[Senate Hearing 111-364]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-364
PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1470 H.R. 762
S. 1719 H.R. 934
S. 1787
__________
DECEMBER 17, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-952 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Anderson, Sherman, President and Owner, Sun Mountain Lumber,
Inc., Deer Lodge, MT........................................... 45
Baker, Tim, Legislative Campaign Director, Montana Wilderness
Association.................................................... 56
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 9
Bennett, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From Utah..................... 14
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 2
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Idaho........................ 12
Hurt, Ronald, Idaho Commissioner, Fremont County................. 41
Koehler, Matthew, Executive Director, Wild West Institute........ 47
McGinley, Michael J., Commissioner, Beaverhead County Commission,
Dillon, MT..................................................... 37
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 3
Roberson, Edwin, Assistant Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 21
Sherman, Harris, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 16
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 4
Wood, Christopher A., Chief Operating Officer, Trout Unlimited... 62
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 75
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 79
PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS LEGISLATION
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order, and
good afternoon to all.
We have 3 of our colleagues here today, and I will just
have a very brief opening statement, recognize the chairman of
the full committee, Senator Bingaman, is here. Senator Risch is
here.
Today, we are going to consider 5 bills that are pending
before the subcommittee: S. 1470, The Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act of 2009; S. 1719 to convey national forest land
to the town of Alta, Utah; S. 1787, The Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Reauthorization Act of 2009; H.R. 762
to validate final patent 27-2005-0081, and for other purposes;
and H.R. 934 to convey certain submerged lands to the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
We are going to hear from Chairman Baucus and Senator
Tester and Senator Crapo in just a moment.
I do, as we begin, want to mention that yesterday we were
able in the State of Oregon to bring together timber industry
folks and environmentalists to find common ground. We have
never been able to do that before. It is going to make it
possible for us to get saw logs to mills in eastern Oregon--we
have got communities there with more than 20 percent
unemployment--and, at the same time, also protect some of the
old growth that Oregonians treasure.
I know that Senator Tester has been working very, very hard
to develop a homegrown solution. Chairman Baucus and I have
gone through a whole host of the timber debates over the years.
So it is great to have my chairman here as well.
I know Senator Tester and Senator Baucus have been working
together. Then, of course, Senator Crapo and I go back through
the days of county payments and a host of other resources
issues.
So before we recognize our colleagues, let me first go to
Chairman Bingaman and then Senator Risch for any comments they
would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you having this hearing.
Let me mention two of the agenda items on your list that I
have particular interest in. One is S. 1787. This is a bill I
introduced to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act. That is an act that we put in law as part of
the Valles Caldera National Preserve legislation back in 2000.
Senator Domenici was a strong advocate for this.
It allows the BLM to retain revenues from the sale of
surplus lands and use those revenues, along with other Federal
land management agencies, to acquire in holdings within
federally designated conservation areas. This has been a good
thing. BLM has, I think, favored this reauthorization. I hope
we can move ahead with that quickly.
Also just to mention Senator Tester's bill, which he has
come to speak to me about, as has Senator Baucus. The two of
them have worked hard together on this legislation, and I think
it is very important legislation.
I remember chairing a hearing 15 years ago with Senator
Baucus up in Missoula, which he invited me to come to and on an
earlier Montana wilderness proposal. I know that these can be
contentious issues. I do believe there are some policy issues
that we need to understand better and address as this bill
moves forward, and I look forward to hearing both from the
sponsors of the legislation and also, of course, from the
administration and the other witnesses.
Let me also just mention I believe this is the first
hearing that Harris Sherman has been here for. We welcome him,
the new Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
in the Department of Agriculture.
Also I wanted to recognize Ed Roberson. Ed is here. He is
testifying for the BLM today also for the first time before our
committee. Ed is currently the Assistant Director at the BLM.
He previously was managing the district office in Las Cruces,
New Mexico. Did a great job there. I am sure he will do a great
job here in Washington as well.
But thank you for letting me participate.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senator From New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing. I'd like to
briefly comment on S. 1787, which is a bill I introduced to reauthorize
the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. While the law's title is
unwieldy, it has proven to be a very important management tool for the
Bureau of Land Management and it provides important benefits to not
just the BLM, but the Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as well.
Under the law, which was originally enacted in 2000 as title II of
the bill establishing the Valles Caldera National Preserve, the BLM is
able to retain revenues from the sale of surplus lands, and use those
revenues, along with the other Federal land management agencies to
acquire inholdings within federally designated conservation areas, with
a priority on those areas containing exceptional resources. As the
BLM's testimony notes, over $113 million has been raised through this
program since its enactment.
The initial law was authorized for 10 years and will expire next
summer, unless it is reauthorized. My bill would permanently
reauthorize the program and would allow the revenues from any lands
identified for disposal as of the date of enactment of this Act to be
used for acquisition of inholdings.
I understand we may need to make a few minor adjustments to the
bill to make sure we aren't affecting certain state-specific land
acquisition programs, such as the ones established in Idaho and Utah as
part of the Omnibus Public Lands bill enacted earlier this year, and we
will work with the BLM to make sure we accurately account for those
programs.
Mr. Chairman, I know that Senator Tester's forests bill is the
major item on the agenda today, and I wanted to commend him - and
Senator Baucus who is a cosponsor of the bill - for working so hard to
try and resolve many longstanding contentious forest management and
wilderness issues. I chaired a hearing over 15 years ago in Missoula on
an earlier Montana wilderness proposal, which ultimately was not
enacted into law, so I appreciate how difficult of an issue this is. I
believe there are a number of policy issues we will need to address as
this bill moves forward, and I look forward to working with Senators
Tester and Baucus, the other members of the committee, and the
Administration to try and resolve those issues.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to welcome Harris Sherman, who is the new
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the Department
of Agriculture, who I believe is testifying before the committee for
the first time this afternoon. With his responsibilities for the Forest
Service, among other agencies, the Under Secretary has a critical role
in shaping our federal land policies, and I look forward to working
with him not only on the Montana bill, but also on the many important
forest issues facing the committee.
And finally, I'd like to recognize Ed Roberson, who is testifying
for the BLM today, also for the first time before this committee, I
believe. Ed is currently the Assistant Director at the BLM, but
previously was the District Manager at the BLM field office in Las
Cruces. Ed did a great job in New Mexico, and I know he'll do equally
well here in Washington. I'm pleased to welcome him here this afternoon
and look forward to his testimony later in the hearing.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman.
Senator Risch.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
I am interested particularly, obviously, in hearing
regarding the Montana situation. Obviously, I am always
delighted when States are able to do this internally and the
impetus for the management plan comes from the State itself,
rather than coming from the banks of the Potomac.
In Idaho, we did that with 9.2 million acres of roadless.
We have the only roadless plan in America that is on the books
right now. It was done in a collaborative fashion with
participation from both ends of the spectrum and everything in
between. I did that when I was Governor.
Senator Crapo did the same thing with a very sensitive
piece of ground in the Owyhees that has been very contentious
over the years and was able to bring all the parties together.
So I am anxious to hear about the process in Montana.
Of course, we have a modest interest in it because there is
a piece of it that is up against Idaho. In fact, I guess in the
wintertime, the only access is from Idaho. I suggested to
Senator Tester maybe we ought to look at the States lines. He
didn't think that was a good idea. So we are going to have to
look at it from a different perspective, which I am glad to do.
So, with that, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Risch.
I think it is appropriate to begin with Chairman Baucus. I
also want to say, as we begin this hearing, that the county
payments legislation, which has been a lifeline throughout the
West, simply could not have happened without Chairman Baucus.
It was a tough fight in 2000, but it was impossible last year.
Somehow, Chairman Baucus was able to spearhead that effort.
So, Mr. Chairman, please proceed as you would like.
Senator Baucus. You are more than generous. You are much
too generous because, frankly, Senator, you, frankly, carried
most of the water on that.
Mr. Chairman, I just think it is appropriate that the
sponsor of the bill proceed first.
Senator Wyden. Whatever is your pleasure.
Senator Baucus. My colleague Senator Tester. I mean, I am
co-sponsoring the bill. He is the primary guy. He is the one
that has put it all together. I just think it is only
appropriate that since it is his bill, that he take the lead
here. I will follow up.
Senator Wyden. Typical of Chairman Baucus.
Senator Tester, I gather after you are done, we will have
Chairman Baucus, and we will have Senator Crapo. Senator
Tester, you and Senator Crapo are going to sit in with the
subcommittee later through the day?
Senator Crapo. If there is time. I know that Senator Tester
will.
Senator Wyden. OK. Let us go with Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Baucus, and I will sit in after I get
done with my testimony to hear the other folks testify.
Before I get into my testimony, I want to thank you for
holding this hearing. Obviously, I also want to thank Chairman
Bingaman. It is good to be back in the room. Hopefully, I will
be back here some day. But thank you for your leadership in the
whole committee, Senator Bingaman.
I want to thank you, Senator Wyden, for inviting me to
speak on the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009. I
appreciate your consideration of this critical piece of
legislation for the State of Montana and for the country as a
whole.
I know you, as you spoke in your opening remarks, have
introduced a similar piece of public lands legislation for
Oregon yesterday, demonstrating the critical need to address
these issues in the West.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the senior Senator from
Montana, Senator Max Baucus, for co-sponsoring this
legislation. I want to thank the Forest Service and the folks
on this committee for working with me and my staff on this
bill, and I look forward to continuing those efforts.
I want to acknowledge the work of the many Montanans who
brought this proposal to me, many who have flown across the
country to join us here today. If you could take a moment, I
would like to have those individuals who have come here to
support this bill from Montana stand up, please.
Senator Wyden. Welcome to all.
Senator Tester. Yes, and I want to thank you all for being
here.
I would especially like to welcome to Washington the
Montanans who have come to testify on this bill--to Mr. Baker
of the Montana Wilderness Association, to former Montana
senator Sherm Anderson, owner of the Sun Mountain Lumber and a
good friend of mine. I want to thank you for your continued
efforts on this bill.
Mr. Koehler, I look forward to finally hearing your
comments on the bill this afternoon. Commissioner McGinley,
although I have addressed many of the Beaverhead County
concerns while drafting this bill, I understand that you may
still have some concerns. I appreciate you sharing them with us
today.
I would like to thank Governor Schweitzer and the many
counties who have also submitted testimony for the record and
their support of this initiative. At this time, I would like to
introduce their testimony, along with the voices of many
Montanans and national groups who have worked diligently on
this bill, and they are contained in this full----
Senator Wyden. Without objection, they will go in the
record.
Senator Tester. I want to, once again, thank Senator Baucus
for his co-sponsorship and his support in this effort. His
tenure in this body means a lot, and he has helped me a lot
through this process. I just want to make my appreciation for
that known to the senior Senator from Montana.
Twenty years ago, fights on these issues were not just
rhetorical. Communities were deeply divided. Even death threats
were issued. But after all the fighting, no one won.
In 1988, shortly after President Reagan vetoed Montana's
last wilderness bill that was introduced by Congressman Pat
Williams, Congressman Williams said, ``If this bill doesn't
pass, years from now''--and this was in 1988--``If this bill
doesn't pass, years from now, people are going to look back and
say 1988 was the year when the timber industry started downhill
because the congressional delegation couldn't reach an
agreement on a wilderness bill.''
Here we are, almost 22 years later, and Congressman
Williams's words could not have been more prophetic. The
mounting problems in Montana are evident, starting with our
timber industry.
In 1988, Montana had 38 timber mills. Now we have 10, and
each one of those is struggling. In 1988, the mills received 40
percent of their timber from Federal forest lands. Today, that
number is roughly around 10 percent.
I do not quote these numbers to say that the 1980s were
better. Most of us in this room could agree that the land
management on our national forests then was not sustainable.
Harvest levels in Montana peaked in 1988. That forced the
pendulum to swing to where we are now, which is also not
sustainable.
But as we face greater and greater climatic effects, such
as drought and pine needle and forest products infrastructure,
it becomes of greater and greater importance that our forest
infrastructure stays put. We cannot afford to lose these people
who know how to manage the forest and who know how to work the
woods. We need their skills to restore our forests, to protect
clean water that flows from them, and protect our communities
from wildfire.
Last year, in my State, 1.8 million acres were attacked by
mountain pine beetle. That gives us the dubious distinction of
holding the record for the highest mortality by any insect
anywhere in the country.
I saw it firsthand when I flew over the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge forest recently. It was a sea of red pushing three-
quarters of a million acres. You will have to excuse me, but
are those pictures up?
No, they are not. But that is OK. We will get them to you.
It is absolutely incredible to see it--red, dead trees.
Bug kill is not the only unprecedented effect on the
landscape. Wildfires are burning bigger, hotter, and more
often. Nationwide, from 1960 to 1999, an average of 3.6 million
acres burned annually. Since the new millennium, that number
has almost doubled to more than 6 million acres annually.
It isn't just acres burned that pose a danger. It is the
financial cost to our communities. The Forest Service has spent
an average of $3 billion a year on forest fires since 2000,
almost double what it spent last century.
The face of our forest is changing, and how we manage our
forest must change, too. I am proud to say that not only do
Montanans understand this, they are asking us to do something
about it. That is why they asked me to carry this legislation.
I want to be clear. This legislation was made in Montana by
Montanans about 5 years ago. After years of yelling at each
other over the forest, people finally started talking to one
another. They realized when they started having these
conversations that they had more in common than they ever
imagined.
That is how 3 collaborative efforts in 3 different places
of the State of Montana began. In the southwestern part of
Montana, we had a collaborative effort on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest; in the Blackfoot River country of
the Seeley District on the Lolo National Forest, another
collaborative effort; and finally, in the far northwestern
corner of the State in the Yaak on the Three Rivers District of
the Kootenai National Forest.
Each group independently came up with proposals that were
similar, each one to address the great need to manage and
restore our forests. Each attempted to resolve motorized and
nonmotorized conflicts on recreation lands, and all made
recommendations on designated wilderness.
They each approached me with their proposals shortly after
I came to the U.S. Senate and asked me to carry their
legislation. I looked closely at all 3 proposals because they
were very similar. I rolled them into one piece of legislation,
honoring what each group brought me while incorporating the
views of even more Montanans.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this new approach, looking at the
entire forest to determine what use is appropriate and where,
is the right approach for our national lands in Montana. Like
Secretary Vilsack, I also firmly believe working together is
the key to success in forest management.
The Secretary outlined his goals for the Forest Service
earlier this year. He said that collaboration, stewardship, and
restoration are critical tools to preserving our national
forests.
He said, and I quote, ``Given the threats that our forests
face today, Americans must move away from polarization. We must
work toward a shared vision, a vision that conserves our
forests and the vital resources important to our survival while
wisely respecting the need for a forest economy that creates
jobs and vibrant rural communities.''
Ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that is exactly
what S. 1470 aims to do. First, this bill aims to shift forest
management away from timber volume toward forest health by
directing the Forest Service to kick off landscape-level
stewardship projects once a year, each year, in each of the 3
places.
There is a reason that this bill avoids mandates on board-
feet and instead directs the number and size of landscape-level
projects. We are less interested in numbers and more interested
in a holistic approach to thinking about the landscape. This
means that the goal is not just the wood taken from the land.
It is also the stewardship.
Second, the bill recognizes that the forests should provide
places to play by designating over 300,000 acres of recreation
land.
Last, the bill designates 677,000 acres of wilderness, the
first such designation in Montana in more than 25 years. It
resolves outstanding wilderness study areas on Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management ground by designating some and
releasing others.
It adds to our treasured landscapes like the Bob Marshall
Wilderness, the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, and for the first
time, it would designate some land in the Yaak Valley as
wilderness.
I suppose some of the bill's critics will seize on the
acreage numbers for mechanical treatment and the sheer size of
the landscape projects. They will use historic numbers to paint
a picture of forest devastation. But these historic records
don't fully inform the discussion. They show numbers of acres
harvested for commercial saw logs. They are numbers of board-
feet removed.
I think we need to talk about acres treated, acres
restored. The forest management in this bill doesn't quite
wedge into the columns of the old spreadsheets. We cannot
compare the old ways of yesteryear with the path that we are
forging today.
Mr. Chairman, I am aware that this bill will continue to be
refined, and I welcome that discussion. Through open houses, my
Web site, and phone calls, I have heard from literally
thousands of Montanans on this bill, and they have made some
good suggestions. Let me give you a few examples.
For the recreation areas, I intend to clarify that
snowmobilers not only have access to the routes and trails they
use today, but also to the overland areas that they use today.
In order to protect critical grizzly habitat and ensure the
Forest Service is able to put together successful projects on
the Kootenai National Forest, I will ask the agency to help me
determine how best to expand the zone of where the forest and
restoration activities of this bill can occur on the Kootenai.
I will ask the agency and conservationists in Montana to
consider a designation other than wilderness for the highlands
near Butte, where occasional wilderness survival trainings
occur for our men and women that are headed to Afghanistan.
I also intend to continue further discussions--further
discuss the Mount Jefferson area with my friends Senator Crapo
and Senator Risch. I know there are people on both sides of the
State line who have vested economic and recreational interests
in this area.
But as I have stated in each one of my town hall meetings,
if we all give a little, we all get a lot. We are so very
fortunate as Americans that the generations that came before us
thought it wise to put aside forests for all the Nation to own.
How we manage and protect them is a profound responsibility.
This legislation is a bold step forward, but it is not without
its critics.
One thing is for certain. It brings some uncommon
bedfellows together to support a new way to perform forest
management. I know we will all learn from this approach, and
there is nothing I would rather do for the Forest Service than
help them perform the critical work that it must do to ensure
that we all have clean water, healthy forests, a place to hunt,
fish, and camp into the future.
Let me say this. It is easy to chastise from the sidelines.
It is easy to use the bully pulpit to preach. It is easy to
draw lines in the sand and to claim the superiority of your
values or narrow interest. But it is much more difficult to
step up and join the conversation, reflect deeply on our common
values, and build a consensus to move forward.
Change is not easy, and no one expects it to be. But not
facing up to our challenge is not an option. We need to address
those challenges head-on. This bill was not created overnight.
The concerns people have about it here will not be fixed
overnight either.
But I did not come to the U.S. Senate to shy away from hard
issues. This is what is important to the people of Montana.
They have worked tirelessly toward a solution for our forests,
and so will I. That is why I look forward to continue to work
with this committee and the Forest Service to solve these
issues so that this bill can make a practical, lasting, common-
sense impact on the ground and on the lives of all Montanans.
Once again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the rest of the committee for their time.
Senator Wyden. Senator Tester, thank you for an excellent
statement. I know how strongly you feel about this and all the
homegrown effort and energy that has gone into it.
I will have some questions for you in a minute. I am just
struck, as I listen to you, that there is ringing through what
you have said something that we are hearing all through the
West. That is that westerners have seen, we have reached that
moment where we have got to stake out some fresh approaches in
natural resources.
What we have always wanted in the West was a win-win. We
wanted to have strong rural economies, and we wanted to protect
our treasures. Too often, what we have seen as a result of
current policy is what westerners often call a lose-lose. You
don't get what you need in terms of jobs, good-paying jobs in
rural areas, nor do you protect the treasures. What you usually
do is just end up in Federal court suing each other.
So we are going to take your approach very seriously. Thank
you for all of your efforts. You have talked to me about this
many, many times. Probably not as many as our guests can
imagine, but we will work very closely with you.
Chairman Baucus, for whatever remarks you would like to
make.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first thank my colleague Jon Tester for working
very hard, an extraordinary amount of time and effort to try to
get this right, get the right balance on this legislation. I
don't know if people really appreciate how much time and effort
he has put into it, but he has. He deserves to be commended for
it.
Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Senator Risch, Senator Bennett,
and also Chairman Bingaman of this committee.
I want to allude a little bit to what Senator Bingaman
mentioned and Senator Tester did as well. All of us in Western
States, particularly with lots of natural resources, wrestle
with these kinds of questions all the time. Back it was about
34 years ago the first time I started wrestling and got
involved in this.
I will never forget working on wilderness bills. It was a
State-wide bill. It was 1988. John Melcher was in the Senate
here, and our delegation, congressional delegation sat down and
poring over maps, trying to draw boundary lines for wilderness,
trying to protect certain areas that should be protected, what
cabins, what private land should be protected, what not. I have
never spent so much time on anything as I did that.
The exception now is healthcare reform. That is taking more
time.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. You are not done yet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. Not done yet.
You know, it struck me this is not a good way to be doing
this. I mean, sure, we should be drawing lines. But really,
more of this should be not top-down, but bottom-up. We should
be spending a lot more time listening to and really agreeing to
agreements that have been reached at home.
But we didn't do it that way, and President Reagan vetoed
the bill. Senator Melcher was defeated in large part because of
this issue back home. The timing could not have been worse for
him. But I hope we have learned some lessons, and I just,
therefore, very much appreciate the effort and the approach
that Senator Tester has made here to make this as bottom-up. It
is not top-down.
That is, as I said at the beginning, at the outset, all the
time he has spent on this. I have, too. But nothing compares to
the amount of time that he has spent on this. It was an awful
time.
The veto of that bill was really important, gasoline on
fire. Montanans were very, very worked up, each side. Both
sides. Remember, there were ``women for timber'' and all these
slogans out there. ``This family is supported by timber
dollars,'' or just very, very narrow and vitriolic. Groups
weren't talking to each other.
I remember I talked to someone in the environmental side,
and I said, ``Bozeman, I said why don't you go--'' He was very
upset with YR. That is a company down in Livingston. I said,
``Why don't you go over and talk to those folks? Maybe you can
work out some accommodation.''
Oh, no. We can't do that. We can't talk to them.
It just struck me. That is the heart of the problem. Nobody
is talking to anybody. This, as I said, is a much different
approach.
Jon has mentioned beetle kill. It is terrible. I don't have
to tell you all that. It is terrible in the West. It is getting
worse and worse, and it is getting scary, frankly, the beetle
kill. There is so much of it.
I am coincidentally, totally out of coincidence, am reading
a book right now. It is called--I think it is 1910. It is about
the largest fire in our Nation's history. In 1910, it was on
the border with Idaho, coincidentally, Montana, and in August
1910, there were over 2,000 fires burning.
Roosevelt was the prior President, had named Gifford
Pinchot head of the Forest Service. They called them little
GPs, little Gifford Pinchots who were the rangers of the time,
just trying to do what they could to put out these fires. They
couldn't--small fires just at the time. They had a hard time
doing it, scrambling around.
At that point, 1910, Taft was President. Taft kept getting
these urgent messages from the West saying, There are fires out
here. Finally, Taft committed several thousand soldiers to go
out and fight fires in Montana and Idaho.
I don't want to be an alarmist. I am not an alarmist. But
with all this beetle kill now and the fires we had at home a
summer ago, they burned so hot. Talking to the incident
managers on these fires, they are hot because different
conditions, things are drier and so forth.
I am not saying there is going to be another 1910 because
we are a lot better at fighting fires now than we were back
them. But you can just feel that with all the beetle kill and
the summers are so dry, it is not good. Something is going to
happen.
There are a couple of things we can do. We could try to go
into some of these areas where there is beetle kill and figure
out some way to get ahead of the curve if we possibly can.
I might say, too--well, I like this in a couple of respects
because Jon is really focused on jobs in this bill, and he is
focused on protection--both. Certain acreage designated for, as
he said, for stewardship, management of forest in a way that is
sensitive to the land, but very constructive. It is not just
going saw down trees, and he has really worked hard at it to
help preserve jobs.
Just this week, our paper mill in Montana--we only have
one--Smurfit-Stone announced it is going to close up, 400 jobs
gone. In fact, I talked to the top union guy today, trying to
figure out ways to kind of keep the plant going if there is a
way. Tax credits to get biomass to help provide fuel for this--
not fuel, supply for this plant so that the paper mill can
produce, and it is just tough. We are losing jobs because we
don't have the economy that we once had. Jon's bill gets at
that.
In addition, tourism. Our growth industry in Montana is
tourism. Guess how many people visited Montana last year?
Eleven million. Eleven million people visited. Why? It is
because of the open spaces. It is because of our forests.
People like to come to Glacier Park, to Yellowstone, national
forests, fish, bring the family, and so forth.
Tourists spent $3 billion in Montana last year. That might
not sound like a lot, but to Montana, that is a lot. That is
the growth industry. When there are fires, there all this
beetle kill gets out, fewer tourists come.
I remember last summer there was a fire in Glacier. I think
it was last summer or the summer before. I have forgotten
exactly what year it was, and you could hear the tourism
industry fell off. People were not coming because they didn't
want to come where the fires were. It is just we have got to
get ahead of this, and the more we can get ahead, we are going
to have more pristine forests and we are going to keep our
tourism.
Interesting, too, reading this book, 1910, there is a quote
in there. You know, you find things. Teddy Roosevelt was up in
the North Fork of the Flathead, and he was just so impressed
with all the deer he saw. He saw a big deer herd, and he told
Gifford Pinchot that. That is what tourists see when they come
to Montana. They see a real glacier, and they all see the North
Fork of the Flathead and other parts of Montana.
There have been big fires there in the last couple of
years, and there is beetle kill there, too. I am not saying
this bill is going to solve it all. But clearly, this is on the
right track. It is homegrown. It is bottom up. It is
thoughtful. It is ways to get ahead of the game here, and it is
very, very balanced.
Since turn of the century, last century, the big contest--
on the one hand, the railroads, you know, the miners. That is a
real opportunity of jobs to make a lot of money in the West,
all this vast reserve of western forest. On the other hand,
Teddy Roosevelt worried about land being plundered, and Gifford
Pinchot being named the head of the Forest Service to try to
get some balance there.
It is the perennial problem we always have in the West, as
you well know. It has been with us from the beginning. It is
with us now. Again, this bill tries to get at that in a very
balanced way.
I commend Senator Tester very much. He has gone and worked
very hard. It is very thoughtful, and I just urge the committee
to think positively about this bill.
Senator Wyden. Chairman Baucus, thank you, and I think you
really lay out for us not just the history, but almost a
roadmap for the future.
I was struck by your comments about the fires. It is clear
to me that a lot of these fires, they are not natural fires.
These are infernos that just come about as a result of neglect
because we haven't implemented the kind of policies that you
all are looking at and some of the other suggestions.
So we are going to work very closely with you, and I know
you have one or two things you have got to deal with on the
floor. So if you would like to be excused, Mr. Chairman, you
can.
Colleagues, any questions for Chairman Baucus. Senator
Bingaman or----
Senator Risch. He could stay here rather than go to the
floor.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. In many respects, it would be a lot more
fun. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Chairman Baucus, anything else you would
like to----
Senator Baucus. Thank you, no. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. OK. Thank you.
Let us go to Senator Crapo. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Chairman Bingaman and Senator Risch and Senator Bennett, other
members of the committee.
Before Senator Baucus leaves the room, I just want to also
thank him for the good working relationship which he and I have
had over the past. We have worked on the Endangered Species Act
and county payments and a number of other issues, and I
appreciate working with him very closely.
Healthcare.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. I want to say about my friend Senator Tester
that we also developed a very good, close working relationship.
We serve together on the Banking Committee, where we have that
small issue of financial regulatory reform and the multitude of
issues that are coming about there about the threats to our
economy. We have worked on those as well as resource issues as
well, and I appreciate that working relationship.
The purpose of today's hearing, obviously, is to consider a
number of the bills that are before this committee, and one of
those that has already been mentioned a lot is S. 1470, the
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, which Senator Tester has
introduced and has spent so much time working on, as well as
with Senator Baucus.
The first thing I want to do is recognize the importance
and emphasize the challenges associated with collaborative
decisionmaking. There have been references today already to the
Owyhee initiative that I have been involved in in Idaho that,
fortunately, to a conclusion at the legislative level with the
support of the members of this committee in helping to move it
forward and getting it signed into law.
But that was an 8-year process, very similar to what
Senator Tester has just described as he has gone through in
Montana. Now we are working on the implementation of that. So,
I do truly understand how critical it is that we do have
collaborative decisions that are built from the ground up and
that we here in Washington support those and help to make them
a reality.
Because, frankly, our public and our Federal public lands
and the opportunities that they provide are very vast, but the
disagreements that we see develop with regard to the management
of them is also very vast. It is building the consensus to move
forward on those that is the right way to approach
decisionmaking these days.
Senator Tester and Senator Baucus deserve tremendous credit
for their leadership on public lands management in Montana, and
I wish them the best, and particularly Senator Tester with this
legislation, as he moves forward with it. Also, as already has
been mentioned today, Mr. Chairman, there are some issues that
Idahoans have with regard to this legislation and the
boundaries and the impacts of some of the boundaries and some
of the designations as they relate to Idaho and the
opportunities that Idahoans have to engage in the use of our
tremendous public lands.
Senator Risch and I have already spoken personally with
Senator Tester about those, and as he has indicated, we are
working together to find, again, a collaborative solution to
those kinds of issues that we can move forward on.
We do have a witness from Idaho here today, and I want to
conclude my testimony by just giving an introduction to him. I
suspect Senator Risch may say something about him as well.
But we have today with us Chairman, County Commissioner
Ronald ``Skip'' Hurt, who currently serves as the county
commissioner in Fremont County, Idaho. Commissioner Hurt is
serving his second 2-year term as county commissioner
representing Island Park and Ashton and other communities in
eastern Idaho.
Prior to returning from the Forest Service in January--to
retiring from the Forest Service in 2007, Commissioner Hurt
spent 19 years working for the U.S. Forest Service in various
locations, and he also served for 18 years as the north zone
fire management officer on the Targhee National Forest, which
is the forest which we will be working with you on here, on
this legislation, and served for 3 years in the Fremont County
Sheriff Reserve, 2 of those as captain.
Commissioner Hurt has an endless list of accomplishments,
both on the commission and off. But I don't want to wear out my
welcome here before the committee. So I won't go through all of
those.
In his testimony, Commissioner Hurt is going to address the
concerns that have been expressed about the designation of the
south side of Mount Jefferson area as wilderness, and I
appreciate his input on this matter and his service to the
people in Fremont County. I am actually very glad that my
colleagues here in the Senate are getting an opportunity to
hear from him and to learn from his wisdom and expertise in
terms of these land management issues.
Again, I want to thank Senator Tester for his leadership
and his friendship, and I look forward to working with him on
this.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Crapo.
There is zero prospect that you will ever wear out your
welcome around here. So we appreciate your coming.
Both of you are welcome to sit in. Chairman Bingaman or
Senator Risch or Senator Bennett, any questions for our
colleagues?
Senator Risch. Just a comment, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester, the photograph that you brought to us, both
Senator Crapo and I have toured the area and viewed it from the
air like this around Stanley, Idaho. I don't know if you are
familiar with that. It is in the Sawtooths, some of the
prettiest country in America, really. It looks a lot like that.
When I was in my junior and senior year in the College of
Forestry at the University of Idaho, we were studying
entomology, and we were studying the life cycle of the
homoptera and enoptera, part of which we call bark beetles
then. Today, they are pine beetles. But in any event, we went
looking for an infestation, and we had to look a long time to
find a small group of trees that were infested.
Now we see in Idaho areas just like this that make up tens
of thousands of acres that are infested. So it is a serious
problem, and Senator Wyden and I are working on some
legislation that is going to specifically address that.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. We are, indeed.
Colleagues, you are welcome to come sit in.
Let me check with my friend and colleague Senator Bennett,
who joined us. Senator Bennett, would you like to make an
opening statement, or what is your pleasure?
STATEMENT OF HON ROBERT BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your scheduling this hearing. I have a piece
of legislation on the docket, and I will be glad to explain it
now or after we hear the witnesses.
Senator Wyden. We have two witnesses from the
administration, but you are welcome to go ahead now if you
choose.
Senator Bennett. All right. This is a major piece of
legislation involving 2 acres of land, and I know that in the
greater scheme of things, 2 acres of land disappear pretty
quickly. But to the town of Alta, Utah, 2 acres of land are
very important because on those 2 acres of Forest Service land
sit the city hall and other municipal buildings of the town of
Alta.
To put it in context, the total population of Alta is 370
people. Now people think of Alta as the great ski lodge, and
that is true. But the people who actually live in the town of
Alta are basically people who work at the ski lodge there in
low and medium income level.
The town of Alta, every time they want to do anything with
respect to one of their buildings, municipal buildings, has to
go to the Forest Service to get permission and go through
various hoops because the Forest Service owns the land. The
lease requirements are you have to come here. So, my
legislation is very simple. It conveys the land out of the
Forest Service over to the town.
You say, well, why can't they afford all this? Eighty-five
percent of the land within the boundaries of the town is public
land now, restricting any kind of tax base that is there. As I
have said, the majority of their residents are classified as
low to moderate income. For example, they want to add slightly
to their community center. They can't do that because they
don't own the land.
So this would convey the land. The fair warning to the
witnesses, the administration has said they aren't objecting to
this, but they don't want to convey the land for free, and they
think that we should get fair market value.
Well, if you assume that there was a ski resort going to be
built on this land, the fair market value for these 2 acres
would be $500,000, and there is no way the town of Alta can
come up with $500,000. I am going to question the witnesses
from the administration about bills that we passed yesterday,
which conveyed land up to total of 3,321.5 acres for free.
If we can convey land and set the precedent that in other
circumstances, that much land, over 3,000 acres, can be
conveyed to various entities for free, I am going to ask them
how come we can't get rid of these 2 acres for free and point
out, as a businessman, over time, the Forest Service will make
money on this deal. Because right now, as long as the Forest
Service holds the land, every time there is any kind of
request, the Forest Service has administrative costs of its own
that run up. All of those administrative costs will go away if
the town gets its land.
So this is the most significant piece of legislation that
we are going to examine over 2 acres, but I appreciate your
indulgence in letting me take the time to talk about it and
look forward to questioning the witness.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert F. Bennett, U.S. Senator From Utah
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling this hearing and
including, among the bills on the docket, my legislation, S.1719.
Currently, all of the municipal buildings for the Town of Alta, Utah
are built on public land under special use permits from the U.S. Forest
Service. My legislation will allow the Town of Alta to receive title to
the land under its buildings and adequate land adjacent to their
buildings for future additions. S. 1719 allows a maximum of 2 acres to
be conveyed.
Undersecretary Sherman's testimony on behalf of the administration
opposes my bill because the land is conveyed for free. Instead, they
urge using administrative authority under the Townsite Act to convey
the land and charge a market price to the town. However, the Town of
Alta cannot use the administrative process to acquire this land because
it cannot afford to pay the market value of the land estimated at
$500,000. The following facts are relevant in understanding the need
for this legislation:
1. Almost 85% of the land within its boundaries is public
land, greatly restricting the town's tax base. In fact, the
majority of Alta's 370 residents are classified as low to
moderate income. $500,000 is too high a price tag for such a
small and low-income tax base.
2. Any time the town needs to do maintenance or work on its
facilities the town must consult with the Forest Service to
verify that what they are about to do is covered under the
existing permit. The town would like to add to its small
community center but cannot do so unless they own the land.
3. For those who associate Alta ski resort with the Town of
Alta, they should understand that they are separate entities.
4. For those who ask whether the town could just impose a
lift ticket surcharge to cover the cost of the 2 acres, the
town already imposes a room tax. Another surcharge would make
it impossible to compete with surrounding resorts and such
action could lead to damaging an already fragile tax base.
5. In fact, conveying the land would reduce the Forest
Service's administrative costs that are associated with issuing
and administering the special use permits required under
current law.
I find the Administration's testimony interesting. Yesterday, the
full committee favorably reported out three bills sponsored by
Democrats that give more than 3,321.5 acres away to various entities
for free. They are: S. 940--Southern Nevada Educational conveyance
(2,410 acres], S. 1139--Wallowa Oregon Conveyance (1.5 acres), and S.
1140--La Pine Oregon Conveyance (910 acres]. Why the new demand to
charge market value for conveying these properties? This is the
question I would like answered.
Senator Wyden. We will have that opportunity momentarily,
and we will be working with you.
Let us bring forward Harris Sherman, Under Secretary of
Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, and Edwin
Roberson, Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and
Planning for the Bureau of Land Management.
Gentlemen, welcome. I also want to--following up on
Chairman Bingaman--Mr. Sherman, give you also a formal welcome
from the subcommittee. I know we will be working closely with
you. I enjoyed our visit very much yesterday, and you are going
to be one busy public servant. You are going to have a lot on
your plate.
We will make your prepared remarks a part of the record in
their entirety, as with yours, Mr. Roberson. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Chairman and members of the
committee.
My name is Harris Sherman. I am the new Under Secretary for
Natural Resources and the Environment at USDA. I am very
pleased to be here and to share the thoughts of the department
on two bills, S. 1470 and S. 1719.
I did submit written testimony, and I will just summarize
the key points of both of my written testimonies.
First, in response to Senator Bennett, our comments on S.
1719. This bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
Forest Service land to the town of Alta without consideration.
We acknowledge, Senator, the importance of this land to the
town of Alta. We would like to convey the land to the town of
Alta.
But the Forest Service and the department do have a
longstanding policy that taxpayers should receive fair market
value for property, and we lack authority to sell land without
consideration. So, for those reasons, we cannot support the
bill.
We do have the authority under the Townsite Act to make
these conveyances, and we, of course, would work with the town
of Alta to do that. I recognize, Senator, that Congress can,
indeed, go ahead and pass legislation to allow this to happen.
But at least our policy is that we object to conveying this
land without consideration.
If I can, I would like then to turn to S. 1470. At the
outset, the department strongly supports many of the concepts
in Senator Tester's bill, and these include, first, landscape-
scale restoration. We think it is critically important to do
restoration on a much larger basis than we have done in the
past.
We second support the collaboration that is referenced in
this bill with all of the stakeholders working together to
forge common interests and common solutions and to find
compromise. For too long, this has been the missing element
that has frustrated the department, frustrated communities and
States in terms of making real progress with respect to
restoration.
Third, we support increased use of stewardship contracting,
which allows us to get the timber out of the forest but to also
address protection of water quality, protection of wildlife
habitat, to reclaim roads, and to restore and replant our
forests.
Fourth, we support very much the focus on jobs and
sustainable rural communities. The closure of mills, such as we
have seen with Smurfit-Stone, have a devastating impact on the
employees, on local communities, and the States. We think it is
vitally important that we have a strong and viable timber
industry, and without a viable timber industry, we will not be
able to accomplish the restoration that is necessary.
Last, we support the designation of wilderness in Montana.
This issue has been outstanding, as Senator Tester said, for a
long time, going back to 1977 when the Montana Wilderness Study
Act was proposed or enacted. So we applaud that. We think that
would be a very constructive step in the right direction.
Now, with that said, I do want to be candid in saying we
have some concerns with S. 1470, particularly Title I of the
bill. As a general matter, the department believes that we can
make progress on the goals that Senator Tester is focused on
without site-specific legislation. The Forest Service clearly
has the statutory authority to move forward on all of the goals
in his bill, with the exception of the designation of new
wilderness areas.
The Forest Service can, should, and will build off the
collaborative efforts that have been undertaken and started in
Montana. The Forest Service can clearly move more aggressively
with landscape-scale restoration. We prefer the opportunity of
demonstrating this before we move to specific legislation.
I do totally concur, Senator Wyden, with your remarks that
we have to try new approaches here. I think it is very
important. But we would like to try these new approaches on an
administrative level first if we can.
If the committee decides to go forward with the bill, we
would urge you, first, to alter or remove the highly specific
timber supply requirements, which, in our view, are not
reasonable or achievable.
Second, we would like to urge you to amend the National
Environmental Policy Act-related provisions, which, in our
view, are flawed and are legally vulnerable.
Third, we would urge you to consider the budgetary
implications to meet the bill's requirements. If we were to go
forward with S. 1470, it would require far greater resources to
do that, and it will require us to draw these moneys from
forests within Region 1 or from other regions.
Last, there are a number of other issues that I have
flagged in my written testimony that we think need to be
addressed and, hopefully, corrected.
I want to emphasize that I have had a very constructive
dialog with Senator Tester and his staff. We will continue that
dialog going forward, and we are anxious to try to find
solutions here.
So let me simply close my opening statement by thanking
Senator Tester for his bill, thank him for his commitment to
Montana's natural resources and to the communities in Montana,
and just say to this committee that we must find answers to
best land stewardship practices on our national forests, and we
must work to ensure that we can sustain rural communities.
Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Sherman follow:]
Prepared Statements of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary, Natural
Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture
s. 1470
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Harris Sherman,
Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to share theDepartment's views on S.
1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009.
S. 1470 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to select areas of at
least 50,000 acres to carry out landscape-scale restoration projects.
In selecting the areas, the Secretary would be required togive priority
to landscapes on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forests and specific
ranger districts on the Lolo and Kootenai National Forests. The bill
requires a decision to carry out at least one landscape-scale
restoration project annually for 10 years or until a certain number of
acres have been treated mechanically. The bill provides very specific
management direction and establishes timeframes and targets for the
identified portions of the three national forests. The bill also
requires an advisory committee for each landscape-scale restoration
project implemented by the Secretary, a monitoring report every five
years, and a biomass study and plan. The bill designates twenty
wilderness areas totaling 624,000 acres, three recreation areas
totaling 245,300 acres, and a special management area of 74,000 acres.
Some of the designations apply to lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management and we defer to the Department of the Interior on those
provisions.
I want to thank Senator Tester for his engagement and involvement
with stakeholders in Montana in the development of this bill. The
legislation recognizes the diverse interests thatlook to the National
Forests and Grasslands for their livelihood and recreation. I applaud
his effort to bring diverse interests together to find solutions that
provide a context for restoration, renewal and sustainability of public
landscapes.
The Department supports the concepts embodied in this legislation
including collaboratively developed landscape scale projects, increased
use of stewardship contracting, active restoration of the national
forests, and the designation of wilderness. I understand and share in
the frustration over how controversial and contentious the debate
surrounding management of natural resources in Montana has become. I
sincerely appreciate the efforts of all involved in developing a
legislative framework to address the issues that drive the debate and
are represented in the bill being considered by the committee today.
While we support the concepts of the legislation, the Department has
concerns regarding components of Title I which I will address later in
my testimony.
background
Throughout the nation, the Forest Service is working with citizens'
groups to develop collaborative solutions to help us provide the best
possible stewardship of the national forests. Two notable efforts in
Montana include the Montana Forest Restoration Committee and the group
working on the ``Southwestern Crown of the Continent.'' The Montana
Forest Restoration Committee is a group consisting of thirty-four
members representing conservationists, motorized users, outfitters,
loggers, mill operators, state government and the Forest Service. This
group recently developed a set of 13 forest restoration principles and
an associated implementation plan that the Committee members
unanimously support. Projects that will help rejuvenate and restore
National Forest System lands at a landscape level are in both the
planning and implementation phases as a result of this ongoing effort.
As important as the development of a meaningful set of restoration
principles is, even more important is the collaborative process that
has resulted in relationships built on trust that will provide the
basis for future collaborative work and specific projects that restore
our national forests over the long term.
The second Montana collaborative group is working on a proposal for
the ``Southwestern Crown of the Continent'' through the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program authorized under the Forest
Landscape Restoration Act. This large and very diverse group consists
of many Federal, State and private entities who share the common
interest of restoration and stewardship of the national forests as well
as surrounding state and private lands. The group is currently looking
at ecological and economic opportunities on a landscape of up to 1
million acres and plans to submit its proposal this spring.
I also want to thank the Senator for addressing the long-standing
issue of wilderness designation in Montana. Designation of additional
wilderness areas in the National Forest System can help sustain
biodiversity, connect landscapes, and increase our understanding of
ecological systems. As a result, the Forest Service is better equipped
to respond to a changing climate and to provide ecosystem services.
Additionally wilderness can play a role in fostering the connection
between people and nature. However, conflict and controversy over which
lands should be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System
has too long divided people who treasure these public lands. This bill
not only proposes to designate lands as Wilderness, but also includes
nearly 320,000 acres as National Recreation Areas or other special
areas. The resolution of those lands included in the Montana Wilderness
Study Act of 1977 is especially important.
Each of the national forests included in this legislation has a
Land 79 and Resource Management Plan that was developed with full
public involvement. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests completed
a revision of the plan in January of 2009. These plans include
recommendations on which lands would be most suitable for inclusion
into the National Wilderness Preservation System.
I would like to now turn to specific comments on the bill.
comments on title i
While the Department supports the concepts of the legislation, we
have concerns regarding components of Title I, including the highly
prescriptive provisions related to the National Environmental Policy
Act and the specificity regarding levels of treatment and outputs. The
prescriptive language would limit the discretion of land management
professionals to select landscape projects based on broader criteria,
such as the condition of forest resources and community needs and
capacity. Further, the bill would create unrealistic expectations on
the part of communities and forest products stakeholders that the
agency would accomplish the quantity of mechanical treatments required.
If we were unable to meet the requirements of the bill, there could be
profound impacts upon local, rural economies and on the credibility of
the agency.
The bill also contains provisions which are duplicative of existing
authorities. These provisions could be problematic because they could
lead to confusion during implementation.
I recognize and value the importance of the concepts in S. 1470 and
this administration can and will reach out and work with collaborative
groups to achieve the goal of restoring our national forests. However,
I believe site specific legislation is not necessary to facilitate this
effort. The Department would prefer to have the opportunity to
demonstrate our commitment and capability to bring diverse interests to
the table to work toward the goals this bill includes, not just in
Montana, but in all of the National Forest System.
Further, S. 1470 directs the Secretary to place priority use of
existing resources on portions of these three national forests. This
establishes a potentially harmful precedent because it may lead to
multiple site specific legislative efforts transferring much needed
resources from other units of the National Forest System where priority
work must also be accomplished.
S. 1470 in particular includes levels of mechanical treatment that
are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable. The levels of
mechanical treatment called for in the bill far exceed historic
treatment levels on these forests, and would require an enormous shift
in resources from other forests in Montana and other states to
accomplish the treatment levels specified in the bill.
Lastly, the bill sets direction for how the agency must meet the
116 requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This
provision, subsection 102(b)(6), raises new challenges for effective
planning, analysis and implementation of restoration projects by
requiring analysis of large areas, without the opportunity to tier to
site- or project-specific analyses, thereby requiring analysis for all
permitting and approval actions at a landscape scale. By prescribing
how NEPA should be accomplished, the bill complicates of the agency's
approach to NEPA implementation and could result in greater controversy
as the agency determines how to harmonize the requirements of the bill,
the requirements of NEPA, CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, and the
Forest Service's own regulations. We look forward to working with the
staff to address concerns and provide for an integrated, inclusive
approach to planning on a more defined scale.
comments on title ii
We defer to the Department of the Interior on the wilderness
provisions of Title II pertaining to lands under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Land Management. Most land designations included in Title
II of this bill are generally consistent with the direction and
recommendations in the land and resource management plans mentioned
earlier. Specifically:
Thirteen of the wilderness areas are generally consistent
with our land and resource management plan wilderness
recommendations.
Seven additional wilderness areas are not recommended in the
land and resource management plans but the plan direction is to
maintain their semi-primitive non-motorized characteristics.
The six other congressionally designated areas are
consistent with Forest Plan direction to manage for recreation
and thus we support these designations.
We would like to work with the Committee to address some technical
boundary issues and in particular I want to highlight four areas:
Highlands: This area was recommended for wilderness in the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Land and Resource Management Plan. S.1470
includes a number of special provisions. Specifically the bill
allows for helicopter landings for military exercises. When the
Forest Service made its wilderness recommendation it envisioned
the military flights being relocated to a different location
when the special use authorization expired, and thus viewed
them as temporary in nature. S. 1470 would permanently
authorize helicopter landings for military training within the
Highlands area. We are not aware of a military landings being
legislatively authorized in wilderness before and we are
concerned that a precedent may be established by this
legislation. We would like to work with the committee to either
remove this requirement or explore alternative designations for
the Highlands area.
West Pioneers: West Pioneers is a Wilderness Study Area and
we very much appreciate the Senator's progress toward
resolution of the area. The Beaverhead Deerlodge Land and
Resource Management Plan did not recommend this area for
wilderness because the relatively gentle terrain will make the
wilderness boundary 157 very difficult to implement and make
any motorized closures difficult to enforce. We support the
entire area being designated in this bill as a national
recreation area, as this designation is generally aligned with
and the land and resource management plan direction for this
area which is to manage for a variety of recreation
opportunities.
Mt. Jefferson: During the development of the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge Land and Resource Management Plan, the recommended
wilderness boundary was drawn to exclude a very popular
snowmobiling area. The boundary in S. 1470 as proposed includes
this snowmobiling area in the wilderness and therefore
snowmobiling would be prohibited. Snowmobilers access the area
primarily from Island Park, Idaho where that small community
relies on the income from snowmobilers to sustain it through
the winter months. We ask that the committee accept the Land
and Resource Management Plan recommended wilderness boundary
for this area.
East Pioneers: The Beaverhead Deerlodge Land and Resource
Management Plan wilderness recommendation for this area
included the trail to Tendoy Lake. The proposed wilderness
boundary in S. 1470 excludes the trail to Tendoy Lake
specifically to provide access for Off Highway Vehicles. This
Off Highway Vehicle trail has significant resource damage that
cannot be mitigated because of the terrain. We suggest that the
committee follow the Forest Service recommendation to include
the entire area in the East Pioneers Wilderness.
S. 1470 contains instructions for administration of the wilderness
and special management areas. Though several of the provisions in the
bill are the result of consideration of specific situations, some may
not be necessary and could result in confusion and negative effects to
wilderness character. We look forward to working with the committee to
address concerns regarding provisions related to fire prevention in
wilderness, motorized access for grazing purposes in the proposed
Snowcrest Wilderness, installation or maintenance of hydrological,
meteorological or climatological instrumentation in wilderness,
outfitter- and guide permits, language for managing special management
areas through timber harvest, jurisdiction for regulating types of
access and activities; and authorization of motorized access to operate
and maintain water improvements.
We have begun discussions with Senator Tester's staff on the
provisions with which we have concern and offer our assistance to the
Senator and the committee to continue the dialogue on these provisions.
In closing, I want to thank Senator Tester for his strong
commitment to Montana's communities and natural resources. We look
forward to working with the Senator and his staff, the committee, and
all interested stakeholders in an open, inclusive and transparent
manner to help ensure sustainable communities and provide the best land
stewardship for our National Forests.
s. 1719
S. 1719 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey,
without consideration, certain parcels of land not to exceed two acres
located in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to the Town of Alta, Utah
for public purposes. The bill includes a clause for reversion of the
property to the United States, at the election of the Secretary based
on the best interests of the United States, if the land is not being
used for the purpose stated in the bill.
While we support Alta's need to consolidate their municipal
resources, the Department cannot support the bill because it does not
provide for market value compensation for the conveyance. It is long-
standing policy that the taxpayers of the United States receive market
value for the sale, exchange, or use of their National Forest System
land. Based on recent land sales in the Alta area, we estimate the
average value of the lands to be conveyed under S. 1719 to be $500,000.
Although, the bill does require the Town of Alta to cover the Federal
land survey costs associated with the conveyance, it does not clearly
state who would be responsible for bearing other administrative costs
associated with the conveyance.
The Forest Service currently manages the area around Alta through a
very complex suite of existing special use permits including
transportation and utility rights-of-way, for the benefit of the Town
and the public. We also believe that the Forest Service can meet the
objectives of the bill administratively through the Townsite Act, which
would allow the Forest Service to convey the land to the Town of Alta
at federally-approved market value. Conveyances under the Townsite Act
require identification of a location that serves community objectives
that would outweigh public objectives and values if the land were to be
maintained in Federal ownership, and must take valid existing rights
and uses into consideration.
Although we cannot support the bill as written, we are eager to
work with the bill's sponsors, the Town of Alta, and the Committee, in
hopes of assisting the Town in achieving its desire to consolidate its
municipal resources.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Sherman, and you can be
certain you will have many.
Mr. Roberson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN ROBERSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Roberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here and thank you for
inviting the Department of Interior to testify on four bills of
interest to the department.
I will be very brief in summarizing my prepared testimony
and ask that it be submitted for the record, and I believe you
have already said that it will. So thank you.
First, we will talk about Senator Tester's bill. The Bureau
of Land Management supports wilderness designations on BLM-
managed lands included in S. 1470. The legislation would
designate five BLM wilderness areas totaling 60,000 acres and
would release over 75,000 acres of wilderness study area
status--from wilderness study area status. We would like the
opportunity to work with you and the committee on boundary
modifications and management language, just for clarification
purposes.
The vast majority of the designations and other substantive
provisions of S. 1470 apply to the National Forest System
lands, and we defer to the Department of Agriculture on those
provisions.
Senator Bingaman, the administration strongly supports S.
1787 and encourages Congress to move swiftly to reauthorize the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. Over the past
decade, the Department of Interior has made a number of
important acquisitions using FLTFA provisions, and
reauthorization will allow us to continue to use this critical
tool for enhancing our Nation's treasured landscapes.
By extending the FLTFA, the Congress will allow the BLM to
continue a rational process of land disposal that is anchored
in public participation and sound land use planning while
providing for land acquisition and to augment and strengthen
our Nation's treasured landscapes on several of our agency
lands and Forest Service lands.
The Bureau of Land Management supports H.R. 762, which
affirms a land patent and an associated land reconfiguration
completed in Nevada in 2005. These land transactions
implemented provisions of the 1988 Nevada and Florida Land
Exchange Act, which directed the exchange of BLM-managed lands
in Nevada for critical wildlife habitat and private ownership
in the Florida Everglades.
At the request of the landowners involved and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Nevada portion of the land exchange
was reconfigured to enhance the habitat for desert tortoise and
other Mojave Desert wildlife species while providing for
economic development in rural south-central Nevada. H.R. 762
was passed by the House of Representatives in July.
I am accompanied by Rick Sayers, the chief of the Division
of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Plans, Recovery, and
State Grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who would
be happy to answer any questions that you might have with
regard to the wildlife benefits of H.R. 762.
The Department of Interior strongly supports H.R. 934,
which would convey 3 geographical miles of submerged lands
adjacent to Northern Mariana Islands to the government of
Northern Mariana Islands. The department recommends 3 technical
and perfecting amendments that are fully described in the
written testimony that I have provided, and I am accompanied by
Steve Sander, the Director of Legislative Affairs in the
Department of Interior's Insular Affairs Office.
Mr. Sander will be happy to answer any questions you have
regarding H.R. 934.
I want to thank you for inviting me to testify. Be happy to
answer your questions, any questions you might have, and tell
my former Senator from New Mexico that I am quite proud to be
here in Washington and be sitting before you and the rest of
the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Roberson follows:]
Prepared Statements of Edwin Roberson, Assistant Director, Bureau of
Land Management, Department of the Interior
s. 1470
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) generally supports the wilderness designations
included in S. 1470 on BLM-managed lands. We would like the opportunity
to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on boundary modifications
and management language clarifications.
The vast majority of the designations and other substantive
provisions of S. 1470 apply to activities on National Forest System
lands. We defer to the Department of Agriculture on those provisions.
background
The southwestern corner of Montana is a critically important
biological region. Linking the Greater Yellowstone Area and the
Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho and Montana, these areas include
important wildlife corridors that allow natural migrations of wildlife
and help prevent species isolation. The Centennial Mountains are
particularly noteworthy in this regard. The diversity of wildlife
throughout this area is a strong indicator of its importance. Elk, mule
deer, bighorn sheep, and moose, as well as their predators, such as
bears, mountain lions and wolves, travel through this corner of
Montana.
Outstanding dispersed recreational opportunities abound in this
region as well. A day's hunting, hiking or fishing may be pursued in
the splendid isolation of the steeply forested Ruby Mountains or in the
foothill prairies of the Blacktail Mountains, areas largely untouched
and pristine. For the more adventurous, Humbug Spires offers 65 million
year-old rocks now eroded into fanciful spires, appreciated both for
their climbing challenges as well as their scientific value.
s. 1470
Title I of S. 1470, ``Stewardship and Restoration'' applies solely
to National Forest System Lands. Accordingly the Department of the
Interior defers to the Department of Agriculture on those provisions.
The majority of the designations in Title II of the bill, ``Designation
of Wilderness and National Recreation Areas,'' are also on National
Forest System Lands, and again we defer to the Department of
Agriculture. We concur with many of the concerns raised by the
Department of Agriculture in their testimony about nonstandard language
and exceptions to the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Sections 201(d) and (e) of S. 1470 designate five wilderness areas
on lands administered by the BLM in southwestern Montana: the Blacktail
Mountains Wilderness (10,670 acres), Centennial Mountains Wilderness
(23,250 acres), Farlin Creek Wilderness (660 acres), Humbug Spires
Wilderness (8,900 acres), and Ruby Mountains Wilderness (15,500 acres).
The BLM supports these designations. All of these areas meet the
definitions of wilderness in that they are areas where the land and its
community of life are untrammeled. These areas have retained their
primeval character and have been influenced primarily by the forces of
nature, with outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation or
solitude.
The BLM would like the opportunity to discuss several possible
boundary modifications with the Sponsor and the Committee. For example,
boundary modifications to the proposed Humbug Spires, Ruby Mountains,
and Centennial Mountains Wilderness areas could improve manageability
by providing more clearly definable boundaries for both the public and
Federal land managers. In addition, boundary changes to the proposed
Centennial Mountains Wilderness could help protect this critically
important corridor as a single coherent whole, thereby protecting the
genetic diversity of the fauna inhabiting the Greater Yellowstone Area
and the Bitterroot Range. In the case of the proposed 660-acre Farlin
Creek Wilderness, the BLM recommends transferring the administrative
jurisdiction of this small area to the Forest Service and including it
in the adjoining 77,000 acre East Pioneers Wilderness Area.
Section 203 of S. 1470 proposes to fully release five BLM-managed
wilderness study areas (WSAs) in Beaverhead and Madison counties from
WSA restrictions thereby allowing a full range of multiple uses. In
addition, five other WSAs would be partially released from WSA status
and partially designated wilderness, as noted above. In all, over
74,000 acres of WSAs are proposed for release, while nearly 59,000
acres are proposed for wilderness designation; we support these
provisions. In addition we recommend the addition of the East Fork
Blacktail WSA as wilderness.
The 6,100-acre East Fork Blacktail WSA is among the areas proposed
for release by S. 1470. The BLM believes that designation of most of
this area merits consideration as wilderness. It is bordered on two of
its three sides by the proposed Forest Service Snowcrest Wilderness
Area, and the third side abuts the Robb-Ledford Game Range managed by
the State of Montana. One option would be to release approximately 40
acres to accommodate an existing road leading to a camping area, while
designating the remainder as wilderness. Designation would protect the
west flank of the Snowcrest Range, better provide for high-quality
primitive hunting opportunities, and help ensure consistent management.
Finally, the wilderness management language in section 202 includes
some anomalies that we believe are unintended and could lead to
confusion. For example, section 202(j)(2)(B) could be misinterpreted to
allow motorized access to areas designated as wilderness-which would be
inconsistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act. We would like the
opportunity to work with the Sponsor and the Committee to ensure that
the bill's provisions are consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to
working cooperatively with the Congress to designate these special and
biologically significant areas in this dramatic corner of Montana as
wilderness.
s. 1787
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 1787, the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization of 2009. The
Administration strongly supports S. 1787 and encourages the Congress to
move swiftly to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
Act (FLTFA). Over the past decade, the Department of the Interior has
made a number of important acquisitions using the FLTFA's provisions.
Reauthorization of the Act will allow us to continue to use this
critical tool for enhancing our Nation's treasured landscapes.
background
Congress enacted the FLTFA in July of 2000 as Title II of Public
Law 106-248 (frequently referred to as the ``Baca Bill''). As
originally enacted, the FLTFA is scheduled to sunset on July 24, 2010,
just seven months away.
Under the FLTFA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may sell
public lands, identified for disposal through the land use planning
process prior to July 2000, and retain the proceeds from those sales in
a special account in the Treasury. The BLM may then use those funds to
acquire, from willing sellers, inholdings within certain Federally-
designated areas and lands that are adjacent to those areas that
contain exceptional resources. Lands may be acquired within and/or
adjacent to areas managed by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service (FS), and the
BLM. To date, approximately 29,400 acres have been sold under this
authority and approximately 17,000 acres of treasured landscapes have
been acquired.
The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides
clear policy direction to the BLM that public lands should generally be
retained in public ownership. However, section 203 of FLPMA allows the
BLM to identify lands as potentially available for disposal if they
meet one or more of the following criteria:
Lands consisting of scattered, isolated tracts that are
difficult or uneconomic to manage; or
Lands that were acquired for a specific purpose and are no
longer needed for that purpose; or
Lands that could serve important public objectives, such as
community expansion and economic development, which outweigh
other public objectives and values that could be served by
retaining the land in Federal ownership.
The BLM identifies lands that may be suitable for disposal through
its land use planning process, which involves full public
participation. The process of identifying these lands does not
typically include review of other considerations such as the presence
of threatened or endangered species, cultural or historic resources, or
encumbrances because these considerations are not included in the FLTFA
criteria. Before the BLM can sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of
these lands, however, it must undertake extensive environmental impact
analyses, clearances, surveys, and appraisals for the individual
parcels.
Before the enactment of the FLTFA, the BLM had the authority under
FLPMA to sell lands identified for disposal. The proceeds from those
sales were deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury. However,
because of the costs associated with those sales (including
environmental and cultural clearances, appraisals, and surveys), few
sales were undertaken. Rather, the BLM relied largely on land exchanges
to adjust land tenure. This can often be a less efficient process.
Once the FLTFA was enacted, the BLM developed guidance, processes,
and tools to complete the FLTFA land sales. Working cooperatively, the
BLM, NPS, FWS, and FS then developed guidance, processes, and tools for
subsequent FLTFA land acquisitions. The BLM markedly increased sales
under the program over the last few years. Recent market conditions,
however, have led to less-robust sales than earlier in the life of the
program.
Since it was enacted, the BLM utilized FLTFA to sell 309 parcels
previously identified for disposal totaling 29,437 acres, with a total
value of approximately $113.4 million. Over the same time period, the
Federal government acquired 28 parcels totaling 16,738 acres, with a
total value of approximately $43.8 million using FLTFA authority. An
additional 11 parcels, totaling 1,282 acres and valued at approximately
$23 million have been approved for acquisition. Work on these
acquisitions is proceeding swiftly.
Some lands identified for disposal and sold through the FLTFA
process are high-value lands in the urban interface. For example, in
2007 the BLM in Arizona sold at auction a 282-acre parcel in the
suburban Phoenix area for $7 million. However, many of the lands the
BLM has identified for disposal are isolated or scattered parcels in
remote areas with relatively low value. Frequently, there is limited
interest in acquiring these lands, and the costs of preparing them for
sale may exceed their market value.
Since the inception of the FLTFA, the BLM has deposited $108.9
million into the Federal Land Disposal Account. That figure represents
96% of the total revenues from these sales. Approximately $4.5 million
has been transferred to the states in which the sales originated, as
provided for in individual Statehood Acts (typically 4% of the sale
price).
Using the FLTFA proceeds, the BLM, NPS, FWS, and FS have acquired
significant inholdings and adjacent lands from willing sellers,
consistent with the provisions of the Act. For example, just last month
the BLM used FLTFA funds to complete the acquisition of 4,573 acres
within the BLM's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in southwest
Colorado. These inholdings encompass 25 documented cultural sites, and
archaeologists expect to record an additional 700 significant finds.
The acquisition also included two particularly important areas:
``Jackson's Castle,'' which is archeologically significant; and the
``Skywatcher Site,'' a one-of-a-kind 1,000 year old solstice marker.
The following are a few additional examples of important FLTFA
acquisitions:
Elk Springs Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC),
New Mexico/BLM--This 2,280-acre acquisition protects critical
elk wintering habitat.
Hells Canyon Wilderness, Arizona/BLM--A 640-acre parcel
constituting the last inholding within the Hells Canyon
Wilderness, located just 25 miles northwest of Phoenix.
Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming/NPS--This small (1.38
acres), but critical inholding within the Park was acquired and
protected from development.
Zion National Park, Utah/NPS--A combination of FLTFA and
Land and Water Conservation Fund monies were used to acquire
two 5-acre inholdings that overlook some of the Park's
outstanding geologic formations. These areas were previously
target for development.
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon/FWS--This 92-
acre dairy farm on the outskirts of Pacific City, Oregon was
slated for residential development and was acquired to protect
a significant portion of the world's population of the Semidi
Islands Aleutian Cackling Goose.
Six Rivers National Forest, California/FS--Over 4,400 acres
were acquired within the Goose Creek National Wild and Scenic
River corridor, preserving 4 miles of the river known for dense
stands of Douglas fir, redwoods, and Port Orford cedar.
s. 1787
S. 1787 would both extend and enhance the original FLTFA through
four major changes.
First, the bill eliminates a 10-year sunset provision included in
the original FLTFA. This change would enable the BLM to plan for and
implement this program on a long-term basis.
Second, under the original FLTFA, only lands identified for
disposal prior to July 25, 2000 were eligible to be sold. S. 1787
modifies that restriction by allowing any lands identified for disposal
through the BLM's land use planning process by the date of enactment of
S. 1787 to be sold through the FLTFA process. The Department supports
this change, which recognizes the usefulness and importance of the
BLM's land use planning process. However, we would recommend
eliminating this restriction rather than simply moving the date
forward.
The BLM currently oversees the public lands through 172 Resource
Management Plans (RMPs). Since 2000, the BLM has completed 67 new RMPs,
18 major amendments to existing RMPs, and numerous smaller land use
plan amendments. Additionally, the BLM is currently involved in
planning efforts on 35 new RMPs, all of which the agency expects to
complete within the next three years. Planning updates are an ongoing
part of the BLM's mandate under FLPMA. In this process, the BLM often
makes incremental modifications to the plans, and identifies lands that
may be suitable for disposal. All of these planning modifications or
revisions are made in compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act, and are undertaken through a process that invites full public
participation.
Third, the original FLTFA only allows acquisitions of inholdings
within, or special lands adjacent to Federal units that existed prior
to July 25, 2000. S. 1787 eliminates this limitation as well, and we
support this change. In March of this year, President Obama signed the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) into
law, which designates or expands numerous wilderness areas, wild and
scenic rivers, national park units, and other units of the BLM's
National Landscape Conservation System. S. 1787 will allow the use of
FLTFA funds to acquire inholdings within these areas and areas
designated by other legislation enacted after July 2000.
Finally, S. 1787 adds exceptions to the FLTFA in recognition of
specific laws that modify the FLTFA with respect to some particular
locations. The FLTFA does not apply to lands available for sale under
the Santini-Burton Act (P.L. 96-586) and the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act (P.L 105-263). S. 1787 additionally exempts lands
included in the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act (P.L. 109-432) and the Lincoln County Conservation,
Recreation and Development Act (P.L. 108-424).
However, we note that S. 1787 does not account for some provisions
of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 that modify the
application of FLTFA at specific sites or for specific purposes. The
portions of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 that contain
language regarding the applicability of the FLTFA include:
Owyhee Public Land Management (Title I, Subtitle F);
Washington County, Utah (Title I, Subtitle O);
Carson City, Nevada, land conveyances (Title II, Subtitle G,
section 2601); and
Douglas County, Washington, land conveyance (Title II,
Subtitle G, section 2606). We are happy to work with the
Committee, as appropriate, to address these special provisions.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of S.
1787, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization of
2009. By extending the FLTFA, the Congress will allow the BLM to
continue a rational process of land disposal that is anchored in public
participation and sound land use planning, while providing for land
acquisitions to augment and strengthen our Nation's treasured
landscapes.
h.r. 762
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 762, a bill which
affirms a land patent and an associated land reconfiguration completed
in 2005. These land transactions protect habitat for desert tortoise
and other Mojave Desert wildlife species while providing for economic
development in rural south-central Nevada. The BLM supports this bill,
which passed the House of Representatives without amendment on July 15,
2009.
background
The Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988 (NFLEA,
P.L.100-275) authorized the exchange of approximately 29,055 acres
(``fee'' lands) of BLM-administered lands in Coyote Springs Valley,
Clark and Lincoln Counties, Nevada, for approximately 5,000 acres of
private land in the Florida Everglades owned by Aerojet-General
Corporation (Aerojet). The purpose of the land exchange was to protect
habitat in Florida needed for the recovery of wildlife species listed
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NFLEA also entitled Aerojet
to lease an additional 13,767 acres (``leased'' lands) of BLM-
administered land in Coyote Spring Valley for 99 years, with an
automatic 99-year lease renewal term unless terminated by the lessee.
Aerojet initially intended to use the fee lands for the
construction of rocket manufacturing facilities. The Federal leased
lands were to remain substantially undeveloped and serve as a
conservation area and buffer for the rocket facilities. Aerojet never
built the manufacturing facilities and the fee lands changed ownership
in 1996 and 1998. In accordance with the NFLEA, the Secretary of the
Interior approved the assignment of the leased lands from Aerojet to
Harrich Investments LLC, and then from Harrich Investments to Coyote
Springs Investment LLC (CSI), respectively.
CSI proposed to develop a planned community on the original Aerojet
fee lands. Because the proposed development would affect critical
habitat for the desert tortoise, an ESA listed species, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) asked the BLM in 2001 to consider
reconfiguring the boundary of the leased lands to benefit desert
tortoise habitat. Reconfiguration of the leased lands was undertaken
pursuant to the NFLEA.
Under the original configuration, the leased land was an island
surrounded by the fee lands acquired by Aerojet. This configuration was
designed to meet the needs of the planned Aerojet manufacturing
facilities, but it provided limited habitat conservation benefits.
Reconfiguring the lands would enhance conservation by consolidating the
fee lands in a single parcel adjacent to U.S. Highway 93, and by
placing the leased lands contiguous to protected habitat on BLM-managed
public lands. This configuration would increase habitat connectivity
and provide more effective conservation for desert tortoise and other
Mojave Desert species.
In 2005 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a corrective
patent to CSI for the reconfigured lands in Clark County. The Western
Lands Project and the Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association
(plaintiffs), who claimed that the BLM should have prepared an analysis
of the corrective patent under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA),
subsequently brought suit in the U.S. District Court in Nevada. The
action has been stayed and has not yet been briefed on the merits.
Continuing with its project proposal, CSI then prepared a Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to protect tortoise habitat
and, consistent with the ESA, applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
(FWS) for an ``incidental take'' permit necessary for project approval.
The FWS, with the BLM as a cooperating agency, assessed the CSI
proposal in an Environmental Impact Statement completed in July 2008.
In October 2008, the FWS issued a Record of Decision authorizing an
incidental take permit to CSI with numerous conservation stipulations
to protect desert tortoise habitat. A key conservation stipulation is
the land reconfiguration authorized by the BLM's corrective patent.
In November 2008, the plaintiffs stipulated with the BLM to a stay
of the lawsuit for one year pending action by Congress on legislation
affirming the corrective patent.
H.R. 762 affirms and validates the corrective patent issued by the
BLM in 2005 and its associated land reconfiguration. The bill enables
implementation of the land reconfiguration stipulated in the Coyote
Spring MSHCP, which will protect critical habitat while allowing
economic development in south-central Nevada. The BLM supports the
bill, which passed by the House of Representatives without amendment on
July 15, 2009.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
h.r. 934
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the
Department of the Interior to support enactment of legislation that
would convey the three geographical miles of submerged lands adjacent
to the Northern Mariana Islands to the Government of the Northern
Mariana Islands. The Administration would strongly support this bill if
amended to address the issues outlined below
The bill is intended to give the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) authority over its submerged lands from mean
high tide seaward to three geographical miles distant from its coast
lines.
It has been the position of the Federal Government that United
States submerged lands around the Northern Mariana Islands did not
transfer to the CNMI when the Covenant came into force. This position
was validated in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the case of
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. the United States
of America. One consequence of this decision is that CNMI law
enforcement personnel lack jurisdiction in the territorial waters
surrounding the islands of the CNMI without a grant from the Federal
Government.
At present, the CNMI is the only United States territory that does
not have title to the submerged lands in that portion of the United
States territorial sea that is three miles distant from the coastlines
of the CNMI's islands. It is appropriate that the CNMI be given the
same authority as her sister territories.
I have three comments on the bill, and then a recommendation.
First, the Territorial Submerged Lands Act, which became public law in
1974, contains several sections that refer to the territories by name.
H.R. 934 inserts the CNMI's name only in section 1, but not in section
2, which reserves military rights and navigational servitudes. In order
to achieve consistency, the Department recommends that the CNMI be
included in all provisions of the Territorial Submerged Lands Act where
other territories are named.
Second, H.R. 934 includes language interpreting ``date of
enactment'' in the original act as meaning ``date of enactment'' of
H.R. 934 when referencing the provisions of H.R. 934. For those who
will later interpret the statute, it would be helpful if the
interpretation is included in the main statute itself, rather than
being relegated to a separately listed amendment or reference note.
Third, on January 6, 2009, by presidential proclamation, the
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument was created, including the
Islands Unit, comprising the submerged lands and waters surrounding
Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion, the northernmost islands of the CNMI. While
creation of the monument is a historic achievement, it should be
remembered that the leaders and people of the CNMI were and are these
three islands' first preservationists. They included in their 1978,
plebiscite-approved constitution the following language:
article xiv: natural resources
Section 1: Marine Resources. The marine resources in the
waters off the coast of the Commonwealth over which the
Commonwealth now or hereafter may have any jurisdiction under
United States law shall be managed, controlled, protected and
preserved by the legislature for the benefit of the people.
Section 2: Uninhabited Islands. . . . The islands of Maug,
Uracas, Asuncion, Guguan and other islands specified by law
shall be maintained as uninhabited places and used only for the
preservation and protection of natural resources, including but
not limited to bird, wildlife and plant species.
It is important to note that the legislature has never taken action
adverse to the preservation of these northern islands and the waters
surrounding them. The people of the CNMI are well aware of their
treasures. CNMI leaders consented to creation of the monument because
they believed that the monument would bring Federal assets for marine
surveillance, protection, and enforcement to the northern islands that
the CNMI cannot afford.
If enacted as passed by the House, H.R. 934 would become a public
law enacted subsequent to the creation of the monument. H.R. 934's
amendments to the Territorial Submerged Lands Act would convey to the
CNMI the submerged lands surrounding Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion without
addressing the effect of this conveyance on the administrative
responsibilities of the Department of the Interior and the Department
of Commerce. Presidential Proclamation 8335 establishes shared
management responsibilities for the Marianas Marine National Monument
between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce.
The proclamation further states that the ``Secretary of Commerce shall
have the primary management responsibility. . .with respect to fishery-
related activities regulated pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1801 et seq.) and
any other applicable authorities.'' The proclamation provides that
submerged lands that are granted to the CNMI ``but remain controlled by
the United States under the Antiquities Act may remain part of the
monument'' for coordinated management with the CNMI. The Department of
the Interior seeks to harmonize all interests in the waters surrounding
the CNMI's three northernmost islands and provide sufficient control
over the submerged lands and waters of the monument to enable co-
management of the Islands Unit of the monument. Thus, the Department
recommends that language be included in H.R. 934 referencing the
proclamation that created the monument, including the Federal and CNMI
roles. Such harmonizing language is intended to protect the Islands
Unit of the monument and at the same time acknowledge the prescient and
historic conservation effort of the leaders and people of the CNMI in
protecting Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion, and their surrounding waters.
I have appended to my written statement legislative language that
would (1) address the submerged lands surrounding the Northern Mariana
Islands to the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands, and (2)
clearly address the three issues of concern to the Department that I
raised here today. The Department of the Interior strongly supports
H.R. 934 if it is amended to include the legislative language provided.
The Department of the Interior looks forward to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands gaining rights in the submerged lands
surrounding them similar to those accorded her sister territories.
appendix
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Public
Law 93-435 (48 U.S.C. 1705) is amended:
(a) by inserting the words `the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands,' after the word `Guam,' wherever it appears,
and
(b) by adding at the end the following language:
`Sec. 7. All provisions of this Act that refer to ``date of
enactment'', shall, when applicable to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, mean the date of enactment of the
amendment that included the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands in this Act.
`Sec. 8. Nothing in this Act is intended to amend, repeal, or
otherwise alter the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument as
described in Presidential Proclamation 8335 dated January 6,
2009, including the proclamation's provisions that reference
the management responsibilities of the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce and the rights, responsibilities of
officials of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.'
Senator Wyden. We have questions. Mr. Chairman, would you
like to start the questions?
The Chairman. Sure. I am glad to, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask Secretary Sherman first, this is with regard to
S. 1470. I believe you stated and your testimony includes the
statement that the levels of mechanical treatment that are
called for in the legislation are likely unachievable and
perhaps unsustainable. I guess that raises the question in my
mind as to whether the Forest Service was involved in the
discussions, the collaborative discussions that led to this
legislation that Senator Tester and Senator Baucus put forward
here.
Did the Forest Service discuss sustainability and
achievability with the various stakeholders as part of those
discussions? Are you aware as to what the history of that is?
Mr. Sherman. Senator, I have recently--in the past week or
two, my staff has had discussions with Senator Tester's staff.
But my understanding is that the regional and local offices of
the Forest Service did not have--were not participants in the
stakeholder process.
The Chairman. That was before your watch, I understand?
Mr. Sherman. That is correct.
The Chairman. But your understanding is that the Forest
Service views on some of these issues that you are now bringing
to the committee's attention were not raised?
Mr. Sherman. That is my understanding.
The Chairman. I think you also say in your testimony that
the levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in the
bill would require an enormous shift in resources from other
forests in Montana and also from other States in order to
accomplish the treatment levels that are specified.
What kinds of resources are we talking about here that
would have to be shifted, and would they include--I think you
mentioned the possibility not only of having resources from
that region, which is Region 1, as I understand the way you
designate your regions, but are you also talking about shifting
of resources from other regions that the Forest Service
manages?
Mr. Sherman. Senator, there are a number of different
categories of cost that would be involved in meeting the goals
of this bill. Part of the costs relate to the processing of the
National Environmental Policy Act. Under this bill, we would
have to address one environmental impact statement per year of
at least a 50,000-acre size, and we would be doing that each
and every year for a period of 10 years. So that is one area of
cost.
A second area of cost is the advertising, sale, and
implementation of these stewardship contracts.
Then, third, there are a number of costs that relate to the
restoration of these projects, the obliteration of roads, the
fixing of culverts, the planting of trees, and so forth. So
these are different cost centers.
Now, the Forest Service advises me that these costs would
be considerably more expensive than the costs that are
currently being incurred in the 3 national forests that are
being addressed here. If that is the case, then we would have
to look to other forests within Region 1 to help to support
these efforts, or we would have to look to other regions to
help support the efforts.
I do not have a precise cost figure of how much more it
would be, but it would certainly run into the millions of
dollars on an annual basis.
The Chairman. You talked, I think, also in your testimony
about your concern about site-specific legislation. Could you
elaborate a little bit as to what you are talking about there?
Mr. Sherman. We anticipate, if Congress were to pass this
bill, there will be other areas of the United States, other
regions or other forests within regions which will also seek
similar site-specific legislation. There are collaboratives
going on in various parts of the country--in Oregon, in
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and parts
of the East and the Southeast.
I think that there is the likelihood that if Congress were
to move forward and pass legislation such as we are talking
about today that other regions will want to do so similarly.
Now if that happens, I think my concern is that there will be
somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different
regions in the country. Those who are first in may get funded,
and those who come later may find that there are less funds
available.
There will be certain haves and have nots that result from
this process. In some ways, there is no longer a true national
review, a national effort to sift out what priorities ought to
exist across the country.
The Forest Landscape Restoration Act, which you passed not
too long ago, did anticipate this issue. It set a template for
looking at landscape-level restoration, having this reviewed at
a national level, picking projects from different regions,
which were worthy of going forward here. It seems to us that
that approach perhaps might be the best approach to prevent the
balkanization that might come otherwise.
But I want to stress that we are open to new ideas here. If
there are ways to make this work that don't pit regions against
each other and to allow us to truly prioritize with the limited
resources we have, we are certainly open to a discussion about
that.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Appreciate the
opportunity to ask questions.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have only one area that I want to get into with you, Mr.
Sherman, and you have been at your post for a grand total of 30
days, I think. So you certainly are coming right up into the
thick of it.
It is on this question of collaboration, and it is in your
prepared testimony you cited it again. Let me get your
assessment on this issue with respect to how you are looking at
it at this point, early in your tenure.
All over the West, there are lots of collaborations, no
question about that. What there also is, is enormous
frustration that the Forest Service is today not doing enough
to support those collaborative efforts, and it is not doing it
nearly fast enough.
I think what you are going to hear during your tenure is
that this effort must be sped up. It must be much more
aggressive and focused. If it is not--I know we will have a
chance to talk about the Oregon legislation--what is going to
happen in the rural West is a lot of those areas are going to
end up sacrifice zones. They don't have a lot of time.
In a lot of those areas, the infrastructure, the mills and
the engines of the rural economy, it is not going to be there
if there isn't additional support from the Forest Service and
concrete, significantly more focused, and bolder work done. So
we are going to be talking a lot about it.
Understand that in the rural West, not only are people
frustrated, they can't understand how it is that their
Government can come up with billions of dollars--I mean we now
own car companies, insurance companies, investment houses--how
it is that we can't find a way to get the Forest Service
support for these homegrown collaborative efforts.
So my question to you is, since you have been there for
just this short period of time, what is your early thinking,
your thinking at this point about how the Forest Service would
substantially increase the support for collaborative work,
especially in the woods of the rural West?
Mr. Sherman. Senator, I completely agree with you about the
urgency of moving forward more aggressively on the
collaboration of all of the stakeholders throughout the country
who are interested in these issues. We must do a better job of
this, and I think Secretary Vilsack's speech in August of this
year on the national forests and the private forests emphasized
the importance of collaboration.
We need to do a better job. We need to do this at all
levels of the Forest Service. We need, at the local levels and
the district ranger offices and forest supervisor offices, to
work very, very hard bringing these disparate groups together
and finding common interests and common strategies for dealing
with these problems.
So we are going to be working at this, and hopefully, we
will be making progress at this. Without progress on
collaboration, we are going to be frustrated whether we have a
bill here or whether we proceed under our typical
administrative processes because, without collaboration, we end
up with litigation, and the process comes to a standstill.
So my hope is that we will put collaboration at the top of
our list because without it, we can't make progress.
Senator Wyden. I think what you will find in these
discussions, and my sense is we are going to have lots of them,
is that this committee, on both sides of the aisle, is going to
make sure that we get results. In other words, we have heard in
the past from a variety of administrations about lots of
processes. But we haven't gotten enough results on the ground,
and we are going to be interested in working with you to find
the right mix of administrative steps and legislation,
legislation that in many instances can give you more tools in
order to stake out this positive direction we want.
But we have got to get results. That has got to be the
bottom line as you go forward in the days ahead, and we will
have plenty of conversations about this.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Yes. I am a little disappointed, Mr.
Sherman, to hear you talk about the resistance from the
administration regarding--and you put it delicately, and I
appreciate that--but regarding the business of people in their
local States, in their local areas actually being able to
resolve these problems.
I know this is going to come as a great shock to a lot of
people in Washington, D.C., but you know the people in the
States really do a pretty good job of resolving their own
problems if you let them do it. You just indicated, well, there
should be this national thing with the national priorities.
When I became Governor, the issue on the roadless matter
was put on my plate, and I had a lot of people saying, look,
don't mess with that. They have been at this 40 years, and
nobody has been able to resolve this. Stay away from it. Forget
it. Go on and do something else.
But the first thing that struck me, and maybe it was my
forestry background, I don't know. But the first thing that
struck me when I looked at it was that for 40 years, the Forest
Service had been attempting to resolve the roadless area issue
by one-rule-fits-all. So, the first thing I did was we broke it
down into, believe it or not, 280 different areas that you
would refer to as a balkanization.
But we took the 280 because anyone who deals with land
knows that every acre is unique, in and of itself, and
generally, a watershed is unique in and of itself. We broke it
down into 280. Then what we did was we argued back and forth
and came up with essentially four different themes, if you
would, and five if you include the special themes such as areas
of religious significance to tribes and ski hills and things
like that.
But we broke it basically into four, and believe it or not,
once we did that and once we broke it up and said, look, these
are the four different kind of areas, let us find out what
local people think. The next thing we did was we gave it to the
county commissioners.
There are 44 counties in Idaho, and I think there was
roadless in 35 of them. They held hearings, and they had people
come in, both national and local, and they took each of those
areas and went through it and looked at it. At the end of the
day, it was amazing when they sat around the table, both people
from the environmental community and people from the industrial
and forest community, how they looked at it, and they said,
yes, well, here is one. Look at this.
Well, this is a unique piece of ground that nobody is ever
going to cut trees in here, nobody is ever going to build roads
in here. Nobody ever should. Anybody disagree with that?
Everybody looked at it and said, yes, you know, I think you are
probably right on that.
You get another piece. You look at it and say, wait a
minute, this one has already got roads throughout it. This
shouldn't be in roadless to begin with. Can we give this one up
back to the general forest? Yes.
At the end of the day, we had these millions of acres in
Idaho and a broad spectrum of types of acres and came to a
resolution of it to where all people could buy into it. If we
had just cut loose with that and sent it to Washington, D.C.,
this would never, ever, ever have gotten done.
My point is I would hope that you would revisit the issue
of who it is that would be better to analyze these unique
pieces of ground and come up with a proposed resolution of how
the land should be managed. Because the collaborative method
and the method of actually giving it out to the areas where
those lands sit worked remarkably well in Idaho, and there are
people in the room who participated in that from both sides of
the spectrum who I think would corroborate that.
Mr. Sherman. Senator, if I may respond just briefly?
Senator Risch. Please.
Mr. Sherman. I think it is very important to reemphasize
that we support local collaboration. We think it is essential.
I think many of the solutions must be generated locally. I
think there is a way to take those solutions and blend them
into the programs and the processes of the Forest Service.
There is going to be, overall, budgetary issues we and you
have to deal with. I mean, if we had more money, it would be
very, very helpful so we could move forward with all of these
programs across the country. But the local solutions and the
local collaboration are essential to our making progress on
this, and I just want to emphasize that with you.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Wyden. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, going back to the 3 bills I referred to, all
of which passed this committee without any remuneration, to be
honest and fair with you, only one of them was a Forest Service
piece of land. The other two were BLM lands. I understand there
is no such requirement in the BLM?
Mr. Roberson. That is correct.
Senator Bennett. So the first question that arises in my
mind is do you have a requirement to get fair market value if
you convey the land to the BLM?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sherman. That is an excellent question, Senator. I do
not know the answer, but I will get the answer.
Senator Bennett. If you could, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Sherman. I will. I mean, BLM does have the statutory
authority to convey land without consideration, whereas the
Forest Service does not. So I will look into that, and I will
get back to you.
Senator Bennett. OK. I would appreciate that. Now I
understand that one of them, and it has to do with the chairman
here, because it is a piece of land in Oregon, and it makes our
land exchange look really big because it was just 1.5 acres. It
was Forest Service land, and checking into the history of it,
there was consideration.
The Forest Service was paid $1 for the 1.5 acre in how do
you pronounce it, Mr. Chairman, Wallowa?
Senator Wyden. Wallowa.
Senator Bennett. Wallowa. The Wallowa, Oregon, conveyance
was 1.5 acre, and the Forest Service was paid $1. We will be
happy to match that and, indeed, move it up for the 2 acres,
make it a $1.50 or even double it and make it $2 for the 2
acres.
The administration did not express an opposition to that. I
want you to be consistent here. I want you to be consistent on
the side of saying there is a de minimis level at which this
thing is not required because that applied in the Wallowa
conveyance, and I would like it to apply in the Utah conveyance
as well.
Will you check into that and see what the fact situation
is?
Mr. Sherman. Senator, I will. Just as a historical note, my
understanding is, in that particular case, the Forest Service
acquired the property from the city of Wallowa in the 1930s for
$1, which is an interesting historical fact.
Senator Bennett. So you didn't make any money when you sold
it?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sherman. Apparently not. I am also advised that the
Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, when he did testify, he did
express our serious concern over the proposed bill because it
deviated from our statutory authority and from our past
policies. But I will check into this, and I will get back to
you.
Senator Bennett. I understand he did express concern, but
the concern ultimately was withdrawn so that when the committee
acted, the official record indicated the administration was not
opposed to it. Could you double check that for me?
Mr. Sherman. I will, and I will get back to you.
Senator Bennett. In the meantime, talk to your friends at
the BLM and see if they want a couple of acres. That may be the
easiest way to do it.
Mr. Sherman. I have got a fellow right here I can talk to.
So----
Senator Bennett. Yes. Make a deal with them and let them
pick up these acres, and then we will give them the $2.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. We are not going to pummel this question of
the city of Wallowa, but just so the record is clear, the city
of Wallowa--so it is clear with respect to Wallowa, the city of
Wallowa gave it to the Forest Service for $1.
Mr. Sherman. That is correct.
Senator Wyden. In effect, what happened is we gave it back
to them. Having said that, we are going to work very closely
with Senator Bennett because we always do, my longtime ally.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
All right. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
the flexibility to allow me to ask a few questions.
I just want to make one real quick statement, and correct
me if I am wrong, Harris. But the Forest Service has been
advocating collaboration for, what, 10 years. Would that be a
fair statement? On the ground collaboration.
Mr. Sherman. I am certainly aware, at least in my home
State, where the Forest Service did--has promoted
collaboration, that is correct, over a period of time.
Senator Tester. You know as well as anybody, because you
have been in the business for a while, that the easiest way
to--and this really goes off the chairman's question. But the
easiest way to really kill a good collaborative effort is not
to support it once it happens. You are not there. In fact, you
are not there at all.
But the key is, is so many times, we advocate for things to
happen at this level at the legislative branch of the U.S.
Congress, and then folks step up to the plate and they do it,
and we don't support them. So, I think it is critically
important if we are going to keep energy on the ground, if we
are going to tell folks to collaborate and they actually do set
aside their differences--and might I add, this is my bill. But
this really isn't my bill.
This bill was put together by folks that we are going to
hear from in a minute that, quite honestly, sat down and set an
example that we should learn from in the U.S. Congress and said
how can we work together? Not how can we divide ourselves from
one another?
So that energy needs to be supported, and I think you are
there, Harris, and I appreciate that.
I just had a couple of real quick questions. Fire. If fire
hits a region, where do you get the money?
Mr. Sherman. Where do we get the money? We have a fire
budget.
Senator Tester. OK. Is there a fire budget for each region?
Mr. Sherman. My understanding is there is a fire budget for
each region.
Senator Tester. OK. If that fire budget runs out, where do
you get the money?
Mr. Sherman. We have to seek it from our national programs?
Senator Tester. Yes. You have to seek it from somewhere
else. The point is, is that with this bill, you have the
ability to go out and do some things in the forest that I think
can help that fire budget. I am not saying forest isn't going
to burn. It is going to burn. There is no ifs, ands, or buts
about it.
But if you look at that red forest, there are some
opportunities out there to help save some dough, too, and that
is important to know.
It is also important, and going off Chairman Bingaman's
question, the forest plan for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge in
particular was started in 2002, and this collaborative group
absolutely used it as a way to move forward. So even though
they might not have been there, per se, they were there, per
se, through their plan.
The last thing I would say is that the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
has a goal in their forest plan of some 35 million board-feet.
If you do the math backward on it, that amounts to about 7,000
acres of logging, which is exactly what this bill requires, and
it comes out of the Forest Service plan. Do you have a comment
on that?
Mr. Sherman. I really don't. In my discussions with the
Forest Service, they have advised me that with the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge forest, over the past 5 years, we have averaged about
1,000 acres a year, a little bit less than 1,000 acres a year.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. So the ramp-up to 7,000 acres could be
challenging. Now, again, it depends on the definition of
mechanized treatment. If mechanized treatment is kind of
historical commercial timber development, that would be
difficult. If the definition of mechanized is broadened to
include other things, we could do better. But it still is a
significant increase in the level of activity.
Senator Tester. We understand that. We will work with you
on that. But with the beetle kill and the 1.9 million acres, I
think we can figure this out. I really do, and I appreciate it.
One last thing. You are from the State of Colorado. That is
a State that has one mill left to process timber that comes off
our forests. As I understand it, as infrastructure disappears,
it becomes harder, if not impossible, to perform work on the
landscape. Could you just speak to the potential increased
costs as we potentially see, as we have seen for the last 22
years, our timber industry dissolve and that infrastructure go
away? What kind of impact does that have on the Forest Service
budget and your ability to do restorative work?
Mr. Sherman. It has a tremendous impact, Senator. We must
have a viable timber industry if we are going to address the
challenges ahead of us. In my home State, we are down to one
mill, and that has been very, very problematic in terms of
getting restoration work done.
Senator Tester. I want to thank both of you for being here.
I appreciate your testimony, and I appreciate your honesty.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you both.
Let me leave you with one last thought, if I might, Mr.
Sherman, having kind of listened to this and had a chance just
to talk to you briefly. It is almost like, as you get into this
topic, you have to work this backward. Because the one word
that folks in the rural West want to hear is ``results.''
You know, they listen to all the Washington discussion,
which strikes people as a lot of talky-talk about process and
people going to meetings and all the rest, but what I think we
are going to be measured on--you, myself, Senator Tester--is
people are going to say how many acres did you get treated that
you really took a step to make the forest healthy again?
In our part of the world, they are going to say how many
acres did you get treated? They are going to say how many saw
logs did you actually get to the mills because there is great
concern that biomass, which I am a great supporter of, I think
it is going to make a big difference in energy, that biomass
alone is not, for some time to come, going to keep the mills
running. So people are going to say how many saw logs did you
get to the mills?
Then they are going to say what did you do to protect old
growth? We love our treasures.
So that is what we have got to figure out through this
combination of administrative initiatives and legislation is to
be able to show folks that on our watch we actually got results
for them, and we are going to work very closely with you. I
hope you have seen that this is a very bipartisan subcommittee.
Throughout my time, I have been both the chair and the ranking
minority member on this subcommittee, and we pretty much
conducted our business the same way whether I was the chair or
the ranking minority member.
So we are going to work very closely with you. It is going
to be bipartisan. But we have got to get some results because
that is what our constituents are demanding of us. That is what
they send us here for, to get results.
We will give you the last word, if you like?
Mr. Sherman. I just want to thank the committee, and I
promise you that the department is going to work closely with
this committee and with the Congress, and hopefully, we are
going to get some significant results. So thank you.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Mr. Roberson, thank you. We will excuse you both at this
time.
Let us see, our next panel, the Honorable Mike McGinley;
the Honorable Ronald Hurt; Sherman Anderson, president/owner of
Sun Mountain Lumber, Deerlodge; Matthew Koehler of the Wild
West Institute of Missoula; Tim Baker with the Montana
Wilderness Association; and Chris Wood, chief operating officer
of Trout Unlimited and a frequent guest here at this
subcommittee.
All right. We are going to make your prepared remarks a
part of the record in their entirety. I know that there is
almost a biological urge to just read what you have written.
But we will make your prepared remarks a part of the record,
and if you could just summarize? This is a big panel. I know
Senator Tester is going to have a lot of questions.
We will just begin with you, Mr. McGinley.
STATEMENT OF MIKE MCGINLEY, COMMISSIONER, BEAVERHEAD COUNTY
COMMISSION, DILLON, MT
Mr. McGinley. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Wyden and
members of the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee and
Senator Tester, thanks for this opportunity to share our views
and concerns about S. 1470.
We are not here to resurrect or reargue the complex and
contentious wilderness issues from yet another rural western
viewpoint. We instead are here to address other provisions in
this bill that we believe will have extremely unfavorable,
unintended consequences that may set precedence for ill-
conceived legislated management of forest and BLM lands.
Unfortunately, the primary sponsor of this bill chose to
use as a blueprint for this legislation a document analyzed and
deemed unworkable for national forest management by management
professionals in the Department of Ag. This bill represents
language that will mandate management potentially detrimental
to the public lands' health. We have encountered no evidence
that would indicate that by simply transforming this inadequate
and unworkable management approach into Federal law that it
somehow would magically evolve into successful means of
management of public lands.
Specifically, restoration of, improvements on, and projects
within the national forests must be accomplished with
landscape-scale restoration projects by the use of stewardship
practices. Stewardship practices are nothing new. They have
been part of the Forest Service management arsenal for many
years and have been explored and used where practical.
In research and feasibility of success, we asked Forest
Service stewardship professionals about the potential for
success of projects through stewardship contracts. Our
information indicates that stewardship contracts are only
successful when there is a considerable value in timber.
Given the current U.S. economic climate, there is little
value in this timber. Thus, this bill's mandated landscape
restoration projects have a small chance for success while
restricting traditional management prescription and removing
management flexibility for the Forest Service.
It is our belief that this bill will actually allow further
deterioration of public resources by limiting the tools that
can be used by the Federal land managers. Funding is currently
in place for SRS through 2011. The formula for funding SRS is
dependent on forest receipts.
This bill, by mandating the stewardship contracts are the
only means to accomplish landscape-scale restoration projects,
discontinues traditional timber sales and, therefore, the
funding for SRS.
Consequently, either local county residents will need to
make up this loss, or educational and transportational services
will have to be curtailed. Therefore, this bill does not
encourage economic or social stability, nor does it promote
collaboration between forest restoration activities and
communities per its findings and purposes.
Forest jobs would be an outcome of this bill. However,
after the date of enactment, this bill only appropriates the
Secretary has 1 year to issue a record of decision to implement
one or more landscape-scale restoration projects. To do this,
the agencies must conduct a NEPA analysis, form resource
advisory boards, entertain local collaborative forest
management groups, report on the effectiveness of using
resource advisory boards to reduce appeals and litigations,
plus conduct a study on biomass combined heat and power
assistance projects, and then negotiate the stewardship
contracts and conduct the projects on the ground.
No specific funding is provided to accomplish this huge
assignment. Given the timelines mandated by this bill and the
lack of funding to do the work, it appears to us is a sure
means to perpetuate the endless injunctions and litigations.
The authority for the jobs portion of this bill
extinguishes itself in 15 years or after 70,000 acres. The
Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest is directed by law to mechanically
treat 7,000 acres per year for 10 years. Consequently, by the
forest jobs portion of the bill are gone in 10 years or legal
and lawsuits may cancel the jobs portion of the bill.
Concurrently, the opportunity for ample lawsuits is made
possible when 7,000 acres per year are not treated. So this
bill provides the legal basis for suing the Forest Service for
not obeying the law and yet does nothing to alleviate the
injunctions and lawsuits that may halt landscape restoration
projects.
Responding to these injunctions and legal actions by Forest
Service personnel is one of the greatest barriers of the flow
of wood products from public forests. Senate 1470 does nothing
to remove the major obstacle in generating more predictable
flow of wood products for local communities and actually does
nothing to create forest jobs.
Also included in my written testimony are over 1,000 names
on written petitions and letters from many of the different
groups in Beaverhead County that oppose this legislation.
Thank you for your time, and I would be welcome to stand
for questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGinley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. McGinley, Commissioner, Beaverhead
County Commission, Dillon, MT
Chairman Wyden and honorable members of the Public Lands and
Forests Sub-Committee, thank you for this opportunity to share our
views and concerns about S. 1470. We are not here to resurrect or
reargue the complex and contentious wilderness issue from yet another
rural western viewpoint. We, instead, are here to address other
provisions in S. 1470 that we believe will have extremely unfavorable
unintended consequences and will also set precedence for ill-conceived
legislated management of National Forest and Bureau of Land Management
lands contrary to the investigation, analysis and recommendations of
the experts employed by established US land management agencies in the
Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior.
Some background information is in order. Beaverhead County, in
concert with Madison County, Montana, participated as a cooperating
agency in the revision process for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
Forest's Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. The process began
in 2001 with the Record of Decision on the Revised Plan being signed in
2009, thus there was an 8-year effort to bring forth a revised
management plan for a 3.3 million acre National Forest. In 2006, a
three environmental groups and 4 timber products businesses joined
together to pool their financial, media outlet, and membership
resources to form what is known as the ``Partnership''. Essentially,
they were conceived as and have remained as an exclusive, narrowly
focused, special interest lobby dealing with virtually only 2 public
land management issues. They brought forth a document entitled the
``Partner Strategy'' which they used to attempt to hijack the Revision
process by having it considered as a viable Alternative for management
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Their ``Strategy'' document
failed to accomplish this goal as the Forest Service deemed it
inadequate as a viable management Alternative because it did not
include input from a wide array of stakeholders and did not addresses
the myriad issues and management needs of a National Forest as mandated
by law (Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974)). Upon failing to get their ``Strategy'' accepted as an
Alternative in the Revised Forest Plan, the ``Partnership'' used their
document as the management language in a drafted bill entitled the
Beaverhead Stewardship Act of 2007. They then sought both local and
national support for their creation and Federal sponsorship throughout
both houses of Congress. That failed, too. Unfortunately, the primary
sponsor of S. 1470 bill chose to ignore valid criticism of this
``Strategy'' document, chose to exclude the majority of impacted
stakeholders, chose to use this flawed and judged inadequate document
as the blueprint upon which S. 1470 is based. Consequently, we believe
that S. 1470 represents language that will mandate management for a
National Forest, and those management directives have already been
analyzed, evaluated, and judged inappropriate, unworkable, and
detrimental to our public lands' health by land management
professionals in the Department of Agriculture. We have encountered no
evidence that would indicate that by simply transforming this
unworkable management approach into Federal Law, somehow it would
magically evolve a successful means of managing resources on public
lands.
A central philosophical and operational paradigm contained in the
``Partnership Strategy'' and now fully incorporated in S. 1470 is
restoration of National Forests by tackling landscape scale restoration
projects by use of stewardship forestry practices. Stewardship
practices are nothing new. They have been part of the Forest Service
management arsenal for many years and have been explored and used where
practical. Stewardship practices entail goods and services being
exchanged for public resources. For example, timber would be exchanged
for restoration services on the National Forest. In researching
feasibility of success of S. 1470 we asked a stewardship professional
on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge about the potential for success of such
mandated large, minimum 50,000 acres, projects through stewardship
contracts. Our information indicates that stewardship contracts are
only successful when there is considerable value in timber. . .that is
timber, not salvaged ``beetle'' infected, ``beetle-killed'' or
otherwise standing dead trees. . .and given the current US economic
climate there is little value in timber. Thus, such S. 1470 mandated
grandiose landscape-scale restoration projects have small chance for
success, while restricting traditional management prescriptions and
removing management flexibility for the Forest Service. It is our
belief that this bill will actually allow further deterioration of
public resources by limiting tools that can be used by federal land
managers.
Both the House and Senate recognized the importance of providing
educational opportunities for children in rural areas throughout the US
by appropriating funds to SRS (Secured Rural Schools) from 2008 through
2011. S. 1470 by mandating that stewardship contracts are the means to
accomplish landscape-scale restoration projects essentially removes the
basis for funding SRS in areas of the State of Montana. Please recall
that Stewardship contracts are an exchange of goods for services.
Traditional timber sales and their associated funding allocations will
cease. Thus, when there is no timber harvest on National Forests, there
will be no SRS monies for local governments' rural schools and road
systems. For example, in 2009, the Beaverhead County Schools received
$505,585.91 and the Beaverhead County Road fund received $1,012,690.09
from SRS funding. Consequently, either the 9000 residents of Beaverhead
County will need to make up this loss, $1.5 million in 2009, or
educational and transportational services will have to be curtailed, or
other services will have to be eliminated to make up for the S. 1470
initiated shortfall. In reviewing the lofty Findings and Purposes of
S.1470 sacrificing rural children's educational opportunities plus
rural transportation for forest restoration and wilderness is not
mentioned. And, having rural education and transportation bear the
burden of this bill definitely does NOT encourage economic and social
stability NOR does it promote collaboration between forest restoration
activities, wilderness, and communities.
Forest jobs are to be an outcome of this bill. However, essentially
no ``forest'' jobs or entities or funding or specific employment
opportunities are created by this bill. The work load created by this
S. 1470 falls upon the Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of the
Interior and thus, the agencies of those two Secretaries. After the
date of enactment of this bill the appropriate Secretary has one year
(and each year after) to issue a record of decision to implement one or
more landscape-scale restoration projects. The agencies must conduct
NEPA analysis, form resource advisory boards, entertain local
collaborative forest management groups, and report on the effectiveness
of using resource advisory boards to reduce appeals and litigation,
plus conduct a study on biomass combined heat and power system
projects, and then negotiate the stewardship contract and to conduct
the project on the ground. No specific funding is provided to
accomplish this Herculean assignment in one year other than funds not
otherwise appropriated from the US Treasury and unallocated budget at
the local Forest Supervisor level. Given the timelines mandated by this
bill and lack of funding to do the work, it appears to us as a sure
means to perpetuate endless injunction and litigation by those
interests that do not approve of this kind of resource use.
The authority for the ``jobs'' portion of the bill extinguishes
itself in 15 years or when 70,000 acres is treated. The Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National forest is directed by law to mechanically treat
7,000 acres per year for ten years; consequently the ``forest jobs''
portion of the bill is gone in 10 years. No provisions are included to
extend any portion of the authority based on future injunction or
pending litigation. Thus, legal action and lawsuits that hold up
stewardship projects for 10- 15 years cancel the ``jobs'' portion of
the bill. And, the opportunity for ample lawsuits is inherent when
7,000 acres per year each year are not treated! So, this bill provides
the basis for suing the Forest Service for not obeying the law and yet
does nothing to alleviate injunctions and lawsuit that potentially will
halt landscape-scale restoration projects thus negating creation of
``forest jobs''. We contacted personnel in the Forest Service to
inquire about barriers to harvesting wood products from National
Forests, specifically the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
Responding to injunction and legal actions by the Forest Service
require huge investments in time, energy and money. Thus, S. 1470 does
nothing to remove a major obstacle in generating a more predictable
flow of wood products for local communities of the State, and in
actuality does nothing to substantially create ``forest jobs''.
We believe the collective wisdom of this committee and its members
fully recognize that the "devil is in the details" and that S. 1470
leaves much to be desired in well thought out details that will not
create negative unintended consequences. In its present form this bill
creates many more contentious problems, may cause further deterioration
of our public resources, presses hardships on local governments, denies
education opportunities to rural children, and does not support the
Findings of Congress or achieve it Purposes.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before your Committee.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. McGinley.
Mr. Hurt.
STATEMENT OF RONALD ``SKIP'' HURT, IDAHO COMMISSIONER, FREMONT
COUNTY
Mr. Hurt. You got to me quicker than I thought you would.
Greetings from Fremont County and the State of Idaho.
I would like to correct Senator Crapo, if I could? Is that
legal to do that?
Senator Wyden. Sure.
Mr. Hurt. I spent 41 years with the Forest Service and
retired 3 1/2 years ago. The last 25 years of those were years
spent on the Ashton/Island Park ranger district as a fire
management officer. My folks were initial attack on the North
Fork fire of 1988.
Senator Tester, you have an issue there you need to deal
with, that red timber. We averted that and logged the area in
our country.
Also, I served on a national fire management overhead team
for 17 years. So I am well aware of what that red timber is
going to do to your State when it catches on fire.
Currently, I am serving my second term as a Fremont County
commissioner. I come here today not as a paid environmentalist
or a lobbyist, but as an elected official of Fremont County,
and I am very concerned about the portion of S. 1470 and the
direct result or impact that it is going to have on our economy
in the Island Park area.
We, as a county, have no issue with the northern portion of
the proposed Mount Jefferson wilderness area, but we do take
issue with the southern portion. The northern portion, as you
probably know, is nonmotorized at this time. The southern
portion is motorized, and there is a lot of snow machine,
snowmobiling done in there.
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge management plan, the preferred
alternative, is just exactly that. The northern portion of the
wilderness would be nonmotorized, would accommodate the
snowshoers, the cross-country skiers. The southern portion
would accommodate the snowmobilers, which access that country
from the Idaho side.
Right now, we feel what we have in place is a win-win
situation for all factions--snow machiners, cross-country
skiers. That is in place and has worked well for the last 5
years. The Idaho Snowmobile Association and the local residents
collaborated with the Forest Service concerning this matter and
felt like that we had their stamp of approval for this
decision.
I would like to talk a little bit about some of the
economic impacts that this wilderness will have on the Island
Park area. If this is removed from the accessible land that can
be ridden by snowmobiles, it will literally put some of our
snow machine rental dealers in Island Park out of business.
This, in turn, is going to have a domino effect on restaurants,
the motels, cabin rentals, and eventually, the tax base of
Fremont County.
Excuse me. Fremont--or Island Park area generates 51
percent of the property tax base in Fremont County. So you can
see why we are concerned about losing this portion of the
country to ride in.
Our neighboring county to the southeast of us currently has
$127 million worth of foreclosures in their county. Now this is
not due to any proposed wilderness bill or Senate bill. This is
due to just the economy. It stands to show you that our part of
the country is headlong into this recession. We need jobs.
I had lunch last week with one of the rental dealers from
Island Park. Kevin Phillips is his name. There are 3 rental
dealers up there. He told me at that time, 90 percent of his
rental business is Mount Jefferson bound. Those large groups
are coming in from the Midwest specifically to ride on Mount
Jefferson.
His last comment to me was, ``This is a very real
situation, and if Mount Jefferson is lost to the riding public,
myself and other businesses will be out of business within a
year from the closing of the area.''
The residents of Island Park retooled after the collapse of
the logging industry some 20 years ago. By removing the
availability to ride Mount Jefferson, I think this is going to
place us into another one of those retool situations, but where
do we go from here? That is a very large portion of their
business to be losing, and I don't know that they can come back
from this economically.
National statistics indicate that only 3 percent of the
population actually use designated wilderness areas. They also
indicate that less than 3 percent use these areas in the
winter. I assume a lot of these wilderness areas are a lot more
accessible than Mount Jefferson is.
We just don't think it makes good economical sense for the
Island Park area to close down a riding area that only 3
percent, less than 3 percent of the users will use.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Hurt, I am sorry to interrupt you. If
you could perhaps summarize the remaining thoughts you have?
You are a little over at this point.
Mr. Hurt. OK. Sure. In the 1970s, the Targhee forest,
Ashton/Island Park ranger districts had the largest timber sale
in the history of the Forest Service, the longest and the
largest timber sale. It was logging beetle killed timber. We
got there and logged it before it turned red like it is in
Montana at this time.
When we logged that, hundreds of acres of clear-cuts were
generated in this operation. Those clear-cuts were used to ride
snow machines in. Those clear-cuts have now regenerated, and
those areas are lost. So that is forcing the snow machines to a
different area.
Also, most of you are aware that the restrictions on
Yellowstone National Park, with the type and quantity of snow
machines that are allowed into the park. We share a common
boundary with Yellowstone National Park. This is limiting the
number of folks that come to Island Park to ride because part
of that trip was into Yellowstone, and now they can't go in
there without a guide.
If we lose Mount Jefferson, we will lose another 2,500
acres to ride in, and we just don't feel that it is worth
ruining our economy of that community for those 2,500 acres.
I guess in closing I would just say this, Mr. Chairman, the
recession is alive and well in Fremont County. We are aware
that our country is in some financial straits. I think we need
to understand that those marks and tracks left in this
wilderness area by these riders will melt in the spring. They
will go away in the spring.
But if Mount Jefferson, southern portion of Mount Jefferson
is taken, put into wilderness, the economic impact it will have
on Island Park, Idaho, will probably devastate that community.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald ``Skip'' Hurt, Idaho Commissioner,
Fremont County
introduction
Greetings from Fremont County in the Great State of Idaho
Thank you Mr. Chairman and committee members for this opportunity
to testify on behalf of the citizens of Fremont County
I retired from the U.S. Forest Service 3 years ago after working 41
years, 25 of those years were spent in Fire Management on the Ashton -
Island Park Ranger District of the Caribou - Targhee National Forest.
Currently I am serving my 2nd term as a Fremont County
Commissioner.
I come here today not as a paid environmentalist or lobbyist but as
an elected official to discuss S. 1470, Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
of 2009. I am very concerned about the welfare of the residents of
Fremont County and the economic impact that S 1470 will have on the
businesses of Island Park and eventually Fremont County.
We as a County have no issue with the Northern portion of the
proposed Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area. We do take issue with the
Southern portion of the area being included in the proposed wilderness
area. In the Beaverhead - Deerlodge Management Plan the preferred
alternative is to leave the Southern portion open to snowmobiling and
close the Northern portion to snowmobiling. This alternative is a win
win for the users of the area (including cross country skiers, snow
shoeing and snowmobiles) and has been working well for the last 5
years. This is an issue that the State Snowmobile Association and local
residents have collaborated with and have the stamp of approval from
the Forest Service.
economic impacts
1. Removing Mt. Jefferson from the public lands which are
available to ride will put the local snowmobile rental dealers
out of business. This in turn will have a domino effect on the
local restaurants, motels, rental cabins and eventually the tax
base of Fremont County. The Island Park area generates 51% of
the property taxes in Fremont County. Many snowmobile users own
cabins in the area and do spend a lot of money while recreating
here. Our neighboring county has $127 million worth of
foreclosures and has laid off workers, reduced hours on other
workers and reduced services. This is not due to any wilderness
bill but does shows that this part of our country is head long
into the recession.
2. Kevin Phillips one of three snowmobile dealers in Island
Park told me over lunch this past week that 90% of his
snowmobile rentals are bound for Mt Jefferson. These users are
coming in large groups from the Midwest specifically to ride in
the Mt. Jefferson area. His final comment to me was, ``this is
a very real situation and if Mt. Jefferson is lost to riding,
myself and other businesses will be gone in less than a year
after the closing of the area''.
3. The residents of Island Park re-tooled their economy
following the collapse of the logging industry in the area some
twenty years ago. By removing the availability to ride in the
Mt. Jefferson area they will be forced into an economic corner
which they will not be able to escape.
4. National statistics indicate that only 3% of the
population actually uses the designated wilderness areas across
the country. They also indicate that it is less than 3% during
the winter months. I assume these numbers apply to those
wilderness areas which are more accessible than Mt. Jefferson.
5. Does it make good economical sense to destroy a
community's economy and life style for a user rate of less than
3% and a land mass figure of less than + of 1% of the total
acreage to be designated as Wilderness under S 1470?
6. To designate the Southern area of Mt. Jefferson as
wilderness will cost the State of Idaho, Fremont County and
Island Park jobs, business and recreation opportunities
limited riding area
1. In the 70's and 80's the Island Park and Ashton Rangers
Districts of the Targhee National Forest had the largest and
longest lasting timber sale in the history of the Forest
Service. This timber sale clear cut thousands of acres of
beetle killed Lodge Pole Pine and lasted well over 20 years. A
saw mill was built in the County to accommodate the large
volume of timber being generated. As a result of this massive
timber sale hundreds of large open areas were created to ride
snow machines in. It has been over 2 decades since the last
timber was cut in that sale and those clear cuts have now re-
generated with new 20' trees. With these new trees the riding
opportunities have all but disappeared in those large openings.
It was a very good plan for the Forest health but has forced
the snowmobiles to other areas.
2. In the past few years the snowmobile use in Yellowstone
National Park has been severely reduced with the limitations
being placed on the number and kinds of snowmobiles allowed in
the Park. The Island Park area has a common boundary with
Yellowstone National Park. The limitations in the Park have
also restricted the riding opportunities from Island Park into
the Yellowstone area.
3. If the Southern portion of the proposed Mt. Jefferson
Wilderness Area is placed in to wilderness status another 2500
acres of riding area will be eliminated.
4. In the Island Park area approximately 250 miles of
snowmobile trails are groomed at least once each week. Fremont
County is the largest trail grooming program in the State of
Idaho. These trails connect too many other trails in Montana
and Wyoming. These trails are used by the less experienced
riders that come to the area. Mt. Jefferson is used by the
intermediate and advanced riders
issues to be considered
Mt. Jefferson is a destination to snowmobile riders as
Yellowstone National Park is too many vacationers.
The Southern half of the proposed wilderness area is less
than + of 1 % of the total land mass that Senator Tester has
requested in S. 1470
The Southern portion is completely surrounded and protected
on the Idaho side from motorized vehicles during the summer
months by a Roadless Area which shares a common boundary with
the proposed wilderness.
Is the economic stability of this small Idaho community
worth the 3% of the local population that might use this area
in the summer and even less in the winter?
The compromise of shared users has been in place for 5 years
and has worked satisfactorily up to now.
The Southern portion of the proposed wilderness is only
accessible from Idaho and meets the needs of recreation
dependent economies in the local communities.
Fremont County has the largest and most active Search and
Rescue unit in the state of Idaho. They have completed several
rescues of cross country skiers and snowmobile riders in this
area. If this area is placed into a wilderness classification
where only cross country skiing and snow shoeing have access
the Search and Rescue will have no motorized means of access to
needed rescues.
It is the only area in Island Park where the rugged
challenging high mountain experience can be found.
Mt. Jefferson can also be easily accessed by intermediate
riders who are seeking outstanding scenery.
A few back county skiers use the area; their needs can be
satisfied by the Northern half that is closed to snowmobiling.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and committee members the recession is alive and well
in Fremont County. I ask you at this time to exclude the Southern
portion of Mt. Jefferson from the proposed Wilderness designation.
In closing I would ask that you remember that the snow machines
tracks left by users of this area will disappear when the snow melts,
but if this wilderness area is permitted the economic impact on the
businesses and the community of Island Park will last forever.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify
today
[Graphics have been retained in subcommittee files.]
Senator Wyden. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Hurt.
Let me just say to our witnesses I am going to have to keep
you all, at this point, to 5 minutes. We will make your
prepared remarks a part of the record.
I know people really don't believe that, but it will take
place. If you could just summarize your concerns, I know you
have got Senators from your home States, and they would like to
ask some questions. I am sure you would like to answer them.
So, Mr. Anderson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SHERMAN ANDERSON, PRESIDENT AND OWNER, SUN
MOUNTAIN LUMBER, INC., DEER LODGE, MT
Mr. Anderson. OK, thank you.
Senators and Chairman Wyden, members of the committee, my
name is Sherm Anderson. I come from a small town in Montana,
3,500 residents, Deerlodge.
My wife and I are small business owners. We own Sun
Mountain Lumber and Sun Mountain Logging. This bill is very
important to our industry in Montana. In Montana, 61 percent of
the total forested land is on national forests.
There are 2 means of treating our forests, one by
mechanical means and one by fire. The mechanical, of course,
involves us, what we do for a living. We are in the wood
products industry.
The other is fire. There is room for both. Fire is an
integral part of our ecosystem, and the 2 must work together.
We in the West are watching our forests deteriorate and die
from insect and disease, causing serious threat of catastrophic
fires that will soon come, destroying not only the resources
that we use and enjoy, but also, yes, putting homes and lives
in harm's way and at great risk.
Our timber under contract currently is located 90 percent
on private forest land, 7 percent on State lands, and only 3
percent on national forests. Remember, we are surrounded in our
particular facility, within 25 miles completely surrounded by
national forests who own 61 percent of the forests, and we only
have 3 percent of our total timber base under contract with the
forests.
This problem comes from over 25 years of fighting over the
use of our public lands. This out-of-balance use of public
lands puts our industry at serious risk of survival. As all of
us are well aware of, in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah,
and Wyoming, where they have totally lost their forest products
infrastructure, and now they scramble to try to find means to
manage their forests in and around these communities, and they
have none.
Why is this? Our forest plan is driven by 2factors--
controversy and budgets. We cannot manage our forests driven by
these 2 factors. Budget constraints occur when 50 percent of
the total budget is used for fire suppression.
This bill solves some of the controversy through extensive
collaboration by many diverse partnerships throughout the State
of Montana. Is everyone happy with the results? No. Does
everyone get everything that they want? No.
But this bill is a great start. We must try something
different because, obviously, what we have done in the past and
what we are now doing is not working. I and the majority of
Montanans are convinced that this will work. It simply gives
the Forest Service a workable tool to manage our forests and
accomplish their management objectives while protecting and
creating jobs that are necessary to help manage our pristine
national forests which we all use.
Senators, Senator Tester, I can't say enough about your
guts at bringing this forward, and I would appreciate and thank
you and I would appreciate due consideration from this
committee to look at this seriously for the betterment of our
national forests in Montana that we all use.
I thank you for the opportunity and close.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sherman Anderson, President and Owner, Sun
Mountain Lumber, Inc., Deer Lodge, MT
Senators, Chairman Wyden, Members of the Sub-committee on Public
Land and Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources:
I would like to submit written testimony in support of the Forest
Jobs & Recreation Act, Senate Bill 1470, sponsored by Senator Jon
Tester and co-sponsored by Senator Max Baucus, both from my state of
Montana.
I live in the small town of Deer Lodge, MT, population of 3,500
people, located in southwestern Montana. My wife and I own and operate
several small businesses in Deer Lodge. The sawmill, when in full
operation, employees 225 people and our logging company employs 50
people. We also hire for contracted services another 50 to 75 people.
This bill is very important to us and many other wood products
industry people in Montana that rely on timber as a renewable resource
for not only our livelihood but also for the many others in our small
rural communities who are so dependent on the wood products industry
located in and around these small towns.
In a state where approximately 61% of our forested land is owned
and managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the wood products industry is
one crucial tool that is absolutely necessary for helping to manage
these lands. The only other available tool is fire.
We are watching our forests each year deteriorate and die from
insect infestation and disease, creating a serious threat of
catastrophic wildfires to come, destroying not only the timber resource
but also the habitat connected to it: wildlife, fisheries, recreation,
livestock grazing, domestic water supplies, energy supply (power, gas
and oil transmission lines), homes, communities and yes, putting many
people's lives at risk. Not only those of us who live in and around the
forests but those individuals whose job it becomes to try to protect
these communities, people and resources by trying to control these
fires.
Now let me give you just one specific example of why this bill is
so important:
Our sawmill utilizes fifty million board feet (12,500 truckloads)
of logs per year. On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest that
surrounds us, the old forest plan had an allowable sale quantity of
forty million board feet of timber per year. The new forest plan calls
for reducing this to fourteen million board feet per year, these
harvest levels for a forest of over three million acres, a forest that
could easily sustain forty million board feet per year! The reasons
given by the Forest Service for not only the reductions in the forest
plan but also the Forest Service's inability to produce what was in the
old forest plan are many. The two major reasons given are controversy
and budget constraints - nothing mentioned about sustainability. They
cannot adequately manage our forests driven by controversy and budgets
that continue to be used up in trying to control wildfires. Fifty
percent of their budget is now being used for wildfire suppression.
Our current timber sale volume under contract consists of 90%
private, 7% State, and 3% National Forest timber. Now, keep in mind we
are surrounded by 61% of our forested land being National Forests. This
is a similar example of many other mills and forests and communities
throughout Montana. We need to have access to these National Forests
for the wood products industry to survive in Montana. This problem
comes from over 25 years of fighting over the use of these public
lands. This gridlock has created huge problems for all users of our
public lands. We have lost a large percentage of our wood products
infra-structure over that same period of time and it continues. We all
are witnessing what happens when the infrastructure is gone as has
happened in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, where they are now
struggling, having no other means but fire to manage their forests.
When you lose the woods products industry, as they have in these
states, you also lose the trained work force that is necessary to do
restoration work.
In Montana, we have seen our industry shrink from 38 sawmills
employing approximately 15,000 people in both the mills and woods, to
just 10 mills today and about 5000 workers. We also have two particle
board plants and a pulp mill that is depended on sawmills for their raw
material supply. All of these facilities are at risk due to the ongoing
conflicts over management of our National Forests.
This bill attempts to resolve the gridlock by bringing together
diverse groups with many different interests to resolve problems and
create jobs, by managing our forest resources, performing needed
restoration work, preserving our high mountain backcountry,
guaranteeing recreational opportunities, protecting our water, hunting
and fishing, grazing for livestock and all other uses of our precious
National Forested lands.
I thank Senator Tester for presenting this bill. I ask for your
support to move this bill forward. I ask for your support for not only
the people who live in Montana but all of the people in this great
nation that come to Montana to enjoy all it has to offer.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Koehler.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW KOEHLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WILD WEST
INSTITUTE
Mr. Koehler. Mr. Chairman and respected members of the
committee, Senator Tester, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify at this important hearing.
My name is Matthew Koehler, and I am the executive director
of Montana's Wild West Institute. I am here today representing
the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, a coalition of
conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands
protection, forest restoration, and the sound long-term
management of our public lands.
Our coalition includes fourth-generation Montanans, small
business owners, veterans, retired Forest Service supervisors
and district rangers, hikers and backpackers, hunters and
anglers, outfitters and guides, scientists and community
leaders. We have provided the committee with a line-by-line
analysis of this bill, including specific recommendations.
We also produced a document expressing our concerns, which
has been signed by over 50 conservation groups in Montana and
around America. Our coalition supports forest and watershed
restoration, protecting our roadless wildlands, and sustainable
jobs in the woods. Therefore, the issue before this committee
today is not what the drafters of this bill intended to do,
rather the issue before you is what this bill as written
actually would do.
Our coalition believes that despite Senator Tester's best
intentions, this bill represents a serious threat to America's
public lands legacy. The mandated logging provisions are
unprecedented and represent an unscientific override of current
forest planning.
The notion that Congress should legislate logging levels on
public lands is antithetical to the National Forest Management
Act and irresponsible, given that lumber consumption in America
has dropped 55 percent. The bill undermines the National
Environmental Policy Act by imposing an unrealistic and
arbitrary 12-month NEPA timeline, which would preclude the
Forest Service from accurately assessing environmental impacts,
essentially setting the agency up for failure.
The bill would localize the management of our national
forests, opening the floodgates for mandated logging, mining,
grazing, drilling, or road building for national public lands
elsewhere. This could fragment and balkanize the entire
National Forest System and ignores the basic principle that
these national public lands belong equally to all Americans.
As the bill is currently written, it contains several
provisions that abrogate the Wilderness Act by allowing
nonconforming uses. It also releases wilderness study areas
currently protected by law by the late Montana Senator Lee
Metcalf.
The numerous unfunded mandates included in this bill could
cost U.S. taxpayers well over $100 million and raises the very
real potential expressed to the committee by Secretary Sherman
for other national forests to have their funds raided and
transferred to the forests that are part of this bill.
Over the past 5 years, long before this bill was introduced
in Congress, open, inclusive, and transparent collaborative
processes have sprung up around Montana. Citizens and Forest
Service professionals have been rolling up their sleeves,
getting out on the ground, discussing differences, and, most
importantly, focusing on areas of common ground.
For example, a set of Montana restoration principles has
been developed, and we have established restoration committees
for the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests, both of which
border the Beaverhead-Deerlodge. These efforts have been so
fruitful that the Lolo committee, for example, was recently
given the Forest Service's Breaking Gridlock Award.
This is part of the story that you are not hearing from
supporters of this bill. While they complain of gridlock, the
fact is that, on the Lolo, we haven't seen a timber sale
lawsuit in 2 years. On the Bitterroot, there has been only one
timber sale lawsuit in the last 7 years. The major impediment
for many logging and fuel reduction projects right now and for
the foreseeable future is the fact that we are in a severe
economic crisis and demand for wood has plummeted, leaving many
sales without any bidders.
Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that this
bill and the exclusive self-selective process used to develop
it, particularly on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, has engendered
more distrust and hard feelings than anything I have witnessed
before in Montana. Members of our coalition and a large segment
of the public have felt excluded, disenfranchised, and ignored
throughout this entire process.
Again, our coalition supports forest restoration,
wilderness, and sustainable jobs in the woods. If the goal is
to get diverse interests working together on scientifically
based restoration projects or bona fide fuel reduction projects
near communities, let us build upon what is already happening.
Congress does not need to mandate logging and throw science-
based planning and management out the window.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koehler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Koehler, Executive Director, Wild
West Institute
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, Happy Holidays and thank
you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing regarding
S.1470.
My name is Matthew Koehler and I'm the executive director of the
WildWest Institute, a Montana-based conservation group. Our mission is
to protect and restore forests, wildlands, watersheds and wildlife in
the northern Rockies. We help craft positive solutions that promote
sustainability in our communities through jobs restoring naturally
functioning ecosystems and protecting communities from wildfire. We
also ensure that the Forest Service follows the law and best science
when managing our public forests by fully participating in the public
decision process and through on-the-ground monitoring.
I'm here today representing the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign,
a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to
wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation, and the sound long-term
management of our federal public lands legacy. Our Montana-spawned
coalition includes small-business owners, scientists, educators and
teachers, 4th and 5th generation Montanans, hikers and backpackers,
hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans,
retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials,
ranchers and farmers, former loggers and mill workers, health care
practitioners, craftspersons, and community leaders--all stakeholders
committed to America's public wildlands legacy.
Our coalition has produced a number of documents*, which I have
provided at the end of this testimony. I would like to respectfully ask
that these documents be included in their entirety in the official
record for this hearing. The first document is our coalition's
detailed, line-by-line Analysis of S.1470 (also available at: http://
testerloggingbilltruths.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/analysis-of-s-
1470.pdf). The second item is Keeping It Wild! In Defense of America's
Wildlands, which has been signed by fifty conservation groups from
Montana and around the country (also available at: http://
testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com/keeping-it-wild-in-defense-of-
americas-public-wildlands).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Documents have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of s.1470
S.1470 affects over 3 million acres of National Forest System and
Bureau of Land Management lands in Montana and contains a nearly
bewildering list of new definitions, designations, management
practices, required studies, reports and publications. Approximately
680,000 acres are designated as new Wilderness Areas, another 336,000
acres as National Recreation Areas, Protection Areas, Recreation Areas,
and Special Management Areas, each with their own management language.
Nearly 3 million acres are designated as Stewardship Areas where
logging is expressly allowed and encouraged. It mandates that at least
100,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Three
Rivers District of the Kootenai National Forest be logged within 10
years as well as an undetermined amount on the Seeley Lake District of
the Lolo National Forest.
The findings, purposes and subsequent sections of S.1470 clearly
define it as a bill whose primary purpose is promotion of commercial
logging through localized management of National Forest System lands.
Touted as a bill that is good for the environment, S.1470 would
accomplish several conservation goals, including the designation of new
wilderness areas and headwaters protection for several streams
important to native fish. S.1470 does contain admirable language for
restoration of fish, wildlife and watersheds, and there is a potential
to lower road density in some watersheds. However, these restoration
goals are optional, unlike the mandated logging, and S.1470 effectively
jeopardizes these goals through its action provisions and the methods
dictated.
The various sections of the bill have been carefully constructed to
affect a desired outcome that would be difficult to challenge through
citizen appeals or litigation. For example, Sec. 2(a)(2)(A)
``encourages the economic, social, and ecological sustainability of the
region and nearby communities.'' Sec. 2(a)(2)(B) ``promotes
collaboration,'' 2(b)(2) declares a major purpose ``to reduce gridlock
and promote local cooperation and collaboration in the management of
forest land.'' It does this through use of ``advisory committees'' or
``local collaborative groups.'' Again, this seeks the localization,
through private interests, of National Forest System lands. 2(b)(3)
states a purpose is enhancement of forest diversity and production of
wood fiber to accomplish habitat restoration and generation of a more
predictable flow of wood products for local communities. This purpose
is later matched with the definitions of the bill to establish
commercial logging as the primary means of fish and wildlife habitat
restoration. For example, one of the definitions S.1470 uses for
restoration is ``maintaining the infrastructure of wood products
manufacturing facilities.''
S.1470 is not a budget-neutral bill. It authorizes practically
unlimited expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and other sources, and
empowers ``Resource Advisory Committees'' or ``Local Collaboration
Groups'' to spend federal funds, including on private, non-National
Forest System lands. This provision and others in S.1470 give the
``Resource Advisory Committees'' or ``Local Collaboration Groups''
sweeping powers that could effectively, if not officially, usurp
management and budgetary authority from the Forest Service and grant it
to private interests. Professional staff from the Forest Service will
be replaced with citizen committees whose members are mandated to
include industry groups. S.1470 also authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to expend taxpayer funds for Fiscal Year 2010 to pay a
federal share in construction of ``combined heat and power biomass
systems that can use materials made available from the landscape-scale
restoration projects.''
The different funding provisions of the bill raise a real potential
for other National Forests and Forest regions to have their funds
transferred to projects under S.1470. Pitting one forest against
another for funding is unhealthy and does not promote a wholistic,
ecosystem approach to public lands management in the Northern Rockies.
It is important to note that in legislation there is specific legal
meaning to terms such as ``shall'' versus ``may'' or ``can.'' The word
``shall'' has the force of law, once a bill is enacted and signed into
law by the President. Thus, when S.1470 states the Secretary ``shall
generate revenue,'' ``shall maintain the infrastructure of woods
products manufacturing facilities that provide economic stability to
communities in close proximity to the aggregate parcel (timber harvest
unit) and to produce commercial wood products,'' it means just that. It
will be the law that the Secretary must keep specific, private timber
mills open and fed with timber from public lands, at least through the
term of authority, if not indefinitely. This is not only an open-ended
subsidy, it interferes with free enterprise.
Ultimately, where there is a question of ambiguity, Courts will
review a bill's purposes and its legislative history to divine
Congress' intent. When purposes conflict, the overall goals of the bill
will prevail. When wilderness and ecological restoration are
consistently listed last, as they are in S.1470, a Court can be
expected to conclude the logging provisions take precedence.
In summary, the S.1470 is a significant departure from traditional
wilderness bills. It contains several major precedent-setting
provisions potentially detrimental to national public lands management
that may be repeated in future bills. These include:
1) Localizing of National Forest management by private, local
entities for private profit. Other members of Congress may seek
to exploit similar special management for national public lands
in their states. This could represent the fragmentation of
National Forest system management and regulations to a serious
degree and ignores the basic principle that national public
lands belong to all Americans, not just those in nearby local
communities.
2) Mandated logging of National Forest land is an
unscientific override of current forest planning by
professional Forest Service staff. The logging mandates greatly
exceed the average levels since the 1950s on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge and are an unbelievable 14 times the sustainable
level recently calculated by the Forest Service. The mandated
logging area includes the Three Rivers District of the Kootenai
National Forest, where the endangered grizzly bear population
is nearly extinct due to very heavy logging and roadbuilding.
3) Numerous unfunded mandates and blank check spending
authority for the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the
Interior. Gives ``Resource Advisory Committees'' or ``Local
Collaboration Groups'' spending authority and allows funds to
be drawn from other forests and Forest Service regions to
implement S.1470, pitting forests against another for funding.
This creates hard feelings and mistrust rather than
cooperation. Authorizes the Secretary to build heat and power
generating facilities, a new expansion of authority. Mandates
numerous studies, reports, plans and publications, and numerous
10-year contracts, competing with other forests in the region
for staff time, printing and distribution. Dedicating staff to
the numerous reports and planning removes them from other
management duties.
4) Contains several provisions that abrogate the Wilderness
Act by allowing non-conforming uses including military aircraft
landings, motorized access, and other intrusions.
5) Releases numerous Wilderness Study Areas protected by law
under S. 393, sponsored by the late Senator Lee Metcalf (D-MT),
and releases BLM-administered Wilderness Study Areas that have
been protected for more than 30 years.
6) Requires expedited environmental analysis under NEPA and
adds new provisions to appeal regulations that place additional
requirements on appellants that will limit some citizens'
ability to participate in the planning process.
the state of collaboration in montana: an on-the-ground look
Over the past five years, long before S.1470 was introduced in
Congress, open, inclusive and transparent collaborative processes have
sprung up on national forests around Montana. From the Kootenai
National Forest to the Lolo National Forest, up on the Bitterroot
National Forest and over to the Lewis and Clark National Forest,
citizens and Forest Service professionals have been rolling up their
sleeves, getting out on the ground, sitting around maps, discussing
differences, and most importantly, focusing on areas of common ground
and agreement.
For example, in January, 2007, thirty-four representatives of
conservationists, motorized users, outfitters, loggers, mill operators,
state government and the Forest Service held a meeting at Lubrecht
Experimental Forest, facilitated by the National Forest Foundation, to
form the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (http://
montanarestoration.org). All agreed that restoring Montana's forests
was a goal worth pursuing.
The result of this open, inclusive, transparent collaborative
process was the development of a set of Montana Restoration Principles
and Implementation Plan (http://montanarestoration.org) that reflect
the integrity, commitment, agreement and honorable work of all these
diverse people.
With a goal of working together to achieve good restoration work on
the ground, individual Restoration Committees have been formed for the
Bitterroot National Forest and the Lolo National Forest (both of which
share a border with the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest), which
include the full spectrum of interests and again, are open, inclusive
and transparent in nature.
By all accounts the Lolo and Bitterroot Restoration Committees have
been a great success. Not only have tensions been reduced and potential
conflicts addressed openly and honestly, but following full
environmental analysis by professional land managers with the Forest
Service and an open, inclusive public process as required by NEPA,
solid restoration and fuel reduction projects are moving forward as a
result.
In fact, the US Forest Service has been so impressed with the
successful work of the Lolo Restoration Committee, that we received the
agency's ``Breaking Gridlock Award'' in 2008. Also, in June 2008,
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer wrote the Lolo Restoration Committee
``to express my appreciation for your efforts with the Montana Forest
Restoration Committee. Your service on the Lolo Forest Restoration
Committee is crucial to finding consensus on restoring the national
forests in Montana. I have reviewed and support the Forest Restoration
Principles document, and appreciate the unprecedented level of
cooperation and partnership that went into this effort.''
Make no mistake. If the goal is to get diverse interests working
together with the Forest Service to move forward with bona fide fuel
reduction work around communities and scientifically-based restoration
projects the US Congress doesn't need to undermine NEPA and throw
science-based forest planning out the window by mandating logging, as
S.1470 proposed. Rather, one just needs to look at the excellent,
successful work of the Lolo and Bitterroot Restoration Committees. The
proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
For example, just last week an article in the Missoulian titled
``Bull trout, loggers, goshawks benefit in Lolo National Forest timber
sale settlement'' included this fact, ``The settlement marks a trend of
greater cooperation between the Lolo National Forest and its
environmental watchdogs...In the past two years, only two [timber]
sales have been appealed, and neither has gone to court.''
On the Bitterroot National Forest there has been only one lawsuit
involving a timber sale since 2002. Let me repeated that fact: one
timber sale lawsuit on the Bitterroot National Forest in the past seven
years. Furthermore, the fact is that right now on the Bitterroot
National Forest there are at least 15,000 acres of fuel reduction,
thinning and logging projects already through the NEPA process or just
about finished.
Ironically, the major impediment for some of these logging projects
moving forward is the economic reality that we're in the middle of huge
economic crisis and the steepest decline in lumber consumption in US
history, with lumber demand down over 50% and new home construction
down 70%.
One such project already through the NEPA process is the Trapper
Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project on the Darby Ranger District of the
BNF. The project, which wasn't appealed or litigated, authorizes
logging, thinning and fuel reduction work on nearly 5,000 acres of the
BNF. The FEIS for this project was issued in April 2008.
Almost a year later I wrote the Darby District Ranger to inquire
about the status of this project. On March 19, 2009 I got this
response: ``As it stands we may not get any bidders since a majority of
the timber is not tractor ground and market conditions are bleak.''
Hearing nothing for a few more months, I again wrote in July 2009 and
got this response from the District Ranger, ``Markets have not
improved, in fact have gotten worse so sales in the Bitterroot are not
very appealing at this time. We had a pre-bid trip for prospective
bidders and did not generate much optimism. There was much interest but
current market conditions were prohibitive for them being able to make
successful bids.''
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, these facts about successful
open, inclusive, transparent collaborative processes in Montana seem
lost on supporters of S.1470. In their sustainable PR push to sell
S.1470 to the public they appear willing to just ignore all of this
excellent, heartfelt working together to find common ground that's
happening in Montana right under their noses.
Instead, Senator Tester and supporters of S.1470 have taken to the
airwaves and traveled around the state complaining about all the
supposed ``gridlock'' that's apparently preventing the Forest Service
from doing any management of our public lands. Senator Tester even went
so far as to tell a Bozeman crowd ``lawsuits have stopped forest
management cold,'' (http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2009/09/
29/news/10tester.txt). Really? Of course, while such statements might
make for good politics, they also look pretty silly when one considers
them in the context of the facts outlined above.
Finally, let's be honest and frank here. It's been well documented
that the ``collaborative process'' used by the Beaverhead Partnership
was an exclusive, self-selective affair. Unlike the open, inclusive and
transparent processes described above in conjunction with the Lolo and
Bitterroot Restoration Committees, which have the full support of the
Forest Service, the Beaverhead Partnership intentionally excluded the
voices and interests that didn't already agree with what three
conservation groups and five timber mills had come up with behind
closed doors. Not only were many public lands interests excluded at the
outset in 2006, but concerns, questions and proposals for improving
their plan have been systematically ignored and dismissed. Again, this
hardly represents a model ``collaborative process'' for dealing with
public lands management.
This Committee needs to be fully aware that the Beaverhead
Partnership proposal that makes up the bulk of S.1470, was not an open,
inclusive or honest attempt at finding consensus. Furthermore, these
self-serving, disingenuous actions by supporters of S.1470 are having a
tremendous negative impact on the future of existing and potential
successful efforts to work together and find common ground solutions.
congress mandating logging levels is unprecedented, antithetical to
nfma
S1470 mandates a minimum of 100,000 acres of logging on the
Beaverhead Deerlodge (BHDL) National Forest and the Three Rivers
District of the Kootenai National Forest. The logging mandates greatly
exceed the average acres logged annually on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest going all the way back to the 1950s (Source: http://
www.fs.fed.us/r1/forest_range/timber_reports/silviculture_reports/
2008_nharv_rpt.pdf). The mandated cut on the BHDL is also an
unbelievable 14 times the sustainable level recently calculated by the
Forest Service. The mandated logging area on the Three Rivers District
of the Kootenai National Forest, includes core habitat for the
endangered grizzly bear, whose populations on the Kootenai is nearly
extinct due to very heavy logging and roadbuilding.
Mandated logging of National Forest land is an unscientific
override of current forest planning by professional Forest Service
staff. The notion that the US Congress should legislate logging levels
on a national forest is antithetical to the National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) and current national forest planning. There should be little
debate in this Committee about the need to use planning and, with it,
environmental analysis to establish sustainable allowable sale
quantities for national forests reflecting ecological, social and
economic concerns. NFMA does not prescribe specific timber sale levels.
No law to my knowledge has ever established or mandated a specific
timber harvest level for any national forest. The Ketchikan Pulp
Company (KPC) and foreign-owned Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC) timber
sale contracts that were a dominant factor in management of the Tongass
National Forest decades ago, set some contractual obligations for the
Forest Service to provide timber in return for a commitment on the part
of the companies to continue to operate pulp mills in the region. But,
even under these conditions, the agency had the flexibility to adjust
levels of timber offered for sale to reflect changing conditions in the
region. The existence of the contracts did obligate the government to
offer timber for sale and this did strongly influence how the Tongass
was managed. But, even this was not a specific, mandated level of
logging as is proposed in S.1470.
will s.1470 conflict with preexisting agency mandates, environmental
laws, and planning requirements?
This question was asked by Dr. Martin Nie in a recent commentary
about S.1470 (http://www.headwatersnews.org/
p.ForestJobsAct092809.html). Dr. Nie is professor of natural resource
policy at the University of Montana's College of Forestry and
Conservation. He is also a leading expert on Forest Service policy.
Here was Dr. Nie's response:
''Forest-specific laws already on the books, like the Tongass
Timber Reform Act and the Herger-Feinstein (Quincy Library) Act, have
engendered more conflict than consensus partly because of how these
laws sometimes fail to fit into the preexisting legal/planning
framework. In these and other cases the USFS is forced to walk a
statutory minefield with legal grenades thrown from all directions. One
way or another, the agency gets sued for either complying with existing
environmental laws or for ostensibly subordinating the new place-based
one. A quick study of these cases informs us that the answer to forest
management might not be another law placed on top of myriad others but
rather an untangling or clarification of the existing legal
framework.''
s.1470 undermines nepa, jeopardizes safeguards provided public lands
S.1470 undermines the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by
imposing an unrealistic and arbitrary 12-month NEPA timeline that would
preclude the Forest Service from accurately assessing environmental
impacts of road building, logging, habitat loss, water degradation,
weed infestation, and other costs of developing public wildlands.
S.1470 also adds new provisions to appeal regulations that place
additional requirements on appellants that will limit most citizens'
ability to participate in the planning process.
S.1470 mandates unsustainable logging quotas regardless of
environmental costs, thereby jeopardizing safeguards provided public
lands by the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest
Management Act, Wilderness Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management
Act. Furthermore, S.1470 disenfranchises public lands stakeholders, by
overriding legitimate science-based forest planning that involves full
public information and participation. It deprives the public of our
rights to be included in irreversible decisions concerning our own
land. For example, if S.1470 passes, a Billings, Montana resident who
wanted to appeal a timber sale over concerns with mandated logging in
prime grizzly bear habitat on the Kootenai National Forest would be
required to drive 500 miles (one way) to voice his/her concerns. Public
lands are not merely local fiefdoms to be managed solely for
extraction-oriented industries. The public at large must be included in
decision-making concerning its own land.
The language contained within S.1470 also raises serious questions
regarding judicial review. For example, could citizens challenge the
adequacy of an EIS under the mandated 12-month NEPA timeline contained
in S.1470? And even if a court finds the NEPA analysis to be inadequate
could the court affect the project in any substantive way?
Even Dr. Nie questions whether S.1470 complies with NEPA. In his
article sited above, Dr. Nie wrote, ``Complying with the National
Environmental Protection Act is one big unanswered question in the
FJRA. The bill requires the USFS to satisfy its NEPA duties within one
year. But without additional support it's hard to fathom the agency
meeting this deadline, given that it takes the USFS about three years
to complete an EIS. When it comes to meeting NEPA obligations, the USFS
needs more funding, leadership, and institutional support, not more
law.''
Finally, over the course of preparing for this testimony, I've had
the unique opportunity to speak directly with Forest Service managers
who would be directly affected by S.1470. While these Forest Service
managers might not speak out publically, I can assure you that based on
my conversations, there is widespread concern within the Forest Service
that S.1470 undermines NEPA and the Forest Service's ability to
professionally manage our public lands.
by the numbers: mandated logging in s.1470 vs. historic logging
What follows is some information compiled from U.S. Forest Service
records regarding historical logging on the Beaverhead Deerlodge
National Forest (Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/forest_range/
timber_reports/silviculture_reports/2008_nharv_rpt.pdf). The info will
clearly demonstrate how S.1470, which would Congressionally mandate a
minimum of 7,000 acres of logging per year for ten years on the
Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, would compare with historical
logging on this same forest. (Note: prior to their merger in 1996, the
Beaverhead and the Deerlodge were separate forests).
From 1959-1996 the Beaverhead NF averaged 1621 acres of logging per
year. The greatest acreage logged on the Beaverhead NF in that time
period was 4168 acres in 1987.
From 1954-1996 the Deerlodge NF averaged 1592 acres of logging per
year. The greatest acreage logged on the Deerlodge NF in that time
period was 4332 acres in 1971.
The average acres logged per year for the Beaverhead and Deerlodge
forests combined from 1954-1996 was 3213 acres/year.
The most acreage ever logged in a single year since 1954 on both
forests combined was in 1971, when 7013 acres were logged. The next
highest total was in 1966 at 5813 acres. These years were also prior to
our nation having environmental laws such as the National Environmental
Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. Remember, S.1470
would Congressionally mandate a minimum of 7,000 acres of logging per
year for ten years on the BHDL NF. That amount of logging per year is
not only more than double the historical average on these forests, but
it's the most amount of logging ever, except for one single year.
Dr. Thomas Michael Power, former chair of the Economics Department
at the University of Montana, where he currently serves as a Research
Professor, looked into this very issue for recent commentary on Montana
Public Radio (http://www.mtpr.net/commentaries/753) and had this to
say:
''Between 1967 and 1989, when the Forest Service was still largely
unhindered by environmental concerns and harvested record numbers of
trees, the average acreage harvested on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest was about 4,000 acres. The Tester bill would seek to
force a harvest level two-thirds higher than that previous unfettered
average harvest level.''
unfunded mandates, stewardship contracting and how will s.1470
be paid for?
According to recent estimates, it costs U.S. taxpayers at least
$1,400 per acre to log in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
S.1470 fails to address at least $100 million in costs to U.S.
taxpayers that would be incurred by the Forest Service for subsidizing
``below-cost'' timber sales and power plants for the few specially-
privileged timber corporations involved.
One major concern with S.1470 is the notion from supporters that
money generated from ``stewardship contracting'' timber sales will pay
for the significant amount of needed restoration work. The Committee
should understanding that over the past decade, this strategy has
largely failed to pay for much restoration work in the northern
Rockies, even when lumber demand and lumber prices were high.
For example, on January 2, 2009 the Missoulian ran an article in
which the Forest Service acknowledged that much of the $100 million
worth of ``shovel ready'' projects in Montana and Idaho involve
``cleaning up streambeds, obliterating roads, reclaiming abandoned
mines, noxious weed control and other cleanup work left unfinished from
previous [stewardship contracting] timber operations.''
That's right, the logging part of these ``stewardship contracting''
timber sales got finished, but tens of millions in restoration work
remained unfunded. And again, keep in mind that all this ``work left
unfinished from previous timber operations'' was building up when
lumber demand and lumber prices were at their peak. Now that lumber
demand is down 55% and lumber prices are near historic lows, just how
will ``stewardship contracting'' pay for all restoration work promised
by supporters of S.1470?
Again, Dr. Nie delves into this issue quite deeply in his article
referenced above:
The FJRA would be primarily implemented and paid for by using
stewardship contracting. This tool's popularity stems partially
from the highly uncertain congressional appropriations process,
a process that chronically underfunds the USFS and its non-fire
related responsibilities and needed restoration work. But on
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, there are serious questions as to
whether there is enough economic value in this lodgepole pine-
dominant forest to pay for the restoration work. As a safety
valve, the FJRA authorizes spending additional money to meet
its purposes, but there is no guarantee that such funds will be
appropriated, or if so, they wouldn't come from another part of
the agency's budget.
The question, then, is what happens if such envisioned funds
don't materialize? Will money be siphoned from other national
forests in order to satisfy the mandates of the FJRA? Consider,
for example, the White Mountain stewardship project in Arizona.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that this
project incurred greater costs than expected and such costs
have ``taken a substantial toll on the forest's other
programs.'' Furthermore, some other fuel-reduction projects
were not completed because their funding sources were being
``monopolized'' by the White Mountain project. Other national
forests in the region also paid a price to service the terms of
this contract, and ``[a]s the region has redirected funds
toward the White Mountain project, these other forests have
become resentful of the disproportionate amount of funding the
project has received.
The place-based law approach could move the national forests
closer to a Park Service model, where state congressional
delegations sometimes treat parks like their own fiefdoms,
exercising inordinate control over a unit via committee and
purse strings. And at the risk of getting ahead of myself, the
approach brings to the fore other budget-related questions.
Will senior congressional delegations be more successful in
securing funding for place-based laws in their states? Will it
create a system of ``haves'' and ``have nots'' in the national
forest system? And perhaps most important, would these
budgetary situations benefit the national forest system as-a-
whole?
we're in a wood products depression
I don't have to remind anyone on this Committee of the serious
nature of the economic crisis currently gripping this country. Decades
and decades of over-consumption and over-development have finally taken
their toll, leaving our economy bruised and battered. If the sobering
economic headlines of the past few years teach us one thing it should
be that much of our current economic system is significantly flawed and
that a new economic model--based on the principles of sustainability--
is desperately needed.
The timber industry has been hit particularly hard by this economic
crisis. After all, America is experiencing the worst housing slump
since the Great Depression and the steepest decline in lumber
consumption ever. Here are some sobering numbers from the Western Wood
Products Association (WWPA) for the Committee to consider:
Lumber consumption in America has dropped over 55% since 2005.
Housing starts in America are currently down 70% from the peak in 2005.
The last time housing starts in America were so low was 1942 to 1945,
during the middle of WWII, when most of America's resources and labor-
power were directed at the war effort.
According to a presentation WWPA gave at the 2009 annual meeting of
Oregon's industrial forest landowners, currently, there is an inventory
of unsold homes nationally equivalent to a 7.6 months supply.
Furthermore, total foreclosures for 2009 are expected to top 1 million,
pushing the pre-occupied home supply out even further.
While some forecasters are calling for some sort of a housing
``rebound,'' starting in 2012, it's important to understanding that
their predictions for 1 million house starts per month by 2012 will
still be just 50% of the 2 million house starts per month we saw at the
peak in 2005. This is another indication that a recovering economy is
not necessarily a strong economy and that U.S. lumber consumption will
remain depressed for years to come.
Given all these profound economic realities one really must
question the wisdom of Congress stepping in to mandate logging when
lumber demand and housing starts look to remain near historically low
levels for years to come.
wilderness, wilderness study areas and roadless wildlands
S.1470 specifically eliminates from mandated protection large
portions of the late Montana Senator Lee Metcalf's wildlands legacy,
Congressionally designated as Wilderness Study Areas in 1977 by his
farsighted bill, S. 393. By eliminating this protection, the S.1470
opens these priceless public wildlands for road building, logging, and
other development.
S.1470 promotes numerous abuses that are clearly in violation of
the 1964 Wilderness Act, including motorized access into and through
``wilderness,'' military aircraft landings in ``wilderness,'' possible
``wilderness'' logging, and other intrusions that violate the
principles of Wilderness.
This bill undermines the overwhelmingly popular Clinton Roadless
Rule and Obama Roadless Initiative. Of the 17,429 Montanans who
commented on the 2001 Roadless Rule, 78% were in favor of backcountry
protection. Unfortunately, over one million acres of federally-
inventoried roadless wildlands protected under the Roadless Rule and
the Roadless Initiative would be classified in S.1470 as ``Timber
Suitable or Open to Harvest.''
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on S.1470.
Our coalition believes that, despite the best intentions of Senator
Tester, this bill represents a serious threat to America's public lands
legacy. The mandated logging provisions within the bill are
unprecedented and the very notion that the U.S. Congress should
legislate logging levels on a national forest is antithetical to the
National Forest Management Act and current national forest planning.
S.1470 undermines the National Environmental Policy Act by imposing an
unrealistic and arbitrary 12-month NEPA timeline, which would preclude
the Forest Service from accurately assessing environmental impacts of
the mandated logging. For these, and the other numerous reasons
presented in this testimony and our analysis in great detail, we ask
that you oppose S.1470. I look forward to answering any questions that
you may have and thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
important hearing.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baker.
STATEMENT OF TIM BAKER, LEGISLATIVE CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, MONTANA
WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my
name is Tim Baker. I am the legislative campaign director for
the Montana Wilderness Association, and I am here to testify in
support of S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.
First, I want to thank Senators Tester and Baucus for their
leadership and their vision, and I want to thank the
subcommittee for this hearing.
The Montana Wilderness Association was founded 51 years ago
by Montana hunters, conservationists, and small business owners
to conserve Montana's wildlands and wilderness heritage. Today,
we have 5,000 members, most of whom live in Montana, who remain
dedicated to this task.
S. 1470 is a story. It is a story of Montanans who have
come together to roll up their sleeves and to challenge each
other to listen to one another. It is a story about building
trust, and it is a story about having faith, relentless faith
in the best part of ourselves.
For over 25 years, we have fought each other over forest
management with no winners. The last time we designated new
wilderness in Montana, we used IBM typewriters. Blackberries
were for pies, and nobody had ever heard of climate change. A
lot has changed since then, and changing times demand that all
of us look differently to the future.
Montana is changing dramatically. Our world-class fisheries
are sliding downward. Our forests are turning red on a scale
never seen. Our small timber mills and rural economies are
struggling, and more and more people place more and more
pressure on our public lands. Clearly, we all need to look at
our issues through a new lens.
We can't turn back the clock, but the changes that we see
and the current and future impacts of those changes on the
place that we love has reshuffled the deck to the point to
where we now can come together with a common vision.
S. 1470 captures that vision. It is a vision of robust
working forests, improved fish and wildlife habitat,
recreational opportunity, healthy local and rural economies,
and permanent protection for our most beloved wild places.
If we want collaboration to happen, then everyone has to
take some risk, leaving a little of their ideology behind. That
means everyone, not just conservationists, not just the timber
industry, not just local elected leaders, but also the agency,
the administration, this subcommittee, and the Congress.
There is a lot of talk in Washington about working together
to solve big problems. Many of those folks that are in this
hearing room today, we are doing it, and now we need you to
join us. We checked our ideologies and we have tempered our
fear, and we need you to do the same.
Our timber partners are survivors. While other mills have
disappeared, they have stayed in the game, and they are leaders
in their industry. They know that the very type of restoration
work that we are focused on in this bill is part of their
future. There is an important role for their work on public
lands.
We conservationists love to talk about a restoration
economy. This is how we step onto that path. S. 1470 offers a
new and badly needed context for forest management. It forces
us to a big view, to look at the forest as a whole, with enough
room to meet many needs--wilderness for the wild back country,
recreation areas, stewardship areas for management, logs for
the mills.
As if that is not enough, there is something bigger going
on here. As just one example, I can't count the miles or the
evenings that I have spent with Sherm Anderson going to public
meetings to defend the work that we are doing together. We have
often had to defend each other and to defend each other's
perspective, and we are better off for it.
Others are here today in this room for Montana who could
tell similar stories. You know, when my dad moved to Montana in
the late 1970s, I asked him why. He didn't hesitate. He said,
``Montana is a place where an agreement can still rest on a
handshake.'' That said a lot to me then, and it means a lot to
me now.
Our partnership and the partnerships that are represented
by S. 1470 rest upon a handshake. The timber partners are more
than my partners. They are our friends. We care about them. We
care about the future of their mills and about the communities
that they support. It is that simple.
We all see change in front of us, and change can either
lead us in a bad direction or in a good direction. I would like
to think that in our part of the country, we can still sit
down, neighbor to neighbor, put the past behind us, and find
solutions. S. 1470 tells me that that is so.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Baker, Legislative Campaign Director, Montana
Wilderness Association
1Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony in
support of S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009. At the
outset, I want to thank Chairman Wyden and this Subcommittee for
considering this important piece of legislation. I also want to express
my deep gratitude to Senators Tester and Baucus for their sponsorship
and active support of S. 1470.
about the montana wilderness association
The mission of the Montana Wilderness Association (MWA) is to
protect Montana's wilderness heritage, quiet beauty, and outdoor
traditions, now and for future generations.
The Montana Wilderness Association was founded 51 years ago by
Montana hunters, conservationists and small business owners to prevent
further loss of Montana's wilderness heritage. Our founders were
instrumental in the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and MWA
subsequently led the fight to win designation for virtually every
wilderness area in the state, including the Scapegoat, Absaroka-
Beartooth, Rattlesnake, Lee Metcalf, Great Bear, and Welcome Creek, as
well as Wild and Scenic designations for the Flathead and Missouri
rivers.
Today, MWA has over 5,000 members. Our members view Montana's
remaining wild country as a public trust that should be managed so
Montanans will always have access to great hunting, fishing, camping
under the stars, and quiet mountain trails.
For the reasons described below, we strongly support this visionary
legislation:
wilderness designation and montana
Everything we love about Montana is tied together by its natural
heritage. Whether it's the musky scent of elk and thunder of hooves
under the trees, or the plaintive song of a hermit thrush on a summer
evening, Montanans are closely tied to the land. The opening words of
our Montana Constitution, adopted in 1972, reflect this deep
relationship:
We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet
beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the
vastness of the rolling plains . . .
Wilderness embodies core American values of freedom, self-reliance,
and community. Wilderness designation keeps our wildest places intact
for our families and communities. It's a commitment that doesn't
dissolve with market trends or administrations--one that we can pass on
to our kids and grandkids. Over the years, we've learned that without
this commitment, these wild places will vanish.
Thanks to the strong leadership of Montana Senator Lee Metcalf,
many wild places received permanent protection, up to the time of
Metcalf's death in 1978. In 1983, the Montana Congressional Delegation
came together in bipartisan fashion to honor Metcalf's legacy,
protecting over 250,000 acres as the Lee Metcalf Wilderness complex.
Yet it has now been 26 years since Congress designated new
wilderness in Montana. Montana today remains one of only two western
states that did not pass a statewide wilderness bill in the 1980s and
1990s (Idaho is the other). Worse, Montana is the only state to have a
wilderness bill vetoed, in 1988, when President Reagan pocket vetoed a
statewide bill after Congress had adjourned. Consequently, there are
many wild places on public land that should have been designated as
wilderness many years ago, but remain unprotected today.
Subsequent to 1988, several laudable efforts were made by the
Montana Delegation to fashion a statewide wilderness bill, but the
issue had become too contentious to resolve. The fallout from the
presidential veto was incredibly bitter and divisive. At the same time,
the bigger issue of national forest management in Montana became the
new battleground. As deserving wild country remained unprotected, with
some areas lost forever to roads, motors and indifference, the state's
timber industry faced a steep decline driven by a host of factors, one
of which included supply.
toward a new future
A few years ago I stopped by the Montana Stockgrowers meeting. They
had a big poster that said ``Keeping Montana Montana.'' I thought to
myself, I'm all for that, too. We might have different ideas about what
that means, but I'll bet we have more in common than not.
Montanans have always relied on each other. So we still stop on the
road to help a stranded motorist. We shovel the snow off our neighbor's
sidewalk. We stop and talk with strangers at the coffee shop. We pay
attention to a handshake.
That's the Montana that brought my father here, and then brought me
here over 28 years ago. That's the Montana that keeps me here today.
It's because of the land and the landscape. We're all affected by
it, even if in different ways. The country is so big and awe-inspiring,
it makes you humble. It can be so unforgiving that we know we had
better stick together.
But like much of the intermountain West, Montana is changing, and
those changes affect all of us. As our valleys fill up with strip malls
and traffic, and open space becomes scarcer, our wildest public lands
only become more valuable to us--for wildlife, water quality,
recreation, and refuge. In the future there is only one certainty: more
people and more pressure on our public lands. At the same time, our
public forests are facing unprecedented challenges from a changing
climate that is threatening our world-class fisheries and wildlife, and
dramatically increasing the risks associated with wildfire.
Our economy is changing, too, with difficult circumstances for many
folks, including those in the timber industry and rural Montana. The
small mills in Montana are struggling and so are the rural communities
that depend on them--places like Deer Lodge, Seeley Lake, and Townsend.
We'll need these mills in the future to do restoration work, especially
to protect our fisheries and wildlife habitat. But beyond that, we care
about these people and these rural communities--these are our neighbors
and our friends.
These are trying times. So once again, Montanans need to rely on
each other.
If there were just one forest collaborative effort in Montana, one
could easily dismiss it as an isolated occurrence, driven by a single
personality or set of unique conditions. However, S. 1470 encompasses
three such collaborations, in different parts of the state, with many
diverse interests and players. Recent polling shows public support in
Montana for S. 1470 well over 65 percent. Montanans know we all need to
work together to tackle these big problems.
All three of these collaborations have one overriding objective:
they seek to create a positive, productive, and predictable environment
in which the Forest Service can accomplish those important things that
we all want for our national forests: robust working forests, improved
fish and wildlife habitat, enhanced recreational opportunities, reduced
fire risk to communities, healthy local economies, and permanent
protection of Montana's most beloved wild places.
The Forest Service shares these objectives, as found in Region
One's own Integrated Restoration Management Strategy. Our hope is that
S. 1470 can provide the agency with the tools it needs to meet these
critical objectives. We all want the agency to succeed.
S. 1470 is a step toward that new future, where diverse interests
come together around a common vision for our national forests. To that
end, S. 1470 faithfully embraces the following three collaborations
that have sprouted in Montana:
the beaverhead-deerlodge forest partnership
The founding members of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Partnership
include five wood products companies and three conservation groups (Sun
Mountain Lumber, Pyramid Mountain Lumber, R-Y Timber, Roseburg Forest
Products, Smurfit-Stone Container, National Wildlife Federation,
Montana Trout Unlimited, Montana Wilderness Association).
The group came together in 2006 during the forest planning process
on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. After four months of
intense discussions over the draft forest plan, the group drafted a
proposed strategy for the agency to consider during the planning
process, which was centered on three primary objectives:
First, wilderness designation for the most pristine public lands on
the forest, for future generations to enjoy.
Second, a timber base on the forest that ensured a predictable and
adequate supply of logs for Montana's independent mills, providing
valuable jobs for Montanans and Montana communities.
Third, a focus on getting restoration work done on the forest,
using stewardship contracts to improve fish and wildlife habitat and
recreational opportunities.
After releasing the draft Partnership strategy to the public in
April 2006, the Beaverhead Partners immediately set out to meet with
the public and interested groups to explain the strategy and listen to
input. Since then, the Partners have worked together to meet with
thousands of Montanans, attending hundreds of meetings and other forums
that range from public meetings with the Forest Service, Rotary and
Chamber luncheons, County Commission meetings, and county fairs to
smaller gatherings with grazers, sportsmen, motorized users, and
environmental groups. We worked actively with cycling clubs,
backcountry horsemen, other conservation groups, motorized users, and
many others, to make changes to the proposal.
In soliciting input and being open to changes to the draft
strategy, the Partnership was also building public support, and asking
those providing input to ``come join us.'' Productive meetings with
folks who shared our spirit of cooperation resulted in many changes to
the proposal, or the conclusion that no changes were necessary.
Naturally, not all of the outreach efforts were successful. Some
groups had little or no interest in discussing a real resolution of
differences. Others, like the Beaverhead County Commissioners, engaged
in discussion but then refused to respond when specific and significant
offers were made to address their concerns.
But the work of the Partners garnered the praise of statewide
elected officials from both parties--not to mention the praise of seven
other county commissions, and groups as diverse as the Montana Wildlife
Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Montana Logging
Association.
The final Forest Plan for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
moved significantly in the direction of the Partnership strategy, but
fell short of providing the type of predictability that was the
linchpin for the Partnership strategy. Since the Forest Plan, in
general terms, is primarily a planning document and not an action
decision, this is understandable. S. 1470 picks up where the final
Forest Plan leaves off, and creates a framework for implementation that
is largely consistent with the Forest Plan and provides the Forest
Service with the tools necessary to achieve the Plan's objectives.
the three rivers challenge
The Three Rivers Challenge draws together wilderness advocates,
snowmobile and ATVriders, outfitters, economic boosters, and local
loggers and mills. Members include the Yaak Valley Forest Council,
Kootenai Ridge Riders ATV Club, Troy Snowmobile Club, Libby Snow-Kats,
Linehan Outfitting, and Chapel Cedar Works. These diverse folks put
differences aside and tried to find paths to move both the Forest
Service and the community ahead.
Historically, debates over the Kootenai National Forest have been
high-octane brawls, leaving resentment, anger, frustration and loss in
the wreckage. But this new plan--supported by an unlikely mix of timber
workers, ATV and snowmobile enthusiasts, and conservationists--aims to
break the gridlock and end the trench warfare that has served no one.
It would:
Create jobs in the woods, by light-on-the-land logging that
leaves the forest healthier and protects communities from
wildfire.
Preserve recreational access via routes for folks who enjoy
snowmobiles and ATVs.
Protect special areas, for example, protecting Roderick
Mountain as a wilderness area.
Northwestern Montana is the most productive forest land in the
Rockies, yet mill after mill has shut down over the last decade. Those
mills supported families and small businesses. Likewise, local
conservationists, who would like to protect special places, are
frustrated, as no new wilderness areas have been created on the
Kootenai since 1964. Meanwhile, Lincoln County has been ``discovered,''
and property values have rocketed. Some of the richest wildlife habitat
is lost to subdivisions, and favorite hunting spots and fishing streams
are blocked behind ``no trespassing'' signs. Yet amid all this turmoil,
there is progress and hope.
The Three Rivers Challenge, in various forms, has worked tirelessly
for over eight years to bring a common vision together. The group has
engaged the local community at every turn, neighbor to neighbor, to
bring this proposal forward.
The efforts of the Three Rivers Challenge are strongly supported by
a wide array of folks, including statewide elected officials, regional
and national conservationists, motorized recreation groups, local
businesses, and mill owners and workers.
the blackfoot-clearwater stewardship project
After years of extensive dialogue, a diverse group of
conservationists, loggers, snowmobilers, outfitters, and local
landowners crafted a pioneering vision for the upper Blackfoot Valley.
Key working partners include The Wilderness Society, members of the
Blackfoot Challenge, Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Clearwater Resource
Council, local outfitters and ranchers, retired Forest Service
officials, and the Montana Wilderness Association.
The Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Project uses a landscape-level
focus to simultaneously restore and protect the integrity of the
landscape, and stimulate and diversify the rural economies of
communities located within it.
Residents within the Blackfoot and Seeley Swan valleys have a long
history of working together. This ``culture of cooperation'' has
created a climate where timber workers and ranchers can sit down with
conservation organizations as well as state and federal agencies, to
collectively figure out solutions that are appropriate for both the
local residents and the integrity of the landscape they live in. The
Project includes three balanced components:
A reliance on stewardship contracting to implement landscape
stewardship planning, restoration and monitoring.
Biomass utilization at Pyramid Mountain Lumber to provide an
outlet for excess forest fuels.
Wilderness designation within the Blackfoot and Clearwater
watersheds while expanding important snowmobile trail linkages.
An economic analysis in 2008 shows the Project would provide a
variety of direct benefits annually to local communities and
businesses, including 35 to 52 new jobs, increased small business
income, and at least $1.19 million in new wages--while continuing long-
term benefits to the region from healthier lands, cleaner water, better
habitat, and continuing or improved recreation.
After extensive outreach across the region, this local effort has
received a wide cross section of support from local governments,
individuals, and organizations, including three county commissions,
Seeley Lake Community Council, Backcountry Horsemen, Seeley Lake Rural
Fire District, Ovando Snowmobile Club, and the Seeley Lake Driftrider
Snowmobile Club.
the wilderness areas in the bill
The Montana Wilderness Association strongly supports S.1470.
Montana's most pristine places are where we go to hike, ski, hunt,
fish, and picnic. These lands hold our families together and are the
roots for our most lasting friendships. Protecting these unique places
for future generations is part of our shared values, both as a state
and as a nation. Our bounty of wild public lands anchors our past,
present, and future. Montana historian, K. Ross Toole, noted that in
Montana ``wilderness is never far from the window pane.'' Wilderness
designation represents our commitment to these values.
S.1470 designates some of Montana's finest wild places as
wilderness, from the lush and moist Yaak Valley in northwestern
Montana, to the arid, wide-open sagebrush country in southwestern
Montana. Attached is a review of those wilderness areas and many of the
other special designations that are contained in the bill, which are
the products of the collaborative efforts described above. MWA does
have concerns with a few of the changes and additions that have been
made by Senator Tester in crafting S. 1470 (noted in the attached
narrative), but recognizes that the extensive in-state outreach by
Senator Tester is itself part of the collaborative process.
MWA supports this important legislation, and thanks Senator Tester
and his staff for their hard work.
what can we do to encourage people to work together?
Collaboration can be very rewarding, especially as old adversaries
begin to build trust and trade social and political differences for a
common vision around thorny issues that have paralyzed progress by our
federal government for many years.
However, collaboration is also an incredibly delicate adventure.
The pressures to abandon the course and return to the fold are intense.
It can split whole communities, friends, even families. When MWA first
announced the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership to the public, our
funding suffered. The day after the announcement, my Inbox was filled
with angry emails. Although we're now well past both of those events,
they serve as a reminder that this path we've taken is fraught with
difficulty and risk.
The one upside to this negativity is that it doesn't discriminate,
everyone involved feels it. A few weeks after the announcement, I had
lunch with Sherm Anderson, of Sun Mountain Lumber. He asked me what the
response was within the conservation community. I replied, ``They all
tell me that you'll get logs and we'll never get any wilderness.''
Sherm smiled and said, ``My guys tell me that you'll get wilderness and
we'll never see a log.'' I think at that moment we both realized just
how hard this would be.
Our behavior is shaped by many factors, not the least of which is
reward, which can take many forms. The reward can be something
tangible, like a restored watershed or a new wilderness area. Or, it
can be intangible, like new friendships or a stronger sense of common
purpose or vision. Some will respond only to the tangible and not see
value in the intangible. Some will respond to both and others won't
care about either.
If we truly want collaboration, then all of us who see value in it
need to work for it. That includes the Forest Service, the
Administration, and Congress. Too often over the last several years it
has felt like the homage to collaboration by government is more
grounded in talk than in action. It has felt like the path to
collaboration is blocked by acquiescence to those too entrenched in
ideology to see value in collaborating.
You have before you a group of individuals who have worked
tirelessly in pursuit of a new vision, a vision that has been
repeatedly endorsed by the new Administration, the Forest Service, and
Congress. Many of those people are in the hearing room. For many of
them, failure is simply not an option. There is no other place to go.
There is a lot of talk in Washington these days about transcending
partisanship to find a common purpose. In our little corner of the
world we have done exactly what the folks in Washington say they want.
We've brought people together to find workable solutions to big
problems. We've done a lot of hard work and, with your help, we're
willing to do more.
If you want collaboration like this, your path can start here.
conclusion
Just as important as the details of these collaborations, or
S.1470, are the positive working relationships and friendships that
have developed between many Montanans who previously were at odds with
one another. This is a real Montana success story.
It's the story of the backcountry horseman who wants to ride the
traditional pack and saddle trails of Monture Creek in solitude.
It's the story of the mill worker in Deer Lodge who wants to earn a
decent wage and live in a prosperous community with a good quality of
life.
It's the story of the angler on the Big Hole River who wants to
catch trout from a healthy native population.
It's the story of the snowmobiler in Troy who wants to ride in
places that will still be there for her kids.
This is a story of Montanans rolling up their sleeves and
challenging each other to understand the other's perspective. It's
about building trust, and putting faith in the best part of ourselves.
No single interest will ever get everything it wants, but by working
together we can collectively get more done for the benefit of all.
The last time Congress designated new wilderness in Montana we used
IBM typewriters and rotary phones, the big store was Kmart, and nobody
had ever heard of anything called climate change. Montana has changed
and is changing, and unless we come together to act we may all lose the
Montana we know and love.
Polling shows very strong public support in Montana for S. 1470.
This isn't surprising. After all, most of us live here for the same
reasons.
We all get shivers when we hear an elk bugle. We all smile in
wonder when we watch a Charlie Russell sunset paint the sky. And we all
have a favorite small Montana town, even if we don't live there.
As Montanans, we all love the land, even if we want to use it in
different ways. And we all know that the way forward is together, not
apart.
S. 1470 is all about bringing us together.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony to
support S. 1470.
[Supplemental information has been retained in subcommittee files.]
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Let us go to Mr. Wood.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. WOOD, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Wood. Thank you, Chairman Wyden and Senator Risch.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide my views on S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation
Act. I am here today on behalf of Trout Unlimited and the
National Wildlife Federation.
TU and NWF strongly support the bill, and we commend
Senator Tester and his staff for their extraordinary leadership
in developing it. S. 1470 would protect as wilderness over
670,000 acres, as well as designate 300,000 acres of special
management units.
By so doing, it will protect clean, cold water as well as
essential habitats for wild and native trout, as well as some
of the Nation's most storied rivers. The bill will also help to
secure habitats for Canada lynx, a listed species, as well as
wolverine, elk, and mountain goat, all species that need
undisturbed habitats.
In his speech in Seattle that was referenced earlier by
Under Secretary Sherman, Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke of the
need for a ``shared vision built on collaboration that will
move us beyond the timber wars of the past.''
For 2 decades, these Montana forests have been mired in a
stalemate that fails to protect fish or restore wildlife.
Wilderness has not been designated in the State for over 25
years. Hundreds of impassable culverts on the forest fragment
fish habitat. Dense networks of obsolete roads restrict elk
security and movement and contribute heavy loads of sediment to
streams.
The notion of collaborative stewardship articulated by
Secretary Vilsack is what brought together the timber
companies, ranchers, sportsmen, motorized users, and
environmentalists that support S. 1470. Some worry about the
bill's requirement for mechanized treatment of 10,000 acres per
year. None of the supporters of this bill expect or would
support 10,000 acres of clear-cuts.
Furthermore, the bill has no timber supply requirements or
legislated logging levels, as has been suggested earlier today.
Mechanical treatment implies a number of things, from
commercial to noncommercial harvest, to thinning in areas where
communities and forests meet. The Forest Service will define
treatment units according to existing laws and regulations and
the consensus of a balanced advisory committee.
The project alternatives could range from cutting a few
trees to cutting more. Importantly, the bill also makes clear
that the priority will be already-roaded areas, not pristine
roadless areas. Replacing blocked culverts and removing old
unused roads will improve water quality and habitat for native
trout while enhancing elk security and maintaining Montana's
long hunting seasons.
It is important to realize that there are at least 150,000
acres of so-called wildland-urban interface covered by the
bill. More than half of those are forested and could be thinned
to protect human communities from the effects of fire. In other
words, we could accomplish a significant percentage of the
acreage targets in the bill simply by protecting human
communities from the effects of fire.
None of the supporters of S. 1470 believe that it is an
appropriate prescription for all national forests. But given
the paralysis, as one former chief put it, that the Forest
Service finds itself in, we should be open to all good ideas
that bring people together to help sustain the lands and waters
that we all depend on.
The Nation needs a strong Forest Service. We need its
extraordinary knowledge and leadership to help human
communities and fish and wildlife to adapt to the effects of a
changing climate. We do not think S. 1470 a panacea. We do,
however, believe it vital to help foster within the Forest
Service the type of collaboration and negotiation that brought
us here today.
Rather than serve as a laxative for legislating
collaborative, S. 1470 could have a transformative effect
within the Forest Service. By sanctioning this effort to bring
together diverse interests to meet the needs of the lands and
nearby communities, Congress can send a clear message to the
Forest Service that encourages the agency to lead, promote, or
otherwise enable collaborative stewardship within the forest
planning process.
President Theodore Roosevelt once defined conservation as
the application of common sense to common problems for the
common good. That definition is the motivating factor behind S.
1470. This bill is a demonstration of what can happen when
people focus on the values that bind rather than the
distinctions that divide.
We urge the committee to support and pass the bill and
appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher A. Wood, Chief Operating Officer,
Trout Unlimited
Chairman Wyden and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide my views as Chief
Operating Officer for Trout Unlimited (TU) on S. 1470, the Forest Jobs
and Recreation Act. Prior to working for TU, I served as the senior
policy and communications advisor to the Chief of the US Forest
Service, and on the fish and wildlife and ecosystem management staffs
for the Bureau of Land Management.
Trout Unlimited (TU) is dedicated to the protection and restoration
of our nation's trout and salmon resources and the watersheds that
sustain them. TU has more than 135,000 members in 400 chapters across
the United States. Our members generally are trout and salmon anglers
who give back to the waters they love by contributing substantial
amounts of their personal time and resources to fisheries habitat
protection and restoration. I am offering this testimony today on
behalf of TU and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF).
More than 2,000 TU and 5,000 NWF members live and work in
communities around the National Forest and BLM areas in this bill,
including Butte, Anaconda, Deer Lodge, Sheridan, Twin Bridges, Silver
Star, Philipsburg, West Yellowstone, Cameron, Dillon, Ennis, Bozeman,
Missoula, Drummond, Ovando, Bonner, Whitehall, Libby and Troy. Most
members in these areas are long-time or native Montanans and they fish,
hunt, hike, camp, drive, snowmobile, ski, ride horses, and collect
firewood, berries and Christmas trees from these lands. A number have
livelihoods directly tied to these lands, working guides and
outfitters, loggers, ranch hands, staffers in natural resource agencies
or operators of small businesses.
Several years ago, spurred by the recognition that National Forests
in western Montana were not living up to their potential to support
healthy fish and wildlife and provide jobs and recreational
opportunities for local communities, TU and other local stakeholders
came together to develop a shared vision for forest management. The
resulting compromises provided the basis for an important part of S.
1470, which would protect fish and wildlife habitat through the
designation of more than 600,000 acres of new wilderness and more than
300,000 acres of National Recreation Areas, restore degraded habitat
through the removal of old roads and blocked culverts, reduce the risk
of catastrophic wildfire through targeted fuel reduction projects, and
create jobs for local communities through stewardship contracting. If
implemented, the bill could yield significant benefits to fish and
wildlife, water resources, and nearby communities.
TU has a long record of working with farmers, ranchers, industries,
and government agencies to protect and restore trout and salmon
watersheds nationwide. In recent years, we have bought gas leases in
Montana to help protect the Rocky Mountain Front, helped to establish a
successful roadless area plan for the National Forests of Idaho, and
helped to establish and fund historic, broadly-supported dam removal
projects from the Penobscot River in Maine to the Klamath in California
and Oregon. Finding solutions to vexing resource problems is a hallmark
of what we do.
Drawing on these cooperative experiences, we have worked to develop
the solutions contained in S. 1470 with a diverse group of stakeholders
in Montana. Bruce Farling, Montana TU's executive director, has led
TU's efforts on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and TU volunteer Tim Linehan
has been a leader in the Kootenai initiative. These people, and their
coalition partners, have done courageous, outstanding work. TU strongly
supports S. 1470, we deeply appreciate the work of Senator Tester and
his staff for introducing it, and we urge the Subcommittee to support
it.
We realize that some people have concerns about some of the
provisions of this bill. We do not claim to have all the answers and
look forward to working with the Subcommittee, the Forest Service, the
Obama Administration, and all others who share the goals of the bill.
We urge others with criticisms to provide alternatives that will
achieve the goals of the bill, namely protecting vital fish and
wildlife habitat, restoring forests, and sustaining local communities.
In my testimony today, I would like to focus on two major points.
First, I will describe how S. 1470 would benefit fish, wildlife and
local communities.
Second, I will address some of the criticisms of this legislation,
and explain why in spite of the challenges we face, I believe the goals
of the legislation can be achieved.
background on the development of s. 1470
In an August 14, 2009 speech in Seattle, Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack stated that Americans must move away from polarization and
``.work towards a shared vision-a vision that conserves our forests and
the vital resources important to our survival while wisely respecting
the need for a forest economy that creates jobs and vibrant rural
communities.'' Through a collaborative grassroots effort dating back
more than four years, a broad range of partners has done just that, and
the resulting vision has provided the basis for the legislation
introduced by Senator Tester.
Prior to this collaborative process the forests were mired in
stalemate that failed to protect and restore fish and wildlife. The
state of Montana has not designated a new wilderness in 25 years,
despite the broad recognition of the need to protect quality fish and
wildlife habitat and public support to do so. There are hundreds of
impassible culverts on the forests that fragment trout habitat. Dense
networks of obsolete roads restrict elk security and movement
contribute heavy loads of sediment to streams.
Due in part to these impacts, native salmonids, some of which are
listed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species act,
occupy but a fraction of their historic range. Decades of fire
suppression has produced homogenous even-aged stands of forests, which
along with climate change and the pine bark beetle infestation increase
the risk of unnaturally intense fire. The Forest Jobs and Recreation
Act will enable the Forest Service to address these long-neglected
needs.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act results from three grassroots
efforts in which TU in Montana was a principal in two efforts (B-D and
Three Rivers) and a supporter in the third (Blackfoot-Clearwater). The
bill is Montana-made and it has generated popular and unprecedented
consensus among many Montanans of different stripes that validates the
notion that collaboration is vital to developing long-term popular
support of public lands management.
the fish and wildlife benefits of the forest jobs and recreation act
Now more than ever, as changes in climate increase the challenges
faced by forest managers and ecosystems, it is imperative that national
forests are managed in ways that promote resiliency. At its heart, S.
1470 is a climate change adaptation strategy. By federally protecting
the highest quality landscapes and then reconnecting them to adjacent
areas through watershed restoration, S. 1470 will help to maintain
abundant fish and wildlife populations while providing multiple
benefits to human communities through good paying jobs. As we recently
stated before this committee, this can be done through the following
actions:
1. Protect the highest quality lands and waters.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would protect as federal
wilderness more than 670,000 acres of undeveloped country in 25
areas, as well as create over 300,000 acres of special
management and national recreation areas. By doing so, it will
protect crucial sources of clean, cold water as well as
essential habitats for wild and native trout in the headwaters
of some of the nation's most storied trout waters, including
Rock Creek and the Madison, Beaverhead, Ruby, Jefferson, Big
Blackfoot, Clark Fork and Kootenai rivers. Protection of
wilderness and special management areas in the bill will also
help secure habitats for Canadian lynx, a listed species, as
well as wolverines and mountain goats--all species that
research tells need undisturbed habitats. Finally, it will
provide vital habitats for elk security.
The protection of high quality habitat, along with the
reconnection and restoration projects described below, will
help secure populations of one ESA listed fish species, Bull
trout, and three additional fish species that are candidates
for listing: westslope cutthroat trout, arctic grayling, and
interior redband trout. All of these species now inhabit but a
tiny fraction of their historical ranges on the lands in the
bill. The wilderness and special area designations serve as
critical sources for fish that are necessary for re-populating
restored habitats downstream.
2. Reconnect landscapes so that fish and wildlife can survive
habitat disturbances.
Restoration projects will be focused on areas of high road
density. Obsolete road networks in Montana forests cause
habitat fragmentation that prevents fish and wildlife from
dispersing to intact habitats when faced with disturbances such
as fire, drought or intense storms. The Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act would address the problems caused by these road
networks by (1) prohibiting the construction of new, permanent
roads; and (2) requiring that road densities be reduced (in the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, when completing a project
done pursuant to the FJRA, road densities must be reduced to
averages no more than one linear mile per square mile). The
scientifically based standard recommended by the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for elk security is one
mile per 1.5 square mile, which is the minimum needed to
provide enough security for elk so that Montana can maintain
its annual 5-week general big game hunting season. The
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Seeley Lake Ranger
District include some of the most productive lands anywhere in
Montana for large, trophy elk. The road standards in the Forest
Jobs and Recreation Act will also protect high quality habitat
and improve wildlife security for a host of popular game and
non-game species, including elk, mule deer, black and grizzly
bears and mountain goats.
The road standards will also greatly benefit fish by reducing
erosion-prone road surfaces and road crossing structures such
as culverts that are currently harming habitat and impeding
movement of fish into and out of important habitats. Agency
surveys indicate, for example, that at least 240 road culverts
on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest are currently
complete or partial barriers to fish movement, and the
frequency of road crossing barriers on the Seeley-Lake and
Three Rivers Districts are even more severe. The result is
reduced habitat availability for species such as Bull trout and
cutthroat trout. The restoration projects called for in this
legislation will improve habitat connectivity by removing roads
and replacing or removing blocked culverts.
3. Engage communities in restoration
The FJRA directs the Forest Service to use stewardship
contracting to meet vegetation management goals, which ensures
that the value of trees removed is invested back onto the same
landscape in habitat restoration, elimination of pollution
sources, protection of key habitats from livestock, suppression
of weeds on winter ranges, as well as improvement of
recreational features, such as trails used by hunters, anglers
and other recreationists.
By focusing stewardship projects on previously developed
landscapes with high densities of roads, the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act will help address impairments on landscapes that
are prone to unnatural rates of erosion, and related effects
such as exotic weed invasion, after fires. When large fires
sweep through developed landscapes such as those on the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest or the Three Rivers Ranger
District, they significantly increase the risk of erosion from
road systems after snowmelt or severe rainstorms, and
subsequent colonization by exotic weeds. Similarly, post-fire
storms can block road culverts with debris and mud, causing
these structures to fail and resulting in channel scouring and
large amounts of sediment entering into trout streams. Fire is
a natural part of these forest systems. In fact, on undeveloped
landscapes it can play a beneficial role, one that fish and
wildlife have adapted to for eons. On densely roaded forests,
the effects of fire can cause intense erosion, water quality
degradation, and extirpation of local populations of fish and
wildlife-not to mention the risk to nearby human communities.
challenges to meeting the goals of the legislation
Montana has long been ground-zero in the ``timber wars.'' It was
there that the deleterious effects of roading and clear cutting
practices on the Bitterroot National Forest were brought to national
attention through the Bolle Report, a report whose findings helped to
bring about the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). NFMA
mandated a detailed forest planning process that resulted in a
recommitment by the Forest Service to the concept of multiple-use.
Today, however, few would argue that the NFMA planning process as
currently implemented is proving effective at unleashing the
extraordinary talent and skill of Forest Service employees to help
combat the effects of climate change on natural resources, fish and
wildlife, and human communities.
In fire-adapted ecosystems that have missed fire return intervals,
we do not have the luxury of hitting a reset button. Fire must be
reintroduced to these systems, but it must be done so safely. In many
cases, we will require the services and skills of timber companies to
thin areas before we can safely reintroduce fires. In other areas, we
need them to thin around communities along the forest's edge to help
make them safer from the predicted increases in fire associated with
climate change. No-one is talking about cutting old growth or entering
pristine roadless areas. This bill is about land health and community
safety and well-being. Given the State's role in the history of the
Forest Service, it is fitting that a diverse array of stakeholders have
come together in Montana to provide an alternative path for managing
public lands in the face of a changing climate.
None of the supporters of S. 1470 believe it an appropriate
prescription for all of the National Forest System, but given the
``paralysis'' as one former Chief put it, that the Forest Service finds
itself mired in, we should be open to all good new ideas that help to
bring people together for the betterment of the lands and waters that
sustain us all.
The collaborative process undertaken by a broad range of partners
has brought about a shared vision for forest management that can
protect critical fish and wildlife habitat, maintain and enhance
recreational opportunities, restore habitat by removing roads and
blocked culverts, reduce the risk of unnaturally intense wildfire, and
support good paying, family wage restoration jobs. That said, the bill
does have critics. I will present a few of the main criticisms of S.
1470, attempt to answer them, and identify areas where people can work
together to find solutions that meet the needs of the Forest Service,
healthy ecosystems, and local communities.
Completing the restoration projects outlined in the bill will be
expensive, and may cause the Forest Service to divert funding from
other important needs. Rather than look at the Forest Service budget as
a zero-sum game, where dollars are spread evenly across the landscape;
our strong belief is that it is more prudent to apply resources where
they are needed most, and importantly, where the community capacity
exists to ensure success.
Few question the need of restoration treatments on the lands
covered by S. 1470. The relationships and commitment to the type of
collaborative process envisioned by Secretary Vilsack, however, exist
in relatively few places today. As the diverse support base of this
bill makes clear, the Kootenai, Lolo and Beaverhead-Deerlodge national
forests are such places. These are the areas we should make our initial
investments. And if legislation is required to kick start that era of
collaborative stewardship, we think that type of congressional
leadership appropriate.
Leaving some forests under-funded and unable to accomplish
restoration goals because resources were diverted elsewhere is not in
anyone's interest. It may be necessary to secure additional resources
beyond the Forest Service's base budget through appropriations and
stewardship contracting receipts to complete the projects outlined in
the bill without taking resources away from other forests. Because of
the tremendous benefits provided by the bill, especially its 670,000
acres of wilderness, such investments are cost-effective and
worthwhile.
Legislating forest plans is inappropriate. TU's national staff and
thousands of volunteers have participated in forest planning for
decades. The Forest Service is an important and valued partner to TU
and NWF. That said, the Forest Service planning process has not had a
stellar record. The amendments to the 1982 planning regulations in 2000
were overturned by the Bush Administration, and subsequent efforts to
revise the rules in 2005 and 2008 were deemed illegal by the courts. We
plan to work with Secretary Vilsack and Chief Tidwell to make the
latest attempt to revise the planning rules successful. In the
meantime, we should not pass up opportunities to bring historic
adversaries together, to protect crucial habitat, to restore degraded
landscapes to better adapt to the effects of a changing climate, and to
sustain local communities.
If we pass this legislation, we will have to do the same for
forests across the country. From 1960-1989, National Forests produced
9-12 billion board feet of timber per year. Since that time, they have
produced less than 2 billion per year. A recent survey of federal
agencies found that morale in the Forest Service ranked 206 out of 216
agencies. Where once the agency's clear mission was to sell trees to
build homes and provide other multiple uses, the agency is now
struggling through its 19th year of transition.
Few wish to see the agency return to its timber cutting era. The
nation, however, needs a strong Forest Service. We need its
extraordinary knowledge and leadership to help human communities and
fish and wildlife resources adapt to a changing climate. None of the
organizations that support S. 1470 believes it is a panacea for the
agency. We do, however, believe it vital to help foster the type of
collaboration and negotiation that brought us here today. We do not
want to see forest plans legislated across the country; but we do need
to see models of collaborative stewardship enacted by the agency. For
two decades, polarization and stalemate have defined National Forest
management. S. 1470 could have a transformative effect within the
Forest Service. Congress has an opportunity to send a clear message to
the Forest Service. By sanctioning this effort to bring together
diverse interests to meet the needs of the land and nearby communities,
Congress will impel the agency to lead, promote, or otherwise enable
them as standard-operating procedure within the Forest planning
process.
We subscribe to Secretary Vilsack's vision of a new era of
collaborative stewardship within the agency. S. 1470 will help provide
one example of how that vision can be made into reality across the 191
million acre National Forest System.
conclusion
The collaborative effort undertaken by local Montana groups is on
the verge of overcoming years of controversy and delay to protect and
restore Montana forests in ways that benefit local communities. There
are challenges ahead, and to be certain, there may be ways to improve
the bill, but S. 1470 represents a new way of doing business for the
Forest Service, and we urge Congress to pass it.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very, Mr. Wood.
I think what I will do is recognize Senator Risch, who is a
member of the subcommittee, and then recognize Senator Tester,
who, of course, has many questions. We will see how many we can
get in. The congressional schedule, as you can imagine, is a
little hectic right now.
So, Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Hurt, you spent I think virtually all of your
time talking about the importance of snowmobiling in the south
half of the Mount Jefferson area. Is that the totality of your
objection to the bill, or once the snow is gone, what about
four-wheeling and that sort of thing? Can you elaborate a
little bit more?
All I am trying to do is get the magnitude of where you are
coming from on it.
Mr. Hurt. Senator, this area is protected by the roadless
bill, the roadless area that you worked on when you were
Governor. You can't get there----
Senator Risch. A fine rule it is.
Mr. Hurt. Yes, it is. I might add that, yes. You can't get
there----
Senator Risch. You have got to give Mr. Wood some of the
credit for that, too. Jim Riley, if he is here? There he is.
Mr. Hurt. It is protected in the summer from motorized
vehicles. So the only access is by foot, llama, or horse. So we
do--our issue is with taking it out of an area to ride for snow
machines in the winter.
Senator Risch. I have talked to lots and lots of people in
Fremont County and the surrounding area, and they have all
focused on the snowmobiling issue. Is it your position that the
current Forest Service travel plan regarding snowmobiling is
what should be left in place? Is that what your position is?
Mr. Hurt. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it is. It is a win-win for
all sides.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Mr. Koehler, did you participate in the drawing of this
bill or the recommendations for it?
Mr. Koehler. No. Our organization and most members of our
coalition, even though we do participate in open, inclusive
collaborative processes throughout Montana, we were not a part
of the drafting of the bill. You know, again, we just felt it
was a real self-selected process.
You know, again, the issue isn't that some groups want to
work together and some don't. For example, our restoration
coordinator spends a lot of time in your State, working with
the Salmon-Challis National Forest and a collaborative group
that has sprung up there. We have worked together on a fuel
reduction project and a restoration project, using stewardship
contracting and many of the same ideas that we see expressed
here.
That is not the issue. The issue is what this bill as
currently written would do.
Senator Risch. You know, I understand your position. Mine
is a little different than that. It is the outcome is certainly
important. The process, to me, is very important because
frequently that dictates the outcome. Did you attempt to
participate in the drawing of this bill?
Mr. Koehler. We had a meeting with the Montana Wilderness
Association early on. We had a meeting with them. I believe it
would have been in 2007 in Missoula with a representative of
the Montana Wilderness Association. At that meeting was myself
and our staff biologist, who currently is on a Fulbright
Scholarship doing his research in Argentina. So he is obviously
not real focused on these issues right now.
At the meeting, we brought up many of the same concerns
that I brought up today, which, quite honestly, are many of the
same concerns that we heard brought up by Under Secretary
Sherman earlier today. We just feel as if the mandated logging
provisions are unprecedented. We feel as if setting a timeline
on NEPA, it really just sets the Forest Service up for failure.
Senator Risch. Did you express these concerns to Senator
Tester and his staff as they were putting the bill together?
Mr. Koehler. Our coalition has definitely met with Senator
Tester's staff about this bill. Numerous members of our
coalition have met. I remember meeting with the Senator's
Missoula field director about 2 years ago, and this bill came
up. Kind of more the concept because, at that time, it wasn't a
bill. It was more the concept of this Beaverhead partnership.
So we have exchanged emails back and forth. Again, members
of our coalition have met with the Senator's office, given them
specific recommendations, and to be quite honest, none of those
recommendations seem to even be given very much weight, which
is a frustrating thing to have happen when, again, these are
public lands. They belong equally to all Americans, and we need
an inclusive, transparent, open process to manage these lands.
Senator Risch. Couldn't agree more. Did you convey to him
some things that you would be willing to give up in exchange
for getting some of the things that you wanted in the bill?
Mr. Koehler. We did not have that discussion. I think the
best way to approach that issue is to look at our line-by-line
analysis of the bill. We, as a coalition of organizations and
citizens, went through the bill. We provided very detailed
recommendations for what we thought were improvements to the
bill. So I would encourage the committee to look at that.
Senator Risch. Again, who did you say the coalition was?
That went over my head.
Mr. Koehler. The name we have come up with is the Last Best
Place Wildlands Campaign, and we are a coalition of
organizations and citizens from Montana and around the country
because, again, these lands do belong equally to all Americans.
We did have about 50 or 55 organizations, conservation
organizations, about 15 from Montana and the rest from around
the country that did, as part of my written testimony that I
submitted, did express our concerns about what is in the bill.
Again, a lot of our groups, whether it is in Montana or
groups elsewhere, we are committed to working together to
finding solutions. But we just feel that, you know, not to
belabor the process too much here, but we feel as if the
process that was used, particularly on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, was not a good process. I think the county
commissioners down in Beaverhead County would express similar
concerns as well.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Koehler.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. It has been pointed out earlier, but isn't
it funny how the far left and the far right often connect up?
I would just ask Mr. Koehler a couple questions. When was
the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign formed?
Mr. Koehler. I would say it was formed shortly after we
found out about your bill----
Senator Tester. Which was when?
Mr. Koehler [continuing]. Which was in mid July, yes.
Senator Tester. Mid July.
Mr. Koehler. It is a campaign. It is a coalition of
organizations, as I mentioned.
Senator Tester. OK. If we--I think the first time we met
was here today, correct?
Mr. Koehler. No, I came to Washington, DC. I would say
about a week after you were here. Your office, I believe, was
still in the cafeteria, which I hope you have moved out.
Senator Tester. Yes, we have moved out. You have gotten a
hold of our Web site. Is that correct? You have sent us emails?
The reason I ask is because I review all the emails, and I
haven't seen one.
Mr. Koehler. Our organization has met with members of your
staff. Our coalition have met with members of your staff.
Senator Tester. You seem passionate about this issue. Have
you?
Mr. Koehler. I am not sure that the issue is if I have met
with you or members of your staff. To be honest, there was a
time when members of your staff weren't returning our emails
and weren't returning our calls.
Senator Tester. That is because they didn't receive any
because I looked at all the emails, and your name wasn't on
them.
Mr. Chairman, just for the record, you need to call us if
you want us to respond. Don't make the claim that is unfounded
because I tend to stick up for my staff in situations like
this. The reason you are here as a part of this distinguished
panel is because of your passion for this issue, your passion
for this issue. Otherwise, we would have had somebody else.
I have got some questions for Sherm Anderson. Some of the
critics of this bill state that it will fail because the timber
economics, specifically the current low market, is the reason
it is going to fail. You have been in the business for a while,
Sherm. How do you respond to statements that this bill is going
to fail because timber markets are in the tank?
Mr. Anderson. Senator Tester, sometimes I feel like I have
been in the business way too long. In fact, as I was sitting
here listening to the commissioner, that is where I grew up,
and I was there when the beetle kill moved in to Island Park,
and I actually participated in those huge clear-cuts.
But this is a cyclical business. It goes up and it goes
down, as do all businesses in the economy. For anyone to
suggest that the state of the industry today is going to be the
state of the industry tomorrow or next year or the year after
is just ludicrous.
The wood products industry is always the first industry to
suffer from the economy downturns of a recession, and they are
always the first to rebound, historically. We went into a
recession in the latter part of 2006. The actual recession was
not announced until 2008. So we now are feeling that we have
bottomed out, and we are starting to pull out. All indications
are the recession will not be over until 2010 or 2011.
So we are looking long term here. We are not looking short
term. If, in fact, that timber did not have any value, why
would we be interested? I sincerely believe that from the lack
of infrastructure that is actually disappearing and not only
particular in our country, but in our friends to the north in
Canada, that when this all washes out, there could very easily
be a supply and demand issue where we cannot meet the supply.
Senator Tester. OK. Thank you.
Chris Wood, testimony earlier this afternoon said that this
bill sets the Forest Service up for failure. You have worked in
the Forest Service. You have worked outside the Forest Service.
Could you give me a perspective on that statement?
Mr. Wood. I wouldn't deign to have as much knowledge as
most of the folks that were here in the room from the Forest
Service or the agency.
Senator Tester. Nor is any taken.
Mr. Wood. I will note, though, that I was a part of an EIS
that was developed in 18 months that covered 58 million acres,
and I--that is the Roadless Area Conservation Rule EIS, and I
have more faith, I think, in the Forest Service's ability to
develop an EIS covering 50,000 acres in a year.
Senator Tester. Let us talk about the tools that this bill
gives the Forest Service. Could you bring some of them up that
this bill gives the Forest Service to help achieve the goals?
Mr. Wood. I think what it does is I think it is important
to note as much what it doesn't do. It doesn't mandate logging
levels. It doesn't mandate any sort of timber supply
requirement. What it does is it provides congressional
recognition of the need to treat acreage in already-roaded
areas, using all the tools that are available to the Forest
Service, particularly mechanized treatment.
I think the lack of activity in the woods in Montana and,
frankly, across most of the rest of the intermountain West,
dictates that this type of approach is precisely appropriate. I
have less of a concern of legislating this plan if it leads to
these types of collaborative efforts and sort of breaks the dam
that has been built up within the agency and allows this kind
of treatment to happen across the West.
Senator Tester. This is a question for both Mr. Baker and
Mr. Anderson. You can go first, if you would like, Mr. Baker.
Many say that I should separate the forest and restoration
components from the wilderness and recreation portions of this
bill and work on them as separate bills. I am not going to do
that. But I want to know if I did do that, would you support
it? Why or why not?
Mr. Baker. If you were to separate this bill, Senator
Tester, we would oppose this bill. This bill represents a
vision. It represents a collaborative vision for how we should
look at our forests in the future and how we can use that
vision to bring different people together, diverse interests,
to accomplish many things on the forest, including the wild
landscape that deserves to be protected as wilderness and the
roaded landscape where we need much more active management.
So I think we want to see this bill stay intact because it
represents this collaborative spirit that has brought Montanans
together.
Senator Tester. Mr. Anderson, could you comment on the same
question? Do you want me to repeat it?
Mr. Anderson. I can, Senator. We have vested over 4 years
in collaboration in putting this thing together, and if you
were to separate that, we would adamantly oppose it. The
collaborative efforts that we have put forward and the hundreds
of meetings that we have had and held throughout the areas that
were involved in my estimation would be for naught if these
bills were split apart.
Senator Tester. I want to thank all the folks who provided
testimony here for the panel. We have been at this for quite a
while, and I want to thank the chairman once again for his
indulgence in allowing me to be a part of the questions and the
presentation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank my colleague Senator Risch.
We thank you, Senator Tester. I know that this legislation
is of great importance to you. We will be working very closely
with you.
To all our witnesses, we may have Senators wishing to ask
some of you questions in writing. We will hold the record open
for that.
We know you have traveled a long way. For westerners making
this trek, there is not a bonanza of nonstop flights. So we
really appreciate everybody coming, and the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Edwin Roberson to Questions From Senator Bingaman
h.r. 934
Question 1. Today, a story appeared in the CNMI paper* stating that
H.R. 934, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, would give
the CNMI ``the option of exercising full control over the submerged
lands surrounding the northernmost islands of Maug, Uracas and
Asuncion, or decide to enter with a co-management system with the
federal government as embodied in the Presidential Proclamation
(establishing the Marine Monument for these islands)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* US Senate subcommittee to discuss NMI submerged lands bill''
Thursday, 17 December 2009, by Gernina Q. Casas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the Interior Department agree with this report that the bill,
if not amended, would give the CNMI this option?
Answer. Unless evidence is presented that could harmonize H.R. 934
with the Presidential Proclamation establishing the Marianas Trench
Marine National Monument, a court could reach the conclusion that the
CNMI could exercise exclusive control or enter into a co-management
agreement with respect to the submerged lands surrounding Maug, Uracas
and Asuncion. The later enactment by Congress would control over an
earlier action. In this case enactment of H.R. 934 would be later than
the January 6, 2009 date of the Presidential Proclamation.
Question 2. If so, what would be the effect of CNMI having this
option on the Presidential Proclamation and on management of the
Monument?
Answer. The Presidential Proclamation provides that submerged lands
that are granted to the CNMI ``hut remain controlled by the United
States under the Antiquities Act may remain part of the monument'' for
coordinated management with the CNMI. Whether the United States retains
any control under H.R. 934 depends on the plain language of the statute
and the intent of Congress. If a court were to find that CNMI could
exercise exclusive control under H.R. 934, it could also find that the
federal government had no authority to administer the submerged lands
lying up to three miles distant from the shores of Maug, Uracas, and
Asuncion as part of the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. In
such an event, Federal officials would have no jurisdiction over the
excised submerged lands and the protection of relatively pristine coral
reef ecosystems, designated by the President as objects of scientific
interest and essential to the long-term study of tropical marine
ecosystems, could be called into question. Alternatively, a court could
find that Congress did not intend that transfer of these submerged
lands and waters would affect the existing federal management of
Monument resources. Because the intent is not clear, we recommend that
Congress clarify its intent with respect to the Islands Unit.
A statement for the record was submitted by the Department of the
Interior to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with
substitute language for H.R. 934 as passed by the House of
Representatives. Included in the substitute language was a provision
referencing the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. This proposed
language was intended to guarantee the integrity of the monument,
preserve existing federal management authorities in the area of the
national marine monument, including the Antiquities Act and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and harmonize
the interests of the CNMI and the Monument.
While creation of the monument was a historic achievement, it
should be remembered that the leaders and people of the CNMI were and
are these three islands' first preservationists. They included in their
1978, plebiscite-approved constitution the following language:
article xiv: natural resources
Section 1: Marine Resources. The marine resources in the
waters off the coast of the Commonwealth over which the
Commonwealth now or hereafter may have any jurisdiction under
United States law shall be managed, controlled, protected and
preserved by the legislature for the benefit of the people.
Section 2: Uninhabited Islands. . . . The islands of Maug,
Uracas, Asuncion, Guguan and other islands specified by law
shall be maintained as uninhabited places and used only for the
preservation and protection of natural resources, including but
not limited to bird, wildlife and plant species.
It is important to note that the legislature has never taken action
adverse to the preservation of these northern islands and the waters
surrounding them. The people of the CNMI are well aware of their
treasures. CNMI leaders consented to creation of the monument because
they believed that the monument would bring Federal assets for marine
surveillance, protection, and enforcement to the northern islands that
the CNMI cannot afford.
The Department of the Interior seeks to harmonize all interests in
the waters surrounding the CNMI's three northernmost islands and
preserve sufficient control over the submerged lands and waters of the
monument to ensure that the management of the monument is not affected
by this legislation. Thus, the Department recommends that language be
included in H.R. 934 referencing the proclamation that created the
monument with federal and CNMI roles and preserving the statutory
authorities underlying the federal roles in the Islands Unit]. Such
harmonizing language is intended to preserve the Islands Unit of the
monument and at the same time acknowledge the prescient and historic
conservation effort of the leaders and people of the CNMI in protecting
Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion, and their surrounding waters.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Edwin Roberson From Senator Murkowski
h.r. 762
Question 1. As I understand it your agency had the potential to
lose a lawsuit brought by the Western Lands Project related to the way
you moved the Tortoise preserve at Coyote Springs before it was settled
by the owners of Coyote Springs and the plaintiffs in that lawsuit.
If the rock-fuel plant was built, would the new placement of the
preserve still be the best placement on the preserve for the wildlife
on the property and/or for wildlife that migrates through the property?
Question 2. Was the Bureau of Land Management or the U.S.
government a party to that Settlement agreement? If so would you please
provide the Committee with a copy of that Settlement Agreement?
Question 3. If the federal government was not a party of that
settlement agreement, please explain how the federal government is now
sure none of the federal government's interests in the Tortoise
Preserve have fully protected by the settlement between the Western
Lands Group and the owners of the Coyote Springs development?
Question 4. When the government sold the power line right of way to
Coyote Springs Corporation in 1993 it received about $10.5 million for
the utility right of way or about $1,083 per acre.
What was the appraised value per acre of the entire Coyote Springs
property in 1988?
Question 5. Can you help us understand how in five short years the
land values in that area almost tripled?
Question 6. In the estimation of the Bureau did the passage of the
Lincoln County Wilderness Act which provided for rights-of-way for
water pipeline to transfer water from Lincoln County to Las Vegas and
Coyote Springs material change the value of the lands within the Coyote
Springs development?
Question 5. If the original land exchange had never occurred and
the lands where simply BLM fee lands; where would the Department of
Interior put the Tortoise Preserve within what is now known as the
Coyote Springs Development?
s. 1787
Question 1. I note in this act that it exempts the White Pine
County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-432) and the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-424) but not the Owyhee
Wilderness nor the Washington County Utah Wilderness bills from Public
Law 111-11 that have similar programs.
Is that an oversight that should be corrected before this bill is
marked up?
Question 2. Are there other situations or laws that also should be
addressed before this bill moves to a mark up?
______
Questions for Harris Sherman From Senator Murkowski
s. 1470
Question 1. Does the Department support the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest 2009 forest plan that recommended the south half of
Mount Jefferson to be open to snowmobiling and not in Wilderness?
Question 2. Given the recently completed Beaverhead-Deerlodge
forest plan; why bother to go through the forest planning process if
the agency is now going to support a Wilderness designation for the
south side of Mt. Jefferson?
Question 3. This bill calls for approximately 10,000 acres of
hazardous fuel work using mechanical removals to be accomplished each
year.
If passed as currently written, how much will it cost Region One
per year to accomplish the thinning called for on each of the three
forests involved?
Question 4. If passed will adding 10,000 acres of timber management
in those three forests impact the budgets of forests outside Region
One?
Question 5a. During your testimony on S. 1470 you indicated that
the Forest Service had never met with the group who developed the
proposal in S. 1470. However, we know members of that group met with
the Forest Supervisor of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge several times to
discuss their proposal. In fact, there are press reports that indicate
that the Forest Supervisor gave the group 4 months to get their
proposal to the Forest Service to be considered as an alternative in
the final forest plan that was completed in 2009.
We know that the group met with former Chief Abigail Kimbell when
she was Regional Forester, and met with current Chief Tom Tidwell on
their proposal when he was Regional Forester.
Would you please double check with local Forest Service officials
and provide us with meeting logs for all District Rangers, Forest
Supervisors, and Regional Office personnel related to any meeting they
may have held with members of the Montana coalition that developed the
proposal contained within S. 1470 between 2004 through 2009.
Question 5b. If your audit finds that Forest Service employees did
in fact meet with a member or members of the coalition related to the
proposal contained within S. 1470 would you please provide the
Committee with a corrected transcript to your answer of the question
that was asked on this issue.
beetle kill
Question 6. Mr. Sherman--Last week the Forest Service announced it
was shifting $40 million to Region Two to deal with the mountain bark
beetle infestation. I would also note that in the 2010 final
appropriations bill the Forest Service saw a $40 million increase in
timber management funding.
Please give me the justification of sending the entire increase in
timber funding received by the Forest Service to only Colorado and
Wyoming?
Question 7. Please provide the Committee a detailed description of
which budget line items were tapped to pay for the additional $40
million provided to Region Two.
Question 8. Surely you realize that other intermountain western
states have similar problems and similar needs, what is so critical in
Colorado and Wyoming that an amount of funding equal to the total
increase in the timber management 2010 budget is being focused on those
two States?
fire aviation strategy report
Question 9. The FY 2010 Interior appropriations bill included a
requirement for the agency to complete a report with a strategy for
replacing slurry bombers, including a cost of the strategy no later
than 30 days after October 30th when the bill was signed into law.
Given that report has languished at OMB for more than 4 years, when
are you going to get that report up to this committee, as well as the
other committees?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 11, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski: Thank you for
your attention to H.R. 934, a bill that conveys certain submerged lands
to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), which I
introduced on February 10, 2009. The bill provides the same benefits to
the Northern Mariana Islands as are now enjoyed by American Samoa,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The CNMI is the only U.S. jurisdiction
that does not have ownership of the submerged lands three miles off its
shores.
I want to share with you some background of the bill as you prepare
for the hearing conducted by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests on December 17, 2009.
One issue of concern regarding H.R. 934 during consideration in the
House was its effect on the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument
that was established on January 6, 2009. I wanted to preserve the terms
and conditions that were negotiated between the CNMI government and the
federal government under the Proclamation while, at the same time,
gaining control of the submerged lands around the Mariana Islands.
On June 10, 2009, the House Natural Resources Committee held a
mark-up on H.R. 934. Subcommittee Chairwoman on Insular Affairs, Oceans
and Wildlife Madeleine Bordallo submitted an Amendment in the Nature of
a Substitute (ANS) that would make technical changes and provide
assurance, under subsection (c), that H.R. 934 would not alter or amend
the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. I had requested the
inclusion of subsection (c) in order to preserve the agreement between
the CNMI government and the federal government under the Monument
Proclamation. The ANS was agreed to by unanimous vote and H.R. 934 was
favorably reported to the House of Representatives, as amended, by
unanimous consent.
After the mark-up, there were concerns that subsection (c) may have
unintended consequences. The intent of H.R. 934 was to convey title and
rights to the submerged lands of all islands including the three
northernmost islands, which constitute the ``Islands Unit'' in the
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. The concern was that
subsection (c) may prohibit this land transfer.
As a result of further discussions with the CNMI administration and
legislature, an amendment deleting subsection (c) was supported by the
leaders of the Northern Mariana Islands including Governor Fitial,
Senate President Reyes, and House Speaker Palacios. In addition, the
non-governmental organization which had been an important advocate for
the establishment of the Mariana Trench Monument, Friends of the
Monument supported the conveyance of the submerged lands around all the
Mariana Islands. I have attached letters* of support for your
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Documents have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives considered H.R.
934 under suspension of the rules. At my request, Subcommittee
Chairwoman Bordallo offered an amended version of the ANS that would
specifically delete subsection (c). With this support from the CNMI
government, legislature and members of the public the House unanimously
passed H.R. 934, as amended.
I request that this letter and the attached supporting documents be
made a part of your Subcommittee's hearing record on this bill. It is
my hope that this bill will be enacted as soon as possible so that the
people of the Northern Mariana Islands will get back the land that they
have always believed belonged to them. I ask that the Committee
favorably report H.R. 934 immediately.
Sincerely,
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Delegate, Northern Mariana Islands.
______
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County,
Anaconda, MT, December 11, 2009.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Senate Committee on
Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington DC.
RE: Senate Bill 1470, Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009
Dear Senator Wyden: I urge you and the Senate Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests to strongly support S. 1470, the Forest Jobs
and Recreation Act (FJRA), introduced by Senator Jon Tester in July and
cosponsored by Senator Max Baucus. We must get past the gridlock that
has plagued forest management for so many years. We need to have jobs
in the forests, restore our best fisheries and wildlife habitat,
address fire risk, protect our best backcountry as wilderness for
fishing, hunting, and clean water, and make sure that there is room for
diverse forms of recreation, including motorized use and mountain
bikes.
The overall objectives of this bill are to:
Create Jobs: Members of the timber industry strongly support
this bill because they believe it will help the industry
survive and prosper.
Improve Forest Health: The bill is focused on addressing
issues related to the health of our forests, from beetle
outbreaks to impaired fish habitat.
Protect Our Best Fishing, Hunting, and Clean Water: The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is good for fishing and hunting,
by protecting as wilderness key wildlife and fisheries
habitats, and other deserving wild places.
Protect Recreation Opportunities: The bill protects popular
areas for motorized and mountain bike recreation on public
lands.
The legislation is in part based on several local collaborative
efforts around the state that I have been following for several years.
These efforts have brought diverse Montana citizens and groups together
to find a better way to manage our national forests. Although the
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Commission has not yet formally endorsed the
FJRA, it has endorsed the Forest Partnership Proposal on which the FJRA
was based.
As the County's elected Chief Executive officer, I strongly believe
that these collaborative efforts benefit the residents of Anaconda-Deer
Lodge County, because they represent the type of cooperation among
different and diverse stakeholders that we need to solve many of the
serious problems on the public lands within our boundaries.
I see the promise that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act holds for
all of us who govern in counties with national forest lands.
Sincerely,
Rebecca C. Guay,
Chief Executive.
______
Statement of Maureen Connor, Commissioner, Office of the Board of
County Commissioners, Granite County, Philipsburg, MT, on S .1470
Dear Honorable Senators of the Natural Resources Committee,
My name is Maureen Connor and I am a Granite County, Montana
Commissioner. This County is approximately 1.2 million acres, of which
61% is federal forest land. Our economy and general way of life is
inextricably bound to the actions or inactions of our largest land
manager, the United States Forest Service.
Our 100 cattle ranches depend on creek water--watersheds that begin
on National Forest land, high in the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area.
Our small towns are on those creeks and rivers. A small lumber mill
used to employ 100 workers at a time, a large percentage of our overall
workforce. That mill is now closed. In recent years, there are very few
jobs for working people, and our new retired residents move here to
enjoy the natural amenities of the area. Tourism seems to be picking
up, but doesn't bring enough jobs to keep our young people in the area
and our economy vital.
Meanwhile, much of our forest looks like it's in a death spiral,
turning bright red. As a county commissioner, I know we are not in a
good position when the predicted wildfire comes eventually to restore
balance to our public lands.
Several years ago our National Forest, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
began a mandated forest planning effort. That plan resulted in a number
of alternatives, none of which seemed well suited to our county. A
group of neighboring timber companies invited Granite County to discuss
the proposed forest plan alternatives.
Those timber companies were at the table with mainstream
environmental groups active in Montana. Together, through a lot of
talk, a lot of meetings, and a lot of maps, Granite County became a
supporter of their efforts. Personally, I thought this was remarkable,
since the County hadn't been in such a collaborative effort in the
past. The group was called the Partnership Strategy.
This resulted in a unique alternative proposal being hammered out
and sent to the Forest Service, one that the Partnership Strategy
supported. At the end of the federal process, a forest plan alternative
was adopted that met some, but not all of the group's objectives.
When our new Senator Jon Tester came by to visit our County, we
told him about this effort. We told him it wasn't perfect, and that
maybe we thought perfection wasn't realistic given all the special
interests, but that we thought it would work for our County. He
listened to us.
With the Forest Plan now adopted, other objectives of the
Partnership Strategy are currently before you and with your
recommendation, the Congress of the United States. I continue to
support this cooperative and common sense effort now through the Forest
Jobs and Recreation Act, S.1470.
Thank you for your time and hard work.
______
Statement of Suzanne Browning, Chairperson, Office of the Board of
County Commissioners, Granite County, Drummond, MT, on S .1470
Dear Honorable Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources,
I support Senator Tester and Senator Baucus's willingness to carry
the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in Congress. This courageous new
bill represents hope and new opportunity for our state, because it aims
to break the decades-long logjam on forest policy.
Like others, the customs and culture of Granite County dictate the
use of our forest resources. Granite County is approximately 1733
square miles, of which 61% is federal land. This resource is vital to
our county and communities, not just for timber, but for agriculture,
watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation, to name a few.
Our county is changing, and we are regularly among the top growth
counties in Montana. Much of our growth is in second homes for
residents to enjoy the natural amenities of the area. There are very
few jobs for working people or occupations to keep our young people in
the area.
The stability of our local economy did rely heavily upon our mills,
an industry that has a long legacy in Montana. A short time ago, one of
our top five private taxpayers and one of the top private employers,
Eagle Stud Mill, suspended operations to virtually nothing. In the
past, there were at least three mills operating in our county.
The irony is that now, more than ever, there is a greater need for
timber operators. Forest health in the county continues to decline due
to unmanaged timber stands, extended fire suppression, insect
infestation, and the rampant spread of noxious weeds.
With expanded growth and more homes being built on the forest
fringe, there's a growing concern about the risks and costs of wildfire
in Montana's wildland-urban interface, referred to as the WUI. Fire
risk around our communities is high. We now talk about what to do with
red trees, not green ones.
S. 1470 clearly focuses on creating positive solutions to restore
our forests. These stewardship logging projects will help bring
economic health hack to the industry and our communities. They will cut
down the risk of wildfire. They will create and save jobs. Our forests
will benefit from these restoration projects, including protecting
Granite County communities from wildfire and restoring watersheds.
This bill was based on a collaborative spirit. That same spirit is
evident in the bill and will be evident in the timber projects.
Stewardship timber projects will be designed by ``resource advisory
committees'' representing all forest interest groups shaping the
direction of forest management.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is a non-partisan bill. It isn't
solely about loggers or environmentalists. It's the result of people
from different walks of life working together on a plan to fix
Montana's forest policy so that it works for our forests and the people
who rely on them.
Any plan as bold and courageous as this is of course going to see
its share of criticism. But the facts of the legislation are
indisputable. And based on the facts, the Forest Jobs and Recreation
Act enjoys overwhelming support.
This is a vision for forest management that will bring us from the
old days of the timber wars to a new day with conservationists, timber
industry, and recreational advocates working on many different levels
to protect and restore our public lands.
We need to work together. Together, we can build a foundation for
our economy and our heritage of managing and preserving our forests for
generations to come.
______
Statement of Terry Schultz, Commissioner, Butte Silver Bow County,
District 4
I strongly urge you and the administration to strongly support S.
1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, introduced by Senator Jon
Tester in July. We need to get past the gridlock that has plagued
forest management for so many years. We need to have jobs in the woods,
restore our best fisheries and wildlife habitat, address fire risk,
protect our best backcountry as wilderness for fishing, hunting, and
clean water, and make sure that there is room for diverse forms of
recreation, including motorized use and mountain bikes.
The overall objectives of this bill are to:
Create Jobs: Members of the timber industry strongly support
this bill because they believe it will help the industry
survive and prosper.
Improve Forest Health: The bill is focused on addressing
issues related to the health of our forests, from beetle
outbreaks to impaired fish habitat.
Protect Our Best Fishing, Hunting, and Clean Water: The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is good for fishing and hunting,
by protecting as wilderness key wildlife and fisheries
habitats, and other deserving wild places
Protect Recreation Opportunities: The bill protects popular
areas for motorized and mountain bike recreation on public
lands.
The legislation is in part based on several local collaborative
efforts around the state that we have been following for several years.
These efforts have brought diverse Montana citizens and groups together
to find a better way to manage our national forests. Although our
commissions have not yet formally endorsed the FJRA, we have endorsed
one or more of the underlying collaborative projects.
As individual commissioners, we strongly believe that these
collaborative efforts strongly benefit the residents of our respective
counties, because they represent the type of cooperation among
different and diverse stakeholders that we need to solve many of the
serious problems on the public lands within our boundaries.
We all see the promise that e Forest Jobs and Recreation Act holds
for all of us who govern in counties with national forest lands.
______
Statement of Mike Sheehy, Commissioner, Butte Silver Bow County,
District 10
I strongly urge you and the administration to strongly support S.
1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, introduced by Senator Jon
Tester in July. We need to get past the gridlock that has plagued
forest management for so many years. We need to have jobs in the woods,
restore our best fisheries and wildlife habitat, address fire risk,
protect our best backcountry as wilderness for fishing, hunting, and
clean water, and make sure that there is room for diverse forms of
recreation, including motorized use and mountain bikes.
The overall objectives of this bill are to:
Create Jobs: Members of the timber industry strongly support
this bill because they believe it will help the industry
survive and prosper.
Improve Forest Health: The bill is focused on addressing
issues related to the health of our forests, from beetle
outbreaks to impaired fish habitat.
Protect Our Best Fishing, Hunting, and Clean Water: The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is good for fishing and hunting,
by protecting as wilderness key wildlife and fisheries
habitats, and other deserving wild places
Protect Recreation Opportunities: The bill protects popular
areas for motorized and mountain bike recreation on public
lands.
The legislation is in part based on several local collaborative
efforts around the state that we have been following for several years.
These efforts have brought diverse Montana citizens and groups together
to find a better way to manage our national forests. Although our
commissions have not yet formally endorsed the FJRA, we have endorsed
one or more of the underlying collaborative projects.
As individual commissioners, we strongly believe that these
collaborative efforts strongly benefit the residents of our respective
counties, because they represent the type of cooperation among
different and diverse stakeholders that we need to solve many of the
serious problems on the public lands within our boundaries.
We all see the promise that e Forest Jobs and Recreation Act holds
for all of us who govern in counties with national forest lands.
______
Statement of Dale N. Bosworth, on S. 1470
I am writing regarding S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,
introduced by Senator Jon Tester of Montana. This proposed legislation
deserves strong consideration by your committee and I appreciate that
you have scheduled a hearing for December 17. f have a long history in
Montana. I worked on several national forests in the state, I was
Regional Forester for the Northern Region of the Forest Service, and as
Chief of the Forest Service my responsibilities included Montana. I am
now retired and living in Missoula, Montana. There are three major
reasons I support S. 1470.
First, there are many areas in Montana deserving Wilderness
designation. S. 1470 would accomplish most of that. It has been
difficult for the public and the Forest Service, having areas in limbo
over the past several decades. It's time for Congress to act.
S. 1470 requires the use of stewardship contracting to accomplish
much needed restoration work on the Beaverhead-Deer-lodge National
Forest. I strongly support the use of stewardship contracting and
believe it is the tool of the future for accomplishing needed work on
national forest system land. I urge the committee to work closely with
the Forest Service to identify needed changes in the stewardship
contracting authority to make it an even better tool.
S. 1470 is based on collaborative efforts across Montana. Members
of those communities who have historically been at odds, came together
with various proposals. That in itself is huge. If we expect that kind
of behavior in the future, then there must be a positive outcome.
While there are many good aspects of S. 1470, there are a few items
that l am concerned about. My biggest concern is the mandated 7000
acres of treatment per year for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF. I believe
it would be more effective to have a goal-oriented approach. There is
nothing in the legislation that makes it any easier for the Forest
Service to accomplish its work. A goal of 7000 acres per year, with
required reporting to Congress on the annual accomplishments, would be
a better strategy. I encourage the committee to work with the Forest
Service to work out solutions to these few problems with the
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the status quo is simply not acceptable. The public,
the land and future generations deserve better. Thanks again for giving
S. 1470 the consideration it deserves.
______
Statement of George Wuerthner, Richmond, VT, on S. 1470
I am submitting this testimony to be included in the official
hearing record regarding Senator John Tester's S.1470. Thank you.
I am a former Montana hunting and fishing guide, and have visited
every large roadless area in Montana, including all areas proposed for
wilderness in S.1470. I'm also an ecologist who has written 35 books,
including several dealing with wildfire ecology. I'm very familiar with
the lands contained in this bill.
There are some good things in the Tester's legislation and other
things that I could live with if there were some modification of the
bill's language.
I would like to commend Senator John Tester for addressing some
long-standing issues like wilderness designation.
However, I have a problem with how the contents of the bill were
developed (with limited public input), as well as with the larger
philosophical idea behind the bill that ``locals'' in Montana should
have a greater say over management of national assets (like trees) than
someone living in Florida or Wisconsin. I hope this collaborative quid
pro quo approach does not become a model for future wilderness bills in
Montana or anywhere else, though 1 have no problem with people trying
to find common ground on things like wilderness designation if that can
be achieved.
the good stuff
Despite how it was created. there is some good aspects to this
bill. not the least of which is the creation of more than 670,000 acres
of new wilderness. Many of these areas--including the Italian Peaks,
Lima Peaks, Snowcrest, East Pioneers, Centennial Mountains, Sapphires,
and Roderick Mountain (Yaak)--contain some of the finest unprotected
landscapes in Montana.
The designation of wilderness areas including the Centennials, Lima
Peaks, Italian Peaks and two small wilderness areas in the West Big
Hole along the Continental Divide that will increase the likelihood
that the adjacent Idaho roadless lands will also garner protection.
Brief Description of Proposed Wildernesses
I have personally visited every proposed wilderness in S.1470.
Because of my personal familiarity with these landscapes, I'd like to
give a very brief overview of some of the areas contained in S.1470 and
offer some suggested changes.
On the Kootenai National Forest in Northwest Montana lies the
proposed 29,869 acre Roderick Mountain Wilderness. This heavily
forested uplands is important for grizzly bear remaining in the Yaak
drainage. The Yaak drainage has been severely logged in the past, and
any remaining roadless lands should he given protection.
Just south of Butte are three roadless areas that have important
wildlands values. The 12,000 acre Humbug Spires managed by the BLM,and
21,000 acre High land Mountains. The spires feature many granite knobs
that are a favorite for climbers while the Highlands are glaciated with
cirques on the flanks, while flat-topped Table Mountain offers
expansive views. The proximity to Butte makes both areas important for
their easy access and recreational values.
Starting in the north end of the Big Hole Valley are proposed
additions to the existing 158,000 acre Anaconda Pintler Wilderness
which would expand significantly protection for the lower slopes of the
range. This would secure some of the more productive forested lands in
the valley, including the most important big game habitat. A few of the
streams offer habitat for endangered grayling, while lynx, and
wolverine are both known to frequent this area.
South of Big Hole Pass are the rugged glaciated peaks and more than
30 cirque lakes of the 130,000 acre West Big Hole roadless area,
including 10,621 foot Homer Young Peak, the highest in the range. Under
Tester's bill this roadless area would he designated as a National
Recreation Area with two small wilderness areas of 44,000 acre
wilderness.
Given its spectacular scenic value as well as the value as a north-
south migration corridor, as well as home to genetically unique
populations of lake trout (Miner Lake) and Arctic grayling spawning
habitat, this entire area should be given protection as wilderness.
East of Wisdom is the 240,000 roadless acres of the West Pioneer
Mountains, one of Montana's largest roadless areas and another S.393
wilderness study area. The rolling forested mountains of the West
Pioneers Proposed Wilderness top out at 9,000 feet. This area has been
greatly impacted by ORV intrusions in recent years. Senator Tester only
proposes 25,700 acres of this range as wilderness. Given its
significant biological values, the entire 148,000 S. 393 acreage should
be protected at a minimum, with a 100,000 acre NRA surrounding it.
Directly east and across the Wise River, are the 145,000 acre East
Pioneer Mountains Proposed Wilderness. The East Pioneers are extremely
rugged, with many cirque lakes and glaciated high peaks including
11,154 foot Tweedy Mountain and 11,146 foot Torrey Mountain. The area
is easily one of the more scenic mountain ranges in Montana. Under
Tester's bill this area would only 76,000 acres would he protected as
wilderness. The acreage should he expanded to protect the entire
145,000 acres.
The 90,000 acre Italian Peak Proposed Wilderness is part of a
larger nearly 300,000 acre chunk of roadless country straddling the
Continental Divide on the Montana-Idaho border. The lonely, but rugged
limestone peaks, including 10,998 Italian Peak reminds me of the
Canadian Rockies. Other major peaks include 11,141 foot Eighteenmile
Peak. As a migration corridor along the Continental Divide, this area
should be given maximum protection. Unfortunately under the Tester bill
only proposes 29,500 acres as wilderness. This area needs to be
expanded to the full 90,000 acre roadless area.
The 42,000 acre Lima Peak/Mount Garfield Proposed Wilderness also
straddles the Continental Divide, and includes 10,961 foot Mt.
Garfield. This area features many aspen groves, along with patches of
conifers intermixed with open grassy slopes that can be hiked for
miles. The gentle terrain of the lower slopes of this area makes for
exceptional hiking and horseback riding. Tester's bill only proposes
35,000 acres.
Several other small BLM roadless areas are also found in this
region including 27,000 acres in the Ruby Range east of Dillon which
Senator Tester proposes as a 15,000 acre wilderness. The Ruby Range
provides some of the water for the Ruby River, a well known trout
stream in Montana.
Southeast of Dillon lies the 15,000 acres Blacktail Mountains of
which 10,000 acres would be protected by S. 1470. However, this is
beautiful fault block mountain uplift with open grassy slopes and
pockets of timber that is excellent big game habitat. Hiking the ridge
crest offers expansive views of the surrounding mountainous terrain.
Marking the southwestern edge of the Gallatin Valley is the 96,000
acre Tobacco Root Mountains Proposed Wilderness. Extensively fragmented
by old mining roads, the Tobacco Roots still harbor some small roadless
areas. These glaciated mountains possess 28 peaks over 10,000 feet and
dozens of small lakes and tarns. Senator Tester's bill would only
protect a fraction of this range in the 5,223 acre proposed Lost Cabin
Proposed Wilderness. This mountain range should obviously get expanded
wilderness protection.
To the southwest of Dillon and the headwaters of the Ruby River
lies the wildlife-filled 110,000 acre Snowcrest Range Proposed
Wilderness. A long narrow range with a number of 10,000 plus peaks, the
Snowcrest Range is a mixture of open grassy/sage slopes, pockets of
aspen and conifers, topping out with tundra along the ridges and higher
peaks. You might see pronghorn as elk on the high slopes of this range.
Recently grizzly bears have been seen in this range. S. 1470 would
designate 89,000 acres as wilderness, however, it releases the adjacent
BLM East Fork of the Blacktail Wilderness Study area. This area is part
and parcel of the larger Snowcrest Wilderness and provides one of the
major trailheads leading into the proposed Snowcrest Wilderness and
should be included as part of the Snowcrest Wilderness.
I fully support the 18,950 acre proposed additions to the Lee
Metcalf Wilderness.
Straddling the Continental Divide west of Henry's Lake, Idaho, the
82,000 Centennial Mountains Proposed Wilderness (much of this acreage
is in. Idaho) is one of the few east-west running mountain masses in
Montana, making it an important corridor and connector between the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Central Idaho wildlands to the west.
S. 1470 only proposes protecting 23,256 acres. Grizzly bears have been
reported expanding into this area in recent years. I',1k and moose both
migrate out of the Gravelly Range and Snowcrest Range across the
Centennial Valley and often winter on the southern slopes of the range.
Protecting the Centennials would help preserve these migration
corridors.
Most of the range on the Montana side of the border is managed by
the BLM which has identified a 27,000 wilderness study area in the
central portion of the range. Aspen is abundant here, and the valleys
are surprisingly lush.
A small subset of the Centennial Range is the Mount Jefferson
proposed wilderness. Mount Jefferson is managed by the BDNF. The
proposed wilderness is 4,465 acres. The area includes a spectacular
cirque as well as the headwaters of I Icllroaring Creek, an important
sprawning area for the endangered Arctic grayling. Wolverine use of
this area has been documented. Increasing snowmobile activity threatens
the wolverine.
The 77,000 acre Quigg Peak roadless area lies along Rock Creek. a
tributary of the Clark Fork River and one of Montana's blue ribbon
trout streams. It harbors excellent wildlife habitat for elk and deer,
plus has several small trout streams including Butte Cabin Creek. Only
8,388 area recommended for wilderness, primarily because most of the
acreage lies on the Lobo NF. The entire roadless area should be
designated as wilderness irrespective of national forest administrative
boundaries.
South of Welcome Creek in the Sapphire Range is the 103,000 acre
Stony Mountain Proposed Wilderness including headwater tributaries to
Rock Creek. Yet only 14,261 acres are proposed as wilderness in S.1470.
The entire 100,000 acre plus roadless area should be designated
wilderness irrespective of administrative boundaries.
Continuing south of Skalkaho Pass in the Sapphire Range is another
5,393 wilderness study area, the 116,000 acre Sapphire Mountain
Proposed Wilderness. The highest point is 9,000 foot, Kent Peak. The
Sapphire Mountain WSA is a critical link in the Sapphire/Rock Creek
Wildlands corridor that leads to the Big Hole Valley further south. The
Sapphire Mountain WSA is also immediately adjacent to the existing
Anaconda Pintler Wilderness, and the combined acreage of 350,000 acres
makes it the fourth largest continuous roadless area in Montana. S.1470
only proposes 53,327 acres as wilderness, again largely because part of
the roadless areas lies on the Bitterroot NF. The entire roadless area
should be given protection in S. 1470.
Another major tributary of the Clark Fork is Flint Creek. The Flint
Creek Range south of Deer Lodge and east of Phillipsburg contains
glacier-scoured. 10,000 foot peaks, cirque lakes and a 60,000 acre
proposed wilderness. S. 1470 only proposes a 9,367 acre Dolus Lakes
Wilderness. This area should be expanded to include more of the 60,000
acre roadless areas.
Other Provisions of S.1470
I also support the proposed road density limits in the bill as the
maximum that should be permitted. In many areas, especially where
sensitive wildlife like grizzly bear are found, road densities should
be limited to no more than one mile per section. Any computation of
roads must include any trails accessed by motorized vehicles including
ORVs and snowmobiles.
The bill also designates several hundred thousand acres of National
Recreation Areas in the West Big Hole, West Pioneers, Northwest Peaks
(Yaak), Thunderbolt near Helena and elsewhere. In some cases, there is
a core ``wilderness'' component. For instance, in the West Big Hole,
the Tester bill creates two small wilderness areas surrounded by the
larger NRA and the same for the West Pioneers.
I oppose these NRA designations, and advocate for wilderness
designations for all areas. In particular, the West Pioneers is already
protected under S. 393 and unless the bulk of this area were designated
wilderness, I believe it is better off remaining under S. 393
protection.
If no changes occur in the NRA acreage than at a minimum all should
have a specific provision banning logging, including the West Big Hole
area.
There are other parts of the bill that call for restoration of
natural lire regimes, removal of roads and culverts, and so forth that
will improve the ecological integrity of the areas affected. The bill's
language also directs the Forest Service to prioritize logging projects
in areas where road densities exceed 1.5 mile of road per square mile
of habitat, where habitat fragmentation is greatest, and so on. This
directive, if followed, should focus logging in areas already degraded
by past logging practices and is a positive aspect of the bill.
(However, the mandated treatment of 100,000 acres of land is
problematic--more on this later.)
potential problems
Beyond the issue of how this bill was created. there are aspects of
the bill that deserve additional scrutiny. I make no claims that I am
expert on the bill, though I have read through in an attempt to
understand it. I may be misinterpreting things or overlooking
provisions that would mollify some of my concerns.
One of the problems with the bill is that while it establishes new
wilderness areas, it releases a lot of currently protected acreage to
potential new development. For instance, the bill specifically releases
76,000 acres of BLM WSAs. WSAs are supposed to be managed to protect
wildlands values, so their release means they could be logged, opened
up for more ORV use, or leased for oil and gas development. I've hiked
some of these released areas like Hidden Pasture and Bell/Lime Kiln
Canyon WSAs south of Dillon, and they are wonderful open. rolling
grasslands with pockets of timber that are not common in our wilderness
system. At the very least, I would prefer to see that all the BLM WSA
not designated as wilderness remain as WSA instead of released for
development.
National Recreation Areas
I previously noted that the Tester bill releases a significant
acreage of the S.393 areas legislated by Senator Lee Metcalf efforts.
For instance, the West Pioneers Wilderness Study Area set aside by the
1977 legislation is one of the largest unprotected roadless areas in
Montana. Yet the Tester bill only designates slightly less than 26,000
acres as wilderness. Much of the remainder of this area is a proposed
129,000 acre National Recreation Area that would exclude logging. but
losing more than 129,000 of WSA is very significant. The reason given
to me for NRA status, as opposed to wilderness designation has been the
gradual invasion of these lands by motorized usage. Nevertheless, there
is no reason why ORV trails and routes can't be closed and wilderness
established in this area. Wilderness designation for the entire West
Pioneers WSA would be a huge improvement.
It is also disappointing to see 94,000 acres of the West Big Hole
designated as an NRA as well instead of wilderness. This spectacular
area along the Continental Divide with its numerous cirque lakes,
jagged, glaciated peaks, and numerous wildflower studded meadows easily
qualifies as wilderness. It's location along the Continental Divide
makes it a potential migration corridor for wildlife. Several lakes
including Miner Lake have genetically unique populations of lake trout,
as well as headwaters spawning habitat for threatened Arctic grayling.
I have the same disappointment over NRA status for wildlands in the
Yaak. The Northwest Peaks NRA was created again as a concession
primarily to snowmobilers. There is so little wilderness in the Yaak
and what little unlogged country that remains should he given maximum
protection afforded by wilderness. Rare species like wolverine, lynx,
and fisher could be compromised by motorized intrusions. Protection of
these areas from all motorized use would give these animals some chance
of sustaining themselves over the long term in the Yaak drainage.
Logging Provisions of the Bill
How much logging and where it can occur will be greatly influenced
by the interpretation of one clause in the bill. There is specific
language that says that all landscape-scale restoration projects (i.e.
logging) must be done ``consistent with laws (including regulations)
and forest plans and appropriate to the forest type.'' Proponents tell
me this means that laws like the Endangered Species Act remain in
force.
However, others who have reviewed the same language aren't so sure
that language is sufficient to guarantee that all existing
environmental laws like the ESA applies to the landscape restoration
projects mandated by the Tester hill. This is a key element because if
the specific mandate for logging a minimum of a hundred thousand acres
can override things like the ESA or other regulations, there is
potential for greater long-term harm to our wildlands and wildlife.
If there is room for different interpretations, it is critical to
get specific language in the bill that leaves no doubt about the
application of the ESA, roadless rule, and so on to the forest lands
covered in the Tester bill.
Another part of Tester's bill bans the construction of any
permanent roads in project areas, and requires that all ``access
roads'' (logging roads) be reclaimed in five years and specifically
requires restoration of road prism and removal of road crossings like
culverts. This is a very good provision--if you are going to have
logging at all and I applaud the proponents of the bill for putting in
such specific language about road removal standards.
However, the language does allow for roads to be converted into ORV
trails. So there is the potential for creation of miles of new ORV
trails that would greatly reduce any positive effect from road closure
(though road density limits will temper the total mileage allowed to a
degree).
One serious and worrisome language is about consultation. The bill
says that any dispute and/or appeal be resolved in the project area.
This, if I read it correctly, could means that someone protesting a
timber sale from eastern Montana might have to travel to the Yaak to
settle a dispute, a cumbersome burden on appellants, not to mention
someone living across the country. This could thwart public
participation in forest management.
Moreover the language says that the parities who were involved in
crafting the original proposals--meaning the timber companies and
other--can provide input to the Forest Service, but does not guarantee
similar input access from other members of the public. Again such a
provision gives greater control and influence to local interests over
the general public.
Another problem is the language for restoration on the BDNF. While
any receipts from timber projects in the Blackfoot and Three Rivers
areas must be used in that local area, receipts from the BDNF could be
used anyplace in the country. This is a serious potential problem
because the Forest Service might be tempted to expand logging on the
BDNF to pay for improvements on other forests.
Furthermore, the money from these stewardship contracts can be used
for things like putting in new toilets in campgrounds and picnic
tables, as well as commercial timber harvesting, instead of removing
logging roads and culverts as commonly portrayed by proponents. This is
not to say that all funds will be used in this way, but the language
does permit funds to be used in this manner. Given that closing roads
is far more controversial, than say building some toilets or picnic
tables in a campground, some district rangers might be tempted to use
funds for such non-ecological ``restoration'' work.
The bill also authorizes a MINIMUM of 7,000 a year must be
``mechanically treated'' (euphemism for logging) and a MINIMUM of 3,000
acres a year on the Three Rivers Ranger District in the Yaak.
Thankfully there is no acreage requirement for the Seeley Lake District
on the Lolo NF. That suggests to me there is no upper limit on logging
that could occur as now written. Though proponents assure me that it's
unlikely the Forest Service will offer more acres for logging, one
can't predict the future.
An additional troubling clause says the authorization for the
legislation terminates in either 15 years from enactment OR when 70,000
acres of land on the BDNF has been mechanically treated. The same
clause applies to the 30,000 acres in the Yaak. This suggests that
there is no real time limit on logging. If timber prices remain low for
a decade, logging companies may wish to delay logging for years until
prices improve.
And while the legislation mandates a specific amount of logging,
there is no similar mandate for restoration. If the past is any
indication. logging will occur, but much of the restoration will he not
take place. This is particularly true for the BDNF. The BDNF is one of
the least productive forests in Montana, and has consistently lost
money on its timber program. Flow timber sales on the BDNF will
generate enough money to pay for both the administrative costs as well
as restoration efforts is not clear.
A minor issue is a provision specific to the proposed Snowcrest
Wilderness that says that ranchers can use motorized access to preserve
``historic access'' ranching activities. T presume cowboys no longer
ride horses, so must now be able to ride ATVs or pickups.
While the bill authorizes wilderness protection for a Quigg Peak
and Sapphires, it only addresses lands on the BDNF portion of these
roadless areas. It would seem to make sense to designate wilderness for
the entire roadless portion of these areas now, in-espective of
national forest administrative boundaries.
With regards to motorized use, the bill specifically directs the
Forest Service to create new trails. particularly loop trails. How much
this will expand motorized use in these areas is difficult to predict,
but almost for sure, we will see more officially sanctioned ORV use.
There is, however, specific language that limits ORV use in National
Recreation Areas to designated trails and routes.
uncharacteristic fire and insect infectations?
Another big problem I have with the hills language is that it
suggests that most of the forests in the northern Rockies are
ecologically degraded. Tester's bill says that logging should he done
to reduce ``uncharacteristic wildland fire and insect infestations.''
For the most part, except for areas that have been previously logged. I
do not believe that the hulk of the forests in any of the forests
addressed in this bill are seriously out of whack ecologically.
Some 99% of the BDNF, for instance, consists of higher elevation
forests of lodgepole pine and other forest types that have not been
significantly compromised by fire suppression. Lodgepole pine forests
naturally burn at long intervals and often in intense large fires arid/
or are periodically attacked by bark beetles. Similarly much of the
Yaak drainage on the Kootenai NF and the Seeley Lake District of the
Lolo National Forest consists of lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, western
larch and even western red cedar forests--all of which are not
seriously affected by fire suppression.
Plus large fires and beetle outbreaks are critical to the long-term
health of these forest ecosystems. They are adapted and depended upon
periodic large infusions of dead wood. So I have serious reservations
about the ecological assumptions and justifications guiding these
projects. In other words, how can you ``restore'' something that is not
seriously degraded? Thus the entire ecological justification for active
management in these forests is suspect.
Subsidies to Timber Industry
Another part of the Tester bill that I have a philosophical problem
with is the direct subsidy of private companies. For instance, the
public subsidy of a biomass burner for the Pyramid Lumber Company in
Seeley Lake is one example. The justification for this biomass burner
is partially due to the previous assumptions--that somehow the Pyramid
Lumber Company will be doing us a favor by cutting all those trees that
they suggest have grown due to fire suppression. But as I have
previously suggested, most of the forests in the Seeley Lake area are
likely not out of whack. But even if they were, setting a demand for
biomass is risky and can lead to additional demands for logging well
above the levels envisioned by proponents. We would be better off
spending that money--if taxpayer money be spent-on closing roads and
other actions that.
There are good things in Senator Tester's bill worthy of support.
But there is much that needs to be altered or at least modified to
improve this legislation by the bill's supporters as well as critics
alike if indeed this bill moves forward.
______
Lewis & Clark County,
Board of County Commissioners,
Helena, MT, October 5, 2009.
Hon. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack,
1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington DC.
Dear Secretary Vilsack: We urge you and the administration to
strongly support S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,
introduced by Senator Jon Tester in July.
We need to get past the gridlock that has plagued forest management
for so many years. We need to have jobs in the woods, restore our best
fisheries and wildlife habitat, address fire risk, protect our best
backcountry as wilderness for fishing, hunting, and clean water, and
make sure that there is room for diverse forms of recreation, including
motorized use and mountain bikes.
The overall objectives of this bill are to:
Create Jobs: Members of the timber industry strongly support
this bill because they believe it will help the industry
survive and prosper.
Improve Forest Health: The bill is focused on addressing
issues related to the health of our forests, from beetle
outbreaks to impaired fish habitat.
Protect Our Best Fishing, Hunting, and Clean Water: The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is good for fishing and hunting,
by protecting as wilderness key wildlife and fisheries
habitats, and other deserving wild places.
Protect Recreation Opportunities:The bill protects popular
areas for motorized and mountain bike recreation on public
lands.
The legislation is in part based on several local collaborative
efforts around the state that we have been following for several years.
These efforts have brought diverse Montana citizens and groups together
to find a better way to manage our national forests. Although our
commissions have not yet formally endorsed the FJRA, we have endorsed
one or more of the underlying collaborative projects.
As individual commissioners, we strongly believe that these
collaborative efforts strongly benefit the residents of our respective
counties, because they represent the type of cooperation among
different and diverse stakeholders that we need to solve many of the
serious problems on the public lands within our boundaries.
We all see the promise that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
holds for all of us who govern in counties with national forest lands.
Sincerely,
Andy Hunthausen,
Chairman.
Mike Murray.
Derek Brown.
______
Board of County Commissioners,
Lincoln County,
Libby, MT, December 16, 2009.
Hon. Jon Tester,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Tester: The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners
supports your efforts of leadership by introducing and moving forward
with a Forest Jobs and Recreation Act legislation.
The Three Rivers Challenge project in Lincoln County is a similar
local effort to accomplish comparable goals such as job creation and
recreational opportunities through a collaborative effort with all
sides of the federal land management debate.
We believe that your bill needs to move forward out of committee to
allow further discussion of the bill language. As with any legislation,
some changes will need to be addressed during further debate of these
important issues.
It is very important to our residents that this bill move forward
to see If efforts like ours work and change the way things are done on
the National Forest.
Sincerely,
John C. Konzen,
Chairman.
Marianne B. Roose,
Member.
Anthony J. Berget,
Member.
______
Board of County Commissioners,
Missoula County,
Missoula, MT, Nobember 23, 2009.
Hon. Jon Tester,
U.S. Senate, 204 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE:Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
Dear Senator Tester: The Missoula Board of County Commissioners
wishes to express our support for the proposed Forest Jobs and
Recreation Bill announced in July 2009. As we understand. it, the bill
is based on three different collaborative projects in Western Montana:
the Beaverhead Deeriodge Partnership; Three Rivers Challenge; and the
Blackfoot/Clearwater Stewardship Project. We commend your support of
these collaborative efforts, which include conservation, timber, small
business and outdoor recreation interests. This legislation will codify
a positive new approach to resolving public lands management conflicts
based on compromise and collaboration. We are pleased to see a proposal
that will move our communities forward in timber management,
restoration, building local jobs, and protecting both wild and
recreation areas.
The bill supports a stewardship approach to forest management. It
will require watershed restoration projects such as road
decommissioning and stream restoration, all funded by the receipts of
logging projects within each stewardship area. This approach creates
well-paying jobs for local residents, as well as healthier forests.
In Missoula County, the bill proposes new wilderness and forest
stewardship areas in accordance with the Blackfoot Clearwater
Stewardship Project, a multi-year project brought forward by a
coalition of conservation, timber, small business and outdoor groups.
The process for developing this project had support and input from
local residents and business owners, local government, Forest Service,
and regional and national conservation groups. We particularly want to
note our appreciation for Seeley Lake District Ranger Tim Love's active
and beneficial participation in this landmark stewardship project. We
also appreciate that the proposed legislation authorizes a federal
cost-share program for investment in biomass energy technology. This
could provide significant funding assistance for Pyramid Mountain
Lumber in Seeley Lake to create a biomass plant, which would serve as
an outlet for excess forest products from all over Western Montana.
After 26 years without new wilderness in Montana, and with so many
acres of Wilderness Study Areas left in limbo, this proposal designates
670,000 acres of wilderness, protecting important landscapes for
current and future Montana residents and visitors. The creation of
these new wilderness areas is balanced with designation of recreation
areas and timber management areas, resulting in more certainty for all
interests.
We agree that this legislation is important enough to Montanans and
the nation that it be thoroughly vetted as it moves forward. We applaud
and encourage your efforts to listen to all concerns regarding this
bill. This legislation reflects a growing interest in western Montana
for collaborative resolution of multiple-use conflicts on public lands.
The components of this legislation are precedent setting for other
efforts in the future. We see this bill as a positive step in the right
direction and encourage your continued diligent work on the following
issues:
The bill stipulates that current federal laws, like the
National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act,
will govern the management of these forest stewardship projects
and any harvest or restoration activity that occurs. We share
the concern with many that the timeframes stipulated for the
Forest Service to complete the requirements of these laws are
unrealistic and not feasible under current conditions. We urge
you to continue your good work with the Forest Service to find
mutually agreeable solutions to these issues that are more
realistic and achievable.
There are a number of exceptions to what has become
``boilerplate'' language in Wilderness protection. Your bill
includes notable allowances for motorized use, landing of
aircraft and military operations in Wilderness. We understand
that in this case, these exceptions are efforts at compromise
and allowance of existing uses. However, these exceptions
contradict the intent of Wilderness and could be erosive to
wilderness protections. We hope these exceptions can be
minimized, if not eliminated, and specifically spelled out to
restrict exceptions to only the intended allowances on
specifically designated acres.
We thank you for working to recently extend the Secure Rural
Schools (SRS) Act, which originally expired in 2008, but will
now continue to provide critical funding to several Montana
counties until 2011. Many are concerned that if SRS is not
again extended in 2011, rural schools, roads and other
infrastructure will suffer a significant decrease in funding.
Before SRS was enacted in 2002, counties that encompassed large
amounts of federal lands relied on 25% of the receipts of
federal timber sales as stipulated by the PILT (Payment In Lieu
of Taxes) program. Counties are concerned that the stewardship
contracting stipulated in your Forest Jobs and Recreation Bill
will further erode the PILT funding we have relied upon in the
past. We recognize this concern, but see it as a broader issue,
separate from your Forest Jobs and Recreation Bill. We have
also seen that funding from the PILT program can be variable
and unreliable in some cases because it is dependent upon
forest project receipts. It seems that the best approach to
supporting the economic needs of rural areas would include the
continued funding assistance of SRS, plus the local jobs
created by your bill, which together would create multiple
benefits for our rural communities. Your continued efforts to
communicate your intentions with SRS and other rural funding
solutions in the future may help clarify and alleviate these
concerns.
In light of these matters and those brought forward by others,
please continue your commendable efforts at compromise and cooperation
with land management agencies, local businesses, conservation
interests, and outdoor recreation groups as you gather feedback on this
bill. We also encourage you to support future similar, collaborative
efforts to create jobs and support healthy forests and landscapes while
concurrently protecting our( valuable conservation resources.
Thank you for your efforts to balance wildiands, working forests,
recreational opportunities, restored watersheds and economic
enhancement with this proposal. We believe that the collaborative
efforts of the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership, Three Rivers Challenge
and the Blackfoot/Clearwater Stewardship Project are. commendable and
worthy of implementation through national legislation. Thank you for
bringing this bill forward.
Sincerely,
Bill Carey,
Chair.
Jean Curtiss,
Commissioner.
Michele Landquist,
Commissioner.
______
Statement of Pat Williams, Former Congressman From Montana
Senators: I am Pat Williams, Montana's member of the U.S. House
from 1979 to 1997. Serving all 18 years on the House Interior (Natural
Resource) Committee and the Public Lands Subcommittee, I became very
familiar with the imperative of concluding the old RARE 11 and
designating Wilderness in Montana.
Between 1979 and 1997 I introduced 18 Wilderness bills to achieve
those ends. Two of those bills passed and were signed into law, however
both of those bills designated only single wilderness areas: The Lee
Metcalf Wilderness north of Yellowstone Park and the Rattlesnake
Wilderness near Missoula, Montana and south of Glacier National Park.
However, my and our Delegation's efforts to pass some of the Roadless,
RARE 11 areas into law failed. The sole exception was a major Montana
Wilderness bill that passed both the Senate and House in 1988 but was
tragically vetoed by President Reagan...the only veto of a Wilderness
bill in American history.
The legislation before you marks the first congressional effort in
14 years to see a Montana Wilderness bill through the Congress. Good
for Senator Jon Tester! Please give this critically important
legislation every consideration. It just might he the last best chance
for this Last Best Place.
This legislation is in keeping with the now fifteen-year-old
congressional process of developing Wilderness bills though local
collaboration. In my view that relatively new process is far from
perfect, encouraging, as it has, both the benefits and imperfections of
local passions....be they economic, recreation, or preservation.
Senator Tester, relying on the process of local collaboration,
really has sought to make this legislation as appealing as he can to
various local constituencies. So, as has so often happened during these
past fifteen years, the members of this committee may find some
precedents and exceptions within this bill. As you are very well aware
they exist, as they have in virtually every Wilderness bill, to
increase the palatability of the legislation to the various issue
constituencies within our state. These locally demanded exceptions are,
for the most part, necessary to preserve the popular balance that the
bill currently enjoys here in Montana. So, please be as careful with
amendments on this legislation as I know you have been with others
recently seen into law.
I could make several suggestions to improve this legislation,
however I confine myself to one: the limited logging in this bill is
mandated; please do the same with the landscape restoration suggested
by the bill...mandate that too. Such an amendment will not only be
excellent for the economy and a remedy for scarred land but it will
also significantly increase the already significant support for the
legislation.
______
Office of the Governor,
State of Montana,
Helena, MT, December 17, 2009.
Hon. Senator Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on Senator Tester's S.
1470, known as the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009. Senator
Tester has attempted to enact the work of a wide variety of Montanans
to create jobs in Montana's forests, keep communities safe from
wildfire, protect public water supplies, and safeguard Montana's
hunting, camping, fishing, motorized, and quiet backcountry
recreational traditions.
Like most Montanans, lam frustrated that we have millions of acres
of dead and dying trees in our national forests, yet we haven't been
able to harvest much of this timber for forest health purposes, vital
wood products, or biomass energy production right here at home.
Furthermore, we expend great resources and struggle mightily to protect
our communities from the wildfire risk this situation presents.
I support S. 1470. For decades, in Montana and much of the West,
the debate over federal forest management has been controlled by the
extremes. People poked fingers at each other while the health of our
forests declined, and Montana and other states continued to lose
sawmills and jobs. Several Western states lost completely their forest
industry infrastructure. I am grateful that Senator Tester is not
willing to sit idly while Montana loses what remains of its critical
forest industry infrastructure. This legislation begins to move us
beyond these tired fights of the past.
Montanans from the area encompassed by the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest, from the Seeley Lake area, and from the Yaak Valley
have stepped forward to offer their solutions in S. 1470. These citizen
groups have worked long and hard to build consensu s in their
communities, and have taken their case to statewide and now nationwide
audiences. Senator Tester has worked very hard to craft a good
compromise in S. 1470, and it has received widespread support from
those who seek reasonable solutions. Absolutists on both extremes who
are willing to sacrifice the good in a quest for their conception of
the perfect are likely to continue with the disappointment and lost
opportunities of the last several decades.
Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
important legislation. I urge your support of S. 1470.
Sincerely,
Brian Schweitzer,
Governor.
______
House of Representatives of the State of Montana,
Office of the Speaker of the House,
Helena, MT.
Hon. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack,
1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Vilsack: We urge you and the administration to
strongly support S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,
introduced by Senator Jon Tester in July.
We need to get past the gridlock that has plagued forest management
for so many years. As lawmakers, we are keenly aware that the best
policy initiatives on issues as inherently divisive as forest
management require support of diverse backgrounds. We need to have jobs
in the woods, restore our best fisheries and wildlife habitat, address
fire risk, protect our best backcountry as wilderness for fishing,
hunting, and clean water, and make sure that there is room for diverse
forms of recreation, including motorized use and mountain bikes.
The overall objectives of this bill are to:
Create Jobs: Members of the timber industry strongly support
this bill because they believe it will help the industry
survive and prosper.
Improve Forest Health: The bill is focused on addressing
issues related to the health of our forests, from beetle
outbreaks to impaired fish habitat.
Protect Our Best Fishing, Hunting, and Clean Water: The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is good for fishing and hunting,
by protecting as wilderness key wildlife and fisheries
habitats, and other deserving wild places
Protect Recreation Opportunities: The bill protects popular
areas for motorized and mountain bike recreation on public
lands.
Healthy forests are a huge issue in Montana right now. Many folks
across the state need only to look out their back window to see dead
and dying forests. The stewardship contracting component of the bill
will insure a reinvestment in local forests and thoses dollars coming
back to Montana can be used for such things as protecting local
communities from catastrophic wildfire.
The legislation is in part based on several local collaborative
efforts around the state that we have been following for several years.
These efforts have brought diverse Montana citizens and groups together
to find a better way to manage our national forests.
As individual state legislators and leaders in our respective
communities, we strongly believe that these collaborative efforts
strongly benefit our constituents because they represent the type of
cooperation among different and diverse stakeholders that we need to
solve many of the serious problems on the public lands within our
boundaries.
We all see the promise that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
holds for all of us who govern in counties with national forest lands.
Sincerely,
Sen. Minority Leader Carol Williams,
Missoula.
House Speaker Bob Bergren,
Havre.
[Due to the long list of names, other signatories have been
retained in subcommittee files.]
______
Statement of Rick Deniger, President, and Russ Ehnes, Vice President,
Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association (MTVRA), Great Falls, MT, on
S. 1470
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association (MTVRA) represents a
mix of single, family, and business members as well as local OHV clubs
and associations in Montana supporting responsible OHV use. MTVRA
believes in fair, balanced and equitable solutions to the ongoing loss
of OHV opportunities. Our members live and work in Montana and recreate
on public and on a regular basis. They participate in local and state
sponsored trail maintenance projects and have served as willing and
committed partners to the Forest Service districts in their local
areas. MTVRA is recognized by State and Federal agencies as the state
association representing off highway recreationists in Montana.
MTVRA actively works to educate the public about good ethics and
the responsible use of motorized vehicles on public and private lands.
We believe in shared, multiple-use of public lands, with a reasonable
balance between the protection of natural resources and maintaining a
variety of opportunities currently available to the people of Montana.
The families and diverse groups of visitors to public lands are one of
Montana's most valuable resources and thus deserve recognition and
consideration when adopting rules and legislation governing the use of
our public lands.
MTVRA appreciates the opportunity to offer the following comments
on Senator Testers S. 1470 ``Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009''.
MTVRA does not support the designation of more Wilderness Areas in
Montana. We firmly believe the current designated acres are sufficient.
However, we also believe that Senator Tester is sincere in his belief
that this bill would permanently protect wild lands in Montana and
protect motorized recreational opportunities in the
BeaverheadDeerlodge, Lobo and Kootenai National Forests.
We are concerned that the language assigning areas and trails as
open to motorized use leaves them vulnerable to future closures through
the various existing planning processes of the US Forest Service. Based
on actions and decisions completed the past few years, MTVRA does not
trust the Forest Service process to support the Senator's intent to
provide and protect motorized recreation in the lands affected by S.
1470.
MTVRA has had several meetings and conversations with Senator
Tester's staff suggesting changes to the language to assure the intent
of this legislation is conveyed in the language of the S--1470. The
Senator and his staff have welcomed our suggestions. We are working on
those suggested language changes as well as important boundary
adjustments but they have not yet been delivered as the areas and
trails affected by S. 1470 are vast and requires close examination,
with trail by trail evaluation to assure the on the ground'' facts
agree with the maps and proposed intent of the bill. We hope to be able
to provide this information to Senator Tester soon.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 1470 and while we do
not support the designation of additional Wilderness in Montana, we do
appreciate to opportunity to be involved in the discussion and the
democratic process.
Thank you for your time and attention to this comment.
______
Powell County Commissioners,
Deer Lodge, MT, December 14, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Office Building, Washington DC.
Dear Honorable Chairman Jeff Bingaman: The Powell County
Commissioners urge you and the administration to strongly support
S.1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, introduced by Senator Jon
Tester in July.
We believe gridlock has plagued proper forest management for many
years resulting in the forest service not being able to properly manage
our public forests. The results are very apparent in the millions of
acres of dead and dying trees, catastrophic fires, loss of grazing for
wildlife and impaired habitat for fish, not to mention loss of areas
available for recreationists. The overall objectives of this bill are
to:
Create Jobs: Members of the timber industry strongly support
this bill because they believe it will help the industry
survive and prosper.
Improved Forest Health: The bill is focused on addressing
issues related to the health of our forests, from beetle
outbreaks to impaired fish habitat.
Protect Our Best Fishing, Hunting and Clean Water: The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is good for fishing and hunting,
by protecting as wilderness key wildlife and fisheries
habitats, and other deserving wild places.
Protect Recreation Opportunities: The bill protects popular
areas for motorized and mountain bike recreation on public
lands.
The legislation is in part based on several local collaborative
efforts around the state that we have been following for several years.
These efforts have brought diverse Montana citizens and groups together
to find a better way to manage our national forests. Powell County
Commissioners have formally endorsed the FJRA S1470.
We strongly believe that these collaborative efforts strongly
benefit the residents of our county. This bill represents the type of
cooperation among different and diverse stakeholders.
We all see the promise that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
holds for all of us who govern in counties with national forest lands.
Sincerely,
Ralph E. Mannix, Jr.,
Chairman.
Donna Young,
Vice-chairman.
Cele Pohle,
Member.
______
Statement of James A. Burchfield, Interim Dean, the University of
Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation/Montana Forest &
Conservation Experiment Station, Missoula, MT
I was honored to be asked by Senator Jon Tester earlier this week
to provide brief written testimony on the Forests Jobs and Recreation
Act of 2009. I support this legislation and urge affirmative support
from your subcommittee to enact this important bill into law.
I support the bill because it is a measured, pragmatic step to
advance forest planning on our National Forests. As you are all too
aware, forest planning across the West has been mired in unproductive,
small-bore struggles over a host of specific project proposals, masking
the deep-seated policy conflicts over the purposes of public lands. The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act advances forest planning by
demonstrating a new form of collaborative engagement between citizens
and agency personnel based in common interests, thoughtful
deliberations, and a goal of stewardship that melds resource protection
with economic benefits.
I cannot stress enough, however, that the Forests Jobs and
Recreation Act is but a first step in reforming the planning and
management of our National Forests so these lands can offer the full
range of benefits to the American people. I view this legislation as a
pilot project that will demonstrate, much like an experiment, the
available, constructive tools to engage public interests with
scientists and resource management professionals. This Act must be
coupled with a larger, Congressional effort to examine the policy
conflicts and operational barriers to the effective management of
public lands. Planning on our National Forests is broken, and the
vision of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) has not been
fulfilled. Serious steps must be taken to support the USDA Forest
Service to reconstruct its capacity to undertake open, adaptive, and
efficient forest planning processes. The beauty of the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act is that it reflects this type of process, and it builds
confidence among citizens that seemingly intractable differences can be
reconciled.
I do not see, however, the Forests Jobs and Recreation Act
replicated on other National Forests. In fact, I am generally opposed
to what has been called ``place-based legislation.'' I believe
legislation mandating specific actions on individual National Forests
weakens the overall capacity of the Forest Service to provide the
institutional expertise and analytical power necessary to evaluate
system conditions, trends, and management impacts, and it generates a
difficult set of budgetary and administrative constraints that limit
the agency from doing its job of being effective stewards and
protectors of our public lands. Yet the case of the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act is an exception to the rule. The Act provides a bridge
to a more vitalized Forest Service that can, with Congressional and the
Obama Administration's help, develop a new generation of forest plans
based on recently tested interactive, transparent processes that both
honor multi-party negotiations and remain flexible to the accelerating
changes within the forest environment. Further, the social context
surrounding the Act argues for an immediate response to the stasis in
forest planning since critical, responsible actors within both industry
and conservation organizations have broken free of ideological shackles
to risk these workable compromises. In short, we need a kick in the
pants to show us that we can get something done. Senator Tester's
efforts in crafting the Act have given people across this region reason
to believe that we have buried our hatchets and are willing to try
something that was created by and for the citizens who care about our
forests.
You will note that I have not commented on the specifics of the
Act, but have urged passage on the general principle of building public
confidence in our ability to apply collaborative planning processes and
make progress in the context of ongoing policy controversy. I have made
comments in a separate communication with Senator Tester's office about
some items that I think could improve the bill, and most of these
relate to ensuring that the Act creates learning opportunities from its
implementation. I am particularly pleased that the Act emphasizes
stewardship contracting and the formation of Resource Advisory Councils
(RACs), since these tools allow both ongoing citizen participation and
a reengagement of the private sector in the design of projects.
I will restate my overarching concern that this Act must be part of
a larger Congressional effort to reform National Forest planning. I was
delighted to see that you and 11 other Senators recently wrote to
President Obama requesting additional support for the Forest Service
budget, as this is also a necessary step to energize the capabilities
of the agency. Like most all of us, I want our National Forests and
other public lands to remain one of America's best ideas. I want the
Forest Service reborn as a living example of a responsive agency for
the public good. I want our students, our families, and our descendents
to enjoy and benefit from our National Forests, remembering that when
hard choices needed to be made, we did everything within our power to
overcome adversity and move forward.
______
Statement of Hon. Dean Heller, U.S. Representative From Nevada
I would like to start by thanking Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member
Barrasso for bringing this important piece of legislation before the
Subcommittee today. I know that you have a full schedule and I
appreciate the time you have made to consider this legislation, which
will bring solar energy development and other much needed economic
development to my district.
H.R. 762 seeks to validate a configuration change to an existing
land patent located in Clark and Lincoln Counties in Nevada. This
legislation is straightforward, non-controversial, and passed the House
unanimously on July 15th of this year. Validation of this patent is
necessary to enable to recovery of the desert tortoise which is
currently listed as an endangered species.
This legislation has a long history beginning with the Nevada-
Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988 (ACT), Public Law 100-
275, which authorized the original land exchange between the Unites
States and Aerojet. Because the lands in question were in a
configuration that effectively created a doughnut hole of habit
stranded in the middle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
requested the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) change the land
configuration to provide for contiguous desert tortoise habitat. This
action was allowed, pursuant to the Act, however it led to a stipulated
settlement from a Federal district court lawsuit involving the BLM and
landholders.
H.R. 762 implements that settlement and provides contiguous habitat
for the benefit and recovery of the desert tortoise, while allowing
much needed economic and solar energy development to take place in
Clark and Lincoln Counties.
I am including for the record letters from the impacted counties,
Lincoln and Clark, as well as letters from various conservation
organizations in support of this legislative effort. The broad support
for this legislation is a result of the common desire to validate the
patents and leases issued in 2005 by the BLM for the benefit of the
wildlife values we originally sought to protect.
Thank you again for your willingness to take up H.R. 762 before the
Subcommittee today, and I stand ready to assist you in any way to
ensure passage of this legislation by the Senate. Thank you
______
Broadwater County Board of County Commissioners,
Townsend, MT, October 26, 2009.
Hon. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack,
1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Vilsack: We strongly urge you and the administration
to support S. 1470, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, introduced by
Senator Jon Tester in July.
We need to get past the gridlock that has plagued forest management
for so many years. As lawmakers, we are keenly aware that the best
policy initiatives on issues as inherently divisive as forest
management require support of diverse backgrounds. We need to have jobs
in the woods, restore our best fisheries and wildlife habitat, address
fire risk, protect our best backcountry as wilderness for fishing,
hunting, and clean water, and make sure that there is room for diverse
forms of recreation, including motorized use and mountain bikes.
The overall objectives of this bill are to:
Create Jobs: Members of the timber industry strongly support
this bill because they believe it will help the industry
survive and prosper.
Improve Forest Health: The bill is focused on addressing
issues related to the health of our forests, from beetle
outbreaks to impaired fish habitat.
Protect Our Best Fishing, Hunting, and Clean Water: The
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is good for fishing and hunting,
by protecting as wilderness key wildlife and fisheries
habitats, and other deserving wild places
Protect Recreation Opportunities: The bill protects popular
areas for motorized and mountain bike recreation on public
lands.
The legislation is in part based on several local collaborative
efforts around the state that we have been following for several years.
These efforts have brought diverse Montana citizens and groups together
to find a better way to manage our national forests. Although our
commissions have not yet formally endorsed the FJRA, we have endorsed
one or more of the underlying collaborative projects.
As individual state commissioners, we strongly believe that these
collaborative efforts strongly benefit the residents of our respective
counties, because they represent the type of cooperation among
different and diverse stakeholders that we need to solve many of the
serious problems on the public lands within our boundaries.
We all see the promise that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
holds for all of us who govern in counties with national forest lands.
Sincerely,
Gail M. Vennes,
Chairman.
______
Statement of Thomas Michael Power, Research Professor & Professor
Emeritus, Economics Department, The University of Montana, Missoula,
MT, on S. 1470
1. the key assumptions behind senator tester's ``forest jobs and
recreation act''
Montana's Senator Tester is attempting to cut the Gordian knot that
has tied up any action on the management of more than six million acres
of roadless federal land in Montana. He has been praised by some for
his courage and audacity while others have attacked him for not keeping
faith with those who elected him and for selling out to one special
interest group or another.
One reason for this mixed emotional reaction is that when it comes
to the public dialogue about forest management there is no common
agreement about the underlying facts and economic context. Senator
Tester and his allies are operating from one set of what they believe
to be factual assumptions while their critics begin with a quite
different understanding of the facts on the ground.
What I want to do here is simply outline the conventional wisdom
from which Senator Tester appears to be operating. That will sound
familiar, and, to many, convincing, but those assumptions are, in fact,
highly debatable. In commentaries over the next two months, I will then
seek to critically explore each of those assumptions before coming to
any conclusion about whether Senator Tester is actually offering a
viable solution to the paralysis that has kept a grip on Montana's
roadless wildlands for more than a quarter of a century.
The title of Senator Tester's bill makes clear its primary focus:
forest restoration. The basic assumption is a familiar one: The
National Forests in Western Montana, as a result of a variety of human
and non-human causes, are in poor, even dangerous, condition. They
biologically are well beyond natural and sustainable conditions. As a
result major human intervention is necessary to move these natural
landscapes back to a healthy, safe, and sustainable condition. From
this point of view, we cannot just stop stressing and damaging the
forests and allow them to rest and recover on their own.
That is why roadless area or wilderness protection for most of
these lands will not solve the problems. We have to actively intervene
with landscape-scale vegetative manipulation, including logging,
thinning, prescribed burns, etc. Tester's bill seeks to start doing
exactly that.
This need to work the forests to move them back to safe and stable
conditions is also why it is important for the region to maintain a
functioning forest products industry. Without that, we will not have
the commercial infrastructure to make use of the logs that need to be
removed from our forests. Without a significant forest products
industry, the wood fiber in our forests loses commercial value, and the
harvest of trees from these unhealthy forests cannot help finance the
forest restoration work that needs to be done. That is one of the
reasons Tester's bill seeks to prop up the region's forest products
industry.
The other reason that Tester proposes legally mandating the harvest
of more timber from federal lands is the belief that the economies of
Western Montana heavily depend on the forest products industry and
those economies have been disrupted by the inability of the US Forest
Service to maintain a flow of logs to our mills. Tester's bill seeks to
solve that problem by mandating a steady annual flow of logs. That, he
believes, will help save those mills and stabilize our economies.
Landscape-scale forest restoration of the sort that would be
mandated by Tester's bill will cost a lot of money, money that the
federal government does not really have. With existing large federal
deficits and increasing demands on the federal budget for economic
recovery, ongoing wars, medical insurance reform, and energy policy, it
is unlikely that we can count on Congress to appropriate the money to
fund all of the forest restoration work that we are told needs to be
done. Senator Tester proposes to get around these funding limitations
by paying private contractors with the harvest of commercially valuable
logs to do the needed work. Instead of the US Forest Service selling
the logs and sending the cash back to the US Treasury, the logs would
be used to pay for the forest restoration work through what are called
Stewardship Contracts.
The approach that Senator Tester has taken in developing his bill
indicates his solution to the conflict among competing uses of National
Forest land that has thus far led to paralysis and gridlock. Senator
Tester relied on having some of the competing interests sit down at the
table and negotiate in a collaborative manner. That sort of negotiation
allowed many parties to get part of what they wanted from the National
Forests, producing what has been called a win-win-win outcome. The idea
is that these competing uses can be balanced so that the forests can
simultaneously support an expansion of the timber industry, more off
road vehicle use, improved wildlife habitat, enhance non-motorized
recreation, as well as the environmental services provided by natural
forests and watersheds. Allowing such local and private negotiations
over the management of our National Forests is seen as an appropriate
decentralized solution to a broken centralized federal system.
Finally, the forested landscape of Western Montana is seen as so
huge that significant timber harvests are possible without doing any
serious environmental harm. With millions and millions of acres of
federal forestland available, mandating the annual harvest of ten
thousand acres or so of trees could not possibly do significant damage
to the overall forest. In fact, we are told, that mandated logging,
when carried out as part of a larger forest restoration effort, will
actually improve the health of the forests.
As common and familiar as all of these underlying assumptions are,
they are far from being factual assumptions. They are a mix of folk
wisdom, economic nostalgia, wishful thinking, and barely disguised
commercial and bureaucratic government special interests. Before
jumping onboard with Tester's proposal, each has to be critically
analyzed.
2. two views of the tester forest jobs and recreation bill
The controversy over Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation
Bill is likely to get some national attention in a week or so as the
bill receives its first hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests in the our nation's capitol. That bill has
been called both Tester's ``logging bill'' as well as Tester's
``wilderness bill.'' Critics point out that the title of the bill
mentions ``forest jobs'' but does not mention ``wilderness'' at all,
leaving some suspicion as to what the main purpose of the bill is.
Wilderness advocates who support the bill point out that the bill
would add 670,000 acres of wilderness and another 225,000 acres of
National Recreation Areas where timber harvest will be prohibited.
That's approaching a million acres of protected land, clearly an
admirable goal.
The critics, also wilderness advocates, shake their heads in dismay
because at the same time that bill appears to open so much roadless
wild land to potential logging. Consider the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest, Montana's largest National Forest. It contains 3.3
million acres of land, mostly undeveloped, high lodgepole pine forest.
Forest managers there have classified less than ten percent of that
land as suitable for commercial timber management. Yet, Tester's bill
would classify 1.9 million acres of land as ``suitable for timber
production'' where ``timber harvest is allowed.'' The 500,000 acres of
new wilderness that Tester's bill would create in the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest somewhat shrinks in significance compared to
the area four times as large that appears to be declared open for
timber harvest. That is especially shocking since the area now declared
open to logging is over eight times larger than what had previously
been deemed suitable for timber harvest.
This may just be the result of bad horse trading and a conscious
gamble on the part of the collaborative that originally negotiated this
proposal. The fact is that the vast majority of the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest is likely to remain unroaded and unlogged
indefinitely into the future, primarily protected by economics. It is
far too costly to go after most of the standing inventory of trees
there and those trees have little commercial value, at least for now.
Tester's bill actually attempts to steer the logging that the bill
mandates away from the backcountry and limit it to the already human
dominated edges of the forest. The bill orders the Forest Service, when
choosing the lands where the timber harvest is to take place, to give
``priority'' to lands that already have high densities of roads, have
already been relatively heavily logged, and contain forests that are at
high risk for insect epidemics or high-severity wildfires.
The actual meaning of these limits, however, may hinge on whether
all of these criteria have to apply or whether only one of them need
apply. That last criteria is loose enough that it by itself could open
the entire Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest to timber harvest since
lodgepole pine forests naturally tend to experience large stand-
replacing fires.
The level of timber harvest that would be annually mandated on the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest under Tester's bill can also be
read in either comforting or alarming terms. The bill requires 7,000
acres a year to be harvested. To supporters of the bill, this is a tiny
acreage of harvest, a tiny fraction of one percent of the huge 3.3
million acre forest.
To critics, although 7,000 acres appears trivially small compared
to the total size of the forest, it is not so small compared to the
part of the forest deemed suitable for commercial timber harvest,
300,000 acres, of which the 7,000 acres are 2.3 percent. That level of
harvest would be sustainable only if new trees grew to commercial size
in about 40 years, an unlikely event in a high, cold, lodgepole pine
forest in Montana.
To critics, this is simply an unsustainable level of harvest.
Looking back over 40 years of timber harvest on that forest, 7,000
acres of timber harvest was reached only once, in 1971, in the heyday
of aggressive Forest Service harvests across the nation. That level of
harvest was once again approached in the last peak harvest year on
Forest Service lands in the late 1980s when 6,000 acres were harvested.
Between 1967 and 1989, when the Forest Service was still largely
unhindered by environmental concerns and harvested record numbers of
trees, the average acreage harvested on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest was about 4,000 acres. The Tester bill would seek to
force a harvest level two-thirds higher than that previous unfettered
average harvest level.
Supporters of Tester's bill insist that the intent is not to open
up most of the forest to timber harvest but quite the opposite: to
support modest timber harvests where they would do the most good and
the least harm. If that is the case, the language of the bill should be
tightened up to accomplish exactly that by limiting the areas open to
potential timber harvests to a much smaller portion of the forest and
by making clear that the ``priority'' areas for timber harvest are in
fact those areas that have already been roaded and open to logging and
where the timber harvests can help protect human habitation. Finally,
the level of mandated timber harvest should be set based on what
foresters indicate is a sustainable level of harvest given the
characteristics of that forest.
Such a tightening up of the language and numbers in the Tester bill
should be acceptable to the wilderness advocates who support this bill
since it would simply assure that the bill does what they say it is
intended to do. If timber interests howl in protest over such
clarification that should give the rest of us pause as to exactly what
the Tester bill is really all about.
3. mandating timber harvests to support wilderness protection
Senator Tester's ``Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,'' which seeks to
both boost timber harvests and add hundreds of thousands of acres of
wilderness in Montana, had its first hearing before a congressional
committee late last week. It was not surprising that Montana timber
interests testified in favor of the bill. What was interesting was that
wilderness advocates from Montana and national environmental
organizations were strongly divided over the merits of Tester's bill.
Tester is attempting to ``split the baby'' and end the multi-decade
paralysis that has both blocked any new wilderness protection for
Montana's six million acres of unprotected wildlands and shrunk timber
harvests on federal lands in Montana down to a small fraction of what
they were two decades ago.
The Obama Administration, through the Undersecretary in charge of
the U.S. Forest Service, weighed in on the side of the critics of
Tester's bill, strongly recommending that key elements of the bill be
modified. In particular, federal officials focused in on Tester's
proposal to have Congress mandate particular levels of timber harvest
on some of Montana's National Forests. They commented that those
mandated timber harvests ``are likely unachievable and perhaps
unsustainable'' and ``far exceed historic [harvest] levels on these
forests, and would require an enormous shift in resources from other
forests in Montana and other states to accomplish the [harvest] levels
specified in the bill.'' That is the same criticism that has come from
many Montana critics of the Tester bill.
Tester's Senate colleague, Ron Wyden of Oregon, sought to support
the bill by asking why, if the Federal government can bail out our
automobile companies and banks, it cannot support bailing out the
timber industry in Montana and elsewhere the Pacific Northwest? Setting
aside the question of whether an endless wave of federal bailouts of
private businesses is good for our economy, the problem with Tester's
bill is that it will not stabilize the timber industry and timber
communities but would do the opposite.
Senator Tester's bill would require the U.S. Forest Service to
arrange the commercial harvest of more acres on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest than have ever been harvested there in the
last 50 years except for one year. The Forest Service would have to see
that those acres were harvested every year no matter what the demand
for timber happens to be. The economically naive idea behind this
timber harvest mandate is that if large volumes of timber are
harvested, our lumber mills will operate at a higher level and more
Montana workers will be employed. Advocates believe that a constant
timber supply will assure constant production and employment at mills.
It might have worked that way back in the old centrally planned
Soviet Union, but it does not work that way in a market economy. When
the demand for timber products is very low, as it is now because of the
collapse of the construction industry, continuing to produce wood
products at a constant level only drives down the price of wood
products further, threatening the profitability of those mills that
have been barely able to continue to operate. Similarly, even if the
housing industry were not in the dumps, if total wood products supply
exceeds demand because of increased mill production or competition from
other parts of the nation and the world, simply churning out the same
level of production despite the excess supply will simply assure that
lumber prices will continue tanking, forcing more and more mills out of
business.
In a market economy, producing a constant level of supply no matter
what economic conditions happen to be destabilizes the market,
businesses, and communities even more. During periods of excess supply,
it drives prices lower than they otherwise would be. During periods of
excess demand, it drives prices higher than they otherwise would be.
Stable levels of production lead to unstable prices as market
conditions fluctuate. Mandating a constant flow of trees into the
market does not stabilize communities. It does the opposite.
The mandated harvests in Tester's bill are also likely to be very
costly to taxpayers and to the important non-timber programs run by the
Forest Service. In soft timber markets, the skinny lodgepole pine of
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is likely to have very low
commercial value. Yet Tester's bill would require that the Forest
Service harvest the trees nonetheless, even if, as is usually the case
on most of Montana's National Forests, that harvest takes place at a
loss to the U.S. Treasury. The Forest Service will have to take money
from other projects and/or other forests to subsidize the harvest of
those trees that the market does not want or need.
The low value and high cost of those trees is what has kept harvest
levels of those trees so low over the last half-century, even during
boom times in the timber industry. Yet now harvest-at-a-loss would be
mandated by law. Tester likely suspects that this will be the case
because while his bill mandates the timber harvest, it does not mandate
the forest restoration work that the timber harvest is supposed to pay
for. In today's markets and in many of the market conditions we have
faced in the past, the mandated harvest will lose money and fund no
restoration work at all.
As the Obama Administration witness said at the Senate hearings,
this is a fixable problem with Tester's bill: Just get rid of the
mandated timber harvests and the massive expansion of the part of the
forest that is open to commercial timber harvest. That would be better
both for Montana's communities and for Montana's forests.
Statement of Martin Nie, Professor, College of Forestry and
Conservation, University of Montana, on S. 1470
I was asked by Senator Tester to provide written testimony on S.
1470. I want to thank the Senator, and the Subcommittee on Public Lands
and Forests, for the opportunity to do so. I am a professor of natural
resource policy in the College of Forestry and Conservation at the
University of Montana. The following testimony draws from my research
on the problems and opportunities presented by ``place-based'' National
Forest law. I write to neither support or oppose the Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act (FJRA) as currently written. Instead, I ask a number of
questions that deserve serious consideration by the Committee.
There is increasing interest in ``place-based,'' or national
forest-specific legislation. In several places divergent interests are
negotiating how they would like particular forests to be managed. These
proposals often include provisions related to wilderness designation,
economic development, forest restoration, and funding mechanisms, among
others. But unlike more typical collaborative efforts, some groups are
interested in possibly codifying the resulting agreements.
While S. 1470 has garnered national interest, there are place-based
initiatives happening on other National Forests, including the Lewis
and Clark, Colville, Clearwater and Nez Perce, Fremont-Winema, Tongass,
and federal forests in Arizona, among others. Each initiative is
different in significant ways. But all are searching for more durable,
bottom-up, and pro-active solutions to National Forest management. Some
negotiations, like that on Idaho's Clearwater and Nez Perce, may result
in proposed legislation. But others, including arrangements on the
Colville and Fremont-Winema, are not based on forest specific laws but
instead operate through formalized agreements and protocols with the
U.S. Forest Service. This bigger picture is important and I hope the
Committee considers the possible impact of S.1470 on these other
initiatives.
S. 1470 is a bold and constructive response to a dysfunctional
status quo. It advances the debate over National Forest management in
significant ways, by forcing us to address several intractable system-
wide problems. Nonetheless, the legislated approach to National Forest
management is a significant departure from the status quo and it raises
several significant questions. Laid out below are some of the most
important. They go beyond S. 1470, with the assumption that if enacted,
similar place-based forest laws are forthcoming.
1. Would a proliferation of place-based forest laws disunify
the relatively consistent mission and mandate of the USFS?
If replicated more broadly, the place-based approach to
forest management could further disaggregate the National
Forest system. Law-by-law, the National Forests could be
governed by forest-specific mandates, not unlike the unit-
specific enabling laws governing the National Parks and
National Wildlife Refuges. A relatively consistent mission and
mandate applicable to the National Forests would be replaced by
more site-specific prescriptive laws detailing how particular
forests must be managed. This might be good for some forests,
but what effect would it have on the National Forest System?
2. Will the FJRA conflict with preexisting Forest Service
mandates, environmental laws, and planning requirements?
Forest-specific laws already codified, like the Tongass
Timber Reform Act and the Herger-Feinstein (Quincy Library)
Act, have engendered more conflict than consensus partly
because of how these laws sometimes fail to fit into the
preexisting legal and planning framework. In these and other
cases the USFS is forced to walk a statutory minefield with
legal grenades thrown from all directions. One way or another,
the agency gets sued for either complying with existing
environmental laws or for ostensibly subordinating the new
place-based one. These cases show that the answer to forest
management might not be another law placed on top of myriad
others but rather an untangling or clarification of the
existing legal framework.
NEPA is one big unanswered question in S. 1470. The bill
requires the USFS to satisfy its NEPA duties within one year.
But without additional support it is hard to fathom the agency
meeting this deadline, given that it takes the USFS about three
years to complete an EIS. When it comes to meeting NEPA
obligations, the USFS needs more funding, leadership, and
institutional support, not more law.
3. Can the FJRA be successfully implemented and how will it
be paid for?
One purpose of S. 1470 is to generate a more predictable flow
of wood products for local mills, thus the bill's timber
harvest mandate. The probability of achieving community
stability through forest management has been debated ad
nauseum. Alas, most agree that there are simply too many
uncontrollable impediments to achieving this objective, like
fluctuating housing starts, cheap Canadian imports, vacillating
court decisions, swings in agency budgets, and so on.
Nonetheless, S. 1470 is to be admired for its focus on
sustainable forests and communities, and for understanding the
benefits of having a functional timber industry in Montana.
Before proceeding with a controversial legislated harvest
mandate, lawmakers should consider some alternative ways to
achieve greater predictability. This includes an innovative
effort on the Colville National Forest to provide a steadier,
sustainable, and less contested stream of timber for local
mills, with accompanying restoration objectives. In this case,
a collaborative group works with the agency to achieve its
objectives via formalized agreement and a mutually agreed upon
decision making protocol.
S. 1470 would be primarily implemented and paid for by using
stewardship contracting. This tool's popularity stems partially
from the highly uncertain congressional appropriations process,
a process that chronically underfunds the USFS and its non-fire
related responsibilities and needed restoration work. But on
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, there are serious
questions as to whether there is enough economic value in this
lodgepole pine-dominant forest to pay for the restoration work.
As a safety valve, S. 1470 authorizes spending additional money
to meet its purposes, but there is no guarantee that such funds
will be appropriated, or if so, they would not come from
another part of the agency's budget.
The question, then, is what happens if such envisioned funds
don't materialize? Will money be siphoned from other National
Forests in order to satisfy the mandates of S. 1470? Consider,
for example, the White Mountain stewardship project in Arizona.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that this
project incurred greater costs than expected and such costs
have ``taken a substantial toll on the forest's other
programs.'' Furthermore, some other fuel reduction projects
were not completed because their funding sources were being
``monopolized'' by the White Mountain project. Other National
Forests in the region also paid a price to service the terms of
this contract, and ``[a]s the region has redirected funds
toward the White Mountain project, these other forests have
become resentful of the disproportionate amount of funding the
project has received.''
Several other budget related questions are raised by the
possible replication of place-based forest laws. For example,
might the approach move the National Forests closer to a
National Park Service model, where congressional delegations
exercise increased control over a unit via Committee and purse
strings? Will senior congressional delegations be more
successful in securing funding for place-based laws in their
states? Will it create a system of ``haves'' and ``have nots''
in the National Forest system? And perhaps most important,
would these budgetary situations benefit the National Forest
system as-a-whole?
4. What precedent will be set if the RJVA is enacted?
There is a remarkable amount of interest in S. 1470. This is
partly because of the precedent the bill would set by
legislating management of particular National Forests,
including a legislated timber supply requirement. The place-
based initiatives referenced above could be impacted by S.
1470. If the bill passes in its current form, more groups will
seek place-based forest laws in the future, and some of those
proposals would undoubtedly contain some type of a legislated
timber supply mandate. Thus, the FJRA has national
implications, and for this reason it should be scrutinized
carefully.
Congress has a history of deferring to state congressional
delegations in wilderness politics. So, for example, if one
delegation defers to Montana's in passing S.1470, Montana's
delegation will be asked to play by the same rules when a
different wilderness bill is being considered. And recent
history shows that those proposals may not be carefully crafted
or in the national interest. Potential for abuse is even more
acute if individual forest bills contain special privileges and
exemptions that are not available elsewhere. In this regard,
subsequent efforts in codifying place-based agreements could
have a dangerous snowball effect.
Also legitimate is the fear that if passed, S. 1470 creates a
precedent and possible expectation that future wilderness bills
must be packaged with economic development provisions (among
other nonconforming uses within wilderness areas) if they are
to be politically feasible. And special provisions are often
replicated in wilderness law. Once used, provisions related to
such matters as water rights and buffer areas are regularly
stamped onto future wilderness bills as a matter of course.
To be sure, compromise is inherent in the Wilderness Act, and
all sorts of special exemptions and political deals are written
into wilderness laws with some regularity. But trading
wilderness for a timber harvest mandate is a different beast
altogether. The real question here is not whether it is
reasonable to require two National Forests to mechanically
treat 100,000 acres over the next ten years; but rather what
those numbers will look like in other states if all of a sudden
harvest mandates are politically palatable.
5. Why not experiment in more serious fashion?
S. 1470 includes a vague reference to ``adaptive
management,'' and thus an implicit acknowledgement that there
are uncertainties inherent in the bill. In this vein, the bill
sets up a monitoring program whereby the USFS will report to
Congress on the progress made in (1) meeting the bill's timber
supply mandate, (2) the cost-effectiveness of the restoration
projects, and (3) whether or not the legislation has reduced
conflict as measured by administrative appeals and litigation.
Not included on the list are specific ecological (non-timber
related) monitoring requirements.
This is a good start. But given the importance of S. 1470,
and the impact it could have on other place-based proposals,
why not approach matters in a more deliberately experimental
fashion? This could be accomplished in different ways but the
principles would be the same: proceed cautiously, try different
approaches in different places, carefully monitor the results,
and go from there. These experiments could be housed within a
more structured experimental framework, with appropriate legal
sideboards and oversight, such as that provided by the recently
enacted Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.
Such a legislatively-created framework is one way of ensuring
that future place-based proposals do not become used as a
backdoor way of undermining environmental law and devolving
federal lands to self-selected stakeholders.
If such a framework is not used, I recommend making the
purpose of experimentation more central to S. 1470. This could
be done by strengthening the bill's monitoring and evaluation
requirements, to include other ecological and policy/process
considerations. Ecological monitoring requirements should be
mandated.
Changes should also be made to S.1470 to ensure that its
ecological restoration goals are achieved in tandem with its
harvest mandate. I propose a reciprocal or staged stewardship
contracting approach whereby future timber projects cannot
proceed until certain restoration objectives are met; and once
met, future timber is released in a sort of tit-for-tat
sequence. This approach will alleviate widespread concerns that
restoration will take a back seat to the bill's more clearly
articulated timber supply mandate.
Another possibility is to carve out some space in the bill to
experiment with different ways of improving the forest planning
and NEPA process. Why not try different approaches to its
implementation and learn lessons from that experience? In doing
so, S.1470 could teach valuable lessons that might be tried
elsewhere, and the USFS could be brought into the process as
partners, rather than subjects.
With a more deliberately experimental design, S. 1470 could
inform a larger system-wide look at National Forest law and
management. All sorts of ways in which to reform National
Forest management have been proposed in the past, and most of
those proposals focus on systemic measures imposed on all
forests from the top-down. Rarer are proposals seeking to learn
lessons from the bottom-up, and S. 1470 offers such an
opportunity. So do the other place-based initiatives referenced
above. All of these efforts are admirable in their goals to
secure broader-based solutions and conservation strategies. It
is my hope that lawmakers and others carefully study these
place-based initiatives as part of a more structured and
comprehensive review of National Forest law and management.
______
Statement of Keith L. Olson, Executive Director, Montana Logging
Association, on S. 1470
Preface: On December 5, 2009 the board of directors of the
Montana Logging Association (MLA) developed the following
position on S. 1470--the Forest Jobs & Recreation Act of 2009.
Notably, this position was adopted in advance of the
announcement that the Smurfit-Stone Container mill in Missoula,
Montana would permanently shut down December 31, 2009. That
closure gives greater urgency to our stated concern for
ensuring that this legislation must assist in the survival,
viability and expansion of Montana's integrated forest-based
manufacturing infrastructure.
Chairman Wyden and members of the subcommittee on Public Lands and
Forests:
The 500+ members of the Montana Logging Association (MLA) operate
family-owned businesses engaged in the harvesting and transportation of
logs from forest to mill in Montana and; as such, we have a key
interest in legislation that impacts the health of our forests and
rural communities.
One of the stated objectives of S. 1470 is to resolve the gridlock
which continues to plague the management and, thereby, the health of
Montana's national forests.
That gridlock is a product of many factors, including poorly
written legislative mandates that often contradict one another...
administrative policies that fail to recognize the dynamic nature of
our forests... a litigious minority that is rewarded for challenging
forest management proposals... and a judiciary that refuses to
acknowledge that the second guessing of resource professionals is as
damaging to forested ecosystems as are insects, diseases and, thereby,
the inevitable consequence of catastrophic wildfire.
Members of the subcommittee, when laws don't work and policies
don't work, forest plans will not work; and abdicating management of
our national forests to the judiciary is irresponsible. It's time to
try something else.
S. 1470 has many critics... and hopefully, most of their concerns
can be addressed in the final version of this bill. We, too, will
highlight several shortcomings that concern us. Before we proceed,
however, it is imperative that you understand that our concerns will
focus on one necessary truth:
The final version of S. 1470 must assist in the survival,
viability and expansion of Montana's integrated forest-based
manufacturing infrastructure.
That infrastructure is disappearing at an alarming rate; thereby
threatening the health of our forests and the quality of the resource
values they provide... as well as the economic vitality of our rural
communities and the proud heritage and quality of life they provide.
With respect to S. 1470 as it currently reads, we believe the
following shortcomings must be addressed in the final bill:
Funding Mechanisms Although the bill mandates stewardship
projects, including the production of merchantable wood
products, it does not provide adequate assurance that funds
will be appropriated to carry out the non-wilderness mandates
in the bill. This shortcoming must be addressed if S. 1470 is
to avoid becoming an unfunded mandate.
Appeals & Litigation Congress has demonstrated support for
beneficial legislative language that has passed judicial
muster--such as pre-decisional appeals, expedited NEPA and
balance of harms--and S. 1470 must include such provisions if
mandated projects are to have every chance to succeed.
Skin in the Game Litigants must not be given free reign to
sue, especially when the objectives of active management
include fuels reduction, watershed protection, community
safety, protection from catastrophic wildfire, etc. Therefore,
S. 1470 must include a provision that penalizes litigants when
they do not succeed in court, such as a bonding requirement
equal to the monetary losses unsuccessful challenges cause to
contractors and the environment.
Beneficial Judicial Language In order to ensure the agency
has every chance to prevail in court--because S. 1470 will be
litigated--the following language is submitted for inclusion in
the bill:
SECTION--A Record of Decision for a landscape scale
restoration project shall not be deemed arbitrary and
capricious under the National Forest Management Act, National
Environmental Policy Act or other applicable law as long as
each landscape scale restoration project is consistent with the
restoration requirements in Section 104.
This is nearly identical to language used to authorize timber sales
in the Flathead and Kootenai National Forest Rehabilitation Act--Pub.
L. No. 108-108 Sec. 407, 117 Stat. 1241 (2004). Importantly, this
statutory language was upheld against a challenge that it was
unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit in Ecology Center v. Castaneda.
Please include it in S. 1470.
Automatic Reauthorization This is essential if S. 1470 is to
provide for the long-term sustainability of the national
forests in question... because without it, critics of the
legislation will litigate knowing that time is their ally in
court.
Stewardship Projects As much as the MLA likes stewardship
contracting, we caution the subcommittee to remember that it is
but one tool that forest managers need at their disposal to be
true stewards of the forest. Unnecessarily limiting management
tools may work against the objectives of the legislation.
Furthermore, S. 1470 needs to include smaller scale projects
for local contractors who do not have the financial capacity to
be competitive for landscape-level projects.
Members of the subcommittee, we believe S. 1470 must address the
aforementioned shortcomings if the bill is to meet our mandate of
assisting the survival, viability and expansion of Montana's integrated
forest-based manufacturing infrastructure.
We would further note that, in our opinion, S. 1470 could achieve
greater public support if it were to also include language that
addresses:
Equal Certainty S. 1470 provides wilderness protection first
and foremost; thus, we are in agreement with those who believe
a ``trigger'' mechanism for non-wilderness mandates should be
met before wilderness designations are finalized.
Local Governments In keeping with the fact that MLA members
represent an essential component--economically and socially--of
Montana rural communities, we respectfully encourage you to
carefully consider the valid concerns of local elected
officials.
Active Forest Management We agree with the logic advanced in
testimony provided by the Society of American Foresters with
respect to the long-term production of merchantable fiber; and
we specifically support their recommended language and ask that
you include it in S. 1470 to wit: ``Forest management
activities, consistent with prescribed restoration treatments,
must be used on a sustainable and permanent basis following the
first 15 year treatment on the designated landscapes. Forest
management activities would be the primary tool to maintain and
conserve forests for the desired objectives of wildlife
habitat, recreation, water resources, wildfire and climate
change resilience, and additionally designed to produce
renewable and economically marketable wood products.''
Members of the subcommittee, we reiterate our appreciation of S.
1470's stated goal to resolve the deadlock that has plagued forest
management in Montana for decades... and we submit that inclusion of
the recommendations we have listed above will help to ensure that S.
1470 successfully accomplishes that goal.
Respectfully submitted upon behalf of the board of directors of the
Montana Logging Association.
______
Statement of Kathy DeCoster, Vice President and Director of Federal
Affairs, The Trust for Public Land, on S. 1787
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of The Trust for Public Land (TPL), I appreciate the
opportunity to express strong support for S. 1787, the ``Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization of 2009.'' We commend
Senator Bingaman for introducing this bill and appreciate the the
subcommittee's expeditious consideration of this very important
legislation.
The Trust for Public Land conserves land for people to enjoy as
parks, gardens, and natural areas, ensuring livable communities for
generations to come. Since 1972, TPL has helped protect more than 2.8
million acres of land in 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada.
TPL endorses the principle that proceeds from the targeted sales of
lands identified for disposal under the Federal Land Planning
Management Act should be used for the acquisition of inholdings and
significant edgeholdings of our national parks, forests, refuges, and
eligible BLM units. Since 2007, more than $57 million in FLTFA funds
has been invested in the acquisition of over 13,600 acres of important
conservation lands. TPL has been pleased to be a partner of federal
land management agencies in using FLTFA to acquire lands in Oregon, New
Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.
Among the first group of acquisitions approved by the Secretaries
of the Interior and Agriculture under FLTFA was an historic fishing
camp once owned by the Western novelist Zane Grey on the Rogue River in
Oregon. Located on a wild and scenic river corridor, this former
inholding is a popular stop for rafters, hikers, and fishermen. While
taking a respite, these recreationists can peer into Zane Grey's rustic
cabin--listed on the national register of historic places. This
property is now part of the Rogue Wild and Scenic River administered by
the Bureau of Land Management.
In New Mexico, TPL has completed three FLTFA acquisitions with BLM,
two at La Cienega ACEC and one at Elk Springs ACEC. The La Cienega
acquisitions are part of an ongoing effort to create an unbroken
connection of protected lands. FLTFA was instrumental there in
protecting over a half-mile of the Santa Fe River along with stands of
cottonwood and coyote willow that provide habitat for species such as
the Southwestern willow flycatcher. The acquisition of 2,280 acres at
Elk Springs provides improved forage for Jemez elk and deer herds and
protects the Juana Lopez Research Natural Area of Manco shale, a
fossil-rich formation containing ammonites, mollucks, and fish of the
upper Cretaceous age.
Earlier this year, Zion National Park was able to acquire ten
critical acres in the Kolob Terrace section of the park. Located on a
popular scenic road, this property lies near the base of Tabernacle
Dome, an area popular for its hiking trails, camping, and spectacular
vistas. The NPS had long identified this property as a priority to
acquire because of its visual prominence. Because there were not
sufficient funds in Utah's FLTFA account, the Park Service stepped up
to contribute some funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in
order to complete the purchase.
In addition to the acquisitions described above, TPL has been
pleased to work on two Forest Service acquisitions. In Arizona, FLTFA
provided the funding necessary to acquire the first phase of the 139-
acre Packard Ranch located in the Coconino National Forest. Surrounded
by national forest lands, the property contains two perennial streams,
a trailhead to the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, and important
archaeological resources. Long a top acquisition priority for the
Forest Service in Arizona, Packard Ranch would have been a lost
opportunity had FLTFA funding not been available. Funds from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) were subsequently used for the
second phase of this project and we hope to complete the final phase in
FY 2011. More recently, approval was given for an acquisition in the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada along the Pony Express
National Historic Trail. This very historic and beautiful 123-acre
property is located near Lake Tahoe and would serve as a connection
between the Tahoe Rim Trail to the west and the system of trails in the
foothills of the Carson Range to the east.
The Zion NP project and the Packard Ranch acquisition are good
examples of how FLTFA and LWCF complement one another. The acquisition
of inholdings is important for the management of federal lands and for
the protection of significant natural, recreational, historic, and
archaeological resources. LWCF appropriations have been insufficient to
meet the needs identified by federal land management agencies, and many
opportunities have been lost to development or other noncompatible
uses. FLTFA is a critical tool for land protection; without it, many
more opportunities would have been lost in the past few years.
The Trust for Public Land supports the permanent reauthorization of
FLTFA and the elimination of the date limitations on both sales and
acquisitions. This would enable land managers to more fully utilize
FLTFA to accomplish their goals of improved management and greater
protection for our nation's natural treasures. I recognize that S.1787
in its current form extends the limitation on land sales to the date of
enactment rather than completely eliminating this restriction.
Nevertheless, we look forward to the passage of this important
legislation and thank the subcommittee for its active consideration of
S. 1787.
______
Statement of Tim Aldrich, on S. 1470
As a native Montanan, a retiree after 37 years of employment with
the United States Forest Service and as the president of two Montana-
based organizations of conservation-minded hunters and anglers, I offer
the following for your consideration:
S. 1470, The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act comes from the
collaborative efforts of organizations and individuals who, for the
last 30 years at least, have been tugging in entirely different
directions as far as the management of the National Forests. This is
also a good bill from several other perspectives:
Montana's wood products industry in nearing total collapse.
Montana needs viable wood products industries for jobs, to
provide the tools essential for the wise management and use of
vegetation on federal, state and private forests, and to
provide important materials and products used all over the
world.
Montana has many outstanding landscapes; some of the finest
are included in S 1470 to be designated as Wilderness.
Management of inventoried roadless lands has been in limbo too
long, and the continuation of the ``standoff'' does not serve
the American people and their resources well.
Through implementation of its prescribed management and
restoration activities, S 1470 will assure a continuing
abundance of cool clear water and provide improved wildlife
habitat to support the wealth of wildlife species so important
in the culture of Montana. Stewardship contracting provides an
excellent mechanism to get the work done while keeping the
value of products in benefits on the sites. I encourage the
Committee to look at this Act as providing the opportunity to
explore the need for and use of tools that could also benefit
other units in the future.
I strongly encourage the Committee in their wisdom to steer this
legislation to assure that it facilitates the intended successes for
the Public and for the Forest Service. Strong leadership and backing of
Congress, the Department of Agriculture and Forest Service at all
levels will be essential. This Act must assure that the three national
forests don't become `winners'' at the expense of all the other
national forests becoming ``losers.'' I thank you for your serious
consideration of this Act.
______
December 17, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
703 Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: We are writing in support of S. 1787, your
bill to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000 (FLTFA) has
been a successful and balanced approach to land conservation. FLTFA
provides a key tool for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S.
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Park Service to purchase critical inholdings and edgeholdings from
willing sellers in the western states. Using a ``land for land''
approach, FLTFA has generated over $113 million in revenue from BLM
sales of scattered and discontiguous tracts and the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture have approved over $66 million toward
protecting more than 18,000 acres of high-priority land.
Your legislation will help ensure that FLTFA's success continues.
S. 1787 incorporates key principles for reauthorization by maintaining
the ``land for land'' principle in the current law; making the
authorization permanent; and allowing designated areas to qualify for
funding, regardless of the date of designation. Because of FLTFA's
great benefits for fish and wildlife conservation, outdoor recreation
and historic preservation, we hope to see it reauthorized before it
expires in July 2010.
As your bill moves forward, we look forward to working with you and
your staff on elements of the bill relating to the eligibility of lands
for disposal and individual county bills. We support the provision in
the House bill striking the date restriction on land use plans so that
any land identified for disposal in a plan qualifies for FLTFA,
regardless of the date of the plan. Additionally, we support the
language in the Senate bill regarding the White Pine and Lincoln
counties and encourage that the Owyhee, ID, and Washington, UT, county
bills be included and other local public lands legislation be
addressed, as well.
Thank you again for introducing this important legislation. We
applaud your leadership and stand ready to assist you in reauthorizing
FLTFA.
Sincerely,
Darin C. Schroeder,
Vice President of Conservation Advocacy,
American Bird Conservancy.
Wade Blackwood,
Executive Director,
American Canoe Association.
[Due to the long list of names, other signatories have been
retained in subcommittee files.]
______
Statement of Steve Bullock, Attorney General, State of Montana
As a member of the State Land Board--the panel charged with
overseeing the management of 5.2 million acres of school trust land in
Montana-I'm one of five elected officials responsible for deciding how
best to generate revenue from the use of those lands, revenue that
supports Montana schools.
From gtazing,farming, timber, oil, gas and mining leases to
easements for projects like transmission lines, Montana's state lands
have many uses. And much like federal lands, state land uses can come
into conflict with each other. Often these conflicts escalate into
management stalemates where no one wins.
On Montana's federal lands, these conflicts have plagued forest
management for decades. Because of historical conflicts between
conservationists and loggers, the Forest Service is struggling to
provide proper management, while our timber mills and the rural
economies they support are dying, and our fisheries and wildlife
habitat are suffering.
Meanwhile, much of Montana's most precious backcountry is at great
risk. As you know, not a single acre of our public lands--the legendary
landscapes where my family and many Montana families hunt, camp, hike
and fish--has been protected in over two decades. Even motorized users
and mountain bikers fear losing access to their recreational
opportunities.
We are at a crossroads.
If we do nothing, our national forests will continue to tum red and
build fuel for wildfire, our blue ribbon fisheries will continue to
slide, Montana's wildest places will go unprotected and our saw mills
will continue to shut their doors. Or, we can work together to move
beyond this gridlock.
Many Montanans recognize this opportunity and support Senator
Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and the collaborative spirit in
which it was developed. I'm proud that diverse groups of Montanans have
come together and tackled this issue head on.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act finds a balance among all uses
and gives Montanans a tool to work together on forest management. The
timber industry will have access to fiber from national forest land and
Montana's heritage of outdoor recreation--hiking, riding snowmobiles,
mountain biking, hunting and fishing--will continue.
I strongly support Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
and the grassroots efforts that have brought it before yoru committee.
I urge you to join the many Montanans who are working together for our
public lands.
______
Statement of G. Holly McKenzie, State Chair--Montana SAF, 2009, Montana
State Society of American Foresters
The Society of American Foresters (SAF) is the scientific,
educational and professional organization devoted to the sustainable
and science-based management of our forests for the benefit of society.
With 14,000 members, nearly 400 in the state of Montana, we ask that
the following testimony be submitted for the record on S. 1470, the
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act introduced by Senator Jon Tester of
Montana.
The SAF greatly appreciates the efforts of Senator Tester to
address some of the problems preventing the appropriate and science-
based management of our federal forests. The leadership, controversy
and hard work required to address this task is not taken lightly and we
look forward to helping the Senator in his goal of improving federal
forest management. At the same time, we are concerned that the
legislation, as drafted, will not meet this goal. Attached is a letter*
from the Montana Society of American Foresters listing recommendations
for S. 1470. We ask that this letter also be submitted for the record
and note that our testimony below is meant to supplement these
recommendations while adding a national perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Letter has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Across much of the West, foresters and now the general public see
the continued decline of federal forest health as evidenced by the
massive bark beetle epidemics and increase of catastrophic wildfires
(all of which are exacerbated by a changing climate). Both science and
anecdotal evidence show that much of this calamity could have been
prevented with active forest management to improve forest health and
resiliency. Decades of appeals and litigation, agency analysis
paralysis and wasted time and resources has taken its toll. Now in much
of the West, we have little to no ability to manage our forests because
we have little or no harvesting or milling infrastructure. In areas of
limited infrastructure, the cost of treatment sky-rockets and only very
high priority areas can be addressed to protect public safety leaving
very few opportunities to improve watersheds and wildlife habitat or
reforest after fire.
Thankfully Montana still has the infrastructure, albeit it limited,
necessary to manage its forests. SAF is very disappointed, however, to
hear about the permanent closure of Smurfit Stone in Missoula and
subsequent job loss of over 400 people. This is immediately concerning
because of the many small diameter forest health treatments currently
being conducted of which the only valuable by-product is chips for
paper products. Harvesters and landowners in Montana now have nowhere
to sell these pulp logs, many of which have already been purchased. In
the short and long term, sawmills now have no place to sell their
`clean' chips. This additional revenue stream is absolutely critical to
making ends meet--especially in our current economic times when
virtually all sawmills are operating at a loss. An integrated wood
products industry with a dependable supply is vital to maintaining the
health of our forests and the water and wildlife dependent upon them.
Recently we've seen a regional or state approach by elected
officials to attempt to solve forest management problems in their
districts/states through legislation, funding and even the occasional
appropriations rider. This piecemeal approach is understandable, but
also shows how broken federal forest management is in many, though not
all, areas. Ideally, the SAF would recommend complete federal forest
reform, which is clearly needed. Given the dire situation faced in many
areas, however, we understand the effort to pass and implement
something quickly. Nonetheless, comprehensive federal forest reform
will be the only way to address the long term health of our forests,
watersheds and communities. We ask that you refer to the attached
letter for specific recommendations, but would like to offer some brief
observations regarding S. 1470.
wilderness and forest management
The SAF recognizes and endorses the value and concept of wilderness
for appropriate areas on landscapes, as well as forests managed for a
broader range of multiple uses including an emphasis on wood products
for fiber and fuel. We support the Forest Service's specific forest
management plans and each individual plan's recommendations for
wilderness. We also recognize that the Congress, through the Wilderness
Act, may designate wilderness regardless of the Forest Service's
recommendation. According to the Forest Service, the National
Wilderness Preservation System currently includes over 700 areas in 44
states totaling more than 107 million acres. With this many acres
congressionally designated as wilderness, we see nothing wrong with S.
1470 mandating certain areas (which were identified in the forest
management plan) for active forest management.
forest service
The Forest Service and the Society of American Foresters were
established at the same time by Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the
Forest Service and appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt. SAF has a
long and important history with the Forest Service and we strive to
support the agency in its mission. We believe forest management
legislation, such as S. 1470, should be received with an open mind and
appreciation for congressional efforts to solve agency problems. The
Forest Service should also provide thoughtful, constructive criticism
and help legislators draft legislation that will truly make a
difference.
scale of montana's forest health problem
S. 1470 mandates a minimum of 30,000 acres for timber harvest over
15 years. Even if this minimum amount of work is accomplished, which is
unlikely unless additional authorities are enacted, Montana has 1.7
million acres infested by the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB)(according to
2008 Forest Service data). This number is growing exponentially as MPB
populations continue to proliferate. Further, according to 2004 Forest
Service data, of Montana's 22.3 million acres of forest, 82 percent are
high to moderate in terms of fire hazard rating. Of this, 7.5 million
acres are at moderate to high risk of destructive crown fires.
The scale and scope of Montana's forest health problems is huge.
Congress must act boldly now if anything is to be done about this
problem and if we're to maintain a relevant forest products industry
and purposeful rural communities. We have the science, experience,
loggers, mills, management practices and the will to protect our
forest's health and resiliency for future generations if only Congress
will give our federal land managers to the tools they need.
Again, we thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit
testimony and commend Senator Tester for taking on such a difficult and
controversial issue. SAF would be happy to answer any questions or
further explain our recommendations.
Statement of The Wilderness Society, on S. 1470
The Wilderness Society (TWS), representing over 500,000 supporters
and members, supports S. 1470, the ``Forest Jobs and Recreation Act''
introduced by Montana Senator Jon Tester. Many of the national forest
lands addressed in this bill are of national significance and S. 1470's
passage would benefit Americans from current and future generations.
This bill has diverse, bi-partisan support from across Montana and we
commend Senator Tester and his staff for their effort and leadership in
developing this important bill and tirelessly engaging with Montanans
on its provisions. We are committed to working with Senator Tester, the
committee, and the Obama administration to address concerns, seek
creative solutions and to ensure the final version of this bill is the
best possible legislation for Montana and the nation.
TWS strongly supports the provisions of S. 1470 that would
designate 677,000 acres of Wilderness. We also support this bill's twin
goals of enhancing ecological restoration on appropriate national
forest lands while aiding a struggling timber industry in western
Montana. We also respect the diverse, collaborative efforts that
developed many of the provisions embodied in this bill.
Conservationists, hunters, anglers, timber industry representatives,
recreation interests, and many others have engaged in countless
meetings over many years in a sincere effort to address forest
management conflicts that have remained unresolved for decades while
advancing the restoration of degraded forest lands.
Montana's communities, forests, fish and wildlife all deserve a
chance to see this bill work. While we have identified some concerns
and specific areas for refinement, we want to be clear that we support
the bill's overall goals and stand ready to work with Senator Tester,
the committee and the administration to ensure this bill can fulfill
its promise and become law.
montana's wilderness context
It has been over a decade since any member of Montana's
congressional delegation has introduced a bill addressing Wilderness in
the state and more than 25 years since Congress last passed legislation
designating any of Montana's wildlands as federally-protected
Wilderness. In 1988 Congress passed a state-wide bill designating 1.4
million acres in Montana but it was pocket vetoed by President Reagan.
The last time a new Wilderness area was successfully added in Montana
was 1983. Since that time, every other western state has seen areas
added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Today only 4% of
Montana's total land base is protected as Wilderness--the lowest
relative amount of any western state. The percentage of other western
states designated as Wilderness ranges from 5% for Wyoming and Nevada
to 15% and 16% for California and Alaska, respectively.
Thus, while S. 1470 is much more than ``just'' a Wilderness bill,
it is nonetheless critically important that this bill addresses a
longstanding need and backlog of areas deserving of the protections
that Wilderness designation brings. Indeed, many of the 677,000 acres
designated as Wilderness in this bill (whether on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, Lolo, or Kootenai National Forests or on BLM lands within
the Dillon Resource Area) have been formally recommended by the
agencies for Wilderness protection and are already mostly managed to
maintain wilderness values.
S. 1470 is also noteworthy because it represents a new approach to
addressing disputes over natural resources management and land
protection, which have a long and bitter history in Montana. While
collaboration is an often overused word, this bill is truly ``bottom-
up'' and represents the product of neighbors and even adversaries
sitting down long enough to get to know one another, learning to
respect one another, and forging a common vision for the management of
our public lands.
Indeed, we are seeing other collaborative efforts involving
Wilderness designation and forest restoration in Montana and throughout
the west. Perhaps most noteworthy in Montana is the ``Rocky Mountain
Front Heritage Proposal'' (www.savethefront.org) for the Forest Service
and BLM lands east of the Bob Marshall Wilderness which includes a
noxious weed restoration component. Passage of S. 1470 will help
provide the momentum and model for consideration of other Montana
wildlands deserving of protection that have for too long been in a
holding pattern.
the promise of the blackfoot clearwater landscape stewardship project
While S. 1470 addresses three forest landscapes (the Three Rivers
District of the Kootenai National Forest, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest and the Seeley Lake Ranger District of the Lolo
National Forest) TWS was only involved in the development of the
Blackfoot Clearwater Landscape Stewardship Project (BCSP) on the Lolo's
Seeley Lake Ranger District. We believe the BCSP model is a blueprint
for success because it promotes pre-NEPA collaboration, ensures
adequate funding for forest restoration, and promotes the development
of forest biomass infrastructure while respecting the integrity of all
existing laws and regulations.
The BCSP proposal recognized that the Blackfoot-Clearwater Valley
is a unique ecosystem with significant forest, wildlife and wilderness
resources. It was made possible, in large part, by the culture of
cooperative conservation common throughout the Blackfoot-Clearwater
Valley and was informed by lessons learned from the recently completed
Clearwater Stewardship Project. Several years ago residents of the
Blackfoot-Clearwater region expressed increasing interest in forest
restoration, sustainable logging, ranching, recreation and wilderness
uses across the landscape. The BCSP proposal emerged from a three-year
dialogue among key stakeholders and it demonstrates that wilderness and
wildlife can be protected alongside historic and traditional activities
on the landscape.
As a demonstration project for cooperative public-private
stewardship across a landscape area, the original BCSP was intended to
facilitate cooperative stewardship via Congressional funding for forest
restoration and for a biomass cogeneration facility in Seeley Lake,
Montana as well as inclusion of recommended tracts within the Bob
Marshall-Scapegoat and Mission Mountain Wilderness totaling 87,000
acres. The project addressed the 400,000-acre Seeley Ranger District of
the Lolo National Forest within the Blackfoot watershed as well as
lands within the public-private 41,000-acre Blackfoot Community
Conservation Area.
The BCSP vision would maintain traditional wilderness pack trails
on the Seeley Lake Ranger District as well as all of the existing
groomed snowmobile trails and areas. Groups have agreed to additional
snowmobile opportunities in the area between East Spread Mountain and
Otatsy Lake. The participating groups agreed to a revision in the
proposed Lolo Forest Plan to allow an approximately 2,000 acre ``winter
motorized use area'' in this area. The BCSP identifies a management
approach that allows for most active management such as livestock
grazing, logging and restoration work in the roaded lands found at
lower elevations. All the activities envisioned by the BCSP would be
consistent with all existing laws and regulations, including proposed
revisions to the Lolo National Forest Management Plan.
The original proposal included a funding request to allow the
Forest Service to plan and implement landscape stewardship and
restoration projects on 400,000 acres in the Lolo National Forest
portion of the Blackfoot-Clearwater watershed. It calls for restoration
logging to protect large trees and restore presuppression old growth
conditions, with the receipts from the logging being used for
restoration work on the ground including watershed improvements, road
rehabilitation work and weed eradication. We are also engaged in a
diverse collaborative effort to submit a proposal under the Forest
Landscape Restoration Act (FLRA) for the Southwestern Crown of the
Continent, including the Blackfoot-Clearwater Valley, to seek funding
for the restoration work envisioned by the BCSP.
Within the 41,000 acre Blackfoot Community Conservation Area,
cooperative management of timber, grazing lands, weeds, hunting and
other recreational uses is being planned. BCSP supporters have long
believed this proposal represents a new model for landscape-level
conservation in Montana. This proposal would help keep historic and
traditional activities as part of the landscape, add diversity and
sustainability to the local economy with both recreation and forestry
jobs, and enhance watersheds and the landscape.
The spirit of the original BCSP proposal is captured in S. 1470 in
the form of Wilderness designations, funding authorization for forest
restoration and funding authorization for a biomass feasibility study
and biomass infrastructure.
timber supply predictability
The Wilderness Society has concerns over S.1470's provision that
calls for a mandatory number of acres to be mechanically treated on the
Beaverhead and Kootenai National Forests. The Society strongly endorses
the overall goals of the bill to provide a more predictable supply of
timber to mills, and we have been quite vocal in stating that Montana
needs a viable, diverse wood products manufacturing infrastructure to
meet our forest restoration and fuel reduction goals. The question is
how to best meet the goal of a more predictable supply while achieving
restoration goals. We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels
in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems
this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent,
c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency
the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not
believe this approach will work on the ground.
While the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship proposal was being
crafted we deliberately avoided mandatory mechanical treatment language
because we, and our partners, believe strongly that a strategy based on
inclusive, diverse, pre-NEPA collaboration, adequate funding and a
clear Congressional and agency commitment to ecological restoration
will produce far greater positive results on the ground. The BCSP
participants, including TWS, made a clear decision to let the landscape
analysis dictate what restoration treatments are appropriate. One of
the reasons we included a biomass provision in the original bill was to
help create a market for small diameter material that did not have
value as commercial saw logs, but were important to remove as part of
the restoration strategy. We want to avoid situations where landscape
analysis areas are gerrymandered to ensure that a certain number of
acres are available for mechanical treatment.
While we were crafting the BCSP proposal, TWS conducted a review of
collaborative efforts between conservation and timber interests
throughout the West. The collaborative efforts that successfully
completed projects had in common strong pre-NEPA collaboration and
adequate funding. In examples where mandatory targets were created,
they were never met, even in cases where adequate funding was provided.
We observe that collaborative efforts between conservation and timber
interests are thriving in most Western states and we encourage the
committee to capture this positive energy in a directed way that can
bring conservation and industry success to these placed-based
campaigns. TWS pledges to work with the Committee to help address these
issues.
the montana forest restoration committee and principles
The Wilderness Society is engaged in a number of collaborative
forest restoration efforts around the country and we believe that the
Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) offers a promising model
that we should consider as we work together to refine and advance S.
1470. The MFRC, founded in early 2007, has developed 13 restoration
principles that define a ``zone of agreement'' regarding the
restoration of national forest lands in Montana. The Wilderness Society
has played a leadership role in this effort from its inception to the
present day and these principles, coupled with pre-NEPA collaboration
and consistent agency engagement, have resulted in strong consensus and
significant progress regarding the development of on the ground
restoration work on the Lolo, Helena and Bitterroot National Forests in
just two short years. Earlier this year, the first project to go
through NEPA analysis to a decision document under the MFRC principles
was developed in the Blackfoot-Clearwater Valley without any appeals or
litigation.
We believe strongly that the MFRC principles, highlighted below,
coupled with adequate funding and diverse, inclusive, pre-NEPA
collaboration at the project level can provide a viable model for
forest restoration in Montana, including areas affected by this bill on
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests.
The Montana Forest Restoration Principles (available online at
www.montanarestoration.org) address the following:
Restoring functioning ecosystems by enhancing ecological
processes;
Applying an adaptive management approach;
Using the appropriate scale of integrated analysis to
prioritize and design restoration activities;
Monitoring ecological restoration outcomes;
Reestablishing fire as a natural process on the landscape;
Considering social constraints and seeking public support
for reintroducing fire on the landscape;
Engaging community and interested parties in the restoration
process;
Improving terrestrial and aquatic habitat and connectivity;
Emphasizing ecosystem goods and services and sustainable
land management;
Integrating restoration with socioeconomic well-being;
Enhancing education and recreation activities to build
support for restoration;
Protecting and improving overall watershed health, including
stream health, soil quality and function and riparian function;
and
Establishing and maintaining a safe road and trail system
that is ecologically sustainable.
comments on specific provisions of s. 1470
The Wilderness Society appreciates the openness and constructive
attitude that Senator Tester and his staff have shown in considering
the questions and concerns Montanans from all walks of life have raised
regarding S.1470. We applaud the Senator and his staff for their
proactive efforts to inform groups and individuals about the bill
through community presentations, creation of a dedicated section on the
Senator's website, meetings with many organizations and local
businesses, and other means.
In this vein, many of the issues we raise below have been
previously shared with the Senator's staff and we are heartened by
their commitment to address them at some level. In addition to the
issues listed below, there are issues raised by USDA that carry
national implications for the management of the National Forest System
that should be reviewed and modified by the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources when it reports S. 1470 to the U.S. Senate.
S. 1470's NEPA provisions in Section 102(2)(b)(6)
While the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act includes important
language requiring full compliance with NEPA and its implementing
regulations, it also has provisions constraining how NEPA will be
applied to projects catalyzed by other requirements in this bill. We
support many of the goals of S. 1470's NEPA provisions, such as
encouraging more comprehensive environmental analysis at a landscape
scale, engagement of local multi-stakeholder advisory groups, more
efficient NEPA reviews, and the continued implementation of project
components that have not been challenged or enjoined. However, based on
consultation with NEPA experts, we do have concerns that some of the
specific language in this section of S. 1470 could effectively
undermine the application of NEPA and its implementing regulations.
We have three major concerns with these provisions:
First, current bill language would restrict project
alteration and supplemental NEPA analysis, if needed, because
of unexpected, changed circumstances, major unanticipated
changes in the project 6 or monitoring results that should
trigger changes through adaptive management. We believe the
bill's requirements for a single EIS per large landscape
project allowing supplemental NEPA review only ``if based on
project monitoring and determination that this would better
meet the Act's purpose'' is inconsistent with longstanding CEQ
guidance.
Second, existing NEPA provisions could complicate the Forest
Service's full consideration of all alternatives, including the
no action alternative, given that S. 1470 compels the agency to
issue the ambitious timeline of at least one Record of Decision
per year.
Third, existing language lacks clarity regarding the
implementation of projects that do not comply with applicable
law (or implementing regulations) as their legal deficiencies
are remedied. While the bill does not have language explicitly
limiting appeals or litigation, it does state that projects,
``will be implemented following completion of EIS/ROD'' and
then states that if modified, the original project, ``shall
continue until the modification is approved by US District
Court or Secretary;''
Our NEPA concerns are amplified when one considers the woefully
inadequate agency funding and staffing levels relative to the levels
needed to effectively carry out the project design, data collection,
analysis, public engagement, and other tasks related to NEPA. While
this is a larger National Forest System problem and it is not S. 1470's
intent to remedy this (or to appropriate new, dedicated funding), this
on the ground reality must be considered when evaluating S. 1470's NEPA
provisions.
With some modifications to the language in Section 102(2)(b)(6), we
are confident that the restoration work resulting from this legislation
will receive complete, adequate environmental analysis in full
compliance with NEPA and its regulations. Our understanding is that
other supporters of S. 1470 share this overarching goal.
Recommended Changes to S. 1470's Wilderness Areas
1) Mount Jefferson: While only encompassing 4,500 acres, this
proposed Wilderness Area on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
near the Idaho state line and adjacent to the BLM's 28,000 acre
Centennial Wilderness Study Area (which S. 1470 would also designate
Wilderness ) has nationally significant ecological values and has
attracted vocal, out-of-state opposition.
The Wilderness Society strongly supports the current boundaries in
S. 1470 for Mount Jefferson and does not feel any adjustments are
justified. Moving the boundary from the state line, which is also the
drainage divide (and the continental divide), would only continue and
exacerbate an existing illegal snowmobile trespass problem in the Mount
Jefferson recommended wilderness area and into the adjacent BLM's
Centennial Wilderness Study Area and also harm existing, locally owned
Montana businesses (Hellroaring Ski Adventures and Centennial
Outfitters). The Forest Service has documented repeated snowmobile
trespass into adjacent lands that would be designated Wilderness under
S.1470. Further, the agency estimates that at most one job in Island
Park would be impacted by managing all 4,500 acres of the Montana side
of Mount Jefferson for non-motorized recreation. This job loss is more
than offset by the gains in employment in Montana's human-powered
recreation industry.
2) BLM Wilderness Areas: We strongly support Senator Tester's
inclusion in S. 1470 of appropriate BLM lands and we recommend the
6,200 acre East Fork of Blacktail Wilderness Study Area be added to the
bill as Wilderness. As described in DOI's testimony, this WSA sits in
the heart of a landscape managed for conservation purposes. It is
contiguous on two sides with the proposed Snowcrest Wilderness in S.
1470 and adjacent to two state Wildlife Management Areas. BLM did not
recommend this WSA for wilderness in its 1991 review for the Dillon
Resource Area was because the adjacent Snowcrest lands managed by the
Forest Service were not recommended for wilderness designation at that
time. Today, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest plan recommends the
Snowcrest as Wilderness and the BLM recommends consideration of this
area as Wilderness.
We also support the expansion of the Centennial Wilderness Area in
S. 1470 by adding approximately 3,800 acres found in Peet Creek/Price
Creek. With one small cherry stem for the existing logging road in the
East fork of Peet Creek, addition of this area would protect important
habitat for big game, grizzly bear, wolverine, and cutthroat trout.
3) Lee Metcalf Wilderness addition: For the north unit of this
Wilderness addition we recommend elimination of the non-wilderness
corridor (Trail #315) that would bisect this proposed addition into two
units. Originally we understood this trail corridor was added to the
bill to accommodate mountain bike use but it has become clear that the
western portion of this trail crosses onto private land with a public
use easement that is clearly limited to only foot and horse traffic.
4) East Pioneers, West Pioneers, and West Big Hole areas: Compared
to S. 1470, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership Agreement negotiated
larger Wilderness Areas for these three areas. Given the wild values
and ecological importance of these areas (as well as the fact that the
expanded East Pioneers acreage is recommended Wilderness by the Forest
Service), we suggest reconsideration of S. 1470's boundaries for these
areas, with expansion of some of them to more closely follow what the
Partnership originally proposed.
Wilderness Management Language
There is some language in S. 1470 relating to management of
wilderness areas that we believe is unnecessary and could complicate
management consistent with the Wilderness Act. We are aware of concerns
over management of new wilderness, and believe sufficient guidance
already exists to allow the agencies to address these important issues.
1) Highlands Wilderness: S. 1470 contains language that would
authorize the continued landing of helicopters for military
training purposes within this proposed Wilderness Area. We
recommend that S. 1470 instead designate the Highlands area as
a ``Potential Wilderness'' (similar to language used in the
recently enacted Virginia Wilderness bill). This designation
would allow essential training to continue, while protecting
the area's wilderness values. We would encourage the inclusion
of ``trigger'' language that would designate the Highlands as
Wilderness upon publication by the Secretary that the non-
conforming use is no longer occurring.
2) Snowcrest Wilderness: While we are not opposed to
continued grazing in this proposed wilderness area, we believe
S. 1470's language providing for continued motorized access for
sheep trailing and maintenance of water impoundments is
unnecessary. The Congressional Grazing Guidelines, incorporated
in S. 1470 at Section 202(i), provide time-tested guidance for
the managing agency to effectively balance existing grazing
related motorized and mechanized use with the Wilderness Act's
management provisions.
3) State Management of Recreational Use: Section 202(j)(2)(B)
could be interpreted to allow motorized access into wilderness
areas for recreational activities including hunting, fishing,
trapping, and other state managed uses. We recommend deleting
this subsection and replacing it with language consistent with
the language in the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 (Sections
5401(a) and 8301(a)) that makes clear that access to wilderness
areas must be consistent with the Wilderness Act.
4) Outfitter Permits: Section 202(m) effectively removes
Forest Service outfitter permits in use on date of enactment of
S. 1470 from any further analysis, in perpetuity. We understand
this language was intended to ensure wilderness designation in
and of itself did not trigger a new round of permit review and
that any permit-related costs be borne by the permitting
agency. We believe this language should be revised to state
that outfitting should continue subject to existing
regulations--and not be suspended or reduced simply because of
the wilderness designation.
special management area/national recreation area language
We support the special designations that would protect Montana's
landscapes and provide continued recreation opportunities. We suggest
the following improvements in these provisions.
1) West Big Hole Recreation Area: We suggest adding language
like that found in section 206 similarly authorizing the
Secretary to close any trail or route for purposes of public
safety or natural resource protection. We also suggest removal
of the unclear purpose related to conservation of values ``that
represent the economic and social history of the American
West.''
2) Three Rivers Special Management Area: Consistent with the
restrictions placed on other recreation areas and special
management areas in this legislation, we suggest that this
subsection (209) include a prohibition on new roads and trails.
3) Mechanized, nonmotorized vehicle language: The language
for management of mechanized/non motorized vehicles in the West
Big Hole Recreation Area (section 206), Lost Creek Protection
Area (section 205), and Thunderbolt Creek Recreation Area
(section 208) should be amended to include language that
provides discretion to close trails, routes, areas if necessary
for public safety or natural resource protection. This would be
consistent with language already found in the bill addressing
snowmobile management in the Lost Creek area (section 205(f)(2)
and for overall recreation management in the West Pioneers unit
(section 207(g)(3).
additional questions and components for review
The Wilderness Society strongly supports the wilderness designation
and forest restoration goals of S. 1470 and we respect the diverse
collaborative efforts that have worked for years to chart a new path
forward. We also agree with Secretary Vilsack, who said in his
groundbreaking speech in Seattle in August of 2009, that our shared
vision for the national forests begins with restoration.
We also recognize and respect the concerns of our partners in the
timber industry regarding the fact that the Forest Service does not
have the capacity to address all of the forest restoration needs that
exist today and thus the importance of maintaining some timber
infrastructure in the state. If we hope to complete these forest
restoration needs, we believe we must take the following steps:
Ensure adequate funding for Forest Service restoration
programs in Montana and nationally;
Sustain a right-sized timber industry infrastructure
adequate to carry out much-needed forest restoration
activities;
Protect the integrity of all existing laws and regulation
including the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered
Species Act, National Forest Management Act, and others;
Examine other forest restoration models to ensure the final
version of S. 1470 is modeled after approaches that have worked
on the ground while avoiding the pitfalls of failed attempts at
forest management.
Consider the impact of S. 1470's provisions on other
collaborative efforts under development or those that could
arise in the future, given the growing interest in tackling
forest protection, logging, restoration issues outside of the
regular national forest planning process and the tendency to
incorporate approaches already ratified by Congress.
Finally, as many have noted (including Senator Tester, the
Administration, and Trout Unlimited in S. 1470's December 17 hearing),
the specific components of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act were not
intended to be replicated nationally or to resolve the longstanding
calls for review and reform of the many mandates driving national
forest management. Given this, we recommend that S. 1470 have explicit
language both presenting its overall approach and specific components
as a pilot project intended to help inform larger national forest
management and better detailing how ecological health and restoration
impacts are to be monitored and reported back to Congress.
conclusion
The Wilderness Society's vision for our National Forests is to
maintain and restore healthy and sustainable natural forests that will
be resilient in the face of climate change while providing multiple
benefits, from recreation to jobs for future generations of Americans.
We share Secretary Vilsack's view that forest restoration represents
the Forest Service's future. We agree that the Montana Forest
Restoration Committee and the Southwestern Crown of the Continent FLRA
effort are viable models that deserve further study and support. We
believe it is appropriate to continue managing the forests for
recreation, timber, livestock forage, and other commodities, but only
when doing so is consistent with ecosystem integrity, is economically
sound, and benefits from citizen participation. Our experience with
forest restoration in Montana has proven that conservationists,
hunters, anglers and the timber industry can find common ground
regarding national forest management. Participants in the MFRC define
this common ground as a ``zone of agreement'' and The Wilderness
Society believes that operating within this zone of agreement is the
most likely path to success.
In conclusion, TWS supports S. 1470 and is committed to working
with Senator Tester, the committee and the Obama administration to
address concerns, seek creative, workable solutions and to ensure the
final version of this bill is the best possible legislation for Montana
and the nation.