range of management themes and levels of
resource outputs.
Various interest groups would then align themselves with
whichever alternative most reflected their concerns, and that
left the Forest Service in the position then of trying to seek
a compromise solution among all those variety of interest
groups.
The collaborative approach does not focus on multiple
alternative development, but rather on bringing communities
together up front in the process to work together to find
common themes and to find common interests.
Both communities of place and communities of interest play
key roles in finding areas of agreement. Competing interests
and some level of disagreement, we'll always have and they will
continue as we move through the planning revision process.
I believe the level of polarization over our new process
will be less than we experienced in the first round of forest
planning. It's also important to understand that this public
participation process requires everyone's energy, and it
requires lots of patience.
Parties need to be at the table in order to have their
concerns addressed, and since there are no alternatives
developed under the new rule, the interests may have some
difficulty in recognizing how their interests are addressed
unless they remain engaged in the process.
The new generation of plans will allow adaptive management
and changes based on consistent monitoring and evaluation. This
continuous and proven methodology will be applied using
processes that are internationally recognized.
The Forest Service will develop and implement environmental
management systems (EMS) that require regular, cyclical
planning, implementation, monitoring and review. The Northern
Region, I think, is on the cutting edge of revising plans under
the 2005 planning rule.
I'm really proud of the regional forester, Gail Kimbell,
and the Region 1 employees as well as the public for embracing
cooperative participation as evidenced by the involvement of
resource advisory committees, of forest stewardship projects
and other community interests. This concept of collaboration is
more than just words on paper. It defines a new spirit of
partnership of Forest Service and the communities that we
serve.
Forest and Grassland plans revised under the 2005 rule will
be strategic documents, and they'll focus on how the agency,
working in concert with the public and other Government
agencies, will manage the landscape to reach desired future
conditions that are deemed to be beneficial to the
socioeconomic and ecological attributes of the area, which is a
part of communities and not apart from them. Instead of rules
and standards focused on prohibition, the new approach centers
on identifying and achieving desired future conditions.
Public scoping has identified many issues that will need
consideration during the final revision process. While each
forest and grassland has issues that are unique to that unit,
there are issues that are common to all planning zones.
Three major key issues that appear throughout Montana
national forests are: Lands generally suitable for timber
harvest. Another one is lands proposed for wilderness
designation, and the third one is lands generally suitable for
motorized or nonmotorized use. These issues are going to
continue to be among the most difficult challenges to
developing collaborative solutions.
A highly debated and often misunderstood component of
forest plans are the lands generally suitable for timber
harvest. In the first round of planning, these were one
category of lands identified solely with an eye to potential
timber harvest.
This led to expectations that were never realized. We have
legal, resource, socioeconomic and organizational factors that
interacted to reduce the outputs. A primary goal for Region 1
under the new rule is to identify lands suitable for timber
harvest, working with communities that result in expectations
that can be met, that can be met reliably and are still
ecologically sound.
The 2005 planning rule identifies two types of land uses
for which the timber removal is suitable: That is lands
generally suitable for timber production and lands generally
suitable for timber harvest. There's a difference between those
two.
The Forest Service has long recognized that the timber
harvest is a viable tool to accomplish several management
objects. Forest inventories have identified sites where
silvicultural prescriptions can be applied to contribute to the
demand for wood fiber while contributing revenue to the
national treasury.
Forest plans are going to continue to examine and identify
lands to be recommended to Congress for inclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System. Communities and the
public working collaboratively with the Forest Service will
have the opportunity to participate in the identification of
lands that the agency will recommend for wilderness
designation.
Motorized versus nonmotorized travel and all the associated
implications are undoubtedly among the most controversial
challenges facing the Forest Service. I want to clarify what
will be determined by forest plans and what will be determined
outside the process.
The revised plans are strategic and will only identify
lands that are suitable for motorized use and lands that are
generally suitable for nonmotorized use. Forest plans will not
make site-specific motorized and nonmotorized route decisions.
The final travel management rule will guide forest and
grasslands and decisions that designate specific routes.
They'll be using a separate, public collaborative approach.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service is committed to an
open and participatory forest plan revision process, and local
communities will have a say in those decisions that directly
impact them. So that concludes my statement, and I'll be happy
to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale Bosworth
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to talk with you today
about the status of Forest Plan Revisions in the Northern Region 1
which includes all of Montana, Northern Idaho, North Dakota and
portions of South Dakota. I am accompanied today by Northern Region
Forester, Gail Kimbell.
A series of legislative initiatives, dating back to 1960, has given
us the Multiple- Use Sustained Yield-Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act,
and the National Forest Management Act. These and other laws recognize
the complex nature of managing renewable resources for the American
people and the changes that occur in demand and supply over time.
Forest and grassland plans--developed with the assistance of the public
and interested agencies and groups--identify the availability of lands
and their suitability for resource management. The goal of this
planning is sustainable use of natural resources and sustainable
communities.
Five western Montana National Forests, as well as the three Idaho
National Forests in Region 1, are currently in the revision process.
All of the forests, with the exception of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, are
revising their plans under the 2005 rule. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge
continued its revision under the 1982 rule since it had already
completed its draft plan which was ready for public comment at the time
the new rule was published. Region 1 has decided to accomplish the
revision process by organizing the work in planning zones. This
approach has been employed to recognize the similar interests of
communities within the zone, similar resources and ecosystems, and
opportunities to spend planning dollars efficiently.
The current planning zones are:
Clearwater--Nezperce Zone (Idaho)
Kootenai--Idaho Panhandle Zone (Montana/Idaho)
Western Montana Zone (Flathead, Lolo and Bitterroot NFs/Montana
(includes a small portion of Idaho))
Beaverhead-Deerlodge (Montana)
We began land management planning under the provisions of the
National Forest Management act and the 1982 Planning Rule. We were
optimistic that the early forest plans would provide a strategic
framework for management of the national forests. We also believed the
plans had the necessary analysis and disclosure to implement forest
management projects and activities. A series of legal challenges taught
us that individual projects would need additional, extensive, site-
specific analysis. Sometimes this added analysis developed new
information that was not consistent with Forest Plan standards and
guidelines, resulting in plan amendments. Furthermore, new legislation,
regulations, and case law changed the operating environment over time,
requiring additional changes to Forest Plans in order to bring proposed
activities into compliance. The complexity of navigating through the
process became very difficult--I've referred to it as process
predicament--and the Forest Service faced many public challenges as we
attempted to ``fit'' management proposals into plans that were quickly
becoming out of date.
Several attempts were made over the past decade to develop a new
planning rule that would help better define the role of the Forest
Plans, streamline the process for responding to change, and shorten
timeframes. The current planning rule was adopted in January of this
year. The Forest Service is pleased that we can move forward with our
revision processes. We are optimistic that the new rule will provide
for a more efficient process and allow the agency to respond to change
in a way that benefits forest and grassland management and communities.
The new planning rule provides for broad and continual public
participation during the planning process and throughout the plans'
implementation. The new rule requires the Forest Service to engage the
public in a ``collaborative'' manner during the revision process and
continue that approach throughout plan revision. The old planning
process required analysis of several alternatives that displayed a
range of management themes and levels of resource outputs. Various
interest groups then aligned with whichever alternative most reflected
their concerns. This left the Forest Service in the unenviable position
of seeking a compromise solution among these interest groups.
The collaborative approach does not focus on multiple alternative
development, but rather on bringing communities together ``up front''
in the process to work together to find common themes and to find
common interests. It is a tangible expression of the kind of citizen
involvement encouraged by so many at the recent White House Conference
on Cooperative Conservation. Both communities of place and interest
play key roles in finding areas of agreement. Competing interests and
some level of disagreement will continue as we move through the plan
revision process; however, I believe the level of polarization will be
less than we experienced in the first round of forest planning. It is
also important to understand that this public participation process
requires everyone's energy and patience. Parties need to be at the
table in order to have their input addressed. Since there are no
alternatives developed under the new rule, interests may have
difficulty recognizing how their interests are addressed unless they
remain engaged in the process.
The 2005 rule allows forests, as they revise plans, to ensure they
remain current and congruent with changes in the physical and social
environment. New generation plans will allow ``adaptive management''
where they are consistently monitored, evaluated and updated. This
continuous improvement methodology will be applied using processes that
are internationally recognized. The Forest Service will develop and
implement Environmental Management Systems (EMS) using the ISO 14001
Standard. The EMS process requires regular cyclical planning,
implementation, monitoring and review. This process relies on
application of the best available science and certified audits.
The Northern Region is on the cutting edge of revising plans under
the 2005 planning rule. I am proud of Regional Forester Kimbell, Region
1 employees, and the public for embracing collaborative participation
as evidenced by the involvement of Resource Advisory Committees, Forest
Stewardship Projects, and other community interests. This concept of
collaboration is more than just words on paper. It defines a new spirit
of partnership of the Forest Service and the communities we serve.
Forest and Grassland plans revised under the 2005 rule will be
strategic documents and focus on how the agency, working in concert
with the public and other government agencies, will manage the
landscape to reach desired future condition deemed to be beneficial to
the social, economic, and ecological attributes of the area--a part of
communities, not apart from them. Instead of rules and standards
focused on prohibitions, the new approach centers on identifying and
achieving desired future conditions. The plans will be revised with
collaborative public participation and the best available science and
identify activities necessary to reach those desired conditions over
time. This process will allow continual monitoring to incorporate new
technology, current and future scientific findings, and public input.
Public scoping has identified many issues that will need
consideration during the collaborative process. While each forest and
grassland has issues that are unique to that unit, there are issues
common to all the planning zones, especially the forested zones. Three
key issues that I want to address in this testimony are (1) lands
generally suitable for timber harvest; (2) lands proposed for
Wilderness designation; and (3) lands generally suitable for motorized
and/or non-motorized use. These issues always generate controversy and
will continue to be among the most difficult challenges to developing
collaborative solutions.
A highly debated and often misunderstood component of forest plans
are ``lands generally suitable for timber harvest.'' In the first round
of planning, these were one category of lands, identified solely with
an eye to potential timber harvest. This lead to expectations that were
never realized as legal, resource, socio-economic, and organizational
factors interacted to reduce outputs. A primary goal for Region 1 under
the new rule is to identify lands suitable for timber harvest, working
with communities, that result in expectations that can be reliably met
and are ecologically sound.
The 2005 planning rule identifies two types of land uses for which
timber removal is suitable, ``lands generally suitable for timber
production'' and ``lands generally suitable for timber harvest''. The
Forest Service has long recognized that timber harvest is a viable tool
to accomplish several management objectives. Forest inventories have
identified sites where silvicultural prescriptions can be applied to
contribute to the national demand for wood fiber while contributing
revenue to the national treasury. These lands, when harvested in an
environmentally sound manner, are lands that will likely be identified
as ``generally suitable for timber production.'' Other lands, where
timber management is not the highest and best use, can still be
harvested to help meet other multiple use objectives. Examples would be
timber harvest that improves wildlife habitat, fire regime condition
class and forest health can also produce timber products. In these
areas timber harvest may be less economically efficient and would be
incidental to other objectives. These lands would likely be identified
as ``generally suitable for timber harvest.'' While the number of acres
generally suitable for timber production may decrease in comparison to
the old plans, the total acreage of lands generally suitable for timber
production and timber harvest appear to be about the same. I want to
emphasize that the collaborative process will determine which lands
meet these objectives.
Forest Plans will continue to examine and identify lands to be
recommended to Congress for inclusion into the National Wilderness
Preservation System. Communities and the public, working
collaboratively with the Forest Service, will have the opportunity to
participate in the identification of lands that the agency will
recommend for Wilderness designation. Region 1 has already been working
collaboratively with communities and Tribal Governments to identify
lands that have wilderness characteristics that make them candidates
for recommendations to Congress. Some plan revisions may recommend
acres that are logical additions to existing Wilderness because of
topographic boundaries, ecotypes, or other management considerations.
Some will recommend new acres based on the land's suitability for
wilderness designation. Other revisions may eliminate some areas that
were previously recommended. Again, decisions will be made in a
collaborative process with extensive community involvement. We will
manage any lands recommended for Wilderness to protect wilderness
values. These preliminary administrative recommendations will receive
further review and possible modification by me, by the Secretary of
Agriculture, or by the President. Congress has the authority to accept
these recommendations when deliberating on wilderness designation.
Motorized versus non-motorized travel, and all the associated
implications, are undoubtedly among the most controversial challenges
facing the Forest Service. I want to clarify what will be determined by
forest plans and what will be determined outside the revision process.
The revised plans are strategic and will only identify lands that are
generally suitable for motorized use and lands that are generally
suitable for non-motorized use. Forest Plans will not make site-
specific motorized and non-motorized route designations. The Final
Travel Management Rule will guide forests and grasslands in decisions
that designate specific routes, employing a separate public
collaborative approach.
Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service is committed to an open and
participative forest plan revision process. Local communities will have
a say in decisions that directly impact them. The public at large will
also be part of the plan revision process. Again, I want to emphasize
that collaboration does not have a specific beginning and ending.
Instead, it is a continual process where the public works with the
Forest Service to determine what benefits the land and people.
Collaboration continues beyond plan revision and includes public
participation in monitoring as well as audits to ensure we are moving
toward the desired condition and examining the need for change. It
won't always be neat and tidy, but it will always be the right thing to
do. I am encouraged by how people in Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas are
engaging in collaborative efforts. Tribal, State and Local Governments
are working with federal agencies and the public on natural resource
issues at unprecedented levels. I see approved revised plans not as a
point of completion, but a starting point where community relationships
will be the catalyst for land management decisions that have local and
national acceptance. This concludes my statement, I am happy to answer
questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Chief. I appreciate
that.
Now we have Charles Keegan who is with the Bureau of
Business and Economic Research of the University of Montana,
and Professor Keegan, or Mr. Keegan, or Charlie, it's nice to
see you.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES KEEGAN, DIRECTOR OF FOREST INDUSTRY AND MANUFACTURING
RESEARCH, BUREAU OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA
Mr. Keegan. Thank you, Senator. I answer to those and many
other monikers as well. For the record, I'm Chuck Keegan,
director of Forest Industry and Manufacturing Research in the
Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of
Montana and also a research professor from the School of
Business Administration at the University the Montana.
By way of some background information, my work for the past
28 years has focused on the structure and operations of the
forest products industry in Montana and the other western
States. For the past 15 years I've worked extensively on the
financial feasibility of implementing new forest management
regimes to deal with ecosystem restoration and fire hazard
reduction.
This morning in my remarks dealing with the forest
planning, I'd like to concentrate on the areas of economic
activity, timber output and industry infrastructure. First of
all, looking at economic activity, I want to look at employment
and state that despite declines in Montana's forest products
industry, it remains a substantial industry in the State
directly employing some 9,000 to 10,000 people primarily in
high-paying jobs with very good benefits.
In addition to that direct employment, there are at least
an equal number in related sectors, many of which also are
high-paying jobs. As the Senator is well aware, these jobs are
especially important in a relatively low-wage State like the
State of Montana.
A less obvious but important aspect of Montana's forest
products industry is one that has been alluded to by the
Senator and by the Chief of the Forest Service and that is to
provide the wherewithal to manage forest lands in an
ecologically and financially responsible manner.
This wherewithal includes the workforce and sophisticated
equipment needed to perform forest treatments in a cost-
effective manner found in Montana's logging industry and in the
milling infrastructure to utilize and add value to timber
harvested either as a commercial product or as a by-product of
treatments.
Before I get into some very little detail on the
infrastructure, let me offer some general thoughts on timber
product output from the national forest lands.
Looking at inventory statistics it's clear that some
national forest lands in Montana are very productive from a
timber growing standpoint and also have other characteristics
that warrant management for commercial timber production. This,
in my opinion, should be recognized in the forest plans, and it
sounds like from the remarks of the Chief that that will be
recognized in the forest plans.
Timber production should be identified as an expected
output from those appropriate national forest lands, and
estimates of timber harvest volumes from appropriate lands
should be provided in forest plans.
Having said this, however, I believe that the real
opportunity to produce substantial timber volumes and in
particular additional volumes of timber from national forest
lands in Montana is as a by-product of properly done treatments
aimed to deal with ecosystem and fire hazard problems which
exist on literally millions of acres of forest land in Montana
and the other western States.
Now, a bit more about timber processing and the
infrastructure in the state, which, as I indicated, is a key to
efficiently performing many of these needed treatments. Despite
the losses, Montana still has a substantial and diverse forest
industry infrastructure in place. While individual timber
processors and loggers have continued to make investments--and
substantial investments as you will hear--unfortunately--I'm
sure you will hear--unfortunately, Montana's timber processing
capacity overall has been declining and declining precipitously
over the past 15 years. Specifically, we have seen a loss in
excess of 40 percent of the timber processing capacity in the
State of Montana since the late 1980s from 1.5 billion board
feet annually to just over 900 million board feet.
Much of this decline--not to pick on my friends from the
Forest Service--but much of this decline has been clearly due
to the very large 70 plus percent decline in the national
forest timber sales, timber product outputs, over that period.
As we look to the future, it's clear from, at least our
research, that further declines ranging from 5 to 20 percent
and perhaps past 20 percent of current timber processing
capacity are expected unless the national forests substantially
increase the output of timber.
The logging sector will also decline. I'm talking about the
timber processing sector, but that would involve a decline in
the logging sector as well as the milling residue processing
sector and the use of wood fiber for fuel.
Then looking to the future: Maintaining efficient milling
infrastructure in proximity to national forests will have, I
believe, substantial benefits, and some of them have been
mentioned. With adequate industry infrastructure and timber the
high-paying jobs in the forest products industry can be
sustained, and based on some of our analysis even increased.
The overall economic benefits, in addition to the jobs in
the forest products industry, the overall economic benefits of
improved forest ecosystem conditions, reduced fire hazard
accruing from the ability to treat the forest can hardly be
overstated and are so large that it's very difficult to put a
value on those outputs. They include not only reduced
firefighting costs but employment and incomes from other
forest-based activities such as travel and tourism, not to
mention the improvement in quality of life that all of us would
enjoy if we had to deal with less smoke in Montana,
periodically, for example.
Finally, relating some of our research directly to the
forest planning process and addressing the area that you
raised, Senator, on consistency among the forest plans, I can
talk about a few of them. One particular area in which we have
worked with the Forest Service planners in U.S. Forest Service
Region 1 and individual forest planners in other regions, we
have supplied the agency with information on the capacity of
the forest products industry to efficiently process timber of
various sizes for the areas surrounding each of the national
forests. This capacity information, I have been informed, is
being used in the planning process to evaluate--I'll wrap up in
just a second.
Senator Burns. Turn that button off. I think it woke me up
a little bit.
Mr. Keegan. It confused me.
Senator Burns. I think it confused the audience too.
Mr. Keegan. The capacity information that we have developed
and supplied to Forest Service planning, it is my
understanding, is being used in the planning process to
evaluate the kind and quantity of timber the industry could use
if that timber were made available.
I'm pleased to be able to do this and to have the forest
using this kind of information. I think it will be very useful
both in evaluating potential commercial timber sales as well as
fuels and other ecosystem management treatments.
As an added thought I encourage the forests to identify
steps that they might take to maintain the necessary timber
harvesting and processing infrastructure that enables both
forest management as well as social and economic goals of the
communities immediately affected by the forests.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to be here
this morning and that concludes my remarks.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles E. Keegan
I am pleased to respond to Senator Burns' request for comments on
the forest plan revision process and impacts on economic stability,
public access, and commodity outputs. I will concentrate my remarks
this morning on economic activity, timber output, and industry
infrastructure.
Despite declines in Montana's forest products industry, it remains
a substantial industry in the state, directly employing 9,000-10,000
people primarily in high paying jobs with very good benefits. In
addition to the direct employment there are at least an equal number
employed in related sectors many of which are also high paying jobs.
These jobs are especially important in a relatively low wage state like
Montana.
Montana's forest products industry provides the resources to manage
forestland in an ecologically and financially responsible manner. These
resources include the work force and sophisticated equipment needed to
perform silvicultural treatments in a cost effective manner, and the
milling infrastructure to utilize and add value to timber harvested as
a by-product of treatments. The industry's ability to continue to re-
invest in infrastructure is key to adequately treating the large
acreages in Montana that suffer from forest health problems and
unnaturally high fire hazard.
My testimony today will focus on infrastructure needs and losses in
Montana's forest products industry and what continues to be an enormous
missed opportunity. That missed opportunity is the very limited
application of treatments to the literally millions of acres of forest
land in Montana and the other western states needed to restore and
sustain desirable forest ecosystem conditions. Associated with this
ecological treatment need there is a very substantial economic
opportunity, which our research indicates could result in positive
revenue flow to landowners, increased treatment activity, and
employment opportunities. If this opportunity is not realized we will
see further degraded forest conditions and continued declines in the
forest products industry.
TIMBER PRODUCT OUTPUT
Looking at inventory statistics, it is clear that national forest
lands in Montana are very productive from a timber growing standpoint
and have other characteristics that warrant management for
``commercial'' timber production. This should be recognized in the
forest plans, timber production should be identified as an expected
output from appropriate national forest lands, and estimates of timber
harvest volumes from appropriate lands should be provided in forest
plans.
Having said this, I believe the real opportunity to produce
substantial additional volumes of timber products from national forest
lands in Montana is as a by-product of treatments aimed to deal with
ecosystem and fire hazard problems, and perhaps more broadly to mimic
natural processes to avoid future problems.
MONTANA'S TIMBER-PROCESSING INFRASTRUCTURE
Montana has an industry infrastructure in place to harvest,
process, and actually return revenue to landowners when wood is removed
from forests as a by-product of restoration and fire hazard reduction
treatments. Additional investment is needed by industry to stay
competitive and more efficiently process the timber produced from these
treatments. Unfortunately, while individual timber processors and
loggers have continued to make investments, Montana's timber-processing
capacity has been declining over the past fifteen years because of
declining national forest timber sales.
Timber processing capacity refers to the volume of timber that
could be used by mills that operate entirely on timber in round form.
Recent analyses conducted by our organization indicate that:
--The number of medium and large mills in Montana has dropped in half
from over 30 in the late 1980s to 15 today.
--There has been a more than 40 percent decline in capacity to
process timber since the late 1980s from about 1.5 billion
board feet annually to just over 900 million board feet.
--Much of this decline has been due to the very large declines in
national forest timber sale volume.
Further declines--ranging from 5 to 20 percent of current timber
processing capacity--are expected unless national forests substantially
increase timber offerings.
I also need to mention users of mill residuals. Residue-utilizing
facilities in Montana range from very large plants, a pulp and paper
mill, to substantially smaller users producing decorative bark, fuel
pellets, or using wood as fuel. A number of these facilities can and do
use a mix of forest waste wood and mill residuals.
Because of declines in the sawmill sector the residue sector is
facing a potential shortfall of wood fiber. At worst the shortfall
could lead to one or more large residue facilities downsizing or
closing, and at the least competition for wood residue would increase.
Dramatically increased competition for a diminishing supply of residue
could leave some users, such as new energy facilities, paying much more
for their fuel than expected.
conclusions
Maintaining efficient milling infrastructure in proximity to
national forests will have substantial benefits. With an adequate
infrastructure, high paying jobs in the forest products industry can be
sustained and even increased--a particular benefit in many rural
western areas. The overall economic benefits of improved forest
ecosystem conditions and reduced fire hazard accruing from the ability
to treat the forest can hardly be overstated. They include not only
reduced fire fighting costs but employment and income from other forest
based activities such as travel and tourism.
At the request of the Forest Service Region 1 and individual forest
planners in other regions, we have supplied the agency with information
on capacity and capability of the forest products industry to
efficiently process timber of various sizes. This information is being
used in the planning process to evaluate the kind and quantity of
timber the industry could use if made available by the forest(s). I
encourage the forests to identify steps they can take to maintain the
timber harvesting and processing infrastructure that enables sound
forest management as well as the social and economic goals of the
communities immediately affected by the forests.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. We've followed your
work a lot, and you've done some great work here at the
University of Montana.
Now we have Sherman Anderson, Sun Mountain Lumber, up in
the Seeley/Swan country. We appreciate you, Sherman, for coming
down today.
STATEMENT OF SHERMAN ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, SUN MOUNTAIN LUMBER COMPANY
Mr. Anderson. Honorable, Senator Burns, my name is Sherman
Anderson, and I live in Deer Lodge, Montana----
Senator Burns. Deer Lodge----
Mr. Anderson [continuing]. Located in----
Senator Burns. Wolf Creek.
Mr. Anderson. I'd like to thank you for taking the time out
of your busy schedule to make this long journey to Missoula and
give us this opportunity.
I have worked in the timber industry all my life. My father
was a small sawmill owner and a logger. About 30 years ago my
father moved to Wyoming, and I remained at Deer Lodge to start
my own business, Sun Mountain Logging. Two years ago we
purchased the sawmill and finger jointing operations in Deer
Lodge. At that time I could see the danger of the Deer Lodge
plant becoming another closed facility as I have seen so many
others before.
Sun Mountain Lumber, as it is now called, produces 2 by 4
and 2 by 6 studs. Our annual production capacity in the sawmill
is 125 million board feet. Our finger jointing plant's--a value
added facility--annual production capacity is about 100 million
board feet. This is enough lumber to frame 20,000 American
homes.
The role of our company in the local economy is paramount.
As one of the largest employers in the Butte/Deer Lodge/
Anaconda area, we provide liveable wages including total
benefits capable of sustaining families and maintaining healthy
lifestyles to our 290 employees. Our annual payrolls inject
over $12 million into the local economy directly through our
employee wages.
As forestry professionals we as a company and as a viable
industry are committed not only to responsible land stewardship
but also to renewable and sustainable timber resource. This is
a good business for the State of Montana. But as we continue to
struggle to survive, we are reaching out longer distances, even
into surrounding States to obtain the needed timber supply.
Sadly, there are vast amounts of timber on Montana's national
forests surrounding us that are dying or burning in
catastrophic fires lying unused and going to waste.
On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest, the forest that's in
closest proximity to our facility, they had estimated 151,000
acres of beetle kill in 2004. In the Butte District, less than
60 miles away from us, 2004 estimated beetle kill was 55,000
acres. Thus far only 2,100 acres have been proposed for some
form of timber management out of the 55,000 acres. This is less
than 3.9 percent of the estimated dead.
If, or more likely when, this watershed burns, the
estimated cost to the city of Butte to install an adequate
water filtration system would be $15 to $20 million at today's
cost.
Now, in our downward trend it tells the story. Going back
for 5 years, starting 2001, our volume under contract was 35
percent with the U.S. Forest Service, and now in 2005 this has
dwindled to 5 percent U.S. Forest Service, 95 percent from
other sources.
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest should be providing
sustainable and predictable levels of production and services.
The level of timber offered from the Beaverhead-Deerlodge has
steadily declined over the past decades.
From an industry perspective, we see several solutions to
the problems we are facing based on the current planning
process we have been involved with in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
forest.
No. 1, U.S. Forest Service needs to incorporate industry
stakeholders in the planning efforts. Without properly defining
or treating stakeholders in their planning process, the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest has created a DEIS riddled with
shortcomings. The U.S. Forest Service needs to complete
economic analysis, and this is the first step in doing so.
No. 2, the U.S. Forest Service should provide
scientifically defensible progressive management approaches.
There appears to be very little consistency between forests on
the use of the latest most defensible science as well as the
many tools available to address these issues. For example, we
encourage a more aggressive use of stewardship contracting to
address multiple resource objectives.
No. 3, avoiding the court systems. Region 1 alone has 360
million feet tied up in litigation, with 80 million feet of
this in our immediate working area. There must be a means
developed through legislation to limit this, or if nothing
else, at least limit the time it takes to resolve these
challenges.
No. 4, a creative approach to U.S. Forest Service budgeting
needs to be developed. If they are to manage our forests, they
must be adequately funded. The draft Beaverhead-Deerlodge
forest plan and DEIS fails to publish an allowable saleable
quantity, but instead, has produced estimated outputs based on
past performance. They have cited predicted future budget
constraints as their limitation to timber output. Stewardship
contracts and other tools are not even considered by the
forest, which would help alleviate budgeting issues.
No. 5, accountability must be addressed. We continue to see
some forests doing what they can to accomplish their goals,
while others do little or nothing. Reducing the budget for
nonperforming forests is not a good solution. It has a
definitive negative effect and impact on all of us who use and
depend on these forests.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In summary, we are at a moment in history where we have a
unique opportunity where timber harvesting can be utilized to
help create a diversity and age class structure more
representative of historic conditions. These conditions are
considered models of ecological sustainability. Such an
approach could reverse trends in timber supply and allow
Montana mills to survive. Let industry be used to become a
greater part of the solution needed to bring our national
forests into a better managed condition. I thank you. I
conclude my remarks and will be open for questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sherman Anderson
Honorable Senator Burns and Members of the Committee: My name is
Sherm Anderson. I live in Deer Lodge, MT, located in Powell County. I
would like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules
to make this long journey to Missoula. On behalf of the employees of
Sun Mountain Lumber and their families, I thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony on the state of the national forest
planning and the subsequent impact on our mill, community and local
economy.
I have worked in the timber industry-all my life. My father was a
small sawmill owner and logger. I remember at a very young age working
at the family sawmill or in the woods during summers and whenever
school was out. About 30 years ago my father moved to Wyoming and I
remained in Deer Lodge to start my own business, Sun Mountain Logging.
There were numerous mills in operation back then and work was
plentiful. We continued to expand the business. I say ``we'' because I
have two sons and a son-in-law working in the business plus two
grandsons who work when they are not in school.
Two years ago when Louisiana-Pacific decided to divest themselves
of the sawmills they owned, we purchased the sawmill and finger
jointing operations in Deer Lodge. At that time I could see the danger
of the Deer Lodge plant becoming yet another closed facility as I have
seen so many others before. Sun Mountain Lumber, as it is now called,
produces 2 4 and 2 6 studs. Our annual production capacity in the saw
mill is 125 million board feet (mmbf). Our finger jointing plant, a
value-added facility and remanufacturing plant's annual production
capacity is another 100 million board feet. This is enough lumber to
frame 20,000 average American homes. (National Association of Home
Builders 2005) In Montana alone there were 2,047 single and 4,194
single and multiple unit housing starts in 2004. (Economagic 2005)
Clearly, our business provides not only in-state but serves as an
export industry all over the United States, bringing outside money into
the state of Montana. Indeed, lumber production is a cornerstone of the
Montana economy. Ironically lumber production continues to decrease in
our state as more and more production facilities close their doors for
lack of timber supply.
The role of our company in the local economy is paramount. As one
of the largest employers in the Deer Lodge, Butte and Anaconda area, we
provide livable wages including total benefits capable of sustaining
families and maintaining healthy lifestyles to our 290 employees. Our
annual payrolls inject over twelve million dollars into the local
economy directly through our employee wages. Our payroll provides a
catalyst to the local economy, having a ripple effect indirectly though
local contractors and services, increasing the state and federal tax
bases.
As we compete in the international community, we are working on
uneven ground. We are subjected to different environmental standards,
being required to spend large amount of time and money in the planning
processes and dealing with diminishing or erratic timber supplies,
conditions which hurt our ability to compete.
As a renewable resource, timber production is truly one of the most
environmentally friendly natural resource industries. No other
substitute for lumber framing in houses is as environmentally friendly
or economically viable. In contrast, the use of metal framing in
construction involves the extraction of a non-renewable resource and
significant processing before it can become a useable product,
resulting in a much higher environmental impact. As forestry
professionals, we, as a company and as a viable industry, are committed
not only to responsible land stewardship, but also to a renewable and
sustainable timber resource. This is a good business for the state of
Montana. But as we continue to struggle to survive, we are reaching out
longer distances, even into surrounding states to obtain the needed
timber supply. Sadly, there are vast amounts of timber on Montana's
national forests surrounding us that are dying and/or burning in
catastrophic fires, lying unused and going to waste. As an example,
here are some statistics from the Beaverhead/Deerlodge National Forest,
the forest which is in closest proximity to our facility:
Areas affected by beetle kill only:
2002--73,000 acres
2003--72,000 acres
2004--151,000 acres
In the Butte District, less than 60 miles away from us, 2004
estimated beetle kill was 54,900 acres. In 2005, that amount could
easily have doubled. There have been only 1,622 acres of timber sold;
of that, 1,574 acres are located in the Butte watershed. That sale was
appealed but the Forest Service prevailed. It was then sold but was
further appealed to the 9th Circuit Court, resulting in an injunction
and halt to the timber harvest. The Butte District has another 530
acres proposed for sale, probably in early 2006. Thus far, only 2,152
acres have been proposed for some form of timber management out of
54,900 acres estimated dead in 2004. This is only 3.9 percent of the
estimated dead. If, or more likely, when this watershed burns, the
estimated cost to the city of Butte to install an adequate water
filtration system would be $15 to $20 million (at today's cost).
Further statistics from our company I would like to share with you:
Our percentage of U.S. Forest Service volume, including all forests
under contract, in comparison to our total volumes under contract,
going back 5 years:
2001--35 percent USFS--65 percent Other
2002--35 percent USFS--65 percent Other
2003--29 percent USFS--71 percent Other
2004--14 percent USFS--86 percent Other
2005--5 percent USFS--95 percent Other
These downward trends tell the story. Our state and private lands
cannot continue to support us at these levels. Our survival is
dependant on our National Forests.
We recently hired the Ecosystem Research Group to provide comments
on our behalf concerning the Beaverhead/Deerlodge Draft Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Their comments outline a detailed,
scientifically defensible approach to increasing timber supply while
sustaining sensitive species habitats and managing close to historic
landscape dynamics. As business owners and tax payers it is astonishing
to us that we have to hire a third party to critique and analyze USFS
planning.
The BDNF should be providing sustainable and predictable levels of
products and services. The level of timber offered from the Beaverhead/
Deerlodge has steadily declined over the past decade. Communities that
lack industrial or economic diversity may be negatively affected by the
proposed BDNF Plan. The full effects to these communities have not been
analyzed or disclosed in the BDNF Draft Forest Plan. As a stakeholder
with potentially large economic impacts, we should be treated with a
much higher weight than the BDNF has provided in their planning
efforts. From our standpoint the BDNF is exhibiting a denial of its
potential impacts on local timber dependent communities and is assuming
that if they ignore the problem, it will just go away.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS
From an industry perspective we see several solutions to the
problems we are facing based on the current planning process we have
been involved with on the BDNF.
USFS to Incorporate Industry Stakeholder in Planning Efforts.--
Without properly defining or treating stakeholders in their planning
process the BDNF has created a DEIS riddled with short-comings. The
USFS needs to complete better economic analyses and this is the first
step in doing so.
USFS Provide Scientifically Defensible, Progressive Management
Approaches.--There appears to be very little consistency between
Forests on the use of the latest most defensible science as well as the
many tools available to address these issues. For example, we encourage
a more aggressive use of Stewardship Contracts to address multiple
resource objectives.
Avoiding the Court Systems.--Region 1 alone has 360.49 mmbf tied up
in litigation, with 80.6 mmbf of this in our immediate working area.
There must be a means developed through legislation to limit this or,
if nothing else, at least the time it takes to resolve these
challenges.
Creative Approach to USFS Budgeting Needs to be Developed.--If they
are to manage our forests, they must be adequately funded. The draft
BDNF Forest Plan and DEIS fails to publish an allowable sale quantity
(ASQ) but instead has produced estimated outputs based on past
performance. They have cited predicted future budget constraints as
their main limitation to timber output. Stewardship Contracts and other
tools are not even considered by the Forest Service which would help
alleviate budgeting issues.
SUMMARY
We are at a moment in history where we have a unique opportunity
where timber harvesting can be utilized to help create a diversity in
age-class structure more representative of historic conditions. These
conditions are considered models of ecological sustainability. Such an
approach could reverse trends in timber supply and allow Montana mills
to survive. Let Industry be used to become a greater part of the
solution needed to bring our National Forests into a better-managed
condition.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Sherman. We appreciate
that very much.
Now we have John Gatchell, Montana Wilderness Association.
John, thanks for coming today, and we know of your conflict, so
thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GATCHELL, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, MONTANA WILDERNESS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Gatchell. For the record, my name is John Gatchell. I
want to thank you, Senator Burns. I'm here to represent the
7,000 members of the Montana Wilderness Association, which was
founded 47 years ago by Montana hunters and conservationists to
safeguard Montana's vanishing wilderness.
Our members view Montana's wilderness as a public land
trust that will always provide great hunting, fishing, camping
under the stars and quiet mountain trails. Our western
wildlands embody core American values: Freedom, self-reliance,
family and tradition. Keeping this heritage intact takes
commitment, and wilderness designation for deserving lands is a
commitment that we can rely on and pass on to our kids.
We're determined to work with friends and neighbors to
achieve this objective, but we're willing to listen and work
with others, take risks and help provide leadership to move our
State forward. We do need to see that this path has rewards.
Forest planning matters to all of us. The forest plan is a
contract between the people who own and those who manage our
national forests, and this contract should provide clarity and
certainty for all who have a stake in public lands.
In Montana different people seek different commitments in
the forest plan contract, whether it's small mills,
snowmobilers, hunters, communities or conservationists. But we
want tangible commitments. We want to know where we stand today
and what will remain tomorrow.
Because the forest plan looks across very large and very
diverse mountain landscapes, it really provides a great
opportunity to build new partnerships. As you see in our
written testimony, we think the Seeley Lake Ranger District
provides a model of new approaches to old problems.
Five years ago Seeley Lake faced a crisis. Headlines
announced the imminent shutdown of Pyramid Mountain Lumber,
that's the largest employer. Recreationists were embroiled in
angry conflict. Today we welcome opportunities to work
cooperatively with Pyramid. They're widely recognized as a
leader in forest stewardship, in stewardship projects, salvage
sales and forest plan revision.
The Seeley Lake Ranger District has amended its forest plan
successfully to reflect a winter recreation plan that was
jointly suggested by the Montana Wilderness Association and the
Seeley Lake Snowmobile Club. This plan ensures great
snowmobiling, but it also protects wintering wildlife and quiet
winter trails within easy reach of Seeley Lake.
Over the past year we've applied these new approaches to
forest plan revision in the Seeley Lake Ranger District working
out landscape-based solutions working with Pyramid, with
snowmobilers, area ranchers and wilderness outfitters.
Last May your staff, Larry Anderson, was present when
snowmobilers and conservationists met in Lincoln, Montana, to
sign another winter recreation agreement. This agreement also
protects popular snowmobiling in the Lincoln area, but at the
same time it protects wildlands and winter wildlife habitat
along Montana's Rocky Mountain Front.
After 20 years of fighting in every arena, believe me,
Senator Burns, there's still plenty we disagree on, but today
we're working as partners committed to a single winter
landscape plan and that's a change.
Other winter agreements have successfully been reached
covering national forest lands in the Big Belt in the Whitefish
Range, the Flathead forest, Big Snowies and Little Belt
Mountains. When the Big Snowies' agreement was challenged in
court last year, the Montana Wilderness Association and the
Montana Snowmobile Association intervened, on the same side,
and successfully, thus far, to defend this agreement. And this
takes commitment, Senator Burns, and the leaders of both
organizations have taken significant risks to move our State
forward.
We believe there are other parts of the State where the
ground is fertile for Montanans to work together. However,
mixed or even contrary signals from Agency or political leaders
can stymie dialog and push Montanans further apart.
We've got decade's old, deep ruts that keep Montanans
severed, and its strong leadership from Agency and elected
officials that is essential. This means giving people the right
signals and incentives to do the right thing. Talk to your
neighbors, work out differences, and you will be rewarded.
Managing off-road vehicles is probably the most contentious
issue on our public lands today, especially for summer use.
According to the National Association of Counties advances in
off-road technology have spread noxious and invasive weeds,
increased conflicts between road and recreational users,
ranchers, hunters, wildlife and caused environmental damage.
Now, Montanans cherish access to public lands, and we
understand that access takes many forms that do not require
off-road vehicles. Communities seek access to open space and
quiet trails. Ranchers provide access to hunters afoot, not
riding ATVs. Hunters enjoy access to State school trust lands
but we leave our vehicles behind on the road.
Public access is threatened today, not by setting
responsible limits to off-road vehicle traffic and enforced
travel plans. It's threatened because Congress is considering
legislation that would sell public lands, and that would mean
no access. So, Senator, we urge you to protect public access by
opposing bills currently being considered that would sell
public lands.
Two hundred years ago when President Jefferson acquired 529
million acres of western land, including the area of Montana,
critics attacked him for foolishly purchasing an immense
wilderness. Today we have over 90,000 miles of roads, but less
than 4 percent of Montana is actually protected as wilderness.
Our neighboring western States each thrive with a higher
percentage of wilderness. Stunning mountain lands that we have
traditionally enjoyed as wilderness, from Lolo Peak to the
Rocky Mountain Front, will not remain so for our kids without
stronger commitments from our Government.
As our valleys fill with subdivisions and roads and traffic
in the years ahead--and they're going to--Montana's wild
country is going to be worth its weight in solid gold. Some
have made a sport of criticizing the Forest Service for
recommending any wilderness in revised plans. We feel this
position is irresponsible.
Wilderness is part of the multiple use of public lands, and
it belongs in our mountains along with the suitable areas for
logging, snowmobiling and other land allocations.
We believe the Federal Government has not done nearly
enough to demonstrate commitment or vision for the future of
Montana wilderness. Lands with high wilderness values and low
conflicts have been overlooked by the Forest Service time and
again.
Draft forest plan recommendations, for example, fall
significantly short of wilderness that is contained in the
Senate-passed bill S. 6096 cosponsored by you and Senator
Baucus.
You raised two questions about the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
recommended wilderness, and they're good questions and I think
they're worth answering. When you look at the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge you see a forest that is the largest forest we have,
larger than Glacier and Yellowstone Parks combined. It includes
16 mountain ranges, 400 miles of the Continental Divide,
something like 33 hunting districts. By the way, a third of the
elk taken in this State come out of that country, so it's
important to us. But it's the diversity of it that gives us
areas that have tremendous wilderness character.
You also raised the question of whether it was too
expensive to enjoy without--motorized and ATV or what have
you--and I think, Senator, we would welcome that kind of
comparison. I know for a fact that my wife and I have taken our
kids there since they were babies, camping and hiking and
enjoying the Pioneers the Pintlars the Tobacco Roots many of
these areas. The most expensive part of our trips is stopping
for Chinese dinner, in Butte, on the way home, to tell you the
truth. We welcome that kind of comparison. I think it's a
question that's worth answering.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Our answer, to summarize, is to continue to work to build
diverse support for on-the-ground solutions that include
Montana wilderness. We hope that you will provide the kind of
leadership that brings Montanans together at the table of trust
and understanding and encourages home-grown solutions that can
move Montana forward. Thank you, Senator Burns, for the
opportunity.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Gatchell
Thank you, Senator Burns. I represent the 7,000 members of the
Montana Wilderness Association--founded 47 years ago by hunters and
conservationists to safeguard Montana's vanishing wilderness.
Our members view Montana wilderness as a public land trust that
will always provide great hunting, fishing, camping under the stars,
and quiet mountain trails. Our western wild lands embody core American
values: freedom, self-reliance, family, tradition.
Keeping this heritage intact takes commitment and wilderness
designation for deserving lands is a commitment we can rely on and pass
on to our kids.
We're determined to work with friends and neighbors to achieve this
objective. We're willing to listen and work with others, take risks,
and help provide leadership to move our state forward. We do need to
see this path has rewards.
FOREST PLANNING MATTERS TO ALL OF US
The Forest Plan is a contract between the people who own and those
who manage our national forests. This contract should provide clarity
and certainty for all who have a stake in public lands.
Different people seek different commitments in the Forest Plan
contract: Whether its small mills, snowmobilers, hunters, communities
or conservationists.
We want tangible commitments. We all want to know where we stand
today and what will remain tomorrow.
Because the forest plan looks across vast and diverse mountain
landscapes,--it provides a great opportunity to build new partnerships.
BEYOND WARRING PHILOSOPHY: SEELEY LAKE
As you see in our written testimony, the Seeley Lake Ranger
District provides a model of taking new approaches to old problems.
Five years ago Seeley faced crisis: Headlines announced the imminent
shut down of Pyramid Mountain Lumber. Recreationists were embroiled in
angry conflict.
Today we welcome opportunities to work cooperatively with Pyramid,
in stewardship projects, salvage sales, and forest plan revision.
Pyramid is widely recognized as a leader in forest stewardship.
The Seeley lake Ranger District amended the forest plan to reflect
a winter recreation plan suggested by the Montana Wilderness
Association and Seeley Lake snowmobile club. This plan ensured great
snowmobile areas and trails while at the same time protecting wintering
wildlife and quiet winter trails within easy reach of Seeley Lake
Over the past year we've applied these new approaches to forest
plan revision on the Seeley Lake District, working out landscape-based
solutions with Pyramid, snowmobilers, ranchers and wilderness
outfitters.
LINCOLN, SNOWIES AND ELSEWHERE
Last May, your staff was present when snowmobilers and
conservationists met in Lincoln to sign another winter agreement. This
agreement protects popular snowmobile areas and trails near Lincoln yet
at the same time wild lands and wildlife along the Rocky Mountain
Front.
After 20 years of fighting in every arena, believe me there's still
plenty we disagree on, but today we are working as partners committed
to a single winter landscape plan.
Other winter agreements have successfully been reached covering
national forest lands in the Big Belts, Whitefish Range, Flathead, Big
Snowies and Little Belt Mountains.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The agreements settle site-specific disputes over winter
recreation on parts of five national forests, including two wilderness
study areas, a dozen inventoried roadless areas and several tracts of
recommended wilderness. Snowmobilers and conservationists also pledge
to assist with education, funding, and monitoring to help ensure
success in the field. Both parties believe more landscape agreements
are possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Big Snowies agreement was challenged in court last year,
MWA and the Montana Snowmobile Association intervened successfully to
defend this winter agreement.
This takes committment, Senator Burns, and the leaders of both
organizations have taken significant risks to move our state forward.
There are other parts of the state where the ground is fertile for
Montanans to work together. However, mixed or even contrary signals
from agency or political leaders can stymie dialogue, and push
Montanans farther apart.
We've got deep, decades old ruts that keep Montana high-centered.
Strong leadership from agency and elected officals is essential to move
our state forward. This means giving people the right signals and
incentives to do the right thing--talk to your neighbors, work out your
differences, and you will be rewarded.
Managing off-road vehicles is probably the most contentious issue
on public lands today -especially for summer use. According to the
Association of Counties, advances in off-road vehicle technology have
``spread noxious and invasive weeds... increased conflicts with other
recreational users, ranchers, hunters, wildlife, and . . . caused
environmental damage.'' (2003-2004 Resolution on Off-Highway Vehicle
Management on Public Lands, National Association of Counties)
ACCESS DOES NOT MEAN ATVS
Montanans cherish access to public land and understand that access
takes many forms that do not require off-road vehicles: Communities
seek access to open space and quiet trails. Ranchers provide access to
hunters afoot not riding ATVs. Hunters enjoy access to state trust
lands--but we leave our vehicles on the road.
Public access is threatened today--not by setting responsible
limits to off-road traffic in forest travel plans. It is threatened
because Congress is considering legislation to sell public lands. This
means no access.
We urge you Senator to protect public access by opposing bills to
sell public lands.
conclusion
Two hundred years ago, when President Jefferson acquired 529
million acres of western lands--including the area of Montana, critics
attacked him for foolishly purchasing ``an immense wilderness.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``A WILDERNESS SO IMMENSE--The Louisiana Purchase and the
Destiny of America.'' Jon Kukla, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today we have over 90,000 miles of road, but less than 4 percent of
Montana is actually protected as wilderness. Our neighboring western
states each enjoy higher percentages of wilderness. Stunning mountain
lands we have traditionally enjoyed as wilderness -from Lolo Peak to
the Rocky Mountain Front--will not be there for our kids without
stronger commitments from our government.
As our valleys fill with subdivisions, roads and traffic in the
years ahead, Montana's wild country will be worth its weight in gold.
Some have made a sport of criticizing the U.S. Forest Service for
recommending wilderness in revised plans.\3\ This position is
irresponsible. Wilderness is part of the multiple use of public lands,
and belongs in our mountains along with suitable areas for logging,
snowmobiling, and other allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Critics have also argued that the Forest Service is creating
``de facto'' wilderness, in violation of federal law. While it is true
that only Congress can add Wilderness to the National Wilderness
Preservation System, the Forest Service is required to evaluate and
recommend Wilderness where justified, and may restrict uses as
necessary to protect resource values. See for example, 36 CFR 219
(FSM), in pertinent part: ``. . . all National Forest System lands
possessing wilderness characteristics must be considered for
recommendation as potential wilderness areas during development or
revision of a land management plan. Based on site-specific analysis and
public involvement, management direction is developed for inventoried
roadless areas during the land management planning process that could
include (1) protection of wilderness values . . . (2) total or partial
restriction of certain uses . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe the federal government has not done nearly enough to
demonstrate commitment or vision for the future of Montana wilderness.
Lands with high wilderness values and low conflicts have been
overlooked by the Forest Service time and again:
Draft recommendations in the ongoing forest plans fall short of
wilderness contained in the Senate-passed bill co-sponsored by you and
Senator Baucus.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See chart comparing legislation passed by U.S. Senate and House
with USFS recommendations, attached below testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Burns, you raised two questions this morning regarding
recommended wilderness on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
First the areas, which as I noted fall short of wilderness contained in
your 1992 Senate bill, S. 1696. More importantly, though, is the
diverse character of this vast landscape, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge is
larger than Glacier and Yellowstone combined, includes 16 mountain
ranges, 400 miles of the Continental Divide and 33 hunting districts
which provide--and this is very important to us--one-third of all elk
taken in Montana.
Second you questioned whether people could afford to use
recommended wilderness without motorized vehicles. This is a comparison
we would welcome. My wife and I have often taken our kids into the
Pioneers, Tobacco Roots, Pintlars, Thunderbolt Creek (Electric Peak)
since they were babies. The most expensive part of our wilderness trips
was stopping in Butte on the way home for Chinese dinner.
Our answer is to continue to work to build diverse support for on-
the-ground solutions that include Montana Wilderness.
We hope you will provide the kind of leadership that brings
Montanans together at the table of trust and understanding, and
encourages homegrown solutions that can move Montana forward.
Thank you, Senator Burns, for the opportunity to offer our thoughts
today.
COMPARISON HOUSE AND SENATE-PASSED MONTANA WILDERNESS LEGISLATION WITH USFS PRELIMINARY FOREST PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88 Passed 92 Senate 94 House FS 2005 Forest
National Forest \1\ \2\ \3\ (dr) \4\ Rdls \5\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF........... 335,200 9290,000 358,700 249,000 1,881,000 3,335,000
Flat-Lolo-B'root NF............... 632,000 564,000 731,000 478,000 1,725,000 5,590,000
Kootenai National Forest.......... 113,600 92,000 166,600 ........... 624,000 2,220,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 forest subtotals............ 1,080,600 946,000 1,256,300 727,000 4,230,000 11,145,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S. 2751 Montana Wilderness and Management Act. House-Senate compromise bill enacted in October 1988/left
unsigned by President Reagan after Congress adjourned.
\2\ S.1696 Montana National Forest Management Act of 1991-Co-Sponsored by Senators Burns and Baucus. Passed
Senate March 26, 1992, Amended by House. Vote Blocked on Compromise Oct 8, 1992.
\3\ H.R. 2473 Sponsored by Congressman Williams. Amended and Passed House of Representatives May, 1994.
\4\ Preliminary wilderness recommendations contained in draft or initial draft forest plans.
\5\ U.S. Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas as shown in draft or preliminary forest plans.
Senator Burns. Thank you, John.
Now we have Russ Ehnes, National Off-Highway Vehicle
Council. Russ, thank you for coming today. We look forward to
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RUSS EHNES, PRESIDENT, MONTANA TRAIL VEHICLE RIDERS ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE COUNCIL
Mr. Ehnes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. My name is Russ Ehnes,
actually. That's all right, that's a tough one to pronounce.
I'm president of the Montana Trail Vehicle Riders. I'm here
today to present my testimony. However, I'd like to recognize
the Citizens for Balanced Use, Families for Outdoor Recreation,
Capital Trail Vehicle Association and Montana Multiple Use
Association have also prepared high quality testimonies in
their quest to represent the thousands of citizens across
Region 1 who make up their memberships. Their plea is for you
to recognize the disparities in Region 1 Forest Service
management policies and for you to help bring fair, responsible
and balanced management to Region 1. Jointly, our desire is to
keep our public lands shared for all the public under the
sustained multiple use mandate.
Forest planning is an important topic for thousands of
Montana families who enjoy Montana's great outdoors, on trail
motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles and four-wheel drives. There's a
60-year tradition of off-highway vehicle use in Montana. My
kids are fourth generation trail motorcyclists. We have ridden
snowmobiles since 1964.
OHV recreation and snowmobiling in our national forests are
more than something we do on the weekends. They're the glue
that binds our family together, and it is important to our
quality of life as any form of recreation is to any other
Montanan.
OHV recreation is one of the fastest growing forms of
recreation; we've already heard. A recent study by the Forest
Service Southern Research Station found that 29 percent of
Montanans classify themselves as participants in off-highway
vehicle recreation, which does not even include snowmobilers.
We also understand the potential for abuse and impacts that
can result from unmanaged recreation of all kinds. When Chief
Bosworth was the regional forester in Region 1, he recognized
the value and legitimacy of OHV recreation and had the
foresight to see that we needed sensible limits on what uses
could be allowed with off-highway vehicles in largely unmanaged
areas.
He worked with the BLM to develop the three-State OHV EIS.
Nearly every OHV and multiple-use organization supports that,
including us. We also support the new Forest Service off-
highway vehicle rule which will result in designated route
systems nationwide.
In addition to being the president of MTVRA, I actually
work professionally as the executive director of the National
Off-highway Vehicle Conservation Council, a nationwide,
nonprofit educational organization dedicated to partnering with
the Forest Service and other agencies to find and share proven
effective management techniques for off-highway vehicle
recreation.
These techniques allow the agencies to provide abundant,
high quality OHV recreation opportunities in ways that meet
riders' needs and expectations while preserving and protecting
our natural resources, and they are the alternative to the
ignored or closed management style that had prevailed for too
many years.
We've worked with the agencies for over 10 years to promote
off-highway vehicle management workshops and have had three of
those in Montana over the last 10 years. Many of the district
rangers, rec planners and resource specialists in Montana that
participate in those workshops learned those techniques and
implemented them in many areas.
However, it seems that some forest supervisors have chosen
not to implement best management practices for off-highway
vehicles and have again chosen to ignore it or close it.
Unfortunately, the proposed travel plans that we're seeing are
very heavy on the ``close it side.''
We've seen things like elk security cited as common reasons
for closure. Yet herds have continually increased in size, and
we haven't seen the peer reviewed science to show justification
of how herds could benefit from travel restrictions.
We as Americans expect that freedom means we're allowed the
liberty to enjoy public lands responsibly, without restrictions
unless there is a valid reason identified that justifies
restricted access over other management options.
Instead we're seeing proposals within Region 1 that close
40 to 60 percent of our forests that have been open for off-
highway vehicle recreation and snowmobile access. These
extensive closures are a fundamental shift away from the
freedom we expect in Montana, in the United States, and is not
in accord with the intent implicit in the 2001 OV EIS.
I'm disturbed by this new trend of designating large blocks
of multiple-use areas off limits to motorized recreation and
think it's being driven by a number of factors, the first of
which is the age-old battle between the preservationist
community and the multiple-use community.
I believe the multiple-use community subscribes to the
philosophy of Gifford Pinchot, the person who created the
Forest Service. We believe we can use and enjoy our forests
wisely, respectfully and responsibly not only for recreation
but also for clean water and other resources.
John Muir's philosophy is more of a hands-off philosophy
that resulted in the creation of our national wilderness system
and we need both, and we recognize that. But because there
seems to be a majority opinion that we have already set aside
enough as wilderness, we've seen people who promote more
wilderness change the nomenclature of the debate.
We're seeing the promotion of large blocks of nonmotorized
quiet areas particularly in inventoried roadless areas. With
these areas closed to motorized users and all but off limits to
resource development, their end game is satisfied. They've
achieved ``wilderness light'' and only have to contend with a
few bicycles and chain saws of the rarely deployed trail crew.
We're also seeing new designations like ``wildland,'' which
prohibit mechanical and motorized use in areas but are never
recommended to Congress as wilderness. This is the very
definition of ``wilderness light.'' All of this is achieved
without the messy involvement of Congress, the body in which
lies the sole Peoples' elected authority to establish
wilderness.
Why is our community so upset right now? Just as one
example of what's happening all over Montana, I can tell you
that since my father began riding trail motorcycles in the
1950s, you can no longer go to Bighorn Lake or Heart Lake,
which are now in the Scapegoat Wilderness. The trail he used to
ride from Rogers Pass to Stemple Pass is closed for grizzly
bear habitat.
Seventy percent of the Highwood Mountains are now closed;
90 percent of the Snowies are off limits. Many trails along the
Rocky Mountain Front are closed. Many trails in the Big Belts
are off limits, and the Rocky Mountain Front Travel Plan Record
of Decision will likely close most of the trails in the Badger-
Two Medicine and more trails along the Rocky Mountain Front.
Cumulative effects of past closures are real. The Forest
Service seems to have a hard time quantifying this, but all you
have to do is look at the maps from the past 50 years.
The result of these closures is that we're being pushed
into smaller and smaller areas. In eastern Montana, where I'm
from, the Little Belt Mountains are fast becoming the last best
place to ride. The Montana Wilderness Association wants the
Forest Service to close half of the mountain range along with
north end of the Crazies and the Castles in the Travel Plan.
We are again being asked to give up half of our remaining
access and recreational opportunities. When we balk, we are
accused of being selfish, unreasonable or unwilling to
compromise. Remember that compromise only works when both
parties have something to lose. In our case, we have given up
half of--given up access to millions of acres of Montana back
country closures and wilderness designations.
The nonmotorized trail users, with the exception of
mountain bikers, have nearly 100 percent access to every area.
When an area is proposed for closure, we're told to leave. When
an area is left open, the nonmotorized user is asked only to
share, only to tolerate status quo. We believe there comes a
time when people need to understand the needs of others and be
tolerant. People will have to share some areas. We believe the
time has come for that.
Another resource we need to be concerned about is our
children's future. It is said that our kids are our best export
in Montana. That's a sad statement. My daughter is a student
here at the University of Montana. My son is in high school.
They would love to stay in the Montana, but they don't know
that they can because they can't make much money here.
The reason they want to stay is because they enjoy the time
that we spend as a family outdoor trail riding, fishing,
hunting. As those sports become more restricted and difficult
to do and access to public land becomes more restricted, their
desire to make the financial sacrifice it takes to live in
Montana evaporates. Our talented youth are losing their
incentive to stay in Montana. Our population ages and our
standard of living decreases. This is now truly a quality of
life issue.
There are also thousands of retired Montanans who have
lived and worked their entire lives in Montana so they could
enjoy the wonders the State has to offer. For many a trail bike
and ATVer a snowmobile or four-by-four is the only way they can
reach the back country. Again, access is a quality of life
issue for our seniors and our physically challenged.
Senator Burns. Can you wrap up pretty quick?
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Ehnes. You bet. Is there a better way? Yes, activity
management and strong partnerships. For example, in the Little
Belt Mountains there is a truly world-class loop experience for
trail users, motorized and nonmotorized. Groups like the Great
Falls Trail Bike Riders, the Back Country Horsemen and the
Treasure State ATV Association work hand in hand with the
Forest Service to maintain that trail system. They've also
acquired about a quarter million dollars in grants for on-the-
ground work and education, and we're willing to do our part as
a community. Thank you for your time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russ Ehnes
Thank you for this unique opportunity to testify today. My name is
Russ Ehnes and I am the President of Montana Trail Vehicle Riders
Association. I am here to present my testimony today however I would
like you to recognize that Citizens for Balanced Use, Families For
Outdoor Recreation, Capital Trail Vehicle Association, and Montana
Multiple Use Association also prepared high quality testimonies in
their quest to represent the thousands of citizens across Region 1 that
make up their memberships. Their plea is for you to recognize the
discrimination and disparities in Region 1 Forest Service Management
policies and for you to help by bring responsible, fair, reasonable and
balanced management to Region 1. Jointly our only desire is to keep our
public lands shared for all the public under the sustained multiple use
mandate.
Forest Planning is an important topic for the thousands of Montana
families who enjoy Montana's great outdoors on trail motorcycles, ATVs,
snowmobiles, and four-wheel drive vehicles. There's a sixty year
tradition of OHV use in Montana. My kids are fourth generation trail
motorcyclists and we have ridden snowmobiles since 1964. OHV recreation
and snowmobiling in the national Forests are more than something we do
on the weekends. They're the glue that bind our family together and are
as important to our quality of life as any other form of recreation is
to any other Montanan. OHV recreation is one of the fastest-growing
forms of recreation. A recent study by the Forest Service Southern
Research Station found that 29 percent of Montanans classify themselves
as ``participants'' in OHV recreation, which does not even include
snowmobilers.
We also understand the potential for abuse and impacts that can
result from unmanaged recreation of all kinds. When Chief Bosworth was
the Regional Forester in Region 1, he recognized the value and
legitimacy of OHV recreation and had the foresight to see that we
needed sensible limits on what uses could be allowed with OHVs in
largely unmanaged areas. He worked with the BLM to develop the 3-State
OHV EIS. Nearly every OHV and multiple-use organization supports the
rule. We also support the new Forest Service OHV Rule, which will
result in a system of designated routes and areas for OHVs nationwide.
I currently serve as the Executive Director of the National Off-
Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, a nationwide non-profit
educational organization dedicated partnering with the Forest Service
and other agencies to find and share proven effective management
techniques for managing OHV recreation.
These management techniques allow the agencies to provide abundant,
high-quality OHV recreation opportunities in ways that meets riders'
needs and expectations while preserving and protecting our natural
resources and are the alternative to the ``ignore it or close it''
management style that has prevailed for too many years. We've worked
with the agencies for over ten years to promote OHV management
workshops all across the nation with three workshops held Montana.
Many of the District Rangers, Recreation Planners, and Resource
Specialists participated in the Montana workshops and have learned
these techniques and implemented them in many areas. However, it seems
some Forest Supervisors have chosen not to implement best management
practices for OHV management and ``ignore it or close it.''
Unfortunately the Proposed Forest Plans and Travel Plans we're seeing
are very heavy on the ``close it'' side. We've seen elk security cited
as a common reason for closures yet the herds have been continually
increasing in size and no peer-reviewed science to show justification
of how the herds could benefit from travel restrictions.
We as Americans expect that freedom means we are allowed liberty to
enjoy public lands responsibly, without restrictions unless there is a
valid reason identified that justifies restricted access over other
management options. Instead we're seeing proposals in Region 1 that
close 40-60 percent of forests that have been open for OHV and
snowmobile access. These extensive closures are a fundamental shift
away from the freedom we expect in Montana and in the United States and
is not in accord with the intent implicit in the 2001 OHV EIS.
I'm disturbed by this new trend of designating ``large blocks'' of
multiple-use areas as off-limits to motorized recreation and I think
its being driven by several factors. First is the age-old battle waged
between the preservationist community and the multiple-use community. I
believe the multiple use community subscribes to the philosophy of
Gifford Pinchot, the man who created the Forest Service. We believe we
can both use and enjoy our forests wisely, respectfully, and
responsibly not only for recreation but also for clean water and other
resources. The John Muir philosophy is a hands-off philosophy that
resulted in the creation of the Wilderness system in our nation. We
need both; but because there is majority consensus that you have
already set aside enough as Wilderness, the people who promote more
wilderness are changing the nomenclature of the debate. They are
promoting ``large blocks'' of non-motorized ``quiet areas,''
particularly in inventoried roadless areas. With these areas closed to
motorized users and all but off-limits to resource development, their
end game is satisfied. They've achieved ``Wilderness Light'' and only
have to contend with a few bicycles and the chain saws of the rarely
deployed trail crew. We're also seeing new designations like
``Wildlands'' which prohibit mechanical and motorized use in areas but
are never recommended to congress as Wilderness. This is the very
definition of ``Wilderness Light.'' All this is being achieved without
the messy involvement of Congress, the body in which lies the sole
People's elected authority to establish Wilderness.
The second reason I believe we're seeing wholesale restrictions
proposed is the Forest Service's belief that it doesn't have the budget
to manage recreation. While I know that the agency is constantly being
asked to do more with less, I believe there needs to be a fundamental
shift in the way the agency views its primary job. Our Forests no
longer provide large quantities of timber and minerals for our society.
What they still provide is clean water and high quality recreation.
Perhaps the budget priorities should reflect this change. The Chief has
identified unmanaged recreation as one of the four threats. If this is
one of the top priorities for the Forest Service, how much of its
budget is devoted to it? While I have no doubt there is a challenge
with budget amounts I also believe there's a priority problem with how
budgets are allocated.
Why are we as a community so upset right now? Just as one example
of what's happening all over Montana, I can tell you that since my
father began trail riding in the fifties he can no longer ride to
Bighorn Lake or Heart Lake, which are now in the Scapegoat Wilderness.
The trail he used to ride from Rogers Pass to Stemple Pass is closed
for grizzly bear habitat, 70 percent of the Highwood Mountains are now
closed, 90 percent of the Snowy Mountains are off limits, many trails
along the Rocky Mountain Front are closed, many trails in the Big Belts
are now closed, and the Rocky Mountain Front Travel Plan Record of
Decision will likely close most or all of the trails in the Badger--Two
Medicine and more trails along the Front. Yes, cumulative effects of
past closures are real. The Forest Service seems to have a hard time
quantifying this, but all you have to do is look at the maps from the
past fifty years.
The result of all these closures is that we're pushed into smaller
and smaller areas. In eastern Montana the Little Belt Mountains are
fast becoming the ``Last Best Place'' to ride. The Montana Wilderness
Association wants the Forest Service to close half of that along with
the North end of the Crazies and Castles. We are again been asked to
give up ``half'' of our remaining access and recreational
opportunities. When we balk, we are accused of being selfish,
unreasonable, or unwilling to compromise. Compromise only works when
both parties have something to lose. In our case, we have given up
access to millions of acres of Montana back-country to closures and
Wilderness designations. The non-motorized trail users, with the
exception of the mountain bike riders, have access to 100 percent of
every area. When an area is proposed for closure, we are told to leave.
When an area is left open, the non-motorized user is asked only to
share; only to tolerate status quo. We believe there comes a time when
people need to understand the needs of others and be tolerant. People
will have to share some areas. I believe that time has come.
Another resource we need to concern ourselves with is our
children's future. It's said that our kids are Montana's best export.
That's a sad statement. My daughter is a student at U of M and my son
is in high school. They would like to stay in Montana, but they know
they won't make much money here. Why do they want to stay? Because they
enjoy the time we spend outdoors trail riding, fishing, and hunting. As
these sports become more difficult to participate in and access to
public lands for recreation becomes more restricted, their desire to
make the financial sacrifice it takes to stay here is evaporating. Our
talented youth are losing their incentive to stay in Montana, our
population ages, our standard of living decreases. This is now truly a
quality-of-life issue.
There are also thousands of retired Montanans who have lived and
worked their entire lives in Montana so they can enjoy the wonders our
state has to offer. For many, a trail bike, ATV, 4 4, or snowmobile is
the only way they can reach the back-country. Again, access is a
quality-of-life issue for our seniors and physically challenged.
Snowmobiling alone has a positive economic impact of over 40
million dollars in Montana. If the dealers, restaurants, hotels and
other businesses in Gateway communities can't make ends meet, it
becomes a quality of life issue for them as well.
Is there a better way? Yes, active management and strong
partnerships. For Example, the Little Belt mountains offer a truly
world-class loop trail experience for thousands of trail users,
motorized and non-motorized. Groups like the Great Falls Trail Bike
Riders Association, The Treasure State ATV Association, and the CM
Russell Back Country Horsemen work side-by-side with the Forest Service
to maintain an extensive trail system where encounters with other users
are rare because the size of trail system disperses the uses. The
GFTBRA has also worked with the Forest Service to secure nearly a
quarter million dollars in trail improvement and educational grants.
We as a community are ready and willing to do our part but it will
require an agency with a strong determination to make recreation
management and access for all Montana's citizens a priority.
Thank you again for this opportunity to express our views.
Senator Burns. You bet. Thank you. We appreciate your
testimony. We've got Mike Hillis now, Ecosystem Research Group,
EGR. Mike, thank you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF MIKE HILLIS, SENIOR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST,
ECOSYSTEMS RESEARCH GROUP
Mr. Hillis. Thank you, Senator. I'm Mike Hillis, senior
wildlife biologist with Ecosystems Research Group. Thanks for
the opportunity. Ecosystems Research Group has reviewed five
forest plans in three western States, two regions in the last 2
years. Our intent had been to apply the best science and
economic analyses available with the sociopolitical climate for
a given national forest.
I'd like to share some of those findings from those five
national forests. Let me start out with a little commonality to
all five forests. They're all in the west. They're all
droughting, strongly disturbance dependent in terms of being
influenced by fire and insects and disease. All five forests
are older and denser than they've ever been, historically,
because of 80 years of fire suppression, in spite of modest to
moderate levels of timber harvest in all five of those forests.
Let me start out by identifying some things that seem to
work pretty well in forest planning. If we go back to 1982 as a
reference point, that's when early forest plan drafts were
first hitting the street. If we look at the science in terms of
our understanding of disturbance ecology, light years better
than it was 20 years ago.
Our ability to monitor historic conditions as a reference
point is wonderful. We finally have a wonderful data base in
our assessment, which allows us both to make decisions and to
monitor over time.
As Chuck Keegan mentioned we've got demonstrated ability to
use a variety of tools including commercial timber harvest,
prescribed burning, thinning, and road restoration to restore
landscapes. So we have got a lot of things going really well.
If you look at the National Forest Management Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act, they provide very specific
direction for things like wildlife and monitoring and so forth.
There's obviously some things that don't work very well, as
Dale Bosworth mentioned: Contention. It's kind of an ugly time
to be a forest planner. A lot of that contention is neither
civil nor objective. When you look at NFMA and NEPA those laws
are 29 and 36 years old and were written during a period of
very different values of what public lands are. Today they're
enormously complex. They're often out of proportion to the risk
involved.
Let me put that a different way: It shouldn't cost a
quarter million dollars to do an EIS to thin 100 acres of
ponderosa pine upwind from a subdivision. Yet that's how we're
spending taxpayer dollars before we even try to apply
treatments on the ground. So you have to think about there's
some aspects of those legislations, those laws, that are
broken.
We're in an economy of growing deficits and decreasing
chance of dollars getting to the ground to do things. So if
you're a planner, you think of the contention, the high legal
costs, the declining budgets, damn little incentive to push the
envelope in terms of doing what needs to be done on the ground
to reduce the fire severity, to reduce insect outbreaks,
whatever.
Giving you an example on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, in 1999
the forest completed a 700,000 acre landscape assessment in the
Rock Creek Range, which was wonderful. They involved
scientists, academia, managers, other agency personnel, local
community people and determined from a science base and an
economic base what was needed on that landscape to restore it.
That included commercial thinning, some other types of timber
harvest, prescribe burning, some road restoration, et cetera.
Well, when they got to the forest plan, they included none
of that. Why? Too contentious, money probably wouldn't be there
anyway, cost too damn much to do it. So you see things like
that and you say something is broken.
Just in general, of those five national forests, we've seen
an unwillingness to apply the best science because it's
sometimes contentious, and so they bend the science a little
bit to try to satisfy everybody; an unwillingness to use timber
management as a tool to restore landscapes even when it's
cheaper and more effective; an unwillingness to identify what's
needed because the funding won't be there. So again, you know,
those are kind of common themes we've seen.
In summary, if there's four things that we think under the
existing laws and regs and the new rule that Dale is talking
about that we need in forest planning is No. 1, we need better
direction and accountability from the Forest Service.
When we look at national and regional direction for
planning, pretty darn good. But when we start looking at it on
the forest, it's all across the board. Somebody mentioned that
consistency needs to be a goal, and it's not terribly
consistent in terms of how we apply wildlife values by building
strategies, how we apply economic models, how we apply various
types of direction.
No. 2, where ecologically and economically appropriate we
need to use timber management as a tool to restore landscapes
in the West. Our forests are disturbance dependent. They're
getting older. They're getting denser across the board. We're
not going to get there with prescribed burning alone or
wildlife value unless we can also use timber management where
appropriate.
No. 3, we need to maintain working landscapes. If you think
of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge as an example, the wildlife values,
the visual values are not just limited to national forest
lands. We may think that national forest lands are a key. Those
lands are integrated through ranchers, through corporate timber
lands, through industry and communities. Unless we look at the
impacts on all those lands together, we're not going to
maintain a lot of those values.
Last we need to apply the best science, period. It's fine
to make trade-offs for socioeconomic values. But science needs
to stand alone, and we should not compromise that to avoid
contention. We are going to have contention anyway. We need to
let the science stand alone.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So again, in summary, having better accountability, placing
greater emphasis on using timber management as a tool for
restoration, placing greater emphasis on maintaining working
landscapes on those large scales and anchoring to the science
are those things we feel are needed to improve the planning
process. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Hillis
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
committee. We have organized both written and verbal comments around
three basic issues: (1) what is good about forest planning on U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) lands, (2) those planning functions that are
broken or don't work well, and (3) what kind of solutions we can bring
to the table to improve public land planning through the revision
process under the new National Forest Management Act (NFMA) planning
regulations. By necessity, our comments will be critical to some
degree. However, please keep in mind that we are here to be productive
and to help develop ways to improve USFS planning functions.
Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) is a Montana-based consulting
company providing an array of environmental analyses and services
throughout the western United States. Our company is composed of
environmental scientists, engineers, hydrologists, foresters,
ecologists, fisheries and wildlife biologists, economists, and modeling
and Geographic Information System (GIS) specialists. We have worked for
several federal, state, and local units of government as well as law
firms and industry, concentrating on science-based research and
solutions to characterize and resolve environmental issues. As a
company, we have worked on five forest plan revisions in three states,
including two for which we developed entire forest plan alternatives.
This hearing focuses on forest planning and forest plan revisions.
While everyone still is getting up to speed with the new regulations,
the 1982 regulations are being phased out. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest (BDNF) Forest Plan Revision is being conducted under
the 1982 planning rules. Most of the examples we discuss will come from
the BDNF planning process.
CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD GUIDE FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS
Since initial forest plans were drafted in the early 1980s, our
understanding of forest science has vastly improved. Scientists have
made huge gains in understanding how natural disturbances such as
wildfire and insects have shaped forests in the West. Also, scientists
and managers have an improved understanding of how human actions like
fire suppression have changed the structure and resiliency of forests
to fires and insects (Hartwell et al., 1999).
On a majority of national forests, fire ecologists have modeled
and/or mapped historical disturbances (Losensky, 1995). This has
allowed resource managers to identify the Historic Range of Variability
(HRV), which provides an important reference point to past conditions.
Average conditions of the past aren't necessarily attainable or even
desirable given today's social demands. Understanding HRV, however,
does provide us with a template for retaining or restoring
representative elements of historic forests. This is a key element to
ensuring long-term species viability and is comparable to Aldo
Leopold's sage advice of 70 years ago: ``The key to successful
tinkering is to keep all the pieces.''
Another factor that has changed since the early 1980s, is that the
national forests have developed proven and predictable techniques for
reintroducing disturbances to restore historic conditions. For
instance, techniques using selective logging followed by prescribed
burning to restore old growth ponderosa pine are well-documented in the
literature (Hillis et al., 2000). Also, the scale at which forest
restoration is performed has completely changed. Vegetative treatments
are now designed with consideration of the extent of past wildfires and
insect outbreaks, to help form the shape and size of projects. The
result is that new projects retain a more natural mix of edge and
interior forest, a factor critical to protecting many wildlife species.
Such landscape-scale treatments also look more natural, a factor that
has substantial social value, and are less expensive to treat, a factor
that may allow the treatment of more acres with increasingly limited
dollars.
Much of the contention over forest plans and vegetative treatment
projects has focused on wildlife impacts: During the early 1980s,
analyses on wildlife effects were largely based on individual species.
As a result of limited research, such single-species analyses were
always insufficient in satisfying species viability concerns. Today,
biologists use a coarse filter strategy (Samson et al., 2004)
incorporating broad-scale data and an understanding of disturbance
ecology and historic conditions to identify habitats that have declined
or are at-risk, and focus the assessment on species dependent upon
those habitats. This method substantially improves the efficiency of
analyses by identifying and focusing on those species that are actually
at-risk and by not wasting analysis on species that aren't at-risk.
Lastly, the USFS has electronic analysis tools that were unheard of
in the early 1980s. The USFS has the ability to map various forest
resources using GIS based on satellite imagery or other forest data.
Such maps allow managers and the public to visualize the spatial
arrangement of a multitude of forest resources, from goshawk nesting
habitat to stands at risk from insect outbreaks. These tools vastly
improve the ability of the Forest Service to analyze and disclose
effects.
PAST EVENTS AND CURRENT CONDITIONS IMPEDING FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS
The previous discussion concerning all the excellent tools
available to managers suggests that (1) planning at both forest and
project levels should be inexpensive, (2) decisions should be
defensible against appeals and litigation, and (3) decisions should
have wide public support. Obviously, that's not the case. So, what has
gone wrong, and what factors impede the agency's ability to do more
efficient and defensible planning?
The laws that regulate Forest Service planning are the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the NFMA of 1976. NEPA and
NFMA have had some very positive impacts on the planning process,
including the following: (1) they brought the public into the decision
process, (2) they made the planning process transparent, (3) they made
the agency accountable, (4) they established a legitimate role for
wildlife and other resources, and (5) they mandated monitoring to
ensure that project outcomes matched project expectations.
If there's a shortcoming in NEPA and NFMA, it's that those laws are
very, very complex, expensive to administer, and difficult to meet.
Because of that complexity, those laws are very easy to challenge.
Special interest environmental groups have become extremely proficient
in demonstrating that many USFS projects do not comply with the minutia
of NEPA or NFMA. Think of it this way--a project that is 99 percent in
compliance with NEPA or NFMA will still lose in court, regardless of
its merits.
Another shortfall in NEPA or NFMA is that the requirements are
often out of proportion to the risk when conducting some simple,
routine ``no-brainer'' projects. For instance, a recent project in
Missoula's Wildland Urban Interface involved thinning approximately 260
acres of ponderosa pine. The stand had not burned in 85 years and was
within a landscape that historically burned every 15 years. The stand
stocking was roughly three times what the stand could support and was
at extreme risk to insect outbreaks and/or severe wildfire.
Furthermore, it was adjacent to and upwind of a high-density housing
area. The science and economic analysis indicated that commercial
thinning followed by prescribed burning could restore the stand and
protect homes in the area. Unfortunately, NEPA and NFMA requirements
mandate a costly analysis and monitoring plan to ensure that such
projects can survive court challenges. In this case, the project was
litigated and upheld by the courts. Unfortunately, the cost to
taxpayers was many times greater than it should have been, based on the
project's simplicity. Clearly some aspects of NEPA and NFMA need
adjustments to make planning decisions more efficient and less costly
to taxpayers.
During our review of the last four Forest Plans in South Dakota,
Wyoming, and Montana, ERG staff have identified an unsettling pattern
in forest planning. Here's what we've observed: (1) Forest Planning
Teams typically evaluate the disturbance ecology and objectively
calculate the levels of disturbance needed via logging and/or
prescribed burning to sustain healthy forests; (2) then, they compare
that level of disturbance either against what budget levels they have
received or are likely to receive in the future or against the amount
of contention they expect from the environmental community; and (3)
they do one of two things--they artificially limit the alternatives to
what they expect will be, funded, or they reduce the outputs to a level
that they subjectively feel won't warrant a challenge from
environmental groups. In two of the four forest plans reviewed by ERG,
the Forests then ``bent'' or deliberately misinterpreted the science to
justify why such a reduction in outputs was scientifically justified.
ERG understands the approach taken by planning teams. The teams are
aware that, regardless of how much treatment is needed, the money
required won't be forthcoming. They are also aware that the NEPA and
NFMA litigation costs will likely exceed the expected project benefits,
and regardless of what they do, they'll be in a constant battle with
the environmental community. Modern forest planning is not an easy
task.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THE BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST
ERG's review of the BDNF Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and Draft Forest Plan had similar findings to the four other
national forests plans we critiqued:
1. The BDNF can be characterized as having outstanding wilderness
and roadless areas, blue ribbon trout fishing streams, and some of the
best elk hunting in the country. Categorically, the BDNF is not a ``big
timber forest'' like the Idaho Panhandle National Forest.
2. The Forest's ecological analysis showed that the BDNF timber
stands have been strongly influenced by wildfires and insect outbreaks.
That analysis also concluded that those stands are older and denser
than they were historically, and are substantially more at risk of
higher-than-normal levels of severe fires and insect outbreaks. These
changes are the result of fire suppression. Timber harvest did not
occur at a scale great enough to offset the impacts of fire
suppression.
3. To put that finding in context, the 1986-1987 Beaverhead and
Deerlodge plans allowed for -36 MMBF (million board feet) of timber
harvest per year, albeit substantially less harvest than actually was
accomplished. Also, under the old Plan, the Forest has carried out some
prescribed burning, mostly on non-forested sites. While that seems like
a moderate amount of disturbance, the Forest's stands have continued to
get older, denser, and are more at risk to higher-than-normal levels of
severe fires and insect outbreaks. As a result, we expected that at
least one alternative in the DEIS would have be designed to introduce
enough logging and prescribed burning to reduce age class and stand
densities to historic levels. No such alternative was presented.
4. Instead, the ``expected output'' (that amount of timber expected
to be sold per year) was disclosed by the five alternatives as 9, 9,
0.5, 15.7, and 9 MMBF. That's a 75 percent reduction from the 1986
Plan's timber output, and an inadequate range of alternatives as
mandated by NEPA. The current range of alternatives appear to violate
NFMA by being in direct conflict with Section 219.12(e), which states
in part, ``As a minimum [emphasis ours], the analysis of the management
situation shall include the following: (1) Benchmark analyses to define
the range within which alternatives can be constructed. Budgets shall
not be a constraint [emphasis ours].'' More importantly, those
anticipated levels of disturbance come nowhere close to what is needed
to keep forests from further aging, and succumbing to increasingly
severe fires and insect outbreaks. The 9 MMBF figure used in three of
the five alternatives was cited as the harvest volume best representing
the timber that could be sold, based upon the dollars likely available
to do the necessary NEPA analyses, timber sale contracts, and
administration. Thus, the 9 MMBF was used as a budget-driven
constraint, although it had nothing to do with modeled vegetation
management needs.
5. Management ignited fire (prescribed burning) and wildland fire
use (wildfires that are allowed to burn when conditions are within a
pre-established set of prescriptions) are disclosed in the DEIS as the
management actions that will keep forests healthy, improve age class
diversity, restore stands of aspen, sustain big game winter ranges, and
reduce the severity of wildfires and insect outbreaks. We question the
social and economic reality of this approach. Monies for performing
prescribed burning planning and ignition have been no more abundant
than timber preparation dollars. To the BDNF's credit, USFS staff has
completed much needed prescribed burning on grasslands, in grass/
shrublands, and within open, Douglas-fir communities. Most of the
BDNF's stands, however, are dense, lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine
forests only bum under fairly volatile conditions. If the BDNF is
serious about its intent to utilize prescribed burning to recruit aspen
and achieve better age class diversity from within lodgepole pine
forests, Forest staff would be igniting lodgepole pine forests on a
windy, 80 degree September day. This is not a likely or reasonable
scenario. To assume that wildfires could be allowed to burn under
``wildland fire use'' is equally unlikely. The harsh reality of this
strategy is that budgets for prescribed burning project design and
ignition have remained flat, just like timber preparation budgets.
Additionally, the agency has shown no willingness to allow managers to
take substantial risks during burning. In fact, the opposite is true.
Recent litigation has reduced the agency's willingness to take risks
during prescribed burning. In summary, the DEIS's reliance on burning
can best be described as ``wishful thinking.''
6. Prior to Forest Plan revision, the BDNF conducted landscape-
scale analyses for all major watersheds under the agency's direction to
conduct ``watershed analyses at the landscape scale'' (EWAS). Those
EWAS analyses not only were based on an excellent understanding of the
disturbance ecology, but also recognized the social values specific to
each landscape. Amazingly, the DEIS largely ignored those findings.
Restoration treatments recommended in Rock Creek were discounted as
being ``too controversial.'' Treatments recommended in other landscapes
were disregarded as they were above and beyond the anticipated timber
preparation budgets.
7. The BDNF has failed to address the local economic effects of
substantially reducing the acreage of suitable timber. Also lacking are
the economic cost tradeoffs of suppressing increasingly large and
intensive wildfires resulting from denser and older forests.
8. Private lands and local communities are increasingly at risk
from catastrophic wildfire; this risk stems from a management
philosophy that relies dominantly on fire as the principle disturbance
tool, up to the Forest boundary, in some cases.
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOREST PLANNING?
1. Anchor to Science
Sound science will provide a strong and defensible rationale for
accounting for the needs of the Forest, its diversity and structure,
and the dynamics necessary to keep the forest within its HRV. Once
science has characterized the forest, social and economic goals and
realities can necessarily influence how the Forest will be managed to
achieve ecosystem objectives.
2. Maintain Working Landscapes
Always manage the Forest in the context of larger working
landscapes. In many cases, the Forest has a narrow range of habitat
variability compared to the larger landscape. Holistic decisions
regarding the Forest will positively affect the future of adjacent
lands that leverage the natural resource values of a larger ecosystem.
Conservation biologists are increasingly voicing their concern that
conversion of private open lands is especially significant in reducing
indigenous biodiversity (Knight, 1999). The USFS forest planning
process must give great consideration and evaluation to what positive
and negative impacts these plans have on adjacent communities and their
human ecosystems. At the 2003 National Society for Range Management
meeting, a USFS employee wrote, ``The emphasis of local ranches that
hold public land grazing permits has changed over time from a locally
dependant livestock industry to important sources of open space and
habitat to maintain biological diversity in the rapidly developing
mountain West'' (Bradford, 2003).
Forests that maintain both a flow of economically important goods
and opportunities result in vibrant local communities. Stewardship
contracting can improve the benefits to local communities while
providing a funding mechanism to accomplish projects. A complete
economic assessment of tradeoffs in management alternatives, such as
funding an active timber management program compared to fighting larger
and more intense wildfires, can be the basis of minimizing taxpayer
costs. As demand among competing and often diverse interests for scarce
forest resources rises, land managers are required to justify how such
resources are allocated and to whom costs and benefits will accrue. For
example, in the case of roadless area designations vs. timber
allocation, the Forest Service is required to decide upon mutually
exclusive outcomes. In both cases, social, economic, and ecological
ramifications will result in an array of costs and benefits over time.
Determining the most optimal solution, based on a well-defined set of
objectives, necessitates understanding the relationship between
resources, total costs and benefits, opportunity costs of making such
decisions, and a profound understanding of how resources are affected.
Economic analysis provides an objective approach to help land
managers make effective decisions about resource allocation, regardless
of land management objectives. Such analysis is essential to making
decisions and, moreover, justifying those decisions to community
groups. Economic analysis can be used to provide the following:
Systematic and objective analysis of economic effects on industry
and communities;
Market values and revenue potential for forest products and non-
timber forest products (NTFPs);
Supply and demand analysis of markets;
Opportunity costs used to evaluate tradeoffs among objectives, and,
more importantly, the value of USFS planning alternatives;
Values of non-market goods and services, including wildlife,
recreation, old growth forests, and wilderness areas; and
Long-term assessment of fire management programs, including risk
and expected outcomes.
3. Focus on Landscape-Scale Treatments and Forest Restoration
Past vegetation projects have often created fragmentation and
excess roads that resulted from small patches connected by permanent
roads. Science has documented that disturbance in many of the dominant
tree cover types common to Montana occurred in large, infrequent
events. Future projects should mimic the scale and intensity of
disturbances that the forest has incurred historically. Returning to
old treatment areas to restore naturally-sized patches and subsequently
reducing unnecessary roads can be economically viable and beneficial to
ecosystem restoration goals. Such reentries, driven by vegetative
restoration, can fund other needed restoration activity that otherwise
would be dependent on appropriated funding. Future projects should be
designed to mimic natural patch sizes, minimize new permanent roads and
be implemented at the landscape scale.
4. Provide Strong National Planning Leadership
Implementation of Forest Plans has been stifled by legal challenges
by a minority. Such challenges are often successful because of
inadequate Forest Plan analysis or documentation. Projects designed to
implement Forest Plans are impeded by tiering off of inadequate Plans.
The National and Regional offices can assist the Forests by providing
strong, legally defensible direction regarding NEPA, NFMA, and
Threatened and Endangered and Sensitive species that utilizes the
expertise and experience of the Office of General Counsel. Emphasis
should be on avoiding fatal flaws that provide the basis for successful
legal challenges to Forest Plan implementation.
SOME COMMON INFORMATION WE NEED TO CONSIDER:
As a result of nearly a century of fire exclusion, and timber
harvests that have not kept up with growth, forests are generally older
and denser than they were in the past.
In addition, long-term drought and global warming make inevitable
wildfires and insect outbreaks occur at larger-than-normal and of
higher-severity-than-normal levels.
Aggressive management to reduce forest stocking can soften but not
avoid those events.
The United States suffers from a severe trade imbalance. In the
1970s the United States was a timber exporter. Currently, the United
States is a timber importer. Thus, we import timber from countries with
poor environmental standards, while watching our own timber die from
wildfires or insects, and then we make little effort to salvage the
value from those dead trees. The logic escapes us!
Senator Burns. Thank you. You and I need to have a cup of
coffee. You've done some great work down there. As we end up
the formal part of the witnesses today, I've got a couple of
questions I want to ask. I'll start with you, Mike.
Back in the early 1990s we started to look at the new
technologies that were coming down as far as telecommunications
were concerned. There was a technology out there called
digital, and we were trying to deal with all these new things
happening, not only in communications but in information
services and this type of thing, and trying to deal with them
with a 1935 law. I think I made a speech where digital is going
to take away our ability to delineate or to tell the difference
or any characteristics whether it's AM or FM radio, whether
it's data voice or video or anything like that, but we will be
talking about that band width.
Are we talking about something simpler by your statement
today as far as when we look at the National Forest Management
Act and NEPA? Are we looking at something that's 25 and 30
years old that maybe should be looked at again because we're
trying to deal with today's challenges with a law that's not
outlasted its usefulness but has to be changed to deal with the
times?
Mr. Hillis. Let me start by saying that I think there's
aspects of NEPA and NFMA that are wonderful: Public
involvement, mandated values for scenery and wildlife and
things like that. But keep in mind that those laws were written
when the goal of timber harvest was to optimize timber yield
for communities, period. Okay, that's, 29 and 36 years old.
Today timber harvest is done under three basic principles:
It's done to mimic historic disturbances whether that be fire
or insects or whatever. It's done to mimic the scale at which
those disturbances occur, so that it looks pretty good. It
makes more money. It's cheaper, and it's done largely with less
reliance on permanent roads. So basically, the whole game plan
has changed in terms of how we use science, how we use social
values and economic values to adjust all of that.
I'd say don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Keep
those aspects that make good sense, but recognize that the game
has changed, and there are aspects that make much better sense
today. If we can recognize the past and that's part of our
history, but also recognize where we need to go using the best
science, maybe we can get past some of this angst that we all
feel.
Senator Burns. I agree with you, you don't throw the baby
out with the bath water. The other day we threw the baby out
and kept the bath water. Congress has a habit of doing some of
those kinds of things. We operate in 17 square miles of logic-
free environment. We have quite a challenge.
Chief, the reason I brought up the Beaverhead-Deerlodge is
because of the drastic changes of the ASQ and the wilderness
designation, and down there that you're going through the
process now that whenever you have moves like that, that's a
huge move.
What's the problem there? Are we using a different kind of
method to analyze how we select what should be designated as
timber harvest or wilderness or whatever? Or, did we change in
the middle of the process to where these numbers would be
drastically changed?
Mr. Bosworth. I think in some degree we're comparing apples
with oranges. The old plan had an allowable sale quantity of
approximately 43 million board feet, something like that.
Throughout the life that's an upper limit. You get an allowable
sale quantity and there's an upper limit for all the forest
plans.
The last several years the average timber harvest on the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge was in the vicinity of 9, 10, 15 million
board feet, somewhere in that vicinity.
Under their proposed plan, they would still be offering
approximately that amount, that number would not be an upper
limit. That number would take into consideration the needs of
the land, the expected budgets, the amount of land where timber
harvest would be needed. There wouldn't be anything that would
prevent an increase in that amount other than budgets.
So what they're trying to do is they're trying to come out
with a forest plan that would explain to people how much timber
they would expect over the next several years, taking all these
things into account that they would be offering, and that
number is in the vicinity of 9 to 10 million board feet again,
comparing that with the 43 million would be comparing it with a
different number.
Senator Burns. In other words, are you trying to tell me
that even though we're recommending this lower number, that
does not create a ceiling on how much timber will be available?
Mr. Bosworth. That number is not an allowable sale quantity
number. An allowable quantity sale number is the ceiling.
Senator Burns. It's just like if you designate so many
acres, though, that we manage as wilderness, are you saying
there could be less or could be more?
Mr. Bosworth. I think under the proposed plan there's an
increased recommendation for wilderness, approximately--I think
the number is about 6.5 percent of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest right now is in wilderness. Under this proposed
plan I believe it would move up to about 13 percent of the
total forest in wilderness under that recommendation.
Again, they just went through a process for public
comments. They've got a significant number of comments. Now,
we're going to evaluate those comments, and we'll be making
some adjustments to that proposed forest plan. So that's how we
try to work this to make sure we hear what people are saying,
come out with something that people can get their teeth into
and give us their comments, and we'll make some adjustments.
Senator Burns. Mr. Anderson, you're a part of a coalition
of lumber companies that are concerned about the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge forest down there, and I think you went as far as you
hired a private consultant to review the Forest Services' work;
is that correct?
Mr. Anderson. That's correct.
Senator Burns. Did you get that report? Have you had that
report yet?
Mr. Anderson. We have received it, yes.
Senator Burns. Can you give us some kind of an idea of what
that report looks like?
Mr. Anderson. I covered parts of it in my testimony and, of
course, my written testimony covers it in more depth. But some
of the facets that have been discussed here already, and that
is the ASQ, are not addressed in the proposed plan. So from a
timber company standpoint, what do we have to look forward to?
In listening to John, I was kind of throwing some numbers
together in my head, because he's saying that they have 4
percent of the national forest. I'm saying that we get 4
percent, so I'm not sure where the other 92 percent is going. I
was kind of gratified when Russ said they got 40 percent. All
we got to find is another 50 some percent.
But at any rate, back to your question. What we found, of
course, were numerous things in the plan that were just riddle
full of holes so to speak. We submitted our comments, and we're
hoping that they take those into consideration seriously and
look at revising their plan to what we feel makes more sense.
Senator Burns. Mr. Keegan, I have to ask you a question. As
a Forest Service, have they put enough sales just to kind of
keep up with the mortality that we have in the rate share in
Montana?
Mr. Keegan. Senator, I don't have the State inventory
figures with me today, but certainly----
Senator Burns. Do you have those figures somewhere?
Mr. Keegan. I do have those figures. I can provide them. I
can provide them to you for the State of Montana. I guess I
will be glad to talk to the Region 1 Forest Service folks and
discuss that.
It's clear from the State level inventory that, at least
there is an excess of--and the Chief can agree or disagree if
he has different information--but it's clear that that's an
excess of growth over removals and very high levels of
mortality on national forest lands in Montana.
Senator Burns. Whenever you look--when you're coming over
Homestake Pass and you look off to your left, if you're going
toward Butte, and you see all of that bug kill out there, I
think that's what gets my notice more than anything else. Is
there a way we can deal with pine bark beetle, Chief?
Mr. Bosworth. There's lots of ways to deal with pine bark
beetles. One is to get out ahead of it and make sure that we've
got the right stocking so that when bark beetles attack, the
trees are more resilient to bark beetles. Remember now that
bark beetles are a natural, native insect. It's just that
they're reacting in an unnatural condition, which is too many
trees. We have a number of acres in the State as well as around
the West that are attacked by bark beetle.
There again, we have tools that we can use. The problem
isn't the science. The problem is being able to get out and get
the job done and withstand all of the appeals and the
litigation and finally being able to do that.
Senator Burns. John, you know, you kind of work on the
other side of this thing and you see what's happening out
there. How would you deal with this pine bark beetle?
Mr. Gatchell. Well, the Butte District had a sale that we
supported through that very area that you're talking about.
It's difficult, so we've been supportive of dealing with that.
Part of it, I think, is being able to look across this
landscape and start building some new partnerships that allow
us to be supportive of projects like that, so that there isn't
as much process involved, so that we have some clarity about
the fact that some of these lands are going to be managed for
timber values and the forests are just going to move in that--
--
Senator Burns. But how would you deal with that bug, that's
what I'm asking.
Mr. Gatchell. Tie them up actually and use them in the
North Fork for cutthroats; they're pretty good.
Senator Burns. Specifically, if we get the science out here
and the Chief has the tools to deal with pine bark beetles--and
I think we're in a crisis in this forest. You drive up here in
northwestern Montana, up in the Yak, and it's terrible. If
they've got the tools--and it's my understanding the only way
you deal with the pine bark beetle--now granted, we had an
increase in pine bark because we had drought. I understand they
had sick trees, that's been stretched. The only way we've got
to deal with that bug is get those trees out of there. Do you
support that?
Mr. Gatchell. Do I support cutting trees? We have supported
numerous projects that involve doing that. I think there's also
a climate factor. If you look at the science, you'll see that
the warmer winters are really having a big affect, that's one
of the reasons you're seeing so much of this.
Senator Burns. What we've got to do is deal with the
affect, and I don't want to deal with the symptom. I want to
deal with the bug. To resolve that, what I'm asking these two
communities together is to come together in some way. He has
the tools and recommendations and of a way to deal with it,
then I think that's where we really need you to intervene with
the Forest Service to make sure it gets done.
Mr. Gatchell. May I speak to that, Senator? An example was
a project actually in Rock Creek, there was some discussion
with Rock Creek. I understand from the district ranger she's
offering a contract now on a sale that involves thinning
without building roads and included four inventoried roadless
areas. We're hoping to help showcase that as a model of what
could be done to deal with situations where you've got crowded
trees from fire suppression, and we did intervene with the
Forest Service.
Senator Burns. I'm a great believer, you know, God does a
pretty good job, as a rule, of running and taking care of his
acres out there, but every now and again he needs a little
help. We have this lawsuit over categorical exclusions that
shutdown a lot of things going on. Can you give us an idea,
Chief, on the use of categorical exclusions by the Forest
Service and how that's impacted you on forest stewardship and
what you want to do as far as forest health is concerned.
Mr. Bosworth. It's a significant impact. We use categorical
exclusions in places where we've gone out and developed a rule
and projects we believe will have a minimum amount of affect on
the environment. The purpose is to be able to make quick
decisions and get out and move with those.
Under that decision, under that court decision, we have to
go back out with those comments and appeal for those very small
projects, that adds probably 130 to 135 days to the process,
something like that. Ninety projects in Montana would be
affected by that.
That means in some cases that the project will never
happen, because it just takes longer, and it also takes more
documentation, a bigger file, that takes peoples' time to get
all that documentation in place to deal with the appeals. So
you end up with a number of projects that either don't get
done, or by the time they do get done, the insects have moved
much further.
In some cases the delay of 130 days may be more like a 6-
month delay because you go through the winter and you can't get
back out there until the springtime. So there's a variety of
effects that are caused.
I'd like to add just one thing that Mike Hillis was talking
about a little bit, and it has to do with the overall NEPA and
NFMA, as he was saying, that these were developed in a
different time. They were developed during a period when we in
the Forest Service were focusing on extraction of natural
resources, and those laws were established to either mitigate
for those effects or to slow down the extraction process.
Today we're in an era of restoration, trying to restore
these ecosystems. The very same laws that slowed down the
extraction slow down the restoration process. In many cases, we
don't get the restoration work done that we need to have out on
the land.
Even though we work in a collaborative approach today,
organizations like Montana Wilderness Association will work
with us as well as the timber industry and in many cases come
up with a proposal, but we still get litigated by other
organizations. So even though many of us can work together, we
still go through litigation and don't get these things done.
Senator Burns. Well, I'm glad we have both of you on the
advisory committee when we start revising and reforming these
two acts. But I agree with you. I agree with you. I don't know
exactly how we should approach that, but you know, it's a funny
thing about law, and it's a funny thing about policy, it's a
double bladed axe. It cuts both ways. Some way or other we've
got to get by that it just seems like to me and to work hard on
that.
Mr. Keegan, I had another question for you, and I lost it.
Did you want to make a comment on those laws? That would be
kind of interesting.
Mr. Keegan. What I will comment on is a concern that Dr.
Carl Fiedler from the College of Forestry and Conservation and
I have had in our work. Most of the work that we've done on
restoration, that I have done on the financial end of it--the
economic end, has come from Dr. Carl Fiedler, and it echoes a
lot of what we have seen and heard here today. And that is,
there is a great opportunity out there both with forest
conditions to generate dollars to pay for the improvement of
those forest conditions and generate employment, but that's not
being taken advantage of because there are certain individuals,
and limited number of individuals and groups that will oppose
any project that produces a commercial product.
Many of the prescriptions to deal with these forest
conditions by necessity require removing material that has
commercial value, 8 to 20 inch diameter douglas fir trees, for
example, that pay for the prescription.
So that offers a great opportunity not only to do more
treatments and generate revenue but generate employment. But
there are groups that are litigating virtually every project
that has a commercial output and either stopping the project or
causing some of the modifications in projects to eliminate
projects and make them actually less effective because they are
not doing a full comprehensive prescription.
Senator Burns. Russ, it just seems like to me when we
looked at all the forests in restricting motorized travel in
some areas that some of your roads were shut down. They're
trying to compact or concentrate motorized travel in some areas
where I think it would probably have more damage and ecological
damage to the land than if it's spread over a large area. Is
that a wrong assumption?
Mr. Ehnes. No, actually that's exactly true. Dispersing
recreation is definitely the key to sustaining, along with
active management. But just concentrating those uses into
smaller and smaller areas certainly concentrates those impacts
as well.
Erosion or damage to trails is like pollution in that the
solution to pollution is dilution. That is also true with use,
spread the impacts over a wider area.
Senator Burns. How do you make those decisions, Chief, on
these motorized things?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, the----
Senator Burns. I tell you what. The reason I ask you that,
as you move from forest to forest and even ranger station to
ranger station, different methodologies are used to make a
decision. How do we standardize that to get some consistency
when we start the debate on motorized versus no motorized?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, for one thing we just recently came up
with the final rule for travel management. That's part of the
purpose of that rule, was to have more consistency around the
whole country in terms of the way we approach travel planning
and off-road vehicle use.
This rule will be in effect in December, here in a couple
of weeks. I can't remember the exact date. The expectation is
that the forests now will be working with the community of
interest to designate which roads and trails are appropriate
for motorized vehicle use. Of course, that would be within the
context of forest plans. It's a great collaborative approach.
What we really want to have is a series--system of roads
and trails where people with motorized vehicle recreation
desires can go out and have a good experience. We also want to
have it so that the land is in good condition, so that the next
generation of people can also go out and have similar kinds of
experiences.
So now it's a hard job for the forest at the local level
working with the motorized user community as well as the
environmental community or the folks that prefer to backpack
and work together and figure out which trails and which roads--
or which new ones we should be putting in.
We don't have a lot of dollars for adding new trails, but
we have a lot of partnerships. The motorized vehicle community
is very willing to try to help us even constructing and
maintaining roads and trails for motorized use.
I think once we get it figured out, trying to find that
balance of where we can have those motorized roads and trails,
I think that we'll be able to sustain that, and we can provide
the kind of experience that people would like to have.
Senator Burns. I'm just afraid if you concentrate, you keep
closing up and you keep concentrating, your impact on that land
will be much greater than if we were more dispersed.
Mr. Bosworth. There's no question that if you limit,
significantly limit, the number of places where people can go--
if you had one trail for all the users, then we've got one
trail that would just get beat to heck.
If you have 10 trails then they're probably going to have
only 10 percent of the use on each individual trail. So we do
need to have an adequate system of trails for people to go. We
also need to have an adequate system of trails for people who
don't use motorized vehicles, that like too backpack, for them
to go. It's making sure we have the right balance out there for
people to have that opportunity.
Senator Burns. Concentrating that you have to start putting
up traffic lights. Do you need some more money? Are you
requesting more money to manage your recreation resources in
the national forests? Have we had a switch in the request of
funds as you go through this process of forest products,
recreation?
Mr. Bosworth. We're--with the----
Senator Burns. Let's find out what to look for here in this
next request.
Mr. Bosworth. I'll take a hard look at it, because under
this budget climate the conditions, as you well know, dollars
are difficult right now. We are trying to find more creative
ways of being able to get the dollars to do the job.
When I say creative ways, we would use other kinds of
dollars appropriated, like some wildlife habitat dollars,
watershed improvement dollars to help us figure out which road
and trails in that system, because it doesn't all come from
recreation dollars, that's what I'm saying.
By doing a good job of management you improve the water
quality, improve the habitat for wildlife by controlling and
managing and having a good adequate system. So the answer to
that is we're trying to find other ways to be able to--as well
as working in partnership--to be able to do the job that needs
to be done for travel management.
Senator Burns. Do you want to respond to that, John? You
look like you've picked up a little interest here.
Mr. Gatchell. Thank you, Senator. Two things: One is that
when it comes to weeds and user impact, user conflicts,
conflicts with traditional uses not only backpackers, hikers
but people on horse back--and I will give you the science on
this, of Montana trail users spreading impacts over a larger
area is not a good solution. I do agree with Russ that we need
sensible limits. We need responsible limits and good
management.
But spreading those into larger areas that have
traditionally not been motorized use areas, where we have foot
and horse trails, would be very destructive for other uses and
other issues.
Second, I think that as we look at budgets, it just kind of
hits you over the head that the Forest Service is not budgeted
to maintain a fraction of the road system that's been built,
that we have new technologies today.
One of the answers here is to start thinking--and we
supported a bill several years ago--believe it or not, we
supported a bill by the Trail Vehicle Riders that gave the
forest supervisor authority to allow vehicles on Forest Service
roads.
All-terrain vehicles never belonged on our pack and saddle
trails. They don't fit on them. They're not a traditional or
historic use. We supported that bill because we do agree that
they should have somewhere to go.
I think that you might think about funding a program that
may be a pilot of converting roads to trails, not only for that
use but also bicycles, because there's a tremendous demand for
trails in this State, and they're cheaper to maintain.
That doesn't necessarily mean that we're turning those
lands, taking them out of the timber base, because we have
different means of doing that. So I think that's one way to
expand the pie so we all don't end up fighting over the same
ground.
Senator Burns. You say road to trails, I've got to tell
you--remember when we did Roads to Trails? You know, everybody
said we're so bad. It's unbelievable. Do you know who did that?
It was done in the highway conference, Transportation
conference bill, it was Steve Symms and I that got that pushed
through Congress.
I think it's been a pretty successful program. I support
some of those programs. I want to maintain the infrastructure
of a road system in the forest that allows us to do other
things other than just timber harvest.
I happen to look at the forest as a renewable resource. I
don't think it's any different than a corn field in Iowa or
grass in eastern Montana. It's renewable. They grow, and they
produce and they die. We harvest and we take care of the soil,
and we go for another crop. That's one of the great things
about this State is the ability for renewables, and
economically it makes no sense to lose more trees every year,
more than we're actually harvesting in all of our forests. That
would basically do two things: It would make the forest more
healthy and more productive and more recreation to enjoy. When
you think about that, that's kind of a win/win for everybody.
We get down to that.
I've about run out of questions. I'm going to follow up and
have a cup of coffee with Mike Hillis. I want to help him
rewrite these laws. I think we have multiple users here today
that listen to you. From this we can get some collaborative
thoughts.
But I think the Forest Service--and as good as the Chief
is, the problem I see in the Forest Service you've got people
within the service that have different agendas where basically
they should all be going in the same direction, and that's our
biggest problem, I think, whenever we start putting the policy
on the ground.
I realize it's hard to control staff. I know I have a hard
time at it. But I'm telling you, there should be one philosophy
and everybody should be working toward that philosophy. I
really believe that today.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND LETTERS
Am I forgetting anything? We appreciate--and anybody else
that wants to make a comment and make it part of the record,
we'll sure do that. Then you may have some questions from the
rest of the members of the committee.
Those of you who are here today, if you could respond to
those questions to the individual Senators and to the
committee, I would be most appreciative. This record will be
kept open until December 16.
Where you signed in the address is where you send your
comments and so that we can take a look at them.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Wehr, Deerlodge, MT
Senator Conrad Burns: I attended the field hearing in Missoula MT,
on Dec. 2, 2005.
I started a round woods products business 21 years ago. Wehr's Post
and Pole and Whispering Pines Pole Co. LLC.
I am writing you concerning the round wood industry in region 1. We
who work in the round wood industry are the people who produce the
fence rails and posts for most of the western United States. In the
Philipsburg Ranger District we have seen a decline from a yearly
average of 20 to 30 round wood thinning timber sale contracts, to just
4 sales in the last 3 years.
In the last 4 years in Granite Co. we have lost 2 pole yards. With
a loss of jobs and revenue in our local economy.
Post and pole sales have never been contested by the environmental
community. The Forest Service cites budget constraints as the reason.
But yet the sale of post and pole sales generates revenue for the
Forest Service District.
The Forest Service use to pay people to thin the type of timber
that we now pay them to thin.
The work that we in the round wood industry do is exactly what the
Forest Service says needs to be done we reduce the fuel load and create
a more vigorous and healthy forest. Its a win win for our forests and
our communities.
I would like to see mandates given to the Forest Service as to
quantity of saw timber as well as round wood timber that must be put up
for sale in a given district every year. With this would have to
accompany a revision of the appeals process.
______
Prepared Statement of David Cronenwett, Dillon, MT
Senator Burns: I am writing to encourage the conservation of
Montana's roadless lands as Recommended Wilderness through the Forest
Planning effort, that is taking place on several National Forests
around the state.
I would like to know what specifically is driving your thrust to
undo wilderness protections for Montana's de facto wildlands. Clearly
our high quality of life, hunting-fishing-outdoor heritage and overall
economy are sustained by these mostly intact ecosystems.
It is no secret that the motorized recreation industry is pushing
to disallow any and all restrictions to manage ATV, snowmachine and
other such recreation on public lands. They don't suggest how the
American people will pay for noxious weed control, wildlife harassment,
ruined hunting and camping trips and safety issues that are directly
tied to the use of these machines in the backcountry.
Timber can be sustainably managed on already roaded landscapes
throughout Montana. While there is a place for motorized recreation on
public lands, it is inconceivable for many of us as to why you would
help undo wilderness protections which would essentially allow and
encourage motorized use in the backcountry.
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest is a magnet for ATVs and other such
recreation. The Preferred Alternative of the forest plan strives to
bring some balance to the area by recommending and enforcing wilderness
management in several landscapes. While this is a great start for quiet
recreation, water quality, and native flora and fauna, it doesn't go
far enough by a long shot. Alternative 5 only recommends 250,000 acres
out of a possible 1.9 million on the B Bar D.
There are plenty of places one can drive to in the United States,
not many where you can hunt elk on a two week pack trip. I therefore
request that you support such Wilderness Recommendations being proposed
in forest planning around the state, BUT ESPECIALLY ON THE BEAVERHEAD-
DEERLODGE. Such designation has a long and revered history in our
nation; it did not simply pop out of nowhere to ruin rural economies.
All of the data points out that protected lands do just the opposite:
they sustain water quality, biodiversity and a high quality of life for
the human community. Wilderness is, in fact and in law, A PART OF THE
SPECTRUM OF MULTIPLE USE.
______
Prepared Statement of Roger Sherman, Whitefish, MT
Senator Burns: Today Montana has over 90,000 miles of roads and
only 3.7 percent of our beautiful state is actually protected as
wilderness. Our neighboring states enjoy larger percentages of
protected wilderness and many have recently passed wilderness bills in
a non-partisan cooperation. If we don't protect some our quiet,
beautiful places now our children will lose it forever and I want my
grandchildren to have quiet wilderness experiences in my special places
of the Whitefish range and Cabinet Mountains.
Our valleys are filling with development as Montana grows. We here
in the Flathead are experiencing tremendous growth.
ATVs and other motorized vehicles belong on roads not horse and
hiking trails. Please support the National Assoc. of Counties and call
for the Forest Service to ``expedite'' plans to set responsible limits
on ORV traffic, to prevent the spread of noxious weeds, user conflicts
and resource damage.
Please forgo polarizing politics and provide a new strong
leadership by bringing people together with creative solutions. The
original concept of Multiple Use included a good percentage of
wilderness. Wilderness is not a BAD word, the bible uses it.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Klaus H. Gump, Big Sky, MT
Senator Burns: We are very blessed to live in this wonderful State
Montana. But we need to keep it in the way we all appreciate it and
love it so dearly.
One of our greatest treasures is the wilderness in our State. When
it is destroyed it cannot be rebuild. I urge you to do your utmost to
preserve the wilderness in our State.
--Less than 4 percent of Montana is protected wilderness--our
neighboring stated enjoy higher percentages of wilderness.
--We have sufficient roads in our national forests. Let's leave the
forests wild and as habitat for wildlife, like bears, elks,
etc. They were there first--and they need their habitat.
--Please do your utmost to protect the wilderness and the National
Forests in our State. Let's pass it on to our and your children
as a protected area. Preservation of wilderness is a commitment
for the future. You need to protect this commitment!
--ATV and other motorized vehicles belong on roads not on quiet
mountain trails. ATVs ruin nature for ever. No vegetations will
ever grow back in the areas destroyed by ATVs.
I hope this letter answers your questions and you will be a
champion and leader in the protection of our great State of Montana.
______
Prepared Statement of Linda Sentz, Choteau, MT
Senator Burns: It's my understanding that you want to hear from
Montanans about wilderness and wild places. Please consider my
sentiments below.
--People go to the mountains to find peace and quiet and open spaces
free from the noise of ``civilization.'' This is a legacy that
most Americans want to pass on to our kids and grandkids.
--Montana already has 30,000 miles of roads on national forest lands.
Less than 4 percent of Montana is actually designated as
wilderness. Montanans and Americans want our heritage of open
spaces to be protected for future generations.
--Wilderness and non-motorized wild country IS multiple use.
--Four-wheelers and dirtbikes belong on roads, not on traditional
horse and hiker trails in the mountains. You should support the
National Association of Counties' request that the Forest
Service expedite travel plans that require responsible limits
on off-road vehicles, to prevent landscape damage and the
spread of noxious weeds.
--Americans want their political leaders to provide strong leadership
to protect our public lands, and not play politics that
polarize. We need to come together to solve these problems, and
we can do it.
--Let's keep our treasured public lands public. And let's protect
Montana's finest wild country and quiet mountain trails on
national forests for traditional recreation.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Claire Baiz, Tom Baiz, Samantha Baiz, and Asa
Baiz, Great Falls, MT
Senator Burns: As a native and lifelong Montanan, I am concerned
about your questions regarding Montana's wilderness.
Our wilderness legacy is a priceless heritage for our children.
It's also a big reason people move to Montana: the open spaces are a
deep attraction, even for those who never ``use'' them. Without our
wilderness, we'd just be another parking lot waiting for development.
Your Senate bill (S. 1696) was passed despite federal plans to
recommend LESS wilderness. I applaud your co-sponsorship of S. 1696.
With less than 4 percent of Montana designated as wilderness, now is
the time to draw the line, for our children, for our recreation, and
even for our economy! Wilderness IS multiple use.
Please provide the leadership we need to preserve what's left of
our Montana wilderness.
Thank you for your time.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Vicki Watson, Missoula, MT
Senator Conrad Burns: I understand that you recently asked that
your constituents let you know what we think about keeping roadless
areas roadless vs building more roads into these areas. I feel that
only 4 percent of Montana is actually designated wilderness and that we
already have 30,000 miles on roads on our national forests. Hence we
need to protect the small amount of roadless area that remains. This
roadless land is serving many multiple uses. It supports hunting,
fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing and tourism. It provides key
ecosystem services like air and water purification, moderation of
flows, wildlife habitat, soil building and more.
These lands support the high quality of life here in Montana,
supporting our property values and giving our kids wholesome
recreation. These lands will not be improved by roads which spread
weeds, increase landslides and increase the incidence of human caused
fires. Let's fix the roads we have and not build more. Thank you for
listening.
______
Prepared Statement of Gregg Wheeler, Helena, MT
Senator Burns: I am writing to encourage you to use your leadership
to protect Montana's wilderness areas. Being able to use our state's
wilderness areas for non-motorized recreation--hiking, backpacking and
cross-country skiing--is an important reason why I and my family live
in Montana. Preserving this natural heritage is vital to maintaining
the water and wildlife resources we use throughout the state.
I urge you to seek and support legislation that will increase
Montana's wilderness areas and limit off-road vehicle use on mountain
trails.
______
Prepared Statement of Christian Frazza, Helena, MT
There is so little ``wilderness'' left compared to all the lands
being developed, with motorized access, or commercially exploited. We
need more, not less. ORVs and snowmobiles regularly go where they are
prohibited. For example, skiing at Stemple Pass, in one of the few
areas where motorized access is prohibited, I regularly meet them or
must ski trails torn up by them. As Helena grows it is ever harder to
find peace and quiet. Wilderness designation, far from ``limiting''
people's enjoyment of public lands, allows it and ensures that there is
somewhere left to enjoy away from roads and machinery.
______
Prepared Statement of Jan Tusick, Polson, MT
Senator Burns: I urge you to not to increase roads into our
roadless lands. We go to the mountains to find peace and quiet and open
spaces free from the noise of ``civilization.'' This is a legacy I want
my grandchildren to enjoy, not the legacy of torn up trails and noise
from ATV vehicles.
Montana already has 30,000 miles of roads on national forest lands.
Less than 4 percent of Montana is actually designated as wilderness.
Montanans and Americans want our heritage of open spaces to be
protected for future generations.
Wilderness and non-motorized wild country IS multiple use.
Four-wheelers and dirtbikes belong on roads, not on traditional
horse and hiker trails in the mountains. Sen. Burns should support the
National Association of Counties' request that the Forest Service
expedite travel plans that require responsible limits on off-road
vehicles, to prevent landscape damage and the spread of noxious weeds.
As an avid hunter I have experienced the damage off road vehicles
can do to trails. I also have experienced the intrusion of those
vehicles as I quietly walked through the woods to find my deer. Enough
is Enough--we need to protect what remaining lands we have. I urge you
to provide strong leadership to protect our public lands, and not give
in to the pressure from a loud minority. Look at Yellowstone and the
damage that has incurred from off road vehicles, what have we learned
from that overuse of a irreplaceable, valuable public land?
Let's keep our treasured public lands public. And let's protect
Montana's finest wild country and quiet mountain trails on national
forests for traditional recreation.
______
Prepared Statement of Craig Pablo, Pablo, MT
Dear Mr. Burns: In regards to your questions at the Senate
Oversight Hearing in Missoula on Dec. 2, I offer the following
comments:
1. The USFS recommends areas of Montana as wilderness to allow the
public to enjoy our state's natural beauty in a peaceful environment.
2. With over 30,000 miles of road already on our state's national
forests, wilderness and roadless areas are a small part of the multiple
use of our forests. MULTIPLE use includes people enjoying the forests
on foot or horseback not just passenger vehicles, ORVs etc.
3. Less than 4 percent of Montana is currently designated
wilderness, as a hunter, fisherman and outdoor recreationist I value
these wilderness areas to pursue my outdoor passions; hunting elk and
deer, flyfishing for trout and hiking.
4. I truly support multiple use of our national forests. I also
enjoy snowboarding on ski areas within our national forests and
snowmobiling/snowboarding the backcountry in these same forests. So Mr.
Burns I truly utilize these forests with multiple uses.
5. Lastly I would hope a man in your position would first realize
multiple use really means, the ability to enjoy our national forests on
foot free from vehicle noise and traffic, on a snowboard in a
designated ski area, on a snowmobile and snowboard in undesignated ski
areas and on a horse pursuing elk and deer.
6. I strongly urge you to take a stand using your position to bring
people together to protect our national forests rather than using
politics to polarize Montanans against each other. It's time for
Montanans and our politicians to join forces for a well thought out
solution that's agreeable to everyone and I hope the voters will voice
that strongly during the next election.
______
Prepared Statement of Jim and Mary Lou Soldano, Great Falls, MT
Senator Burns: In answer to your questions about non-motorized
areas of the forest and wilderness lands in Montana, I would like to
say that most people who use the forest do so to escape the hectic and
busy life that they lead in their daily life. If they wanted to hear
the exciting sounds of motor vehicles all that is necessary is to go
out and sit on their deck or front porch of their own residence
anywhere in the state. Camping in a campground along any highway in
Montana includes plenty of noise pollution. There are thousands of
miles of roads in the forest service lands where motor vehicles can
legally be used. There is no reason to ride them in off road areas.
Wilderness uses are part of multiple use! The recreation industries
generate many dollars and this revenue is renewable and sustainable
from year to year. The demand for wilderness experiences is growing
world wide and much of that demand ends up in Montana. The reason is
that Montana is the last place in the lower 48 that can provide this
experience. As one of our elected leaders you should provide leadership
in the efforts to protect the wilderness and the roadless lands that we
have left in this great state. Help safeguard our public land in
Montana. Thank you for your opposition to the Pembo rider to the budget
bill. Please help to eliminate it since it is very detrimental to our
state.
______
Prepared Statement of Fred J. Schwanemann, Missoula, MT
Senator Burns: I found the hearing on 12/2/05 in Missoula
educational and informative.
Thinking of trees as a renewable resource is good as long a
Tremendous Amount of Time until the next tree harvest is kept in mind.
Thinning can be a good academic way to increase forest tree
production. However, I believe cutting strips of trees through the
forest may be less expensive. The strip cutting does not look that
well, but might serve as a fire break.
If extraction and restoration are done commercially a tough
regulatory board will be needed to check it.
______
Prepared Statement of Adam Switalski, Missoula, MT
I am writing to comment on the Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula
on December 2nd. Senator Burns asked why the Forest Service recommends
areas of Montana wilderness when, in his words, ``wilderness limits the
ability of folks to enjoy'' public lands by keeping mountain areas free
of off-road vehicle traffic.
I am a Montana resident who enjoys the many benefits of Wilderness.
I visit Montana's wilderness areas approximately 25 times a year to
hike, camp, and ski. Less than 4 percent of Montana is designated
Wilderness and this is not enough for western Montana's booming
population. I go to wilderness to gain peace and quiet that is not
available in roaded motorized areas. Wilderness is the only place where
I can escape the noise and pollution of off-road vehicles. Besides
finding solitude, wilderness is a place where fish and wildlife can
find refuge and provide a source for all of Montana's great fishing
hunting. Hunting and fishing is simply not as good in the roaded and
degraded public lands. Thank you for protecting our last unspoiled
lands in the ``last great place.''
______
Prepared Statement of John Schieffelbein, Fairfield, MT
While the number of State and Federal Forests and Parks have not
grown in any substantial way for many decades, the human population
has. The country sides of just a few short years ago, are now shopping
malls and new homes. The native animals and flora are displaced or
destroyed.
When I was a child my family were one of the first families to be
able to travel around Lake Superior. It was called the ``Circle Route
Drive''. It marked the first time in history that there was a road that
linked the north shore area of Lake Superior to Minnesota and Michigan
and Wisconsin. The whole area was still very pristine and beautiful
with very few people. Yes, we (my family) were a part of the impendings
onslaught of vacationers and tourists to visit the area.
We were the start of the destruction of what had been pristine.
Even with the best of intentions and the hope for greater commerce the
area was changed for ever. Native American stone wall painting were
stolen and ruined. A special ceremonial spruce tree that had grown on a
rock out cropping for centuries was destroyed by people that gave the
site little if any respect. Native peoples who had buried their loved
ones above ground for centuries found the gravesites damaged and in
some cases looted and insulted.
Relationships between species in the area that had been in balance
for more life times than one can imagine were irrevocably changed.
We have lived here a short 9-10 years. That means that we have
added to the stress the forests and natural resources as well. We try
reverently to leave the areas where we travel the same as they were
before we were there. However, almost every time we travel into the
mountains we find someone hunting out of season, driving their choice
of vehicle (cars, 4 4s, trucks, SUVS, and snowmobiles where it is ``not
allowed''. It is not the fault of the good law enforcement officials or
the parks and forests staff members. It is just the simple fact that
Montana is extremely large and has a very inadequate number of
officials and law enforcement personnel to ensure that the current laws
are followed.
So to add more opportunities for more abuse by those who know they
won't get caught just doesn't make sense! Even when caught these people
often just get warnings as the enforcement staff are fearful of more
direct confrontations and having no backup close.
Montana has thousands and thousands of roads already we do not need
more. ATVS and all other motorized vehicle belong on roads not forests.
We were out last weekend getting our Xmas Tree (with permit) and
found people taking trees from areas they were not to be taken and saw
where others had been 4 wheeling in areas not allowed for 4 wheeling or
driving.
My family really likes to go camping (with tents) in the back
country and not have to hear sounds of motors of any kind.
If you care about long term protection of the wilderness for you
and your childrens and my children you will help keep the wilderness a
wilderness as it has been for thousands and thousands of years. We have
all got to start to think differently in order for our children to
survive.
Thanks for you time.
______
Prepared Statement of M.C. von der Pahlen, Ronan, MT
Senator Burns: I appreciate your request to hear from the public
regarding the U.S. Forest Service's recommendation on further
wilderness in Montana and the current policy that restricts motorized
vehicles in wilderness areas. I urge you to support this management
policy, which maintains and upholds the ``multiple use mandate'' of the
U.S. Forest Service.
There are numerous roads in U.S. Forest Service that are accessible
to motorized vehicles already. There should also be public areas that
provide the non-motorized backcountry experience that is so unique to
wilderness areas.
These wilderness areas are already fairly limited to the American
public, but it transports our imagination back to the time of the fur
traders and pioneers, and it permits many an adventurous spirit to
experience the wonder, beauty and abundant wildlife this continent
offered Native Americans and pioneers a few hundred years back.
______
Prepared Statement of Adrian D. Leighton, Ronan, MT
Senator Burns: Thank you for requesting the opinion of all
Montanans regarding the issue of motorized vehicles in wilderness. Like
all forms of recreation, motorized vehicles are important to many
people, but that does not justify them being allowed total access to
all Forest Service lands.
The Forest Service, as you recently pointed out, is under a mandate
for multiple use management. As a forester and college professor, I am
keenly aware of the importance of this mandate. However, it is
important to point out that multiple use does not mean ``everything is
allowed everywhere''. Logging is not allowed on steep slopes because of
potential site damage. Similarly, while motorized recreation should be
supported by the Forest Service in appropriate areas, it is not, and
should not, be allowed everywhere.
Part of the Forest Service's multiple use mandate is to protect
endangered species of wildlife and to provide for their habitat. There
are numerous scientifically sound studies that demonstrate the
potential negative impact of motorized vehicles on many species of
wildlife.
Another part of the Forest Service's multiple use mandate is to
provide an experience for back country recreationists that wish to
escape the noise, speed and confusion of every day life. A deep and
profound element of wilderness is this very separation from ``the daily
grind''. To open up wilderness to motorized vehicles would render this
use of wilderness null and void.
I urge you to continue to support wilderness and roadless area
designations, and to support the Forest Service's multiple use mandate
in its fullest sense.
______
Prepared Statement of George Wuerthner, Livingston, MT
Senator Burns: I was very disappointed with your recent comments
before the FS about motorized use of public lands. The major attraction
of Montana to me is the abundance of wild country. One of the reasons
Montana has superb hunting and fishing is that motorized access is
limited. I have lived in Oregon which actually has more elk than
Montana. Nevertheless, the elk hunting season in Oregon is only 10 days
long. Why? Because there's logging roads all over the entire state.
There's hardly a place where an elk get away from roads and hunters.
ATVs belong on roads, not in the backcountry. Montana has 90,000
miles of roads and 30,000 miles of FS roads. There is more than enough
access to public lands for machines on these roads.
And what is unique about Montana are its large areas of roadless
country. Tell people in Montana that feel there is not enough access to
the public lands to go to Oregon--there's tens of thousands of miles of
roads leading to every corner of the state. They can have all the
terrain they want. But there are few places like Montana. Keep Montana
wild.
______
Prepared Statement of Jan Bertelsen-James, Eureka, MT
Senator Conrad Burns: I am a born and raised Montana woman of 55
years. I love Montana. I feel Montana's wilderness, wildlands, and
quiet mountain trails in our national forests deserve to be protected
for future generations. A place where hunting, fishing, traditional
family recreation, and Montana history can flourish. ``Wilderness''
does not limit the ability for citizens to enjoy public lands; instead,
it preserves this land so that indeed the land can be enjoyed.
Wilderness is for future generations, so we need to pass it on. Our
valleys are filling up with roads, traffic, and subdivisions . . . way
too many subdivisions. Developers are developing for dollars and could
care less about Montana! Places that we once went to for solitude and
quiet are disappearing. These go from the Great Burn to the Rocky
Mountain Front. Wilderness safeguards Montana's opportunities to hunt,
fish, camp under the stars and hike in the quiet mountain trails. It's
a commitment we MUST pass on to our kids. I have a daughter of 24 and
she is upset with her favorite hiking places being ravaged by off-trail
vehicles by their noise and disruption to the land. We don't need beer
cans in the Ten Lakes of Eureka. She feels it should cost out of state
people big bucks to move to Montana. She knows that is not possible,
but she is truly afraid that all the ``land'' will be gone or ruined,
bought up by out of staters, by the time she'll be able to afford to
buy a small parcel. Her beautiful state that she loves will be gone.
The federal government hasn't demonstrated a vision for the future
of Montana's wild public lands. Recent forest plans recommend LESS
wilderness than the most recent Montana wilderness bill passed by the
U.S. Senate (S. 1696), which was sponsored by you, Mr. Burns. The Bush
administration has done more to undermine the environment and this
earth that sustains us than any other President. In fact, he has done
more to ruin America's name in the world than any other President. His
administration may just be the downfall of this nation due to the lack
on involvement of U.S. citizens, administrative control of media, and
the desire of elected officials to get elected again by doing whatever
it seems it takes rather than biting the bullet and doing the honorable
right thing. That is your fault and ours. I am no longer going to stand
silent. I WANT MY NATION TO STAND FOR MOTHER EARTH AND ITS SURVIVAL!
This can start at home, the big sky country that I love.
Montana has over 90,000 miles of roads. There are 30,000 miles of
roads in our national forests. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I live in an area
where there are roads, roads, and more roads. They can't be maintained
and noxious weeks grow rampant. Montana's neighboring western states
enjoy higher percentages of wilderness. Montanans want our heritage of
open spaces continued into the future and we deserve it. I would like
to see us be leaders in this endeavor rather than hill-billy, gun-
toting, snuff-chewing hicks! I am not like that. Why can't Montana take
the lead and be proactive about the environment and use resources to
produce clean fuels for the future? Why must we dig for coal or mine
for oil when that source is nonrenewable? Why can't we take the lead?
Why must people like you, Mr. Burns listen to individuals that can only
think of now and not the future? I want to see our lands used wisely.
God gave us the forests to use and harvest but with conservation and
the future in mind. We are supposed to be the stewards of the land and
its animals. God gave us the intelligence to do so, so why can't we use
this intelligence? I do not agree with all the suits that are filed but
I am thankful for individuals that can spend their time keeping abreast
of what is happening to this state. I am so busy working and trying
just to pay the bills that I am not able to do so and that is the
problem. I am taking the time tonight to let you know I am a concerned
citizen about the state of Montana and this nation and that I don't
approve of the present administration and the lies it tells. I want you
to THINK and represent what is right for our state AND the rest of this
nation.
People say wilderness is not multiple use. I say multiple use is
only logging and off road vehicles like snowmobiles and ATV's. If they
had their way, they would be EVERYWHERE!!!! That's all we need. Noise,
beer can, trash, rutted and destroyed trails and fields, and more
noxious weeds. We need for the Forest Service to ``expedite'' forest
travel plans that will establish responsible limits on OVR use.
Wilderness is multiple use. It belongs in our rugged mountains along
with suitable areas for logging and vehicle traffic.
I am asking you, Senator Burns, to forego polarizing politics. I
want to see new leadership. I want you to bring people together to
solve this challenge. With creativity and foresight we can keep
Montana's quiet mountain trails and wilderness-the best of the Old
West-alongside the new.
Thank you for your time. Please make a positive difference for
Montana and this nation. We, I feel, are near the tipping point of
destruction. I know I sound off the wall. I am a school teacher of 36
years. I now teach in a therapeutic boarding school for adolescent
girls in Eureka, Montana. I am not a nut. I am a concerned citizen that
feels we are becoming a hateful nation without honor. I want that to
change. Citizens need to demand and become more active in this
democratic process. I did so tonight. Please think about what is right
for Montana, not is this a republican or democratic issue. Let's just
do the right thing for the survival of this state in the best way
possible . . . for my daughter and hers.
______
Prepared Statement of Donald J. Burgard, Columbia Falls, MT
I live most of the summer in a cabin near the Canadian border and
the North Fork of the Flathead River. I strongly disagree with recent
statements you made about wilderness not being consistent with multiple
use. Folks in Flathead and Lincoln county need wilderness areas close
to home. It is especially important, even patriotic, to reduce
unnecessary gasoline consumption with the current petroleum situation
the way it is. There is no shortage of places for motorized recreation
in the Whitefish Range. Contrary to your thinking, I think that not
including wilderness designations in Forest Plans would be inconsistent
with the multiple use concept. There are certain areas that are
absolutely not suitable for motorized recreation. I'd be happy to hike
with you in those areas near my cabin to prove my point. I ask that you
reconsider your anti-wilderness position that is making it very
difficult for your constituents to reach a consensus on multiple use.
The best thing you could do for Montana would be to commit to
wilderness designation for many suitable areas.
______
Prepared Statement of John Werner, Ronan, MT
You requested comments on U.S. Forest Use in Montana: My wife and I
strongly support wilderness designation wherever possible in our
National Forests. It is the only way that some of our multiple use
activities can be retained, i.e. XC skiing, berry picking, hiking,
camping, fishing, hunting--without the damn roar of snowmobiles, ATV's,
jet skii's, and a multitude of other motorized vehicles. As it is now,
the FS does not have the personnel to monitor motorized vehicle use
which often violates current rules and regulations. Also suggest you
see Missoulian editorial on December 13, 2005 regards your request for
comments. It has some good information.
______
Prepared Statement of John and Gaynelle Stamm, St. Regis, MT
Senator Burns: At a December 2 Senate Oversight Hearing in
Missoula, you are quoted as saying ``wilderness limits the ability of
folks to enjoy'' public lands by limiting the use of off-road vehicles.
We live near wilderness and roadless areas, enjoy them in many ways,
and disagree with you. Wilderness and roadless areas are vitally
important to humans, wildlife, and plant life in innumerable ways and
off-road vehicles are, according to many experts, among the most
damaging things to these resources. Off-road vehicles belong on roads,
period. Wilderness today is multiple use and, due to these important
uses, Montana needs more wilderness. Please work to bring people
together on these issues instead of playing polarizing politics.
Montana is big enough to accommodate many uses in the bet place for
each.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Victor M. Davis, Ronan, MT
Senator Burns: At the December 2nd Senate Oversight Hearing in
Missoula you questioned why the Forest Service recommends more
wilderness when, ``wilderness limits the ability of folks to enjoy''
public lands by keeping them free of off-road vehicle (ORV) traffic,
and wondered if this was consistent with Multiple Use mandates of the
Service.
My favorite use of the Forests of my country is hiking and climbing
in peace and quiet and finding solace and comfort in God's creation and
with his creatures. This is not possible in lands subjected to noise of
screaming engines, scars from churning wheels leaving tracks for
decades, and toxic exhaust fumes hanging in the air.
We already have 30,000 miles of roads in the National Forests of
Montana, and this leaves plenty of opportunity for those who find
Pleasure in the use of ATV's and other motorized vehicles.
Roads and their uses in the Forests lead to increased erosion and
stream and air pollution. The negatively impacts fisheries and wildlife
and game habitat. I believe these assets are worth protecting not
despoiling.
I notice your Website letterhead uses pictures of three or four
Wilderness scenes. I find it ironic that you have chosen these images
to exemplify your public persona, and yet apparently don't appreciate
their value and potential fragility. Rather than a romanticized ``Last
Best Place'', I find Montana to be a very real and beautiful land, and
so valuable not only to Montana but all of America. I believe that only
by preserving as much of this land as Wilderness, unravaged by the
intrusions of man and his wrecking machines, can we maintain this
reality.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael and Susan Sherman, Polson, MT
Senator Burns: Our beautiful state is a place of wilderness,
undisturbed back country with quiet trails, abundance of wildlife and
places for hunting and fishing. This is why people move here, this is
why real estate companies advertise with beautiful pictures of pristine
wild places.
This is why I want my children and grandchildren to be able to look
up to the mountains and be able to say the same thing. Our towns here
in western Montana are going at a rapid pace with subdivisions, people
buying second homes and ever increasing traffic in our valleys.
Wilderness designation for our deserving lands is a safeguard that our
future legacy will have opportunities to experience quiet mountain
hikes, trail rides, or fishing and hunting experiences.
Recent forest plans are recommending less wilderness for our
future. We have thousands of miles of roads but less than 4 percent
designated wilderness. I believe you promised years ago that you would
help Montanans secure more wild places. If you look at the Forest
Service's original definition of ``multiple use'' it does include
wilderness as one of those uses.
Yes, there is a place for ATVs but there should also be those quiet
places free from their loud noises and the spread of noxious weeds.
ATV's spreading noxious weeds are also a real problem for agriculture
lands. No farmer or ranchers wants fields of knapweed.
We need to preserve our landscape for the future so that those of
the future can say yes our past generations did keep this state the
``last best, wild place'' in the USA.
______
Prepared Statement of Jim Mullins, Helena, MT
Senator Burns: I know you have lots of issues on your mind, but
please consider my request. As a former mid-westerner like yourself, I
hope you understand the importance of wilderness to all people.
Please support a stronger commitment to Wilderness areas in
Montana.
Wilderness is multiple use.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Tom and Irene Erdie, Helena, MT
I write this note on behalf of my wife and myself. We are native
born and raised Montanans both with long and deep family roots in
Montana. We have hiked many miles in the forests of Montana over the
last forty plus years and have watched the transition and the impact of
motorized vehicles over those forty plus years. The bottom line
regarding impact of motorized traffic in the general forest is not
good. Anyone that has watched this transition over the years from
minimal motorized traffic to what is witnessed ``today'' has to be
alarmed at what must be the expectation for ten, twenty and more years
into the future. We as humans don't exist but that we leave a
``footprint'' showing that we have been there. It then becomes a
question of how much of a footprint and in this case, specific to the
wildlands. Today's forests and management practices in general prove
that over a period of time, the wildlands are in trouble. If you've
spent any quality time in the forests (perhaps with a back pack) you
know what I mean. More wilderness is part of the solution. You
allegedly have stated that ``. . . wilderness limits the ability of
folks to enjoy public lands . . .'' I agree and would state that the
key word is ``limits.'' There has to be some kind of limit. Limiting
motorized vehicles is a very big part of that because it can be shown
that too many using motorized vehicles in the forests, without
limitation, just don't care enough about what we leave for the next
generation. I'd welcome the opportunity to take you for a walk in the
woods and show very specific proof of where we are headed with today's
practices, the negative impacts, and for the most part how it comes
from motorized traffic. We can't hike as we did twenty years ago, nor
would we expect to hike ten years from now as we did just this past
summer. We will accept some limits, and the answer is not to ``jump on
a motorized vehicle'' to take us anywhere we want to go. We believe
there is room for multiple use while initiating more limitations that
will not detract from the next generations ability to enjoy the
solitude brought by additional wilderness. Thank you for the
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Gonnie Siebel, Bozeman, MT
Senator Burns: I'm stunned by your apparent statements at a recent
Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula, regarding wilderness and
protection from motorized use for roadless areas. I would like to
remind you that a very important source of income in your home state
nowadays is from tourism and tourism industries, the reason being that
environmental protections have kept some important areas in our state
reasonably pristine for the last several decades. Tourists (and most
Montanans) don't hike, camp, fish, float, hunt, etc. in areas trashed
by high impact uses! People can do that in their home states where, by
lack of foresight decades ago, few places have been spared the impacts
from road building, developments, extractive industries and ORV use.
Usually where there are roads, negative impacts follow.
To maintain our precious lifestyle for present and future
generations, Montanans need Montana's undeveloped landscapes to remain
as they are to find quiet and solitude. And, obviously, people from
other states like what we still have in Montana! Wilderness belongs in
our rugged mountains along with suitable areas for logging and
motorized traffic. This IS multiple use.
The most recent Montana Wilderness bill passed by the U.S. Senate
(S. 1696) and co-sponsored by you, Senator Burns, recommended more
wilderness than recent forest plans. At present less than 4 percent of
Montana is actually protected as Wilderness. Montana's national forests
have 30,000 miles of roads. ORVs and motorized vehicles do not belong
on quiet mountain trails and even if they move on designated roads they
affect an area widely beyond their location.
Senator Burns, I urge you to support the National Association of
Counties' call for the Forest Service to ``expedite forest travel plans
that will establish responsible limits on ORV use, to prevent more
spread of weeds and other damage from ORV traffic.'' I urge you to
provide new leadership and bring people together to solve Montana's
problems. With cooperation, creativity and foresight, we can keep
Montana's best, it's quiet mountain trails and wilderness, alongside
the new.
Thank you for your attention to such an important issue to
Montanans!
______
Prepared Statement of Henry Lischer, Nye, MT
On December 2, you asked of the Forest Service whether wilderness
areas limit the ability of the public to enjoy public lands.
I believe that public lands should support many different uses, but
unspoiled wilderness is one of those qualifying uses. We should
preserve our wild lands for the enjoyment of those who do not wish to
be in public lands involving less natural settings, and we should
preserve wild lands for future generations, which certainly will
involve ever-growing populations.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Joe Hamiltom, Helena, MT
Senator Burns: In your response to a December 2 Senate Oversight
hearing in Missoula, you asked why the Forest Service recommends tracts
of Montana Wilderness when in your words you stated, ``wilderness areas
limit the ability of folks to enjoy'' public lands by keeping mountain
areas free of off-road vehicle traffic. You questioned whether
wilderness and motor free areas are ``consistent with the multiple use
mandate'' of the U.S. Forest Service. I would like to respond. I just
moved here from Arizona. I lived there for most of my life. Arizona is
growing at a rapid pace and as immigrants and ``out of staters''
continue to move into that location, rapid growth means that public
lands (that allow vehicles) continue to grow. If you have ever camped,
mountain biked; hiked in any forest area in Arizona you would
eventually run into an ATV, truck, or car full of people traveling down
a road any where from 15-50 mph. My point here is as states grow so
does public use of forest areas. Why expose MT wilderness areas in
attempt to meet some political agenda? Opening up wilderness areas
opens up all kinds of problems. I clearly understand the detrimental
impacts that roads have in wilderness areas. I was a tour guide in the
Grand Canyon.
I recently moved to Montana to be able to drive in my truck, park
at a wilderness area and hike in and enjoy the serenity of Montana. It
bothers me enough that this beautiful state has over 90,000 miles of
road, 30,000 miles of roads in our national forest, but less then 4
percent of Montana is actually protected as wilderness. All of
Montana's neighboring western states enjoy higher percentages of
wilderness. Why close these wilderness areas up and open to roads. It
makes no sense as a senator, citizen, president, or even God. Please
provide leadership in this area. It is critical to the intrinsic value
of Montana wilderness. Please read Aldo Leopold's book ``Sand County
Almanac''. I think it will be instrumental in all of your environmental
support and assist you in foregoing polarizing politics.
The federal government has not demonstrated a vision for the future
of Montana's wild public lands. Recent forest plans recommend fewer
wildernesses then the most recent Montana wilderness bill passed by
U.S. Senate (S. 1696). Please bring new leadership by brining people
together to solve our problems. With creativity and foresight we can
keep Montana's quiet mountain trail and wilderness--the best of the Old
West--alongside the new.
______
Prepared Statement of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Snow, Kalispell, MT
Senator Burns: Wilderness is for now, tomorrow and as long as
people are around to enjoy it--more is better in Montana.
The biggest attraction of Montana is the amount of wilderness it
has. Reducing that amount would be VERY short sighted. With one third
of Montana's roads are in National Forests, we need more wilderness and
less roads. We advertize our naturalness, big animals, numerous high
mountains, clean air and water and beautiful landscapes, which draws
worldwide visitors and proves the point.
Montana needs much more wilderness, areas to visit where motorized
vehicles are prohibited and are not contaminated with exotic, invasive,
noxious plants brought in via motorized transportation.
Please lead us to a solution which considers what is best in the
very long term for Montana and its citizens--multiple use, sensible and
very long view of Montana's beauty.
______
Prepared Statement of Joel Vignere, Lakeside, MT
Sir: Montanans deserve and want MORE Wilderness. Wilderness is
consistent with multiple use. Wilderness does not ``. . . limit the
ability of folks to enjoy'' (your words) our public lands. To the
contrary, it enhances my friends and neighbors and my enjoyment of our
public lands. It is valuable to me because I know I will be able to get
away from the stench and noise of motorized recreation. Hopefully this
legacy will remain for my children and theirs also. There are thousands
of acres in Montana that deserve the protection of designated
Wilderness. I urge you to help provide the necessary leadership to
bring about a solution to the polarizing politics that have
accomplished virtually nothing. Let's work together for the betterment
of Montana's future.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rick Moroney, Bozeman, MT
Senator Burns: I am requesting that you support the preservation of
all roadless lands in Montana. Please seek wilderness designation for
all remaining federal lands that qualify. This is probably the best
thing you can do for the long term economic welfare of Montana. These
roadless lands are one of the things that sets Montana apart from the
rest of the nation. A large segment of the population values these
lands, and would like to live in close proximity to them. These people
often move their businesses to Montana, or increase commerce in other
ways.
In regard to roaded lands; Please see that federal agencies have
enough funding to properly enforce their motorized regulations. It is
unfortunate, but a few thoughtless motorized users don't follow the
rules, causing great damage to our lands. The scars that they leave
contribute to increased weeds, erosion, and degraded water quality.
Perhaps it would be wise to severely limit motorized access until
mechanisms are in place to protect the land. Please observe that almost
without exception private landowners, allowing public access, almost
always restrict that access to non-motorized use, only. Why should we
accept a lesser standard for publicly owned lands. Thank You for your
efforts on behalf of Montanans.
______
Prepared Statement of George Durki and Liam, Bozemanm, MT
Senator Burns: Greetings from Bozeman, Montana. Just a short note
following your recent Oversight Hearing in Missoula concerning U.S.
Forest Service policies particularly wilderness designation and travel
plans!!!!!!
I am the Gallatin County Road Engineer and have been for the last
four years. I cannot tell you the number of subdivisions I have
personally reviewed, both five lot minor and up to 300 lot major
subdivisions.
This place is bursting at the seams, and a large percentage of
these new residents recreate in the Forest. We need as much of the
forest kept pristine and actually designated WILDERNESS to keep MONTANA
a great place to live for our kids and grandkids.
I get into the mountains and high alpine meadows to escape the
growth and hectic lifestyle that is coming to our major cities due to
increased development. Please LISTEN, we need QUITE trails were people
can get away from the noise and machines that are quickly taking over
our beautiful valleys. I have personally seen motorcycles and ATV's
off-trail and ripping up high alpine meadows for the hell-of-it!!!!
These off road machines belong on the vast network of Forest Service
and logging roads, NOT ON TRAILS!!!! The Forest Service does not have
the staff to police the bad apples that go off-trail, therefore
creating new routes for the machines to follow.
The hunting/fishing/backpacking/horse-packing traditions are much
to valuable and cherished by all Montanans to only be ruined by rampent
ATV and motorcycle riders. Keep them at lower elevations and out of the
fragile alpine areas before it is too late.
Thank you for your time. Do the right thing, save and create more
WILDERNESS, that is what people want and keeps them coming back to
MONTANA!!!!!
______
Prepared Statement of Kip Drobish, Kila, MT
As the last truck loads of the last low elevation unlogged stands
of Ponderosa pine and Larch on the mountain behind my house are hauled
away today, I am struck by how short our lives are and how narrow our
vision can be. The children and their children will never know 300 year
old forests. In fact the residents of the Flathead already forget the
entire valley was once covered by mature Ponderosa, Larch and Douglas
Fir. So to will future citizenry forget there were once large old trees
in the mountains west of Kalispell. Your great grandchildren will think
saplings are old trees and harvest then for fiber laminated beams for
construction, that is until the weakened forest soil will not support
trees much like a mule that refuses to pull a plow after being deprived
food. This is not nonsense, just as wilderness is not wasted land that
should be open to motorized recreation. Wilderness is the one place
held back so your great grandchildren can show their kids what it was
once like back before their great great grandfather sightlessly
encouraged industrial forest practices on the public trust lands.
Please, if you can't get a glimpse of where we are going with an
economy that is only healthy when it is expanding and consuming more,
then please take a vacation and visit some wilderness, where the
economy has been stable since the last Ice age and it remains robust.
______
Prepared Statement of Peter Markalunas, Great Falls, MT
Senator Burns: I have to voice my strong disagreement that non
motorized use is in conflict with the multiple use mandate of the
forest service.
Wilderness designation prohibits motorized use but enhances all
activities that favor quiet trails: hiking, fishing, horseback riding,
photography, hunting, cross country skiing.
Instead of thinking about how wilderness designation prohibits
motorized use we should be thinking about how motorized use prohibits
all the activities that require quiet trails.
______
Prepared Statement of Christine Daum, Stevensville, MT
Senator Burns: You've recently made a comment that wilderness
limits the ability of folks to enjoy public lands by keeping certain
areas free of off road vehicles.
I disagree with you. It saddens me that so many cannot enjoy the
outdoors without an internal combustion engine.
As for myself, and many of my friends--we would prefer the silence
and peace that the wild has to offer. We enjoy canoeing, skiing, hiking
and fishing without the drone of snowmobiles or ATVs. The recreation we
enjoy is traditional and too valuable to spoil. I hope you will support
measures to keep it that way.
Thanks for listening.
______
Prepared Statement of George W. Cecil, Kalispell, MT
Senator Burns: At a Dec. 2 Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula,
you questioned whether wilderness and motor-free areas are ``consistent
with the multiple use mandate'' of the Forest Service.
My response to your question is:
1. Wilderness IS multiple use, and belongs in our rugged mountains
along with suitable areas for logging and vehicular traffic.
2. Wilderness designation is for the future. It safeguards
Montana's opportunities to hunt, fish, camp under the stars and hike
quiet mountain trails. It's a commitment we must pass on to our
children.
3. We need to do more for the wild landscape, NOT less. Recent
forest plans recommend less wilderness than the most recent MT
wilderness bill passed by the Senate--and co-sponsored by you.
4. Less than 4 percent of Montana is actually protected as
wilderness. All of MT's neighboring western states enjoy higher
percentages of wilderness. Montanans want our open space heritage
continued, not downgraded.
5. ATVs and other motorized vehicles belong on roads, of which
there are thousands of miles available, NOT on quiet mountain trails.
6. It is your responsibility to ALL Montanans to forego polarizing
politics and provide new leadership to solve our problems, not add to
them.
Thank your for considering my comments.
______
Prepared Statement of Anne Banks, Bozeman, MT
Senator Burns: The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act states that
national forests shall be managed for outdoor recreation, range,
timber, watershed and wildlife and fish purposes and that ``areas of
wilderness are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this
Act.'' Wilderness is one of the allowed multiple uses.
Furthermore, the Act does not require that all uses occur
simultaneously in one place; instead it requires ``harmonious and
coordinated management of the various resources, each with each other
without impairment of the productivity of the land . . .''
I am most familiar with the Gallatin Forest Travel Plan, which has
clearly addressed these issues. Its primary focus is on the resource
itself, and recreational activities are considered in their relation to
their effect on the forest and on each other. There was ample
opportunity for public input. Although I do not agree with every
provision in the plan, I firmly believe that its development and
content adhere to the requirements of the Multiple Use Act. There is a
balance between motorized and non-motorized uses. This is the first
time motorized use has been regulated at all, and the reason for any
``losses'' is to protect the productivity of the forest, as the Act
requires. FS Chief Bosworth recognizes unregulated off-road motorized
use as one of the four greatest threats to our forests.
I hope you will let the plan stand without further pressure from
Congress. It was developed locally, on the ground, by the people most
involved, and we will be the ones most affected by it.
______
Prepared Statement of Woody Nedom, Bigfork, MT
Senator Burns: Thank you for your interest in the classification of
Forest Service lands. Most citizens in our state, and countless others
elsewhere, recognize that it is the stunning topography, rare flora and
fauna, and unique beauty of the wilderness we have preserved that has
made Montana ``The Last Best Place''. I know you agree because not one
of the magnificent scenes that banner your website has a road or
vehicle in sight.
Adding wilderness preserves, enhancing safeguards for their
protection, and formulating Forest Service policy to these ends ought
to be your number one priority and will be the greatest and most
cherished legacy of your senatorial tenure.
No one is fooled by the unadulterated sophistry which argues that
wilderness protection limits the ability of people to enjoy public
lands. Montana has over 30,000 miles of roads in its national forests;
less than 4 percent of the state is protected as wilderness. If 96
percent were wilderness and there were no roads in the national
forests, the multiple use enthusiasts would have a point.
I know you will bring honesty and common sense to the table. The
multiple use advocates have far more than a reasonable share of our
resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Lynn Kelly, Polson, MT
Senator Burns: You asked for input regarding the importance of
wilderness and I would like to share my thoughts. Wilderness is
probably the most ``multiple use'' of all the land uses out there. Here
are some things wilderness does for us:
(1) Wilderness protects and maintains water quality. Other states
would kill to have their water sources protected as the Swan, South
Fork and Middle Forks of the Flathead are protected by wilderness
areas. This is worth billions of dollars.
(2) Wilderness provides a clean ``airshed''. Again, worth billions
of dollars.
(3) Wilderness provides jobs as outfitters and others use these
lands in their traditional ways.
(4) Wilderness provides habitat for multitudes of wildlife species.
(5) Wilderness provides ``natural science laboratories'' so that
comparisons can be made between disturbed and undisturbed habitats,
watersheds, airsheds, etc.
(6) Wilderness gives our children and grandchildren a chance to see
``how it was'' back then.
(7) Wilderness provides places for spiritual renewals and retreats.
There are at least 5 other major ``uses'' of wilderness but my memory
fails me. Needless to say wilderness is not just another cornfield!
``Man always kills the thing he loves, and so we the pioneers have
killed our wilderness. Some say we had to. Be that as it may, I am glad
I shall never be young without wild country to be young in. Of what
avail are 40 freedoms without a blank spot on the map?'' Aldo Leopold.
We need more wilderness--not less!
Thanks for asking for my thoughts.
______
Prepared Statement of Bruce Granger, Bozeman, MT
Dear Senator Burns: As a long-time Montana resident, I strongly
support the preservation of the wild areas in this state. It makes no
sense to allow additional degradation of these areas by ORV use. Quiet
trails, abundant wildlife and natural flora will be there for us and
future generations only if they are not destroyed by increased road
building and ORV use. I strongly support more wilderness rather than
less, to perpetuate what's really special about this region.
______
Prepared Statement of Chris Kappes, Lolo, MT
Dear Senator Burns: I attended the Oversight Hearing in Missoula.
There were comments made by the Wilderness Association President that
gave me hope that Wilderness is important and will not be squandered on
exploitation of any kind.
I am a 7th generation Montanan and want the Wilderness kept for the
next seven generations. Wilderness safeguards opportunities to hunt,
fish, hike, camp, and ride horseback on the quiet mountain trails.
There are few opportunities left as our valleys become populated.
ATV's belong on roads and goodness knows there are plenty (of
both). Wherever I go, and there has been ATV use, I am disheartened by
the incredible damage that they cause on and off trails. Please keep
the pristine areas pristine!
Please, Senator Burns, find a way to keep Montana's quiet mountain
trails and Wilderness. The generations to come will honor your name!
In hope and peace.
______
Prepared Statement of David Amnotte, Bigfork, MT
Senator Burns: I am writing to express my views on U.S. Forest
Service Policy.
We need to pass on to our children our great State wilderness
legacy, we need to keep this land safe from road building. In this
state we have a heritage of hunting and great wildlife habitat let's
preserve it. Montana already has over 90,000 miles of roads 30,000 in
the forest that's plenty. Our State has less than 4 percent of it's
total as Wilderness, all of our neighbors have more. Motorized travel
needs to remain on roads, trails need to be reserved for traditional
uses, hiking, horseback riding, and foot travel during winter months to
preserve wildlife habitat. Wilderness is Multiple Use, rugged mountains
along with low elevation areas for vehicles and logging. We need to
have leadership, not Polarization, we need to bring people together to
solve problems not push them apart. Please keep these thought in mind
when considering Forest Policy.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Paul Pacini, Helena, MT
Senator Burns: As a native born Montanan, I am writing to express
my disagreement with your assessment of the importance of wilderness in
Montana and for that matter, through out the world. The human
environment is rapidly becoming a scene of endless and hurried
technology for the purposes of business, health care, shopping,
education, even recreation, and more. More and more we are living in an
artificial electronic environment and pressured to accomplish more than
before. The human species, like any other species of animal on the
Earth evolved from a natural environment. Our bodies and minds relate
to the natural world which tends to rejuvenate our technology wearied
selves.
All of this may sound naive or just too warm and fuzzy to some, but
the fact is that we need wild areas for our collective sanity. By
``paving over'' our planet, we are paving over our humanity! Don't
allow federal lands to be sold.
______
Prepared Statement of Mike and Stephanie Becker, Harrison, MT
We want you to know that wilderness does NOT limit the ability of
folks to enjoy public lands! With the crush of modern life with its
traffic, development, noise, and population pressures, the American
public is seeking solace and quiet recreation in our preserved lands.
Montana can still offer some beautiful, undisturbed areas and we need
to PROTECT and PRESERVE these precious--and diminishing--wild resources
for future generations. Montanans deserve more than a mere 3 percent of
protected wilderness! 30,000 miles of roads in our national forests is
more than enough. And we urge you to support the National Assocation of
Counties' call for the Forest Service to expedite forest travel plans
that will establish responsible limits on ORV use--ORVs do NOT belong
on quiet mountain trails. Their abuse is spreading noxious weeds in our
counties. Please work to keep Montana's beautiful wild lands special:
Montana's growing tourist economy as well as the economic support of
its new residents really depend on selling the UNIQUENESS OF MONTANA'S
WILDERNESS AREAS. People are not coming here to see ``more of the
same'' that they left in other states that have spoiled environments.
Montana's future can be bright and prosperous with leadership that
understands the enormous value of growth with conservation.
______
Prepared Statement of Beth Weissman, Livingston, MT
I strongly feel that we must preserve the Wilderness. Montana is
developing and sprawling and only the wilderness spaces will be left of
the greatness of Montana's open spaces. They must be saved for the
future. Roads, motorized vehicles, ATV's: these represent the opposite
of what we should be protecting. We need quiet places to hike, fish,
hunt, camp, where animals can live without noise. We have enough roads
in this state for motorized vehicles; let's save the wilderness.
______
Prepared Statement of Jim Fiddler, Bigfork, MT
Senator Burns: I have traveled to all 50 states and many foreign
countries and lived in some of the largest cities in the United States
From my perspective, there is no shortage of roads on which to drive
motorized vehicles. Even in Montana, a state with a higher percentage
of wild lands than most, there is only a very small portion where one
can go to enjoy a peaceful experience without the possible disruption
from some form of motorized vehicle.
Of all the places I have lived, I have never had more friends or
relatives visit me than I have since living in Montana. They don't come
here because they have heard that we have incredible roads or places in
the forest where they can drive an ATV. They come to enjoy the quiet,
unspoiled beauty of nature. When a person hikes through the woods, very
little disturbance occurs. When someone rides any motorized vehicle
through the woods, a great deal of disturbance occurs. The sound can
literally intrude on people miles away. The impact to the ground itself
from just one set of tires is greater than 100 people walking that same
trail. The pollution from small vehicles is usually even worse than our
cars which are bad enough. Vehicles belong on roads, not in the forest,
and there is no shortage of roads. There is a very real shortage of
places left that have not yet been forever altered by a road.
______
Prepared Statement of Rocky Heckman, Choteau, MT
Senator Burns: Have you fell on your head? Don't even think about
opening up wilderness areas to motorized travel, oil or mineral
exploration, or any thing like that. C'mon get a reality check, these
precious wilderness areas are only a speck on the map, there is plenty
of land in Montana that nobody gives a rip about. Go ruin that, if it
makes you feel good, not an area so many of us care about, just to
appease the greedy. Please do not respond to this message with a sales
pitch type ``bla, bla, bla'' response that tries to convince me that
you know what you're talking about. I don't, cause it's crap, and
proves only that you're out of touch with Montanans such as me.
Happy holidays.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Dorothy Starshine, Great Falls, MT
Conrad Burns, Senator: In 1955, our family moved to Montana so we
could hunt, fish and hike in these glorious wilderness areas. However,
if quiet areas continue to shrink, our 18 grandchildren will not have
the experiences that our family experienced only 50 years ago.
Please use your power to protect the wild areas with Wilderness
designation to prevent roads and subdivisions.
______
Prepared Statement of Jack Waller, Whitefish, MT
Senator Burns: We are writing to help answer your questions
regarding why the Forest Service recommends tracts of Montana
wilderness and motor-free areas--from just two ordinary Montana
residents--we're not a big business, not lobbyists, and don't belong to
an Indian reservation. We just enjoy the state's national forests as
they are--except for the encroachment of machines and more roads.
Our wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas are even more
important to preserve and protect as our valleys fill with more people,
development, roads--preserving these areas will be so much more
valuable as we see our public lands being sold off, drilled into,
mined, etc. 30,000 miles of roads in our national forests yet only 4
percent of Montana is actually protected. This is shameful.
Our national forests are already multiple-abused--motorized
vehicles i.e. ATVs just take the joy out of a fair--big game hunt with
your children, a hike with your friends, a solitary day of fishing--
this to us is what Montana has always been about--wild areas--it's what
makes Montana stand out from the rest of the country.
We need to bring people together to solve our problems--creativity
and foresight. We need to provide new leadership to keep Montana's
quiet mountain trails and wilderness.
You, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Rehberg should shed your Washington, DC
skins and start spending some time in our national forests--we suggest
areas where machines are already allowed, and just try and enjoy the
surroundings. Then, you should go to a wilderness, roadless area and
compare. If you haven't done this in a while, you should. Then you'll
know why the majority of Montanans don't want motorized use in our
national forests.
Happy holidays.
______
Prepared Statement of Laurie Gaiser, Whitefish, MT
Senator Burns: We are writing to help answer your questions
regarding why the Forest Service recommends tracts of Montana
wilderness and motor-free areas--from just two ordinary Montana
residents--we're not a big business, not lobbyists, and don't belong to
an Indian reservation. We just enjoy the state's national forests as
they are--except for the encroachment of machines and more roads.
Our wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas are even more
important to preserve and protect as our valleys fill with more people,
development, roads--preserving these areas will be so much more
valuable as we see our public lands being sold off, drilled into, mined
, etc. 30,000 miles of roads in our national forests yet only 4 percent
of Montana is actually protected. This is shameful.
Our national forests are already multiple-abused--motorized
vehicles i.e. ATVs just take the joy out of a fair--big game hunt with
your children, a hike with your friends, a solitary day of fishing--
this to us is what Montana has always been about--wild areas--it's what
makes Montana stand out from the rest of the country.
We need to bring people together to solve our problems--creativity
and foresight. We need to provide new leadership to keep Montana's
quiet mountain trails and wilderness.
You, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Rehberg should shed your Washington, DC
skins and start spending some time in our national forests--we suggest
areas where machines are already allowed, and just try and enjoy the
surroundings. Then, you should go to a wilderness, roadless area and
compare. If you haven't done this in a while, you should. Then you'll
know why the majority of Montanans don't want motorized use in our
national forests.
Happy holidays.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Steve Seninger, Missoula, MT
Senator Burns: I participated in all of the Missoula Ranger
District, Lolo National Forest plan revision meetings this summer. A
wide range of forest users were present at the tables including folks
who were interested in ATV/OHV use, snowmobiles, logging, hunting,
hiking, and other interests. The meetings produced useful dialogue and
the results were summarized by us participants and provided to Forest
Service as public input. I feel that the Lolo National Forest staff
were very efficient and fair and used the input provided by all groups
and kinds of users of our national forests. I personally want to see
more protection of our public lands and our road less areas which now
comprise a very small portion of our overall public lands here in
Montana.
I am a resident of Missoula, a taxpayer, and a registered voter and
I will continue to support political candidates who work to keep
Montana lands open to all with adequate protection for hunters,
fishermen, trail riders, hikers, skiers and other non-motorized uses. I
appreciate you holding the December 2 hearings in Missoula which I
attended and urge you to work for protection of one of Montana's
greatest treasures, our mountains and public lands.
______
Prepared Statement of Eileen Schwanemann, Missoula, MT
Dear Senator Burns: It was interesting going to my first Senate
Committee Hearing. I was sorry that not even fifteen minutes was
allotted to comment/questions from any of the many attendees.
The issue of logging in national forests certainly needs to be
addressed and procedures changed some. Who would be the responsible
persons to facilitate this process? Certainly the public who own' this
public land should be involved. I agree that certain groups are tying
the whole process of any type of logging up in expensive lawsuits only
the lawyers win. What can end or limit this?
The other subject discussed at the meeting was motorized use in the
forests. At several of the Forest Planning Meetings in Missoula this
summer, it was suggested that motorized vehicles belong on roads. There
are certainly many roads in many of the forests. I realize that many
people have these vehicles. But I do not think ATV's, Four Wheelers,
and the like should be on trails where people walk, hike, or bike.
There are obvious safety factors involved here. Not to suggest banning
them, but snowmobiles are both extremely noisy and polluting. One last
comment on this issue.
There is a quiet in the woods, a silence that the soul alone can
hear, as if all of nature knew and understood, what a precious resource
this is. (Some credit for this goes to Leanin, Tree Cards.)
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of David Rockwell, Dixon, MT
Senator Conrad Burns: You questioned the need for wilderness when
you were in Missoula on Dec. 2. Please remember that Montana has over
90,000 miles of roads. Less than 4 percent of Montana is protected as
wilderness. We need wilderness as a people; it is part of who we are as
Montanans! It is part of our heritage and should be part of the legacy
we leave future generations. There are lots of places to go to drive
off-road vehicles, few places where you can enjoy the peace and
tranquility of a roadless environment.
ATVs and ORVs belong on designated roads because they when used
inappropriately they cause erosion, disrupt wildlife and harm fish
(with the silt they produce). They can damage resources that belong to
all of us.
Wilderness is multiple use. It provides for clean water for our
communities, outdoor recreation, range (through leases), and fish and
wildlife. The language of the Wilderness act even states that the
purposes of the Wilderness Act are within and supplemental to the
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA). The only use mentioned in the
MUSYA that wilderness does not include is timber. But if every acre of
every forest had to provide all of the multiple uses identified in the
MUSYA, we would have an impossible task before us.
Please support wilderness designation for our remaining roadless
areas. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Kathy Lloyd, Clancy, MT
Senator Conrad Burns: We were not able to attend the Senate
Oversight Hearing in Missoula on December 2 and were shocked and upset
to hear about the comments you made concerning roadless areas in
Montana. We are, frankly, very concerned to be represented by someone
who has to have these things explained. You, of all people, should
realize the value placed on our natural heritage, quiet places,
excellent hunting and fishing opportunities, and unspoiled beauty, not
only by the people of Montana, but by people throughout the country and
the world. The American public showed overwhelming support for the
Roadless Conservation Initiative because we knew how precious these
areas are now, and how much more precious and unique they will be in
the future.
Montana is cris-crossed by over 90,000 miles of roads, while only 4
percent of the state is protected as Wilderness. As more of the natural
landscape in Montana is turned into subdivisions, roads, and noise,
Wilderness will become even more important. We want our kids and their
kids to be able to enjoy the natural landscape of Montana, a landscape
that is bragged about and advertised as special. Our economy is, to a
large extent, fueled by our image of unspoiled beauty, and that will be
even more the case in the future if unthinking people don't degrade the
reality.
We want you to support the National Association of Counties and
tell the Forest Service to establish limits on motorized use in the
backcountry. Motorized vehicles belong on roads, not on quiet, family
hiking trails. The damage, erosion, spread of weeds, and conflicts
generated by ORV traffic is undeniable and must be managed. As to your
question about multiple-use, the principle is applied to the forest as
a whole; it does not mean that every inch of ground is open for every
use.
Now is no time to play politics. There is too much at stake. If we
don't act now what we all love about Montana will be overrun with
roads, noise, pollution, weeds, and concrete.
Thanks.
______
Prepared Statement of Catherine Haug, Bigfork, MT
Senator Burns: I'm writing to urge you to keep Montana's wild areas
free of roads, ATVs and snowmobiles, by working with the U.S.
Government to preserve more areas as wilderness. You have stated that
you believe ``wilderness limits the ability of folks to enjoy'' public
lands by prohibiting access via roads and off-road vehicle traffic. But
you are missing a critical point with this argument. That is, opening
access to wild areas via automobiles and off road vehicles, removes the
``wild'' from the areas. Far better to enjoy these remarkable areas by
horseback or by hiking the trails. Vehicular traffic is polluting,
noisy, and visually obtrusive.
Please help preserve Montana's glorious back country for our
children and generations that follow. Preserve this wilderness as a
safeguard for hunting, fishing, hiking and cross-country skiing the
quiet mountain trails, and camping under the stars.
I live near Montana's spectacular Jewel Basin, one of the most
popular hiking areas in the west, and have spent many wonderful summer
days and nights hiking and backpacking in the Basin and to the top of
Mt. Anaeas. I would be devastated to see this area ruined by roads and
ATVs.
Recent forest plans recommend even less wilderness than the most
recent Montana wilderness bill passed by the U.S. Senate (S. 1696),
which was cosponsored by you. People across the country think of
Montana as the ``Last Great Place,'' one of the last wilderness states
(along with Alaska), and yet Montana has lower percentage of wilderness
(at 4 percent) than our neighboring western states!
ATVs and other motorized vehicles belong on roads, not on quiet,
pristine mountain trails. We need to establish responsible limits on
off-road vehicle (ORV) use, to prevent the spread of weeds and other
damage from ORV traffic.
Wilderness is needed to promote the growth and breeding of beloved
yet often endangered wildlife. Connected corridors of wilderness are
especially needed to ensure genetic integrity and prevention of
inbreeding.
I urge you to provide new leadership on this issue of wilderness.
Please forego polarizing politics. Bring people together to solve our
problems, and to keep our wild areas--the best of the Old West--
alongside the new.
______
Prepared Statement of Dudley Improta, Missoula, MT
Senator Burns: I received a card announcing the Senate Hearing in
Missoula Dec. 2, 2005. I attended. With all due respect I believe our
forests and wildlands should be managed differently than a cornfield in
Iowa.
My comment on the Region 1 plans would be to save all roadless
areas that are now designated that way. Governor Schweitzer recently
met with all county commissioners in Montana. Their opinion was that no
new roads were needed at this time. They did say that it may be
necessary for new roads in a time of emergency such as fighting
wildfire.
I would agree that it is time to take a close look at NEPA and
perhaps update those laws to reflect the current state of land
management.
Please don't vote to sell public land or promote development of
lands that are now protected. Many Montanans put up with lower wages in
order to enjoy wild public lands.
One such area is Forest Service land near Missoula and Lolo Peak.
We have 13,000 acres of primitive and roadless lands that buffer the
development of Missoula and the BitterRoot Valley from the majestic
Selway-BitterRoot wilderness. We all know what is eventually going to
happen to private land in this area. Some would develop this public
land given the chance. If we care about outdoor recreation, hunting,
fishing and the Montana lifestyle; we will work to protect these areas.
Thanks for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Suzanne Luepke, Polson, MT
Senator Burns: Little by little roadless areas are being encroached
on and our wild lands are being decreased. We already have at least
30,000 miles of roads in Montana's National Forests. We need
responsible leadership that recognizes the value of wilderness, not
only for individuals but also for the good of our communalities in
terms of CLEAN AIR and CLEAN WATER.
I hope that you will think about the future and do what is right.
Also, I want to thank you for taking the time to investigate this
issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Juliette Crump and Bill Bevis, Missoula, MT
Senator Burns: I was appalled at your comparing our forests to a
corn field. A corn field is privately owned and farmed for profit. Our
national forests are publicly owned and managed for multiple uses.
We need more wilderness rather than less for our future Montana
citizens. I have noticed over the past few years in the Beaverhead
National Forest and the Lolo National Forest that more and more
motorized vehicles are going off roads and this means habitat is
destroyed and weeds are spread by these vehicles. That's why we need
the Forest Service to recommend tracts of Montana wilderness, for
protection of pristine areas that my grandchildren can enjoy.
The Forest Service has provided ample areas where snow mobiles and
ATVs can go, such as Lolo Pass where my friends and I cross country ski
(with snow mobiles on some trails) every Wednesday during winter. We
need you to support the National Association of Counties call to place
responsible limits on ORV use. Wilderness protection will help do this.
I urge you to do everything you can to preserve Montana's heritage
of open spaces.
______
Prepared Statement of David Schaub, Havre, MT
I do not favor increasing motorized use of National Forests. Less
than 4 percent of Montana is actually protected as wilderness. Our
roadless, non motorized wilderness areas are the womb of Montana's
quality environment that is attracting well paying, environmentally
friendly business to our state. I have health issues that likely will
prevent me from hiking into some areas that I once traveled. I reject
the idea of driving a 4 wheeler into those wild, roadless, quiet areas.
I want them left as is for my children and grandchildren. Not only do
we need to keep the few non motorized wilderness areas that we have, we
need to achieve some equalization and increase the wilderness areas.
There are plenty of other areas that I can access by pick up or 4
wheeler.
______
Prepared Statement of Vanelle Nurse, Missoula, MT
Senator: You mentioned at the 12/2 Senate Oversight Hearing in
Missoula that you believe ``wilderness limits the ability of folks to
enjoy'' public lands. I strongly disagree. I love to hike in our
wilderness areas. As a senior citizen I realize there will come a time
in the near future when I may not personally be able to access the
areas I have enjoyed for decades, but I would like to believe they will
be kept safe and pristine for our children and grandchildren. All
motorized vehicles belong on roads, including ATV's. Mountain trails
are not a place for the noise and damage these vehicles create. Please
support the National Association of Counties' call for the Forest
Service to expedite forest travel plans to establish responsible limits
on off-road vehicle use, to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and
other damage from ORV traffic. Please continue our heritage of open
space for the future of all Montanan's. Please save our wild public
lands.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Mary O'Brien, Polson, MT
Senator Burns: I am writing to state my opinion that wilderness is
consistent with the multiple use mandate of the U.S. Forest Service.
Wild places deserve an equal place among those areas set aside for
logging, vehicle traffic, etc.
Montana has more than 90,000 miles of roads, but less than 4
percent of our unique state is preserved as wilderness. All of
Montana's neighboring western states have seen fit to set aside greater
percentages than that. We Montanans want to pass a heritage of open
spaces on to our children, but to do so we must be foresighted enough
to set them aside now.
Thank you for your attention to my comments.
______
Prepared Statement of Colleen Mercer, Great Falls, MT
Until I started hiking in the local mountains, I didn't understand
the complaints about motorized vehicles.
Now because I've actually used our public lands, I realize the
threat.
On July 4, my husband and I took an early morning hike in the
Little Belts along Jefferson Creek. Then, the vehicles joined us. We
quit, and returned to our car because of the smell of the constant
traffic, and stopping to allow them to pass. It was a real surprise how
many are on the trail--too many to allow hikers to walk along.
In the fall, I joined a group of women on the trails out of Utica.
We found it impossible to follow the detailed Forest Service map
because there were so many off road tracks running EVERYWHERE, despite
signs indicating no motorized traffic.
We need to regulate this activity, and enforce the regulations! Our
undisturbed lands are a resource, key to our state's prestige. Thank
you.
______
Prepared Statement of Janet Tatz, Helena, MT
Dear Senator Burns: I was shocked and disappointed to learn that
you had recently questioned the value of wilderness. In a December 2
Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula, you stated that ``wilderness
limits the ability of folks to enjoy'' public lands. You also
questioned whether wilderness and motor free areas were ``consistent
with the multiple use'' mandate of the U.S. Forest Service.
As a long time resident of Montana, and a staunch advocate for the
preservation of Montana's wilderness, I am writing today to tell you
that Wilderness designations for many of Montana's wild lands, is the
only way to preserve the many wonderful places that Montana offers for
hunting, fishing, solitude and open space. Wilderness represents
Montana's future, as well as its past.
Currently, Montana has less than 4 percent of its land protected as
wilderness. All of our neighboring western states enjoy a higher
percentage of wilderness designation. We already have 30,000 miles of
roads in our national forests. We need to do more, now, to protect our
remaining open spaces from excessive ORV use. Irresponsible ORV use
leads to the spread of noxious weeds, habitat loss and the opportunity
to hike on a quiet mountain trail.
Montanans need you to provide the leadership to maintain and
preserve our wilderness heritage. Please do so.
______
Prepared Statement of Len and Nancy LaBuff, Missoula, MT
Senator Burns: I am very disappointed concerning your comments on
wilderness on Dec. 2 at a Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula. Our
wilderness areas in Montana are one of our greatest treasures we have.
To allow road building, motorized vehicles, or logging in the areas
would be an inestimable loss for all Montanans and U.S. citizens.
Please work to protect these last wild areas we have in Montana. They
are for everyone to enjoy and protect now and for future generations.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Rich and Jeannie Prodgers, Dillon, MT
Dear Senator: I strongly disagree with your statement that formal
wilderness designation limits the ability of folks to enjoy public
lands. Those are the lands my wife and I most enjoy. It's that simple.
I recall recently reading your statement that logging forests is
like cropping corn in Iowa. You're right: it takes federal subsidies
and is unsustainable in the long run.
Here is southwest Montana we had USFS roads out the wazoo, but
Congress won't appropriate enough funds to maintain them. Despite near-
record elk numbers, the harvest was once again poor because they vacate
the roaded areas in favor of more secure ones. More roads will mean
less secure habitat and fewer elk, but not better hunting.
Chief in our desires when we go hiking is getting away from
vehicles. We hike, fish, and hunt in wilderness areas and urge your
support for additional wilderness designation. The future of Montana,
as Bozeman as shown, lies in the beauty of our public lands, and only
wilderness designation maintains their integrity.
Thanks for considering our views.
______
Prepared Statement of Emily Lundberg, Bozeman, MT
Senator Burns: In regard to U.S. Forest Service planning,
wilderness and motor free areas ARE definitely consistent with the
multiple use mandate. Polls show that the majority of Montanans want
motor free areas to be preserved for quiet recreation and wildlife
protection. In regions that are roaded, quiet use is eliminated from
possibility. Although motorized access is reasonable in selected areas,
there must also be large motor free areas preserved for the future. The
children of Montanans must have the opportunity to hunt, fish, hike,
etc. in Montana wilderness. Montana needs to preserve more wilderness,
not less. This also supports the significant tourism industry in
Montana.
Please view these issues with a long-term vision and step up to
speak for the majority of individual Montanans. Future generations
could build more roads if they wish, but they could never re-create
wilderness.
______
Prepared Statement of Don Harris, Clancy, MT
Senator Burns: This is just a quick note to advise you that I am
fully in support of protecting Montana wilderness for current use and
for future generations. In my experience, wilderness is multiple use
that excludes very few. In reality, we have very little wilderness in
Montana and there is no way ``to make more.'' Please protect or work to
expand our current wilderness in Montana. This is the best decision in
regard to long term planning and is also most supported by public
opinion.
______
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Durham, Whitefish, MT
Senator Burns: I am troubled by your quote, ``wilderness limits the
ability of folks to enjoy'' public lands by keeping out off-road
vehicle traffic.
As a Montana resident, I feel that wilderness and a healthy
environment are extremely important. As our valleys fill with roads and
traffic, wilderness, solitude, quiet, and the splendor of nature are
extremely important. We owe it to ourselves and to future Montana
generations to safeguard wild places. Please do not underestimate the
importance of wilderness.
There are many places that people who wish to use off road vehicles
may--in fact there are over 30,000 miles of roads in Montana national
forests. Designating wilderness hardly limits the opportunities for
this sort of recreation. Off road vehicle use is extremely destructive
to the land when not properly managed, bringing in noxious weeds,
pollution, and harming plants and animals. I urge you to support the
National Association of Counties' call for the Forest Service to
expedite forest travel plans that will establish responsible limits on
ORV use.
Wilderness IS multiple use, and belongs in our forests along with
suitable areas for logging and vehicle traffic. Senator Burns, consider
that many of your constituents value wilderness, and please support
wilderness designations.
______
Prepared Statement of Brian Peck, Columbia Falls, MT
Senator Burns: What are you folks smokin' back in D.C. these days?!
Of course Wilderness is one of the intended ``multiple uses.'' I've
lived in the Rockies and Montana for 35 years, and Wilderness is where
I find the cleanest air and water, the biggest trout and elk, and some
of the last of the Quiet on God's green earth. We've got something like
30,000 miles of roads on public land already and only about 4 percent
of the state's in Wilderness. The guys who have forgotten the Montana
traditions of hiking, horse packing, and floating, and can't go
anywhere without their motors need to stop whining--they've got plenty
of roads.
You need to get outta Washington Conrad, and back to the REAL
Montana--it's Wild--not a bunch more roads filled with sissys who
forgot how to pull on boots and walk, or ride a horse.
______
Prepared Statement of Elon Gilbert, Arlee, MT
Dear Senator Burns: As a resident of Arlee on the Flathead
Reservation I have long been enjoying the wild areas that surround me
as a hiker and skier. I have also been a participant in the forest
planning (FP) activities in the last several months both here in MT as
well as in ID. Two comments:
1. Despite lots of disagreement, FP is bringing folks together that
thought they had nothing in common--this is healthy and the process
should be respected, not usurped by political or bureaucratic behind
the scenes dealings. The discussions on the roadless areas are the same
ones that have featured in the FP process and this continues to cause
confusion. I hope that you will see how the results of these two
processes can converge.
2. I strongly favor keeping existing roadless areas as they are and
support wilderness designation for special areas, including the Great
Burn/Malard Larkin the LoLo and Clearwater NFs.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Janelle Kuechle, Missoula, MT
Senator Conrad Burns: I attended the hearing you held on December
2, at the University on Montana, College of Technology in Missoula.
After testimony from the six people on the panel, I heard you say to
almost 500 people that you didn't ``think it's any different than a
field of Iowa corn or a grass field in eastern Montana.'' Respectfully,
Senator Burns, I couldn't disagree with you more. Having grown up in a
farming community in Minnesota, a forest isn't anything like a corn
field except that it is outside and grows. I realize that you probably
made this comment off-the-cuff, but it seemed to show a lack of
knowledge in regards to the reforestation projects that have run amuck.
Because of clear-cut slopes which cannot support new seedlings due to
slides and run off, not to mention a multitude of other reasons, so-
called sustainable harvest has not hit the mark.
But, there's more to this issue. When we talk about multiple uses,
it sounds like we all can use the forest together in harmony. In
reality, uses don't always mix. For example, the Lolo Pass on the Idaho
border has combined uses with separate trails for cross-country skiing
and for snowmobiling. When I go up there to ski, I know that it won't
be entirely peaceful, but I can live with that because I love the area.
I have, however, yet to be up there when there hasn't been a snowmobile
on the cross-country trail, or at least the results of one cutting
across trails making it nearly impossible to ski safely.
There was testimony by Russ Ehnes, President of the Montana Trail
Riders Association, regarding limiting public access. Conspicuous by
its absence was that he didn't mention illegally made trails all over
the State of Montana. Ehnes also stated that ``the people who promote
more wilderness are changing the nomenclature of the debate.'' Senator
Burns, the words ``wilderness light'' are not coming from people who
want wilderness designations. We want no such ``wilderness light.'' We
want some places designated as wilderness forever, so that they are
free of machines forever. I do not believe that the wilderness
designation undercuts local economies. In fact, we had 10 million
visitors last year, many of whom were wilderness seekers. Besides,
there are already 90,000 miles of roads in our State. That is more than
the lion's share of Montana to be used by thousands of trail-vehicle
riders.
Regarding the cutting of timber spoiled by the draught and
subsequent beetle infestation, I believe that some logging should be
allowed. However, not every piece of wood in the forest should be
removed just because nature takes the course of fire and beetle kill.
The trees that survive are the stronger strains which should be allowed
to reforest the area. In addition, the remaining habitat provides cover
for wildlife that is more conducive to the health of many species than
a clear cut could ever be.
Senator Burns, please bring people together to plan ahead for
multiple use that designates wilderness forever, areas for logging, and
roads for vehicle use. And please don't let people just talk about the
market economy. Let's talk about the ``economy'' of the spirit, which
ultimately has great value for stressed human beings who are over-taxed
by a world that is almost completely industrialized.
______
Prepared Statement of Tim D. Peterson, Missoula, MT
Senator Conrad Burns: I am writing to provide testimony on behalf
of Wildlands CPR regarding the recent Congressional field hearing on
Forest Planning held in Missoula. Wildlands CPR is a national
conservation group that specifically targets off-road vehicle abuse on
public lands and actively promotes wildland restoration, road removal,
the prevention of new road construction, and limits on motorized
recreation. Please include these comments in the formal hearing record.
Wildlands CPR would like to express concerns with the testimony
delivered during the panel. Chief among our concerns are issues related
to NFMA and NEPA, impacts related to dispersed motorized recreation,
adequate funding to implement the new off road vehicle rule, wilderness
recommendations in forest planning, issues related to forest health
including beetle kill and logging, and concerns related to Forest Plan
revision.
There seemed to be a presupposition by members of the panel that
there is a lack of motorized recreation opportunities on our National
Forests. This is not the case. According to Forest Service data, 36
percent of the national system, or 69,004,231 acres, is currently open
to off-road cross-country travel. In addition, more than 273,529 miles
of roads and trails are open to use by off road vehicles. These data do
not demonstrate a lack of motorized access to America's National
Forests. This abundant access the lack of balance on the ground, in
fact, because only approximately 10 percent of national forest
recreational visitors participate in winter or summer off-road vehicle
recreation while at least one-third of the land is opened to cross-
country travel, not counting the additional routes that are
specifically designated for off-road vehicle use.
Dispersal of motorized recreation is also a concern for us at
Wildlands CPR. Impacts from motorized users should be concentrated to
reduce negative impacts to soil, water, and habitat, not spread over
large and unmanageable areas. Russ Ehnes of the Montana Trail Riders
Association remarked at the hearing, in reference to off road vehicle
use, that: ``the solution to pollution is dilution.'' This familiar
axiom was formulated in the late-twentieth century in relation to air
and water pollution. The phrase implies that the same emission rate
from a tall stack will have far less impact on nearby residents than a
low stack. Unfortunately, this approach to lowering human exposure
ignored the potential impacts of those emissions on areas further
downwind. Hence the quick and easy solution, while effective, produced
unforeseen environmental impacts. The same model is true in relation to
impacts of motorized recreation. If more areas and trails are provided
for motorized use, more negative environmental impacts will occur. This
is especially true with regard to noxious and invasive weed seeds,
which hitch a ride on motorized equipment. Forest Service Chief
Bosworth named noxious and invasive weeds as one of the four key
threats to the National Forest System. The more dispersed off road
vehicles and motor vehicles become, the more dispersed noxious and
invasive weeds become. A larger network of motorized routes also leads
to greater habitat fragmentation and disturbance of wildlife and
natural quiet. Instead of increasing impacts by permitting an ever-
expanding network of motorized routes, negative environmental impacts
should be avoided by restricting motorized use to areas and zones where
it can be more effectively managed. It is also important to consider
the multiple use mandate when planning for off road vehicle use.
Multiple use does not mean every use in every area, but a balanced
spectrum of conservation, recreation and extractive activities.
Multiple uses of the forest include quiet recreation such as hiking,
bird and wildlife watching and skiing. As off road vehicle use becomes
more and more pervasive, many other multiple uses of forest land are
displaced as quiet users abandon areas dominated by off road vehicles
and their attendant noise, dust and pollution. Quiet places are
becoming harder and harder to find on forest lands as off road vehicle
technology improves and allows these vehicles to travel farther and
farther into the backcountry, impacting more and more resources along
the way. Effective application of the Forest Service's multiple use
mandate must include room for the natural quiet and solitude
nonmotorized areas provide.
Effective implementation of the new Forest Service rule ``Travel
Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use'' depends
on adequate funding from Congress. When directly asked about funding
needs, Chief Bosworth explained that the agency would find funding for
route designations by being creative with line items rather than
requesting additional appropriations. Here in Montana, we've already
had one forest, the Helena, drop their travel planning entirely due to
lack of funding. It is critical that Congress dedicate funding for
route designation processes if the agencies are to deal effectively
with off road vehicles. Adequate funding is crucial to correcting what
the Chief named as another of the four key threats to the National
Forest system, ``unmanaged recreation.'' If not adequately funded, the
new rule could flounder, leading to a continuation of the serious
problems caused by unmanaged motorized recreation. We respectfully
request that you take the initiative to fully fund the implementation
of the Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle
Use Rule.
The state of Montana currently contains 3,372,503 acres of
designated Forest Service wilderness. Montana's total acreage is
93,153,280. Only about 3.7 percent of Montana is Forest Service
Wilderness. Montana has a lower percentage of land area in designated
wilderness than Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Hawaii,
Florida, Arizona, Alaska and California. No new Forest Service
wilderness has been designated in Montana since 1983. Interest in quiet
recreation has increased exponentially since that time, (at an even
faster rate than interest in motorized recreation), and Montanans want
more wilderness. In Forest Plan revision, planners are charged with the
duty to make a recommendation to the regional forester for lands
suitable, available and capable for wilderness designation. While this
technical process is not a mandatory precursor to an actual designation
by Congress, it is important to recommend that land be managed for non-
impairment of wilderness values in the forest planning process. At the
hearing, panelists argued that too much land is being recommended for
wilderness designation in the forest planning process. The Beaverhead-
Deerlodge was cited as a specific example. At 3.32 million acres, the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest currently contains 225,147 acres
of designated wilderness. This represents 6 percent of the forest. The
recommendation under the preferred alternative for 246,500 acres, if
actually congressionally designated, would bring the total to only 14
percent of the forest. This was highlighted as unreasonably large
amount. We believe it is an unreasonably small amount. While wilderness
recommendations such as these will be made for some forests, the
Kootenai National Forest Plan revision contains no wilderness
recommendation at all. This does not represent the Forest Service's
multiple use mandate, as wilderness is a valid multiple use of federal
lands. In addition, a common complaint is that wilderness eliminates
access. This is untrue, as there are many more ways to access the
forest than sitting astride an off road vehicle. Wilderness does not
disallow access; it only places restrictions on modes and methods of
access.
Two of our nation's bedrock environmental laws, the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
were both referenced in the hearing. A need to reform these laws was
expressed with the implication that these laws are outdated, written
for a time when resource extraction was the management emphasis on
public lands. Panelists argued that we have entered an era of
restoration, and those laws (NFMA and NEPA) that once hindered resource
extraction are hindering restoration. Unfortunately, we believe this is
a misrepresentation of the actual on-the-ground situation. In recent
years, land management planners have simply substituted the words
``restoration project'' for the words ``timber sale'' in project
documents. Given this mostly semantic change, many projects are
challenged by conservation interests and citizens on the basis that
they are not, in fact, true restoration. If these projects were indeed
true restoration, they would meet far fewer challenges from the
conservation community. Another common semantic smokescreen packages
logging related to fuels reduction and reduction of fire risk as
restoration. These projects may benefit local communities in terms of
reducing fire risk, but they are seldom truly restoration. Land
managers must consider the mandate of the NFMA--its requirements have
improved management, monitoring and accountability. Public involvement,
adequate consideration of environmental impacts, and the open processes
guaranteed by NEPA are critical to the function of a public land
agency. This success is not an indication that these bedrock laws need
reform. If restoration is the true goal, forest projects should be
defensible and thus move quickly through the NEPA process. These key
laws hold land managers accountable to the American public,
conservation and industry interests alike.
The panelists' discussion surrounding beetle killed trees
demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of natural processes
of forest health, as well as the scope and scale of forested federal
land. It is simply not practical or advisable to remove every single
beetle-killed tree from federal land. Leaving dead and down trees in
the landscape is not ``a waste of timber,'' it allows completion of the
nutrient cycle. Some species, such as lodgepole pine, evolved with
beetle kill and the fire that often follows for healthy regeneration.
It is not possible to mimic natural processes by simply building roads
and cutting trees. To do so would remove a substantial portion of the
nutrient cycle, as well as further disturb other terrestrial and
aquatic habitats. While factors such as global climate change, drought,
and the effects of a century of fire suppression are leading to
increased beetle kill in some areas, ``outbreaks'' on a landscape scale
before Anglo settlement have been recorded all across the west,
including the Flat Tops of the White River and Routt National Forests
in Colorado and the high plateaus of the Manti-LaSal, Fishlake and
Dixie National Forests of central and southern Utah. It is simply not
possible to keep ahead of beetle kill by cutting trees. Contrary to
Chief Bosworth's assertions, there is simply no sound science
indicating that such a scenario would be plausible or beneficial to
forest health. Chief Bosworth explained that land use designations will
occur at the forest planning level. The agency must be clear about its
multiple use mandate in forest planning, taking great care to be sure
to include lands suitable for wilderness and lands suitable for other
nonmotorized recreation, as well as supplying forage, wood and water.
Finally, you remarked near the end of the hearing: ``I don't think
[national forests are] any different than a field of Iowa corn or a
grass field in eastern Montana.'' There is a vast difference between a
piece of private ground managed for a single use and America's public
lands. National Forests are not tree plantations, and more than just
commodity harvest must be considered in their management. National
forests are managed for multiple use, not single-use commodity
production. The philosophy of National Forest as national woodlot is
not one shared by the majority of American citizens, who see National
Forests as a prime source of recreation, clean water, wildlife habitat,
solitude and stunning natural beauty.
______
Prepared Statement of Sharon Dill, Florence, MT
I was out of town when your hearing was held in Missoula on Dec. 2.
I would like my comments added to those of others.
I attended several of the FS planning meetings and felt that they
were bending over backwards to give the public a chance to be heard. If
anything, there were so many meetings that it was hard to pick and
choose which were most important to attend.
You seem to have a concern about the multiple use mandate to the
FS. To me, multiple use means that all types of use are worked into the
forest plan, but it does NOT mean all at the same place. For example, I
was recently cross country skiing at Lolo Pass. I dreaded crossing the
road which the snowmobilers are allowed to use. Why? Because it is
dangerous! I have heard that they are supposed to have a speed limit of
15 mph in that area, but that simply doesn't happen. It hasn't been
that long ago since a skier was hit and killed by a snowmobile in that
same area so my concerns are legitimate.
Please work to bring people with different interests together to
figure out which areas work best for which activities and alleviate the
polarization that tends to happen.
I support wilderness areas and would like to see them increased. To
me, that is the most important of the ``multiple uses.''
I realize today is the deadline for submitting comments and hope
this is not too late. I was unable to get online earlier due to
technical problems with the internet connection.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Jane Timmerman, Kalispell, MT
Sir: I moved to Montana 16 years ago looking for wilderness, wild
animals, open spaces, peace and quiet that I couldn't find in the
Midwest anymore. Now, northwest Montana is being ``discovered'' and
open spaces here are dotted with ranchettes, strip malls. Even more, we
need to preserve our wilderness (now only 4 percent of our state)
because people need it to get away, for that peace and quiet. I'm not
that good with words or describing my feelings, but I know how
important a move Montana was for me. Please don't allow our wilderness
to go to the highest bidder (big companies/corporations) who'll impose
more limits in access to our state treasures of open and wild lands.
Thanks.
______
Prepared Statement of Gloria Flora, Helena, MT
Greetings Sen. Burns: You invited comment essentially asking the
question, ``What good is wilderness?''. A good question: one that begs
an answer that is both simple yet profound.
Less than 5 percent of our state is wilderness, that means our
great-grandchildren can expect that less than 5 percent of the state
will be almost exactly as it was in our ancestor's time. (Do you recall
the extent to which your hometown and its surroundings have changed?)
But instead of counting wilderness acres as a percentage of the state,
we should count wilderness acres per capita . . . they're going down
every year as the population grows. And this isn't just a Montana
resource, these lands belong to all Americans, we're just the temporary
caretakers--and typically darn good ones.
Wilderness is a living, interactive museum as well as our
childrens' legacy. Wilderness is an incredible source of clean water,
trees that provide oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide, unaltered vistas,
a laboratory for research, a multitude of recreation opportunities,
especially hunting and fishing, a unique state identity drawing
millions of tourists, a well-spring of biodiversity . . . the list
could go on and on.
Over 100 prominent scientists had this to say about undeveloped
landscapes. ``Undisturbed forests are less susceptible to tree
diseases, insect attacks, and invasions from non-native species, and
are less likely to have suffered the adverse effects of fire
suppression. These healthier ecosystems are in turn more able to
withstand the effects of global climate change and act as refugia for
sensitive wildlife and plant species, many of which are vulnerable to
extirpation in more developed areas. Thus, intact forests can serve as
reservoirs as surrounding landscapes become genetically impoverished.''
As I said when asked the same question on a PBS TV show,
``Wilderness represents the land as it was, and as it can be, and will
be into the future. And it provides us not only the understanding of an
undisturbed eco-system, but it also provides a beautiful opportunity
for people to reconnect with nature. And that is a fast disappearing
commodity in the world.''
The wealthiest country in the world surely can afford to treat its
resources sustainably. The Creator didn't just generate a marvelous,
fecund landscape so every acre could be used up or destroyed. A prudent
farmer keeps some of the seed stock.
There are volumes of books devoted to the subject, if you'd like
some recommendations, let me know. You may also want to spend some time
at the renowned Arther Carhart National Wilderness Training Center in
Missoula, Montana.
Thanks for asking.
______
Prepared Statement of Debbie Milburn, Helena, MT
Why do Americans need more wilderness? Because it provides
something that is in very short supply in our modern life:
--Quiet
--Slower pace of life
--Pollution-free air, water and soil
It's as simple as that. Off-road vehicles (OHVs) threaten these
precious attributes. People don't need OHVs to recreate on public
lands--they are not a traditional use. Our National Forests, along with
Parks, Monuments and BLM lands are our last refuges from motor vehicles
that are so prevalent in every other aspect of life. Wilderness and de
facto wilderness is multiple use and a good choice for our land
managers. Don't complicate the issue by allowing OHVs. There will be
less:
--trail maintenance,
--user conflicts, and
--impact on natural resources
Our last remaining natural places should not be spoiled by allowing
OHV use.
______
Prepared Statement of Rockwood Scott Brown, Billings, MT
Senator Burns: I am the owner of two outdoor stores--The Base Camp
in Billings and Helena. I am writing to urge you to support Montana's
Wilderness. Our Wilderness areas are very important to me, my business
and all of our staff. Wilderness promotes the use of the goods we sell.
Thanks for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Bruce Ammons, Arlee, MT
I am very upset over the lack of protection for wilderness and wild
areas within the purview of the Forest Service.
I have lived in Montana my entire 50 years and started going to the
Bob, Glacier, Yellowstone, and dozens of smaller parks when I was 4
years old with my father, carrying a tiny Kelty frame pack and enjoying
the grandeur of the land and close contact with other animals.
As a long-time citizen of the state, well-travelled over the United
States and to other countries, I urge you to do the right thing for our
children and create as much wilderness as is possible at this point--
which actually can't amount to much overall even at a maximum, due to
encroachment.
I have seen populations of animals dwindle, forest roads lead
poachers and trespassers on noisy, damaging ATVs into my family's land
up Deep Creek, and snowmobilers trespass on all sorts of wild places
they are not supposed to be so that they may ``high mark''.
(Unfortunately, these idiots don't kill themselves often enough to
really effectively remove themselves from the gene pool . . .) I have
nothing against ATVs--they are very helpful on my farm.
We owe it to common sense, decency, our children and theirs, other
critters, and to peace-and-quiet, nature loving humans from all over to
create wilderness, limit roads, create eco-corridors, ban ATVs from
wild lands, and to not simply follow the nods of the lobbyists with
money and power. Don't the ads on TV with Hondas and Kawasaki's tearing
trails through wild desert and mountains bother you? The Japanese
corporate bosses encouraging Americans to destroy their own heritage
while lining Japanese pockets? They certainly bother me. Chevy ads
where the desert dunes and wild areas are trashed in some display of
macho are equally bothersome . . . These ads appeal to people who have
never taken the time to learn how to be ``with'' the land and truly
enjoy it. One doesn't ``conquer'' nature.
If you want to see what happens in a state that really loves its
ATVs and does little to control them, go look at southern Utah--huge,
washed gullies from trails all over previously pristine wild areas. I
have been bucked off horses frightened by snowmobiles and ATVs. let
them use the 90,000 miles of roads that are already present in Montana
and keep them off our wild trails.
Recent plans for our national forests are appalling. They seem to
have only one thing in mind: more areas to shred and make money from,
votes to be had from the motorized folks, all at the expense of those
on foot who do no damage to this beautiful heritage. Do not allow
development that tears up the land and THEN asks for forgiveness, such
as the BS development of a bogus ski area on Lolo Peak south of
Missoula. This is not good land stewardship, not smart business
thinking, and not what the majority of Missoulians want. The fellow who
is behind it has a track record of dumb business deals and ego-maniacal
thinking. I knew the previous generation of the Maclay family and I
think they'd have given him a spanking for his rotten behavior.
______
Prepared Statement of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Senator Burns and Committee Members: Please accept these comments
from Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC). GYC is a non-profit,
conservation organization with offices in Bozeman, Montana; Cody and
Jackson, Wyoming; and Idaho Falls, Idaho. Our membership of
approximately 12,600 individuals, 100 local, regional, and national
conservation organizations and 120 business sponsors, is committed to
protecting and preserving the lands, water, and wildlife of the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem, now and for future generations.
GYC works on public land management issues throughout Montana,
Wyoming and Idaho. Our work in Region 1 of the Forest Service focuses
on the Custer, Gallatin and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests. Our
comments reflect our experiences working with local citizens and local
land managers on Custer, Gallatin and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
Forest issues.
FOREST PLAN REVISIONS
Forest plans and other land management projects are created in the
broader public interest through a robust process of public
participation. As Region 1 National Forests have undertaken the task of
revising their forest and travel plans, the Forest Service has met with
local citizens, held open house meetings in communities and listened to
citizens who are most effected by land management decisions. Many
Montanans have participated in these processes, working together and
with the Forest Service to develop workable plans that reflect balance
and multiple use management. Montanans are looking to Senator Burns for
leadership in supporting these local efforts and the workable solutions
developed through extensive public involvement. We offer two examples,
from our own recent experience.
The Gallatin National Forest is in the process of revising its
travel management plan that will determine where and how people use the
forest's roads and trails for the next 15 to 20 years. In September
2005, the Forest Service concluded its public comment period for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the travel plan.
The Gallatin National Forest has done an excellent job of involving
local communities and recreational users of the forest throughout its
travel planning process. GYC disagrees with some of the specifics in
the Gallatin National Forest's management proposal. We believe the
preferred alternative does not do enough to protect the forest's
wildlife habitat, water quality and quiet recreation opportunities.
Nevertheless, we support the process used by the Forest Service during
travel planning. Our members, along with many others, actively
participated in the development of a travel plan for the Gallatin
National Forest.
Thus far, the Gallatin National Forest has spent over 3 years
revising its travel plan.\1\ The initial scoping process began in
August 2002, with open houses in local communities and a 90-day public
comment period on the scoping document or the ``benchmark.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http:www.fs.fed.us/rl/gallatin/projects/travel_planning/pdf/
timeline01_04.pdf
\2\ http:www.fs.fed.us/rl/gallatin/projects/travel_planning/pdf/
Travel_Briefing_Paper_March_2005.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service then released a description of alternatives for
public review in August 2003, with another round of open house meetings
in local communities and gave the public 90 days to comment on its
proposal. On February 14, 2005 the Forest Service released its DEIS.
The Forest Service held open house meetings in local communities near
the Gallatin National Forest including: Bozeman, Big Sky, West
Yellowstone, Big Timber, Billings, Cooke City, Gardiner and Livingston.
These open houses gave local people an opportunity to meet with the
Forest Service and provide the Forest Service with comments and ideas.
Initially, the Forest Service gave the public a 90-day comment
period to comment on the DEIS. During this comment period it became
obvious that the public needed more time, and the Forest Service
extended the comment period for an additional 45 days. When a computer
glitch impacted peoples' ability to comment, the Forest Service granted
yet another comment deadline extension. The comment period on the DEIS
closed on September 2, 2005, lasting over 200 days. No one can
rightfully claim that the Forest Service did not give the public ample
opportunity to be involved in the travel planning process.
Thus far the Forest Service has received over 16,000 comments on
the Gallatin travel plan:
--1,600 comments on the benchmark;
--3,200 comments on the draft alternatives; and
--12,000 comments on the draft environmental impact statement.
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is also in the process of
revising its forest plan.\3\ Since January 2002 when the Forest Service
released its scoping document, the Forest Service has attended over 100
meetings with interest groups and public officials to discuss the
forest plan. These meetings resulted in a draft forest plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), released in June 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http:www.fs.fed.us/rl/b-d/forest-plan/revision/overview-
status.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, GYC supports the process the Forest Service used to engage
the public in developing this revised forest plan. Like the Gallatin,
an initial 90 day comment period was extended to ensure the public and
all interested parties had adequate time to comment on the draft
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan. The Forest Service gave the public
over 120 days to comment, and when the deadline closed on October 31,
2005 the Forest Service had received over 9,600 comments.
MULTIPLE USE AND WILDERNESS
The Forest Service is mandated to conduct forest plan and travel
management plan revisions following a number of federal laws and
regulations, including the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960
(Act). The Act states, ``that the national forests are established and
shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed,
and wildlife and fish purposes.''
The Forest Service recognizes a number of activities classified as
outdoor recreation including: hiking, hunting, bird and wildlife
watching, wilderness, motorcycle and OHV use, skiing, snowshoeing,
snowmobiling, etc. Under the Act, the Forest Service is mandated to
provide a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities to the American
people. However, this does not mean the Forest Service has to provide
all types of activity on all areas of national forest lands.
Under the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act wilderness, wilderness
study areas and recommended wilderness are recognized and considered
part of the multiple use spectrum. The Act specifically recognizes
wilderness as multiple use: Section 2 [16 U.S.C. 529] states, ``The
establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent
with the purposes and provisions of this Act.''
The Act recognizes that multiple use of public lands does not mean
all uses can occur in all places: Section 4 [16 U.S.C. 531] defines
multiple use as:
(a) ``Multiple use'' means: The management of all the various
renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are
utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the
American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or
all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to
provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform
to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less
than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of
the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the
productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the
relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the
combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the
greatest unit output,'' (emphasis added).
The Forest Service continues to manage Region 1 forests under the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act by providing the public with a full
range of opportunities and by managing forest lands for wildlife,
recreation, timber production, mining, watersheds and grazing.
Designated wilderness is a vital resource to Montanans and an
appropriate use of national forest lands. Wilderness areas provide
recreational opportunities unavailable anywhere else in the world. They
also protect important fish and wildlife habitat and water quality.
Only about 18 percent of all national forest lands are designated
wilderness. In Region 1, which includes Montana, Northern Idaho, North
and South Dakota, there are 25 million acres of national forest lands,
of which 5 million, or 20 percent, are designated wilderness. On the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge there are two wilderness areas, the Anaconda-
Pintler (117,435 acres) and the Lee Metcalf (107,694 acres), totaling
225,147, or 7 percent of the 3.3 million acre forest.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/b-d/forest-plan/drafts/deis-voll/ch-
3h_inv-roadless-areas.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge's preferred alternative for the forest
plan proposes to designate additional wilderness. If all lands
recommended for wilderness under the preferred alternative were managed
as wilderness, only 14 percent of the forest would be wilderness.
The Gallatin National Forest encompasses 1.8 million acres of land
and contains two wilderness areas--the Absaroka-Beartooth (575,771
acres) and the Lee Metcalf (140,594 acres).\5\ Approximately 39 percent
of the forest is designated wilderness, leaving over 60 percent of the
forest to be managed for other types of use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/gallatin/projects/travel_planning/pdf/
Deis_Ch_3/Ch3_Wilderness.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Custer National Forest encompasses about 1.3 million acres and
contains approximately 345,599 acres of designated wilderness \6\
including the Absaroka-Beartooth. Designated wilderness comprises
approximately 26 percent of the forest, leaving over 74 percent of the
forest to be managed for other types of use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/custer/aboutus/index.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003 the Forest Service conducted a Wilderness Needs Assessment
for Region 1 and found a need for additional wilderness \7\ for the
following reasons: to provide for an expanding population, secure
habitat for species that are dependent upon large undisturbed
landscapes, and add underrepresented ecological cover types to the
Wilderness system. Demand for wilderness recreation and experience is
increasing. By managing areas as wilderness the Forest Service will
provide wild places for people to visit and wildlife to thrive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/b-d/forest-plan/drafts/deis-voll/ch-
3h_inv-roadless-areas.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROTECTING WILD LANDSCAPES MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE
Numerous economic analyses have shown that Montana's protected
public lands provide us with a competitive advantage over other parts
of the country. Montana's public lands help attract new businesses,
helping our local economies grow and diversify, creating opportunity
for young people in Montana. Our public lands contribute to the
lifestyle that so many Montanans enjoy.
During the Gallatin National Forest travel plan revision the Forest
Service conducted an expanded social economic analysis. Monitoring data
showed that there were approximately 1.9 million visitors to the
Gallatin in 2003. Using visitor expenditure information, it is
estimated that these expenditures contributed about 1,100 jobs or 2
percent of the local economy.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/gallatin/projects/travel_planning/pdf/
economic_social_Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis looked specifically at how different types of
recreation contribute to our local economy and found non-motorized use
produces $5,605,337 in direct labor income effects and $1,733,549 in
indirect and induced labor income effects.
Montana's protected federal public lands provide us with a
competitive advantage compared to other states or regions of the
country. These national forest lands provide us with a longer hunting
season, clean drinking water, opportunities for fishing and serve as an
economic driver for our local economies. Managing these lands for their
natural integrity allows Montana to keep our economic edge.
Natural resource issues have long been controversial in Montana.
That controversy reflects the public's passion and love for the
bountiful wildlife, clean water, abundant fisheries, and wild lands
that are part of our heritage. GYC asks that you safeguard that
heritage. Please ensure that the natural resources we cherish are
managed thoughtfully, with a sustainable, long-term vision. We ask you
to provide support and leadership to efforts in Region 1 where
Montanans are reaching across diverse interests to find workable
solutions, rather than continue to foster polarization.
We also ask you to let the Forest Service do its job. By working
with local citizens to balance diverse and sometimes competing needs
the Forest Service can meet public demand and ensure our national
forests continue to provide high quality wildlife habitat, clean water
and a variety of recreational opportunities.
Thank you for considering Greater Yellowstone Coalition's comments.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Families For Outdoor Recreation
Honorable Senators: Chairman Conrad Burns, Thad Cochran, Robert
Byrd, Pete Domenici, Robert Bennett, Patrick Leahy, Ted Stevens, Herb
Kohl, Byron Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, Judd Gregg, Larry Craig, Harry
Reid, Barbara Mikulski, and Wayne Allard.
Senators: Families For Outdoor Recreation (FFOR) represents
thousands of families and groups across Montana, Northern Wyoming, the
Dakotas and Southern Idaho. For decades generations of families have
accessed our United States Forest Service (USFS) public lands to
recreate, hunt, attain their livelihoods, and utilize public lands
under the ``sustained multiple-use'' designations these public lands
were set aside for. We are very supportive and want to express our
appreciation for your time, attention, and interest in holding this
special hearing by the Senate Interior Subcommittee. Our comments
contained within this testimony, while very direct and pointed, are
submitted with the utmost respect for the people and authority of the
USFS. We believe that this Senate Interior Subcommittee Special Hearing
can be the start of a process where the membership of the Senate
Interior Committee, USFS Chief Bosworth, and the USFS Northern Region
Forester Gail Kimbell can together come to the realization of how far
the USFS has moved in their policies and actions away from managing
public lands for sustained multiple use toward single ``quiet''
wilderness-like use. Furthermore we hope that this special hearing
fosters a realization of the significant erosion of trust, confidence,
and observed competencies the public has in the USFS of Region 1.
Finally, we hope this special hearing kicks off a process for the USFS
to reverse decisions and policies in order to return the USFS to the
role of stewarding and managing our public lands in a manner that meets
the mandate of sustained multiple use where we are all able to enjoy
our public lands in the appropriate manner as we traditionally have
been able to while protecting our great treasures for future
generations to enjoy.
Through the last five years the policies of the USFS in Region 1
have been undergoing continual land use management and planning
transformations. There has been the ``3-State OHV Rule'', several
forest plan revisions, the Clinton Roadless Area Conservation Rule, the
Travel Planning Process which is currently underway and the Bush
Roadless Petition Process to name a few. During the next five years we
will likely see the completion of the Travel Planning Process, some
level of implementation of the Bush Roadless Petition Process, and
implementation of the recently released ``Final OHV Rule''. One of the
fundamental rules of management is ``make a good plan, implement the
plan, monitor the outcome, and tweak things to perfect the product''.
The USFS seems to be constantly changing their mind, switching and
mixing Plans, Planning Methods, Policies, and mandates up. They have
yet to implement a plan fully and thoroughly that meets the mandate it
was originally set out for before grabbing for another Planning
process. With all of these rules, changes, and the constant state of
flux within the policies and planning it should not come as any
surprise to hear that the public is confused about the process or what
is actually being done, disgusted with the outcome, and generally
frustrated with as well as distrustful of the USFS. We certainly hope
this is not the desired outcome but it appears that confusing the
public may be part of the overall strategy of the USFS.
The 3-State OHV Rule is a mandate for the USFS to use in managing
motorized use on public lands. If properly implemented this rule is a
powerful tool for the USFS to use in managing motorized use and to
address the claimed and perceived problems. Beyond applying the 3-State
OHV Rule to inform the motorized users to ``Stay on the Trail'', the
USFS has done a very poor job of adequately completing their
responsible actions related their role in implementing this rule. Some
trails were identified and some critical analysis was completed but not
consistently across the Region. The public was minimally informed and
educated but the rule has not been enforced in a consistent nor
adequate manner by the USFS. Basically, the USFS applied the 3-State
OHV Rule to bar the creation of new trails and freeze motorized use of
public lands to the established trails and roads. It appears by their
partial and incomplete implementation of the 3-State OHV Rule that the
USFS may not really be interested in managing motorized use of public
lands. Could it be that the USFS has a goal for motorized and
mechanized activities on public land which is broader and more limiting
than the 3-State OHV Rule will achieve? Could that goal be one of
ultimately eliminating motorized and mechanized use from a majority and
eventually all of Region 1 Forest Service public lands?
The forest plan revisions have been on-going over the years with
continual dwindling of sustained-multiple-use to a single use by hiking
or horseback only. We continue to see less and less management of
timber, management to prevent insect infestation, management of fuel
load for fire prevention, road management, and trail management by the
USFS. Our forest plans are becoming more and more oriented toward
``hands off'' and ``people out'' also known as ``managing toward de
facto Wilderness''. In addition, many of the Wilderness Study Areas
that were designated many years ago to evaluate for the potential for
Congress to designate them as Wilderness have been managed as de facto
Wilderness ever since the studies started and well beyond the promised
completion date with no timely resolution of the plan to return the
areas to sustained multiple use or have Congress designate them as
Wilderness. Motorized use has been banned, timber harvesting is off-
limits, removal of undergrowth and dead timber for fuel control is not
being proactively employed on most of these Wilderness Study Areas.
Perhaps this ``hands off'' and ``people out'' forest planning approach
should be interpreted by Congress as a signal that there is a
diminished need for the USFS department at its current staffing levels
within the United States Department of Agriculture and USFS budget cuts
should be imminent.
Having seen the travel plans and the preferred alternatives for
major reductions in motorized use across Region 1 it is obvious that
the Travel Planning Process we are in the midst of now became a
``golden opportunity'' for the USFS to eliminate motorized and
mechanized use from the current roadless areas, turn areas with trails
and roads into roadless areas at their discretion, and further squeeze
motorized and mechanized use off of the public lands. In eliminating
motorized access from our public lands the USFS is preventing healthy
individuals as well as the handicapped, elderly, and disabled people
from being able to experience the beauty any distance from the main
road across Region 1. While the final decisions are not yet made it
appears to be unlikely that the travel planning on any forest in Region
1 will be completed without at least forty percent reductions in user
access and possibly as high as eighty percent reductions in use and
access for some forests. Where in the mandate for Travel Planning does
it designate that ANY trails or areas must be closed or need to be
considered for closure? Why not propose an increase of forty percent in
trails and roads that would fit with the increased popularity of
motorized recreation?
Public involvement in commenting on the plans is a process the USFS
is going through to ``touch base'' in the run to implement the
preferred closure alternatives. In more that one instance during the
past year there were two or three of these travel plans issued for
public comment at once. At the same time there has been BLM planning
requiring public involvement and comment underway simultaneously. These
same people that need to review and comment on the plans also have full
time jobs providing a living for their family, keeping our economy
productive, and paying their taxes. This all has made it impossible to
achieve adequate public involvement in the travel planning process. Was
making public comment difficult a part of the strategy of the USFS? We
hope not but it appears to be the case. This travel planning process
should have been completed over a period of years, should have been
staged for effective public involvement and comment, and most
importantly should have been issued first on an ``as-is'' basis period,
with no closures of areas to motorized access in this initial phase of
the travel planning process!
Trail identification and mapping is the foundation to the travel
planning process. The trail inventories used for the travel planning
should have been the same inventories used for the development of the
3-State OHV Rule. Unfortunately, the trail mapping, route inventory,
and condition analysis from the 3-State OHV Rule was never completed
adequately.
A vast majority of the Region 1 travel planning is invalid because
of incomplete and ineffective trail identification, mapping, condition
analysis, and marking. Finally, the maps presented in the travel plans
lack enough clarity, resolution, and legend reference to distinguish
what the plans really are for the trails.
The analysis shown in the travel plans rendered thousands and
thousands of pages of documentation laden with opinions, selective
science, and very little statistical or factual data relevant to Region
1. This is another significant indicator that the travel plans were
completed in a hurry-up manner with a predisposed outcome to close
areas and trails for motorized and mechanized. The economic analysis in
the travel plans is general, high level and opinion-biased. It lacks
professionalism, statistics, and surveys of affected people in the
Region. The impact of motorized use on wildlife provided within the
travel plan analyses was based upon opinion-bias not complete science.
Wildlife studies that were cited were not taken in whole, entire
sections were taken out of context to support decisions to close
trails, roads, and large areas to snowmobiles based on motorized impact
on wildlife. The scientific studies reveal that motorized use has a
lower impact on wildlife than hiking and hunting. If it is truly the
intent to not disturb wildlife then the areas need to be closed to all
human use, not just motorized!
Instead of performing travel planning for existing trails and roads
and identifying roadless areas the USFS has adopted a policy in their
travel planning which has a clear intent to discriminately eliminate
selected families and individuals from being able to utilize a vast
majority of public lands based upon their chosen form of sustained
multiple use. The Wilderness Initiatives and Anti-Motorized Initiatives
that can be seen on the web pages of the Wilderness advocate groups
look strikingly similar to the content of the travel plans produced by
the USFS. The management of the USFS is running rough-shod over the
public and Congress in their quest to create de facto wilderness areas
and to manage existing Wilderness Study Areas as de facto Wilderness.
They are leveraging the travel planning mandate as the ``golden
opportunity'' to aggressively achieve this agenda. Some at the USFS
will cry foul to this accusation but the facts and the travel plans
presented plainly display the de facto wilderness creation and
management agenda. The plans and preferred alternatives presented by
the USFS; ARE discriminating against motorized and mechanized use
across large areas by locking gates and stripping roads and trails away
from the public, eliminating snowmobile use from large tracts of public
land, designating areas as ``roadless'' which actually have established
roads and trails, NOT undertaking selective timber harvests to maintain
a healthy forest, managing Wilderness Study Areas as de facto
Wilderness, and the list goes on. As you investigate and analyze this
situation you will come to the conclusion that the USFS is not adhering
to their mandates of ``public service'' and ``sustained multiple use''.
Furthermore, I believe you will agree that the creation of de facto
Wilderness Areas and management of Wilderness Study Areas as de facto
Wilderness is a slap in the face of our Congress.
In June of 2005 the USDA released the most recent OHV Final Report.
One key learning from the report is that twenty-five percent of the
people prefer to participate in motorized recreation on public land. In
Montana the number is slightly higher, nearing thirty percent of the
population that desire motorized recreation on public land. The number
of people recreating on public land using motorized has increased by
eighty-six percent between 1994 and 2004. The USFS has seen the numbers
of families and individuals choosing motorized travel on public land as
a preferred form of recreation trending upward for many years yet they
have not directed their resources to management of this use of public
lands. If there is a problem with OHV use on public land then the USFS
is a part of the problem by not actively being involved in monitoring
the use, educating the public, and enforcing the rules. Following the
trend of this report one with common sense and logic would expect the
travel planning preferred alternatives to be those that present a
larger number of motorized use, access and recreation opportunities.
Instead the USFS management approach taken consistently across Region 1
is that of proposing severe restrictions and banning families from
motorized use of our public lands. This approach reflects that the
attitude of the USFS has become one of--motorized and mechanized use is
bad for the land and wildlife and therefore must be banished from the
lands managed by the USFS.
Families For Outdoor Recreation appreciates the time, energy, and
interest of this Subcommittee and we feel through your oversight you
will recognize and force the USFS to address their unfair,
discriminatory and questionable practices, policies, and initiatives in
public land management. Furthermore your actions are timely and
necessary to intervene on behalf of the public to put a halt to the
planned management actions of the USFS which will result in closures of
significant portions of our public lands, barring future public use.
The closures proposed for our public lands will forever reduce the
ability for families, the handicapped, the disabled, and individuals'
freedom to access significant areas of our public lands for recreation
and to enjoy the awesome beauty. There is no reason to hastily rush
through this travel planning process and do a sloppy job we will all
regret and the USFS will face litigation over for a generations to
come. Families For Outdoor Recreation requests the Subcommittee take
the following items forward to the Committee for action:
--Place an immediate moratorium on all Region 1 travel restrictions
and closures.
--Require the Forest Service complete the trail inventory and
condition analysis of current travel routes as was required by
the 3-State OHV Rule AND properly implement and enforce the
Rule.
--Require the Forest Service utilize NEPA if they choose to
permanently close trails on a trail-by-trail basis.
--Require the Forest Service complete an economic impact analysis
with surveys of statistical relevance for the areas where they
are planning trail or area closures to motorized use.
--Require the Forest Service to be held to the same high standard
which the government holds private citizens and companies to
for the use of statistical and scientific data in the analyses
performed for NEPA or otherwise in the forest planning
activities.
--Require the Forest Service to stop discriminating against American
citizens with physical handicaps, elderly, and disabled
veterans and their families through their closures to motorized
access and use on public lands.
--Require the Forest Service implement proactive timber harvesting
and fuel load reduction management practices.
--Require the Forest Service to stop managing the public lands toward
turning them into de facto Wilderness and to stop managing
current Wilderness Study Areas as de facto Wilderness.
Families For Outdoor Recreation and our membership would like to
express our sincere appreciation and support to you for conducting this
Senate Subcommittee field hearing here in Missoula Montana. Our mutual
desire is to keep our beautiful public land and wildlife treasures
healthy, flourishing, well cared for and available for all to see and
enjoy.
______
Prepared Statement of the BlueRibbon Coalition
The BlueRibbon Coalition is a nationwide organization representing
600,000 motorized recreationists, equestrians, and resource users. We
work with land managers to provide recreation opportunities, preserve
resources, and promote cooperation with other public land users.
Following are our comments on the Draft Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest
Plan Revision (Revised Plan).
We have many members in Montana and Idaho who recreate on the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge. They are gravely concerned about preferred
alternative 5 and the Revised Plan's direction. The Revised Plan would
create six new recommended wilderness areas and add to two existing
areas for an increase of 70 percent. Furthermore, it intends to manage
these areas as if they had already been designated by Congress. It
would close 158 miles of road and 234 miles of motorized trail, most of
those in the most scenic areas of the forest. Summer motorized
recreation opportunities would be reduced from 71 percent of the forest
to 54 percent and snowmobiling would be reduced from 84 percent of the
forest to 63 percent.
Detailed comments on these issues in the entire Revised Plan have
been submitted by our members and member organizations in Montana. We
would like to specifically acknowledge and incorporate by reference the
comments of Capital Trail Vehicle Association, Montana Trail Vehicle
Riders Association, and Montanans for Multiple Use. We also wish to
incorporate by reference the comments of the Idaho State Snowmobile
Association. We are limiting our comments to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) and Revised Plan's direction for the Centennial
Recommended Wilderness Management Area (Mt. Jefferson area).
We find the DEIS' analysis of the Mt. Jefferson area significantly
flawed, and are opposed to the selection of Alternative 5 which would
eliminate snowmobiling in the area. Throughout the analysis, the DEIS
fails to acknowledge that Mt. Jefferson area snowmobiling is nationally
famous for outstanding scenery, challenge, and diverse appeal and where
this enjoyment has no lasting impact on the resource. The Revised Plan
usurps Congress' power to designate Wilderness by imposing Wilderness
management administratively.
FLAWS IN DEIS ANALYSIS
Demand for Wilderness. The DEIS carries forward in its analysis the
assumptions taken from FSH 1901.12 that the demand for wilderness
increases with both an increasing population and awareness of
wilderness. Yet specific National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data
shows that wilderness visits in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are only 1.2
percent of the total visits. Clearly, there is no demonstrated need if
the use data is factored in, as it should be. Conversely, the DEIS
acknowledges the demand for lands available for diverse recreation not
allowed in wilderness. By recommending more wilderness and managing it
as if it were already designated, these high quality lands are removed
from the diverse recreation base where demand is increasing. By doing
so, the Revised Plan ventures beyond resource protection and makes the
political decision to ``protect'' high quality roadless areas from
diverse use, even though few may actually visit.
The DEIS incorrectly includes the subjective value, ``solitude'' in
its Wilderness Suitability Evaluation. Solitude is one of the
attributes of wilderness guaranteed in the Wilderness Act, and is not
necessarily a condition present in lands suitable for eventual
designation by Congress. It therefore does not need to be present, nor
guaranteed in the present, only if designation occurs in the future.
For example, lands now under consideration by Congress for wilderness
have significant human incursions and less solitude, specifically
acreages identified in the Wild Sky Wilderness bill in Washington
State. The DEIS confuses managing the present condition with managing
future designated wilderness.
The DEIS addresses manageability in its Wilderness Suitability
Evaluation, two components of which are presence or absence of non-
conforming uses, and size and shape for effective management. Clearly
these two components have not been correctly applied to Mt. Jefferson.
Non-conforming use, snowmobiling, has long been present, so much so
that it is considered the ``crown jewel of western snowmobiling''.
Snowmobiling is not only present, it is famous for it, and defines
snowmobiling in the Island Park area. The size and shape do not allow
for effective management, since snowmobiling access to the area is in
multiple ill-defined places along the long border of Targhee National
Forest in Idaho. Management in the Targhee, as has been pointed out
multiple times, allows and even facilitates snowmobiling. The
Beaverhead-Deerlodge, nor its policies, does not control access to the
area. Management and enforcement. that would prohibit snowmobiling in
this famous area would be difficult, if not impossible.
Instead of acknowledging the long border between the Targhee and
Beaverhead with multiple access points, the DEIS instead emphasizes Mt.
Jefferson's brief proximity to BLM Wilderness Study Lands, now managed
with no motorized use. There is only a short border, and no access from
these lands. By ignoring the long Targhee border, the DEIS amazingly
states, ``This alternative provides for protection of high quality
wilderness character, . . . and consistent management across
jurisdictions while generally minimizing disruptions to established
non-conforming uses and providing a balance between competing
recreational values.'' The DEIS biases its presentation of the facts in
order to support the Revised Plan.
The DEIS incorrectly changes the definition of wilderness
characteristics to include subjective values, values which should be
applied only when Congress acts. Lands only need be managed for
eventual designation, concentrating on protecting physical resources,
not subjective values. This incorrect application of values is
especially blatant in Chapter 3, page 340 where the DEIS attempts to
refute the benign effect snowmobiles have on the resource. It drags in
a discussion on sound and tracks, both temporal in nature. This is a
subjective and value laden ``impact'' which has no permanent impact on
the resource.
The DEIS ventures beyond the scope of the agency's mandate to
manage the resources when, also on page 340, it states, ``The presence
of non-conforming uses, in the interim, may lead to non-conforming uses
opposed to wilderness designation.'' The DEIS thereby takes a political
position to advocate additional wilderness designation, in violation of
the agency's policy to manage the resource for all uses. It
deliberately chooses wilderness type recreation at the expense of all
others, especially in the case of Mt. Jefferson where snowmobiling is
established and famous.
OMISSIONS IN THE DEIS ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned, the DEIS has failed to consider Targhee's
management, which was established in a recently revised Forest Plan.
This management allows winter use, and subsequent actions have even
encouraged it. A snowmobile parking lot, authorized by Targhee and paid
with Idaho State snowmobile funds, is located at the Blue Creek-Yale
Kilgore Road junction. This lot facilitates access to the Mt. Jefferson
area. Targhee has consistently worked with snowmobilers to facilitate
access, although the routes are not groomed. When snowmobilers
protested new tank trap closures in the Blue Creek road, the closures
were modified to accommodate snowmobile use. In spite of numerous
comments and requests to coordinate management with Targhee,
Beaverhead-Deerlodge management has denied and ignored them.
Also ignoring past comment, the DEIS failed to acknowledge
snowmobilers' cooperation with the agency in managing the area. With
agency cooperation, they organized and conducted two clean-ups of the
area during the summer. Yet subsequent project files make no reference
to these volunteer efforts. The actual volume of litter was small, but
the snowmobilers were happy to remove all that they found, stating that
any litter in such a spectacular and pristine area is too much.
Snowmobilers also agreed to a partial, temporary closure to study
potential impacts on wolverine, and in subsequent years agreed to a
partial closure, demonstrating their willingness to share the area with
an extreme ski outfitter and his clients. This outfitter was not so
willing to share; he demanded a total closure to snowmobilers.
The DEIS' economic modeling stopped at the Montana-Idaho border. It
did not consider the multi-million dollar economic impact that a
Jefferson closure would have on Island Park and Fremont County, Idaho.
For example,
--Kevin Phillips, Island Park Polaris owner and Chamber of Commerce
President has stated that 90 percent of his sled rentals go to
Jefferson. Other business owners have similarly stated. They
state that snowmobilers who stay in the Island Park area spend
$300 per day per person; $400 per day if they rent a sled.
--Mt. Jefferson is the focal point of nationally known snowmobile
businesses, for example Sno-West Magazine and other
publications, and Starting Line Products.
--It has long been famous as a site for snowmobile publicity photo
shoots, videos, and performance testing. Since the mid-1980's
Arctic Cat has had a test facility based in the area.
--The Island Park real estate market is booming, partly because of
the draw of Mt. Jefferson snowmobiling.
The economic impact to Fremont County Idaho is so great that the
DEIS and Revised Plan should describe how it intends to mitigate the
impact of the Revised Plan as directed by Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
SBREFA AND THE MT. JEFFERSON AREA
In 1996, SBREFA was passed. This act expanded the authority of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) passed in 1980 to minimize the burden
of federal regulations on small businesses. Under SBREFA, the agency
proposing the regulation must describe the steps it has taken to
minimize the impact of its regulation on small business. Agency
compliance is subject to judicial review, and the Small Business
Administration can file amicus briefs in support of small businesses.
SBREFA also provides for congressional review. Before any rule goes
into effect, agencies are required to forward the rule to Congress.
Major rules that have $100 million impact on an economy can't go into
effect until congressional review is complete. Congress may take up to
60 session days to review.
Although the economic impact of the Revised Plan's Mt. Jefferson
closure on winter tourism and snowmobiling is significant, it may not
rise to the $100 million level. However, if rising real estate values
in Island Park are considered, it easily meets and exceeds that
threshold. Real estate values in a market like Island Park are
dependent on the surroundings, and the subjective mystique of Mt.
Jefferson and expansive winter recreation are a tremendous draw that
can be quantified in rising real estate prices.
We therefore request that the DEIS and Revised Plan describe how it
intends to mitigate the economic impact on Fremont County, Idaho, and
forward that mitigation plan to Congress for review per SBREFA.
CONCLUSION
We request that the Mt. Jefferson area not be recommended for
wilderness. As we have demonstrated, the DEIS' findings are flawed and
skewed toward wilderness advocacy absent Congress' action. Instead, it
should be assigned a management prescription that continues to allow
snowmobiling seasonally while protecting the rugged, scenic resource
for future generations. The snowmobile community and the BlueRibbon
Coalition have already demonstrated willingness to protect this unique,
wild, rugged area for current enjoyment and future generations. We hope
to work with the Beaverhead-Deerlodge to continue this partnership in
the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Montana Multiple Use Association
Senator Conrad Burns: Montana Multiple Use Association is a non-
profit organization here in Montana that is working to protect the
rights of Montanans. We are engaged in many resource issues across
Montana, and would like to thank you for this grand opportunity to
participate in this hearing.
Like you, we are frustrated with the process that we have to work
with regarding management of our public land resources. We have seen
the management of our resources neglected for the past 30 years, and it
is time to make some changes to insure that our resources are managed
for the benefit of the people rather than managed from the people.
In 1872, Congress enacted the ``Mining Law.'' ``Congress requires
for the availability of minerals for the benefit of the United States
of America.'' The United States Forest Service has used policy to go
around this law. Forest plan revisions, travel planning and other
projects currently underway, mention mineral resources in passing only.
Access to our mineral resources must be protected, and current policy
systematically eliminates this right guaranteed under the act.
In 1897, Congress enacted the ``Organic Act.'' ``National Forests
are reserved for two purposes; (a) To maintain favorable conditions for
water, and (b) To insure a continuous supply of timber.'' The United
States Forest Service has forgot the forest in the forest reserves.
Rather than standing on the laws that protect the renewable resources,
the forest service has ignored these resources in fear of litigation.
The passing of the ``Healthy Forest Initiative,'' is a step in the
right direction, but falls short in providing for local management of
these resources.
In 1934, Congress enacted the ``Taylor Grazing Act.'' ``Congress
intended for the utilization of resources that are available on federal
lands, therefore making these resources available not only to
facilitate the success of area ranchers, but more importantly, this
tool is used to manage the resources.'' Land management planning on
federal lands, has given these surface resources to wildlife and have
systematically left area ranchers unable to manage the resources. An
example of this abuse can be found in Hage v. United States. Water
rights and grazing rights of Montana ranchers are systematically being
taken away. Constitutional rights that protect our citizens are also
being dramatically impeded.
In 1960, Congress enacted the ``Multiple Use and Sustained Yield
Act.'' (a) ``Congress requires the forest service to manage the
renewable surface resources of the national forest for multiple use and
sustained yield of the several products and services obtained there
from.'' Of the many resource laws on the books, ``MUSA,'' is one of the
most abused neglected laws by the forest service. Multiple use of
resources that are provided to benefit the people of the United States
under the act must be upheld.
In 1964, Congress enacted the ``Wilderness Act.'' ``While the
wilderness act set aside areas to be left un-managed, we must insure in
future planning, that the other federal lands do not become defacto
wilderness areas.'' In May 2005, President Bush revoked the ``Clinton
Roadless Rule.'' These defacto wilderness areas, have been neglected
since their inclusion in the inventory process of ``RARE I and RARE
II.'' None of these areas have qualified as wilderness, nor has
congress brought closure to this debacle of public land management. No
public lands reserved under the organic act or the wilderness act can
be included in the wilderness preservation system without an act of
congress. The forest service has administratively included these and
other public lands in this management scenario, and is a direct
contravention of the Act.
In 1969, Congress enacted the ``National Environmental Policy
Act.'' ``(a) While recognizing the further need to facilitate
participation in the management of public land, this act requires for
agencies to facilitate this participation through several different
means. Beginning is scoping, through environmental analysis documents,
the people of the United States are afforded the opportunity to
participate in the decision making process.'' The ``NEPA Act'' is the
one tool that protects the people from being eliminated from the
process. The United States Forest Service has seen this law hamper the
ability to efficiently manage our resources. On the other hand, the
forest service regularly does not bring projects forward for public
participation until after the predetermined alternative is chosen
regarding a specific project. Many times we see these predetermined
alternatives are developed behind closed doors resulting in sweetheart
deals.
In 1970, Congress enacted the ``Mining and Mineral Policy Act.''
``(a) The act further defines the need for mineral exploration for the
benefit of the United States of America. Furthermore, while recognizing
the environmental concerns, the benefit of mining to this country and
its people must remain paramount.'' Forest Service planning, has
continued to promote analysis paralysis in the availability of minerals
here in this country. If our public lands do not provide for access,
the resources contained therein, are rendered unavailable to benefit
the people of the United States. Locatable minerals on public lands
must be included in all management planning.
In 1974, Congress enacted the ``Renewable Resource Planning Act.''
``While recognizing the need to manage our renewable resources congress
made it clear that the forest service implements long term planning
that would facilitate the health of our forests, while insuring we
maintain a sustainable yield.'' The act further recognized that the
transportation system of the national forest system lands is an
integral part of the management programs. The forest service in the
last several decades has not adhered to the act and have neglected the
management of our public lands to the point of loss of value to the
people of the United States.
In 1976, Congress enacted the ``National Forest Management Act.''
(a) While the NFMA was adopted to further the definition of the
management of national forest system lands, assurance was made not to
repeal the mandates set forth in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield
Act.'' The management laws that are in effect to protect the resources
for the benefit of the people of the United States of America. (b)
NFMA, intended to further define the intention of the forest reserves,
while not elevating ecological factors above any other multiple use,
nor was there any intention for this law to require national forest
planning to be contingent upon such considerations.'' The organic Act
set aside forests to benefit all the people of the United States, and
the act further defines this intent. The trend of the forest service to
allow ecological factors to supersede the law, must be stopped.
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. section 6506c) (a)
``Analysis Paralysis, has in large been a result of management
decisions being made at national levels, resulting in the local
management personnel being left to defend the decisions.'' We are all
too familiar with this problem in the management of our public lands.
Montana professional resource managers must be allowed to participate
in the management planning. The citizens of Montana are protected under
the Constitution of the United States, and the State of Montana to the
right to participate. Local governments that depend on our natural
resources must be involved in the process more than just by minimum
notification requirements.
Endangered Species Act/Clean Water Act/Clean Air Act. ``These and
other environmental laws that have been enacted over the past 30+
years, play an important part in resource management. While maintaining
concern for the environment, we must take care to insure that the
cumulative effects of these laws do not prohibit the management of our
resources for the future generations.'' We must remember that no
ecological factor can be elevated over other multiple use of our public
land resources. 36 CFR 294.12, The law affords the people of Montana an
opportunity to move in a positive direction in resolving some of the
management concerns we have. With that said, the law has created much
confusion on how to proceed. Governor Schweitzer has publicly rejected
this opportunity on behalf of Montana. He contends that the process is
no more than a mandate on the state that ultimately will be decided in
Washington. Please clarify this with Governor Schweitzer on behalf of
the citizens of Montana. Roadless Areas are not wilderness, and the
forest service must stop managing these lands under policy.
36 CFR 212.2, Resources many times are only thought of in the
extraction of renewable and depletable resources. ``Recreation'' is
also a resource, and is very important to Montana. The law for the
first time since the ``MUSYA,'' gives recreation a seat at the table in
resource management of our public lands. The forest service system and
non system roads and trails must be recorded in the roads and trails
atlas as required by law. Forest planning has moved forward without
including inventory of these roads and trails. The public has been
submitted proposed actions in region 1 without any reference of
existing roads and trails in the mapping or documentation that is
required to be part of the proposal.
The management of public lands in region 1 is not being carried out
under the intent of MUSYA. Many of our public lands are now being
managed under a single use designation, by officials charged with
managing our public lands.
From actions and communication provided by the Region 1 land
managers, they genuinely feel they are in full control of the land, and
the decisions are theirs to make without any accountability.
Wholesale changes in designation for areas and trails in order to
reduce motorized use, instead of travel planning consisting of a
logical approach to trail identification, mapping, marking and
designation based on current use, and law must be addressed.
Region 1 is currently looking at hundreds of thousands of acres of
public land in large block areas that are planned for closure to
multiple use, rendering these lands to be managed for single use for
less than 2 percent of the public.
Region 1 is currently under 2 forest plan revisions and numerous
travel plans. It is apparent when one looks into these proposals that
planning direction is resulting in 40 percent to 80 percent reduction
in motorized use of the lands in the project areas.
Region 1 is under an aggressive planning schedule, and the public
has found it near impossible to afford participation in the process. In
addition, BLM planning requiring public involvement and comments
simultaneously further prohibits site specific input from the citizens
that work in Montana. Essentially, the forest service in region 1 is
using this aggressive approach to complete a change in the management
of our public lands in a few short months. The NEPA process is being
stretched to its limits.
The forest atlas of roads and trails in region 1 is not worth the
paper it is recorded on, as the bulk of districts in region 1 have not
done required upkeep of these records, resulting in inaccurate
transportation system management.
Analysis Paralysis continues with 1,500+ page Environmental Impact
Statements filled with opinions, selective science, and very little
statistical or factual data. Lack of critical analysis and no
consistency has lead us to believe that there is no chance for a
conclusion based on solid fact based analysis. Furthermore, data
obtained in the Smoky Mountains, no more applies to the Rocky Mountains
than data from here applies to the Smokies.
The trend in region 1 to ignore multiple use mandates by using an
adaptive public land management program has resulted in our resources
being devastated.
Montana Multiple Use Association is proud to be among the group of
United States Citizens that believe in managing our resources to
benefit all the people into the future. We look forward to working with
you to achieve this goal.
On behalf of the citizens of Montana, I would be happy to testify
at the hearing in Missoula, and will look forward to meeting with you
at that time.
______
Prepared Statement of the Montana Logging Association
The Montana Logging Association (MLA) offers the following written
comments on the above referenced congressional field hearing. The MLA
represents approximately 600 independent logging contractors--each of
which operates a family-owned enterprise that harvests and/or
transports timber from forest to mill. In Montana, the vast majority of
timberland is owned by government agencies--most notably the U.S.
Forest Service--therefore, the economic welfare of MLA members is
directly dependent upon the policies and actions of federal land
managers.
It is with keen interest that we have not only reviewed the release
of the new 2005 Planning Rule, but also participated in over 150 hours
of forest plan meetings on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Flathead,
Kootenai, Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests' over the course of the
past few months.
As you are aware, instead of revising their forest plan with
benefit of new provisions in the 2005 Rule, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest chose to revise their forest plan using the old 1982
Planning Rule. Whereas the new rule is a revolutionary change in the
way the U.S. Forest Service approaches management planning and long-
term ecosystem sustainability, we are very disappointed that the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF declined to adopt the new planning rule in
developing their long-term resource strategies.
Since 1897, the U.S. Forest Service has been charged with ``Caring
for the land and serving people.'' In addition to their dedication to
this creed, public land managers must also balance a diverse set of
goals and objectives with an understanding of the ecological processes
at work on the landscape. Unfortunately, prolonged drought conditions,
a declining timber-sale program, the removal/suppression of fire from
the ecosystem and escalating appeals and litigation are all
contributing factors to an unnatural and unhealthy distribution of
several species across wide landscapes within Montana's national forest
system.
At no other point in public land management history is the range of
natural variability so out of balance; thus, we are at a critical land
use planning juncture. Resource managers must have an inspirational
vision and a science-based approach to maintaining a disturbance-
dependent ecosystem by designing timber prescriptions and vegetative
treatments that will ensure a desired future condition, while also
enhancing and protecting resource values within both roaded and
unroaded timberlands.
Because social, economic and ecological systems are complex and
fluid, sustainability cannot be defined as a specific condition at a
particular place and time. Rather, current conditions and trends over
time are used to gauge progress in achieving the long-term social,
economic, and ecological goals that define sustainability. A
``sustainable'' system is not just a catch phrase to indicate goods
that are harvested and traded in the local economy. Inclusive within a
sustainable system is the beneficial ecological attributes of clean
water and air, resilience to disturbances, a diverse ecosystem and a
desirable landscape for recreation and esthetics.
First--and most importantly--we support a recommitment to, and the
reinstatement of, multiple-use mandates for all forest plan revisions
regardless of which planning rule guides the revision process. The
Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 mandate that the National Forests are
established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range,
timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.
The preamble of the new 2005 Rule highlights that desired
conditions are not the primary purpose of a plan. Instead, the
``overall goal of managing the National Forest System lands . . . is to
sustain the multiple-uses of its renewable resources in perpetuity
while maintaining long-term productivity of the land. Resources are to
be managed so they are utilized in the combination that will best meet
the needs of the American people.'' Section 219.1(b) of the new rule
clarifies that a forest plan can contribute to ``three interrelated and
interdependent elements'' of sustainability--``social, economic and
ecological.'' Also, Section 219.10 of the rule gives specifically
credence to the fact that a plan's contribution to sustaining social
and economic systems within the plan area is just as significant as
ecological sustainability. Maintaining or restoring the health of the
land enables the National Forest System to be good neighbors--by
providing a sustainable flow of uses, values, benefits, products,
services and recreational opportunities that are important to the
economic sustainability of surrounding and adjacent communities.
Second, there are several aspects of the new planning rule that we
support and strongly believe proposed planning on the BDNF would have
benefited from. In brief we support: (a) forest plans as strategic
documents; (b) an approach to plant and animal diversity that focuses
on ecosystem diversity with additional protection for species not
covered by the ecosystem coarse or fine filters; (c) the development of
the Environmental Management System (EMS) as a third-party monitoring
and auditing system to gauge sustainability success; (d) the
evaluation, condition and trends reports; (e) species diversity; (f)
species of concern; and (g) suitability of areas.
With this in mind, we would like to focus the remainder of our
comments on the two plan components before you today--timber
suitability and public access. The 2005 Planning Rules continue their
emphasis on simplicity in at least five timber-related areas.
--NFMA requires the adoption of ``regulations . . . specifying
guidelines for land management plans'' which ``insure that
timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands''
and ``insure that clear-cutting, seed-tree cutting, shelterwood
cutting and other silvicultural procedures designed to
regenerate an even-aged stand of timber shall be used.''
Section 219.12(b)(2) of the 2005 Planning Rule states that the
Forest Service Chief ``must include in the Forest Service
Directive System procedures to ensure that plans include the
resource management guideline required by 16 U.S.C.
1604(g)(3).''
--NFMA further requires that the Forest Service calculate the long-
term sustained yield capacity of a national forest and
generally limit timber sales to a level equal to or less than
that figure. Section 219.12(b)(1) of the new rule states that
the Forest Service Chief ``must include in the Forest Service
Directive System procedures for estimating the quantity of
timber than can be removed annually in perpetuity on a
sustained-yield basis in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1611.'' The
1982 Rules refer to the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) as a
ceiling and as the timber sale level the plan intended to
provide.
--NFMA also requires the establishment of ``standards to insure that,
prior to harvest, stands of trees . . . shall generally have
reached the culmination of mean annual increment of growth.''
The preamble in the 2005 Rule states that CMAI direction will
be provided in the Agency Directives and asserts this is
permissible ``because NFMA does not require this guidance to be
in the rule itself.''
--The 1982 Rule specifically states that timber production and
harvest is an ``objective'' in forest planning. Under the 2005
Rule--unless lands are removed by congress--timber production
and harvest is either a primary or secondary management
objective.
--NFMA further requires that, during preparation and revision of a
forest plan, the Forest Service must identify ``lands which are
not suited for timber production, considering physical,
economic, and other pertinent factors.'' On such suitable lands
. . . ``except for salvage sales or sales necessitated to
protect other multiple-use values, no timber harvesting shall
occur on such lands for a period of 10 years.''
--The 2005 Rule includes concise language on identifying lands ``not
suitable for timber production'' in Section 219.12(a)(2). As
under the 1982 rule: (1) identification occurs during
preparation or revision of a forest plan; and (2) lands can be
found not suitable where commercial ``timber production would
not be compatible with the achievement of desired conditions
and objectives established by the plan for such lands.''
However, Section 219(a)(2) eliminates most standards and
detailed procedures for identifying unsuitable timberlands.
Also, as prescribed by NFMA, this same section provides that
``salvage sales or other harvest necessary for multiple-use
objectives other than timber production may take place on areas
that are not suitable for timber harvesting.''
--Section 219.12(a)(2)(ii) asserts that the unsuitability
``identification is not a final decision compelling, approving,
or prohibiting projects and activities.''
The issue of determining ``timberland suitability'' has been one of
the most intensely debated issues at many of Montana's forest plan
revision meetings and, to date, is still being debated amongst planning
staff. For those who would prefer to see more ``suitable timberlands''
designated ``unsuitable,'' the fight is on over Montana's current
5,218,549 acres of ``suitable timberlands;'' therefore, it is
imperative for the integrity of Montana's remaining forest products and
timber harvesting infrastructure that our ``suitable timberlands''
remain available for timber production, harvest and other multiple-use
objectives.
The vegetative analysis on all forest plan revisions should model
the allowable sale quantity. Modeling should not simply be based upon
current budget constraints. Forest plans are zoning plans, not budget-
based documents. Models based on current budgets cannot take into
account future changes in budget conditions--such as recent changes to
the K-V authority--future appropriation levels and shifts in national
priorities. The ASQ or Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) must be
based on actual resource allocation and capacity. The actual capability
and long-term sustained yield calculations should be the basis for
which Congress should approach appropriation requests and budget
adjustments. Not only is a budget driven Forest Plan in direct
violation of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), but the
trajectory of such a Plan cannot run parallel to capacity and resource
need.
Another important consideration in determining ``suitable
timberlands'' is the critical need to address millions of acres of dead
and dying timber region-wide. All forests must identify salvage acres
on non-congressionally-designated roaded and unroaded lands and prepare
a mitigation plan as part of the forest plan revision process.
Community Wildfire Protection Plans, Wildland Urban Interface acres,
municipal watersheds and any forest system lands that are out of their
historic range of variability must remain open to active resource
management.
In addition to the importance of correctly identifying ``suitable
timberlands,'' is the issue of classifying Inventoried Roadless Areas
(IRAs). Discussions so far have indicated that most ``suitable
timberlands'' are likely to remain classified as ``suitable'' as long
as there is a road system present; however, there are thousands of
acres of ``suitable timberlands'' in the current suitable base that do
not have a road system, but meet all the criteria under NFMA as
``suitable'' for timber production or harvest. Yet, Region 1, in an
effort to take the contentious road issue off the table, has proposed
reclassifying current ``suitable timberlands''--without roads--as part
of the IRAs. This is totally unacceptable!!!
NFMA specifically directs classification criteria in identifying
roadless characteristics--and ``suitable timberlands'' without roads is
not within that direction. The recommendation on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge NF draft environmental impact statement, for example,
proposes reclassifying approximately 500,000 acres of ``suitable
timberlands'' as IRA based solely on the road issue.
It is too soon to determine if all forest plan revisions in Region
One intend to reclassify unroaded ``suitable timberlands'' as IRAs;
however all Forest Service starting options reveal this
reclassification to be the proposed action. If each forest plan
revision team follows this trend, Montana's ``suitable timberlands''
could potentially diminish by an estimated 4 million acres! We
reiterate, this capitulation of responsibility is totally
unacceptable!!!
Prior to any such changes in land-use allocations, we strongly
believe that there are several critical components pertaining to forest
health and long-term industry sustainability that need to be completed
and incorporated into Plan revisions:
1. All County/Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) must be
completed to assess local resource concerns.
2. All Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) lands must be open to active
management.
3. Access to in-holdings, such as airstrips, mining claims, FAA
radar and tower sites, reservoirs and State and private lands must be
recognized.
4. Buffers around utility corridors must be established.
5. All current IRA boundaries must be reviewed for accuracy because
the 5,050,710 acres identified in the in RARE I and RARE II process
have been modified over time.
6. Lastly, the UM Bureau of Business and Economic Research report--
that was requested by Montana's congressional--must be incorporated
into the discussion and decision process. Among that report's
conclusions are:
--``With no change in current harvest levels, Montana will likely see
the closure of more than one of its largest timber processors,
along with the shut-down of several smaller mills.''
--``A 15 percent increase in Montana's annual timber harvest . . .
would meet virtually all of the current milling capacity needs
in Montana. . . .''
To be perfectly clear, the only entity that can provide the
additional 15 percent of timber necessary to sustain Montana's forest
products industry is the U.S. Forest Service.
Senator Burns, as you know, active resource management on Forest
Service System lands is complex. In order to meet forest plan
objectives well into the future, resource managers must have the
authority--and a professional timber-harvesting workforce--in order to
achieve healthy forest sustainability. The Montana Logging Association
stands ready to help with this important mission . . . and sincerely
appreciates this opportunity to comment and the committee's interest in
Montana's forest planning.
______
Letters From Stanley Kempa, Et. Al.
Spike Thompson,
Forest Supervisor, Lewis and Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, Great
Falls, MT.
Dear Supervisor Thompson: I strongly disagree with the trail
closures for OHVs in the Proposed Action for Summer and Fall Recreation
in the Jefferson Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The
Jefferson Division, in particular the Little Belt and Castle Mountain
ranges, provide the last and best high-quality trail experiences for
thousands of OHV riders from the surrounding communities and beyond.
These areas have been used by Montana's OHV community for over 50
years. OHV use is and should be considered a traditional use of these
areas.
There are currently many large blocks of National Forest lands
which are off-limits to OHVs and provide high quality non-motorized
opportunity in the Highwood Mountains, Snowy Mountains, Crazy
Mountains, and on the Rocky Mountain Front. These areas are more than
sufficient to accommodate people from the surrounding communities and
beyond who wish to enjoy non-motorized recreational pursuits.
In addition, pending and imminent trail closures in the Helena,
Gallatin, and Rocky Mountain Division of the Lewis and Clark National
Forest will further concentrate OHV use to the Little Belt and Castle
Mountains. These two areas are critical to providing high quality OHV
recreation opportunities in Montana and should be managed to provide
access for the entire public along with resource protection.
In addition, I strongly oppose the proposed large blocks of non-
motorized winter recreation area the proposal would create.
Snowmobiling does occur in many of these areas and many riders who use
these areas were not represented in the negotiations that created the
proposal. The proposal excluded several local snowmobile clubs, non-
affiliated snowmobilers, cabin owners, and other stakeholders that
should have been represented in order for the proposal to be considered
legitimate.
Sincerely,
Stanley Kempa; James L. Smereck; Virginia E.
Radovich; Aucille J. Blamey; Joyce E.
Kempa; R.K. Kjelsrud; Phyllis Kjelsrud;
Kaylin Fleming; Gene A. Meek; Dorthie
Fullerton; Roger Bridgeford; Shawn L. Holm;
Anne Hopper; Martin Storfa; Henry Woloszyn;
James W. Krause; Erik P. Dubbe; Darnell A.
Stucken; Alan S. Cape; Sharon Cape; Ken
Bender; Ray Franz; Jon Dullum; Richard S.
Johnson; Brad McMann; Dave McCane; Mike
Pistelak; Steve Kaste; E.E. Sawyer; Blake
A. Luse; Joan Gondeiro; Jess Reed; Todd I.
Malin; Richard Gondeiro; Fred W. Maeder;
Tim Toss; Carl J. Garner; Dustin Eddleman;
Paul Bertoli; Robert Holt; John Seaman; Bob
Watson; Daniel P. Watson; John A. Seitz;
Gary Snyder; Robert A. Carroll; Connie
Listoe; Wayne Listoe; Marty Hiatt; Judy
Reed; Sheldon Clair Schearer; Gene Heller;
Brian S. Franklin; Rob Beall; Casey Riggin;
Shelly Riggin; Bill Price; Heather O'Brien;
Kit Hom; Shaune O'Brien; Forrest Halge,
Jr.; Scott McGary; Gary Hagfors; Anthony J.
Sarica; John L. Richtea; Eric Picken;
Furman Scott McCurley; Levi C. Eberl;
Everett D. Lame, Jr.; Roger Talbott; David
H. McVeda; Tom Mitcham; John W. Virgin;
Melanie Ann Picken; J. Drew Hogan; Marc
Sears; Pennie Vihinen; Ronald Vihinen;
Katie Heiteman; Aaron Heiteman; Joey
Zahara; Kay Witham; Jeff Allain; Douglas J.
Magers; Michael Anderson; Kenneth R. Lay;
Adolph Bertoli; Dianne Bertoli; Michele L.
Mans; Jan F. Bicsak; Keith A. Bicsak;
William L. Braun; David A. Davison; Tara
Rosipal; Timothy D. Haas; Marlan Tipps;
Bryan Marquart; Lorraine G. Richards; Kim
Lorang; Russell J. Latka; Elmer B.
Richards; Jon A. Legan; Sandra Latka; Rhett
M. Stephenson; John Thomas; Sharid Lee;
James R. Sangray, Jr.; Dave Parantea;
Michael M. Myers; Scott C. Anderson; James
B. Brown; Greg E. Spangelo; Brian R.
Christianson; James R. Sangray, Sr.;
Michael L. Stephenson; Tim Rohlf; Kim D.
Anderson; Vance Canody; Adam Tranmer;
Whitney Such; Linda Sangray; Rod Hagestad;
Julie Zarr; Charlotte Kantorowicz; J.C.
Kantorowicz; Greg Letz; Michael Joe Knox;
Casey J. Kuhn; Joseph M. Eckeusley; Erik S.
Farris; Richard A. Gallehow; Mitch Kellogg;
Bryan Andersen; Ron Zarr; Leroy A. Weikum;
Roxanne Weikum; Wayne Luksha; Bonnie
Luksha; Bill Tamietti, Jr.; Bob Barber;
Randall Rappe; Bonita Rappe; Claudia
Barker; Deon Moldenhauer; Pamela J. Howard;
Tony Rupnow; John J. Zuris; Derek
Gunenberg; James R. Thomson; Thomas G.
Winjum; Eric Gysler; Bert Beattie; Edward
L. Widell; Ryan Solyst; Thomas A. Warr;
Michael L. McMann; Jim Hoxner; Jeff Widner;
Velvajean Merritt; Jay Warehime; Justin
Augustine; Gary L. Collins; Clinton M.
Oppelt; Dan Richards; Adam Davis; Chad
Mans; Todd Mans; Dan McGurran; Fred Mital;
Diane Guckeen; Vaughn Guckeen; James L.
Hutchins; Donald F. Cotton; Jack Miller;
Joe Ohgaim, Jr.; Glen Boettcher; and David
Buck.
______
Letters From Tammy Baber, Et. Al.
Leslie W. Thompson.
Forest Supervisor, Lewis & Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, Great
Falls, MT.
Dear Supervisor Thompson: I would like to go on the public record
as being opposed to the OHV trail closures in the Proposed Jefferson
Division Travel Management Plan. I believe the Little Belt Mountains
serve all recreational users well and that shared use has been
remarkably successful. There are very few conflicts on the trail system
because there are few encounters because the area offers a large trail
system that disperses users.
There are already ample non-motorized opportunities on the Rocky
Mountain Front, Highwood Mountains, the Snowy Mountains, and in the
Crazy Mountains. The Little Belt Mountains should remain an area where
all trail users are welcome and can continue to share the trails.
The Deep Creek/Tenderfoot area has been successfully shared by
motorized and non-motorized trail users for decades. In the most recent
Wilderness Proposal, Montana's congressional delegation favored
managing the area as a National Recreation Area, a designation that
would allow the current mix of recreation but would protect the area by
restricting resource extraction. I support this approach.
I also oppose closing trails in the Hoover Creek and Lost Fork of
The Judith. These trails are important loop trail opportunities for
motorized trail users. The September 1 trail closures in the Middle
Fork are also an unreasonable approach to managing wildlife concerns.
If hunting pressure is moving animals in the area, regulate the source
rather than attempting to solve the issue by restricting recreational
trail bike riding and ATV use.
I support efforts in the proposal to improve the loop trail system
for OHVs. Sincerely.
Sincerely,
Tammy Baber; Jason Lander; Linda Ouiatt; Denise
Maki; Lois A. Tester; Garth Benett; James
L. Smereck; Kelly Sponheim; Rod Backer;
Kevin Dyke; Brian Miller; Bob Nommensen;
Virginia E. Radovich; Larry B. Coomis;
Matthew S. Fleming; Sarah N. Fleming;
Aucille J. Blamey; Stanley Kempa; Joyce E.
Kempa; R.K. Kjelsrud; Dorthie Fullerton;
Phyllis Kjelsrud; Gene A. Meek; Crissy
Lopez; Rob Lopez; Robert Wagner; Clint
Vertin; Lauren M. Fleming; Stephen C.
Carpenter; David Fleming; Chris Fleming;
Noel J. McClothlin; Sara McClothlin; Nathan
Kenneth Fleming; Ed Mendenhall; Bradley
Schwertz; Marc Correra; Jeff Haskell,
Dennis Humphrey; Teresa Soncarty; Joseph F.
Watson; Olaf M. Stimac; Olaf M. Stimac,
Sr.; Kathleen Longewecker; James J. Reed;
Chris Fulbright; Shelley Kuiper; D. Traber;
Marcylouise O'Ward; Mary Ellen Vischer;
William Vischer; TanDee Doran; Carlos San
Miguel; Dave Vance; Greg Ulmer; Forrest
Deaton; Gary C. Ulmer; Wesley M. Seldmiat;
Bret Manus; Jamie C. Popham; Danielle
Cooper; Mark Severson; and Kaylin Fleming.
______
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Burns. We appreciate everybody coming today, and we
hope it's been somewhat informative. We understand what the
challenges are, and we aim to take a look at them. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Friday, December 2, the hearing was
concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair].