Brandborg: Tester Logging Bill Threatens Our National Forests
By Matthew Koehler, Unfiltered 3-25-10
 | |
|
Stewart M. Brandborg, a fourth-generation Montanan, is a founding member of the Last Best Place Wildland Campaign. “Brandy” grew up in Montana’s Bitterroot Valley, where his father served as the Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest from 1935 to 1955. Brandy spent over a decade researching wildlife in the Bob Marshall, Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness areas and he was later employed as a wildlife biologist with the Forest Service and state wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho. From 1964 to 1976, Brandborg served as executive director of The Wilderness Society. Brandborg played an instrumental roll in the passage of America’s Wilderness Act in 1964 and other landmark public land legislation, including groundwork for the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. - mk
Tester Logging Bill Threatens Our National Forests
By Stewart M. Brandborg
I am a fourth-generation Montanan who grew up in a U.S. Forest Service family. Guy Brandborg, my father, served as Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest from 1935 to 1955. I still fondly remember Gifford Pinchot, during one of his last western trips, visiting my father in front of our fireplace. And, I still marvel at Bob Marshall's one-day hike from White Cap Creek on the Selway River up and over the Bitterroot Divide down Boulder Creek in time to join my family around the dining room table for supper.
After earning my Masters degree in Forestry and Wildlife Management in 1951, I worked over 12 years as a wildlife biologist with the Forest Service and state wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho.
I was associated over 20 years with The Wilderness Society, including serving as its executive director from 1964 to 1976. In these years, I was privileged to advocate for the protection of our public lands legacy, presenting the case for wildland preservation across the nation. During my tenure, the U.S. Congress passed landmark public lands legislation, including the Wilderness Act of 1964, and laid the groundwork for the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
For 70 years now, I have been involved with public lands issues. With this background, it is with deep personal concern that I share serious reservations about Sen. Jon Tester's Logging and Recreation Bill, S. 1470.
Despite the best intentions of Senator Tester, this ill-advised measure, as written, poses a serious threat to our National Forests and other publicly-owned lands. Specifically, the logging mandated by S. 1470 is unprecedented and represents an unscientific override of current forest planning, leading the head of the Forests Service to tell the Senate Committee at last December's hearing that the logging levels in S. 1470 are unachievable and unsustainable.
I also agree with the Forest Service that unfunded mandates in this bill would result in other National Forests in Montana and the region having their funds raided to support excessive logging on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge. The Forest Service described this serious concern as “balkanization” of our national forest system.
The Tester bill is described by supporters as the product of collaborative effort that brought all stakeholders together in its drafting. In fact, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge portion of the bill was originally conceived and contrived by a few logging mills and a few conservation groups.
The initial deliberations of the Beaverhead Partnership excluded major players – the US Forest service, local county governments, watershed and irrigation interests, local and state land, wildlife, and wilderness interests, and a broad segment of other user groups – who have concern for the long-term protection of our National Forests.
Back in September, I, with a delegation including scientists and a retired Forest Service ranger, met with Senator Tester's staff in an attempt to improve the bill. While we appreciated the meeting, our suggestions and concerns have been ignored. Unfortunately, this appears to be typical treatment of those concerned about S. 1470. If you support the bill, you are welcomed into the collaboration. If you have concerns with the bill, too bad. This is not how America's public lands should be managed.
If Congress were to endorse Senator Tester's bill as written, over 100 years of federal resource protection laws, set in place through the bipartisan actions of 50 Congresses, could be overridden by any interest group that gains the ear of any Congressman or Senator. We need not open this Pandora's Box of special loopholes and subsidies for a handful of corporations. We need not forsake our remaining public wild lands heritage.
There are plenty of needed, well-paying forest jobs in road reclamation, watershed restoration and replanting with native species. These forest restoration jobs promote steady flows of pure water for improved wildlife habitat, better fishing and hunting, irrigation and community water supplies and continued sustainable harvests from our fiber producing lands. Fuels reduction projects within community protection zones will, based upon best available science, most efficiently and effectively protect homes and lives while providing even more jobs.
In years past, Congress responded to the voice of the American people and protected our public lands legacy from raids by special interest groups. I hope we can stop Senator Tester from breaking up America's National Forest system for local commercial interests.
Stewart M. Brandborg lives in the Bitterroot Valley with his wife, Anna Vee. In 2001 he received the Robert Marshall Award, – The Wilderness Society's highest honor – for his notable influence on American's Wilderness legacy.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
This statement is patently false and misleading: "If Congress were to endorse Senator Tester's bill as written, over 100 years of federal resource protection laws, set in place through the bipartisan actions of 50 Congresses, could be overridden by any interest group that gains the ear of any Congressman or Senator."
Any bill has to pass Congress, just like Tester's bill. How is it, then, that any group would simply need to gain the ear of any Congressman or Senator? Hogwash.
We all owe Stuart Brandborg a debt of gratitude for his work on the original Wilderness Act, but I'm glad that new leaders have picked up where he left off.
Thanks to Tester and Baucus for leading the way on the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. This bill is a huge win for Montana's headwaters (Rock Creek, Monture Creek, and many more) and a massive victory for wildlife habitat for western Montana.
Thanks
So could you please let everyone know what Brandy is supposedly "sorely mistaken" about? I think you at least owe Brandy that courtesy, don't you think? Otherwise it just appears you are shooting the messenger, and I'm sure that's not what you wanted to do, out of great respect for Brandy.
But speaking of the WSA issue at it relates to S.1470, here is what Senator Max Baucus' standard, form letter constituent reply letter regarding S.1470 says:
"[The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act] guarantees access for motorized recreation. It allows thousands of acres of land, currently managed as wilderness, to be used for [motorized] recreation and timber harvest."
So, Gatch, are you saying that Senator Baucus is "sorely mistaken" with this statement? If so, maybe that's something that you and Gabe can work to straighten out. I'm sure the last thing you guys want is the only other co-sponsor of Tester's bill sending out false information to constituents, right?
Also, I can't help but wonder if you believe that Under Secretary Sherman is also "sorely mistaken" with his statement from the official hearing. Brandy also brought up these issues related to mandated logging and the budget concerns. Will you guys please respond to these serious concerns? Thanks.
Harris Sherman, Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment, in official testimony before the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
"The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable...If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable. Secondly, we'd like to urge you to amend the National Environmental Policy Act related provisions, which in our view are flawed and are legally vulnerable. Thirdly, we would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions....My concern [with FJRA] is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different Forest Service regions in the country. Those [National Forests] who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain 'haves' and 'have nots' that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."
I was also initially very concerned by the logging mandates in the bill, but I found on further research that the mandate isn't to produce a certain yield, but to "treat" a certain number of acres. That "treatment" *needn't*, and won't, be limited to (or even be primarily) commercial logging. Perhaps some additional research will help ease the concerns that other folks have as well.
The bill does contain strong protections for wilderness, wildlife habitats, and the wild and natural beauty of western Montana.
next.
Below is a direct link to a PDF copy of the bill from Senator Tester's official website. I have also pasted and copied the "Forest Management" section of the bill, which can be found on pages 20 to 24.
I believe the bill's actual language doesn't support Sara's statement above "That 'treatment' *needn't*, and won't, be limited to (or even be primarily) commercial logging."
I understand that Sara's statement might be an important talking point the coalition wants to get out there. I also understand that her statement might even express the intent of some of the people who put the bill together...and that some of these folks might just be honestly mistaken.
However, the language of the bill is quite clear that the Secretary concerned SHALL (no wiggle room there) "produce commercial wood products" and SHALL "maintain the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities." (hmmmm...this bill currently requires the federal government to "maintain the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities? I wonder how that will work, especially in this economy?)
Also, it's important to point out that subsection aa, bb and cc (below), very clearly stated that the acreage requirements are to "MECHANICALLY TREAT TIMBER on NOT LESS THAN" 14,000 acres in 2 years...35,000 acres in 5 years...and 70,000 acres in 10 years.
Regarding the treatment levels, bill supporters have often told the public the exact opposite of what the bill really says...they have claimed that the bill sets a max amount of "Mechanically Treating Timber." But it doesn't...it only sets a minimum amount. Nothing in the bill prevents 20,000 or 50,000 acres from being logged in any given year. And with the amount of wildfire hysteria and beetle mania out there this is a very real result if the bill is passed as written.
And what does "Mechanically Treat Timber" mean? I've looked at hundreds of USFS timber sale documents over the past fifteen years, and I've never once seen the term "Mechanically Treat Timber" used for something like prescribed burning, or sending guys/gals out with pruning sheers to cut brush.
"Mechanically treat timber" has always referred to some type of commercial logging. And don't forget, right at the start of the Forest Management section it requires the Secretary to "produce commercial wood products" and further down to "maintain the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities."
It's quite clear that the USFS legal experts (who you can bet went over the bill with a fine-toothed comb) saw these same glaring flaws in the bill. So too did all members of our Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign and policy experts from groups such as Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, PEER, Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC and even The Wilderness Society (who kinda supports the bill). The same is true of the staffers at the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Thanks.
http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/upload/forest_jobs_and_recreation_act.pdf
(D) FOREST MANAGEMENT.—On the aggregate parcel of land that is the subject of the stewardship areas selected by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a), the Secretary concerned SHALL —
(i) produce commercial wood products and accomplish landscape-scale restoration objectives;
(ii) carry out activities to reduce the risk and severity of uncharacteristic wildland fire and insect infestations;
(iii) manage vegetation through timber harvest activities in a manner to ensure that the timber harvest activities are limited to stewardship areas;
(iv) use prescribed burning and other silvicultural techniques to mimic mixed se- verity, natural fires when appropriate to the forest type that is the subject of the prescribed burning or other silvicultural technique;
(v) when a commercial timber harvest activity is used to implement the vegetation management of the aggregate parcel, design the commercial timber harvest activity—
(I) to reduce the long-term risk and severity of fire and insect infestations;
(II) to maintain and restore healthy sustainable forests;
(III) to generate revenue to reinvest in fish and wildlife habitat maintenance and restoration; and
(IV) to maintain the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities that provide economic stability to communities located in close proximity to the aggregate parcel; and
(vi) subject to paragraph (6)(C)(ii)(III), to produce commercial wood products and accomplish landscape-scale restoration objectives—
(I) with respect to the stewardship area located in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest—
(aa) during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, mechanically treat timber on not less than 14,000 acres of the stewardship area, during which, to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary concerned shall mechanically treat timber on approximately 7,000 acres of the stewardship area during each year of the period;
(bb) not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, mechanically treat timber on not less than 35,000 acres of the stewardship area; and
(cc) not later than 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, mechanically treat timber on a minimum of 70,000 acres of the stewardship area;
Once again propnenets of the bill merely express their support and offer no responses to the numerous extreemly valid points brought forth by the article. I recognize many of the same coments that lack any substance or explain why they support the bill and think it's so great and groundbreaking.
One area the west pioneers roadless area is 240,000+ acres.
Tester's bill creates a 120,000+ acre recreation area where groomed snowmobiling is permited. Only 25,000 acres out of 240,000 acres is reccomended for wilderness status. In addition the west pioneers roadless area is proven to be wolverine denning habitat. Despite scientific reccomendations to eliminate snowmobile use in the high country of the w. pioneers due to the denning wolverines Tester's bill supports high country snowmobile intrusions into wolverine denning habitat.
Just one example of how Tester's bill threatens our roadless and unportected wildlands. There's nothingh progressive about the bill but it's REGRESSIVE.
A massive campaign supported by the timber industry and corporate env. groups to attack the national forests in MT with a high % of roadless areas such as the BHDL, Kootenai and Lolo. Apparently they've fooled a lot of folks..
Our unprotected roadless areas deserve protection and will not heal an ailing timber industry by hacking away at them. We have millions of acres of forest that is roaded and available to provide timber for the US. Let's fix our roads and perform restoration work where it's already badle needed.
Senator Max Baucus, from his standard, form letter constituent reply to S.1470:
“[The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act] guarantees access for motorized recreation. It allows thousands of acres
of land, currently managed as wilderness, to be used for [motorized] recreation and timber harvest.”
While it is true that roads and structural developements would not be allowed in former WSA land not designated Wilderness, the expanded motorized activity allowed in these areas would destroy their wilderness characteristics just as surely as development. Passive structures on the landscape can usually be accomodated by wildlife more readily than the intermittant intrusions by people on internal combustion wreckcreational machines. For many wildland advocates it is the biological value of wildlands not their recreational or scenic values that are paramount.
Testimony by MWA's Tim Baker included the following: "MWA strongly opposes the level of snowmobiling and motorized activity now occurring in the area [West Pioneer WSA] and does not believe it represents a proper baseline for allowing future motorized activity (baseline should be 1977) [rather than the date of enactment proposed by FJRA]."
FJRA critics couldn't agree more with this statement by FJRA proponents.
The bill aims "to permanently protect and enhance motorized recreational opportunities...". This and the WSA release language in the bill means former WSA land designated Recreation Areas in the bill will be released from any future wilderness designation consideration. The biological integrity of such land will be permanently sacrificed to not-so rare and endangered internal combustion wreckcreation.
I hate the language Matt hates, too, for different reasons. Example:
"(iii) manage vegetation through timber harvest activities in a manner to ensure that the timber harvest activities are limited to stewardship areas;"
Okay, that means no touchie outside the "SA's" -- never mind on the B-D that is 1.83 million acres of non-wilderness on which "THA" cannot happen. What if it's beetle killed or burnt? Nononononononooooo.....
and
"(IV) to maintain the infrastructure of wood products manufacturing facilities that provide economic stability to communities located in close proximity to the aggregate parcel; and" -----
Nope, let's continue the constituential cleansing. Have everyone happy brush-whackin migras, or beargrass weavers in our cute little cottages.
All that said, I must feel somewhat sad that Brandborg is a former government employee...so much for the public trust.
(iv) "use prescribed burning and other silvicultural techniques to mimic mixed severity, natural fires when appropriate" --- now, if I have doghair, and I want the fire in the understory and not in the crowns, how does that happen? Open the crowns by taking wood off, THEN burning it. The wood pays for the drip sauce...
The times they are a changin' , and the current times call for a new approach that suits the majority in the middle. Many of the so-called "excluded groups" have been heard now multiple times. Sen. Tester has adjusted the bill to accommodate their needs to the extent he can. None of us are getting everything we wanted.
how can you say "The talking points are nowhere near reality, on either end."
i just read back through this stream. looking at koehler's talking points, snide slapdowns aside, i'm seeing actual sections of the bill highlighted as well as bill-questioning comments from fs honchos, politicians, even supposed "supporters" of the bill.
what would be closer to reality?
Hello Thomas I noticed you did'nt respond to any points brought up by the article or myself. Your just repeating the talking point that nobody is getting everything they wanted.
25,000 acres of wilderness out of a 240,000 acre roadless area while over 120,000 acres is designated wreckreation for high country snow mobile intrusions into a threatened wolverine denning habitat.
I'd say the motorheads are the ones getting more of what they wanted, a few wilderness crumbs here and there. I'd say the wolverines of everyone are not getting what they wanted.
This scenario of decreasing roadless acreage by designated a small portion of the areas as wilderness is repeated numerous times in Tester's bill.
I wonder why the pendulum swung so quickly as you say. Why Harris Sherman's concerns were "softened" so rapidly by Ag. Sec. Vilasack.
Gee Thomas could there be some politics going on here?
Now with the clock ticking on a post health care Democrat majority in Congress, we'd better pass this double quick before everybody catches on 'cause it will be atleast another 26 years for the Wilderness stars to realign in Montana.
Oh my - such decisions...
Senator Jon Tester.
S.1470 would create many troubling problems and undesirable precedents for management of the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest (BHDL NF) and the BLM Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) located in southwestern
Montana. We therefore do not support the bill in its present form. Our major concerns along with suggested
changes to alleviate these concerns are as follows.
BACKGROUND
The Beaverhead - Deerlodge Partnership, referred to hereafter as the Partnership, was a private process by
specific parties interested in BHDL NF management and did not represent the public neither did it provide for
public input.
After the Partnership developed a proposal it was given to Senator Tester who formulated S.1470 starting with
but significantly weakening the Partnership's Wilderness recommendations for the BHDL NF. It is unclear why
this weakening occurred at the Bill drafting stage or what parties were involved in suggesting these changes.
No public hearings or public meetings were held during this bill drafting period. Later claims of meaningful
collaboration therefore ring hollow.
Unfortunately, when S.1470 was made public it contained many new provisions which significantly weakened
the Wilderness recommendations by the Partnership. This is most evident in the substantial changes made to
reduce Wilderness size in the West Pioneers WSA and the West Big Hole Roadless areas while creating large
motorized recreation area; and, allowing for several non-conforming activities that would reduce Wilderness
character (discussed more below). The S.1470 also includes and releases southwestern Montana BLM WSAs,
areas not even considered or evaluated by the Partnership.
BHDL NF INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS (IRAs)
The BHDL NF has 1,846,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) available for Wilderness designation.
Of this total S.1470 would only classify 496,733 acres for new Wilderness. This is only 27% of the available
BHDL NF inventoried roadless lands/Wilderness lands. Much of the remaining 73% would effectively be
released from future Wilderness consideration.
WEST PIONEERS IRA
S.1470 dices the 229,710 acre roadless area (which includes the 151,000 acre Metcalf WSA) into two small,
disconnected Wilderness areas separated by a motorized trail. These two proposed Wilderness areas together
total just 25,472 acres or (a.) 18% of the total Metcalf WSA acreage; and, (b) just 11% of the total inventoried
roadless acreage. The Partnership recommended a single Wilderness of 34,136 acres.
Additionally S.1470 would allocate 129,252 acre block of the IRA into a permanent, motorized Recreation
Management Area (RMA). This RMA would be a single land block 5 times larger that the two proposed
Wildernesses together. The RMA would nearly surround the two small Wildernesses. The legacy of the
Metcalf WSA will be effectively lost if SB 1470 passes. The Partnership proposal did not recommend any
motorized management area for the West Pioneers IRA.
The [West Pioneers] IRA provides secure habitat for wildlife linkages and connectivity between the Greater
Yellowstone area and forests to the west and north. Wolverine denning and Canada lynx habitat are
documented."
Contained within the IRA and the Metcalf WSA is the 2,543 acre, Skull-Odell Research Natural Area (RNA)
with its valued wetlands. 1470 bill does not include the RNA in its Wilderness proposal.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Designate the 151,000 acre Metcalf WSA as Wilderness to include the Skull-
Creek Odell RNA. Eliminate the motorized RMA returning the management of this area to USFS travel
planning. This would enhance important wildlife habitat and connectivity with the Greater Yellowstone area.
EAST PIONEERS IRA
S.1470 proposes a 3.5 mile trail for ATV entry into the Tendoy lakes at the core of the proposed Wilderness.
This cherry stemmed trail into the heart of the proposed Wilderness would significantly reduce the wilderness
character of a highly valued area within the Wilderness. The Partnership proposal did not propose an ATV trail
into East Pioneer Wilderness core.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Eliminate the non-conforming cherry stem ATV trail into the Tendoy Lake
area of the proposed East Pioneers Wilderness.
WEST BIG HOLE IRA
This large 213,987 IRA along the crest of the continental divide provides linkages and connectivity between the
Greater Yellowstone area and forest to the west and north. Canada lynx habitat and wolverine denning habitat
is present.
Rather than protecting this critical wildlife habitat and linkage, S.1470 here again dices a large IRA into two
small, far-apart Wilderness areas totaling together just 44,084 acres or 21 % of the roadless acres. The
Partnership by contrast proposed a single, unified 90,543 acre Wilderness.
S.1470 divides the IRA into two minimum sized Wilderness areas but conversely would turn most of the IRA
into a single, large, permanent, motorized National Recreation Area (NRA) totaling 94,237 acres. The large
NRA would be twice as large as the two proposed Wilderness areas together. Access to these two proposed
Wilderness would be forced to use motorized NRA trails. The Partnership proposal did not propose this large,
motorized NRA.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Provide for a unified West Big Hole Wilderness of 138,321 acres achieved by
adding the 94,237 NRA acreage to the 44,084 acres proposed for the two Wildernesses. This would enhance
wildlife habitat and important connectivity with the Greater Yellowstone area.
LEE METCALF WILDERNESS ADDITION IRAS
S. 1470 Bill provides for a non-Wilderness, 66 foot wide, motorized/mechanized trail corridor across the
Wilderness connection thereby disconnecting the Spanish Peaks Wilderness unit from the Bear trap Wilderness
unit. The Partnership proposal did not propose a non-Wilderness corridor.
This bisection would negate the BHDL NF Revised Forest Plan decision: "The Cowboy Heaven area will
connect the separate Bear Trap and Spanish Peaks [Wilderness] Units … providing consistent management
across most of the northern Madison Range."
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Delete non-Wilderness, bisecting trail corridor within the Wilderness additions
and provide consistent Wilderness management between the Spanish Peaks and Bear Trap Wilderness Units.
SNOWCREST IRA
The Snowcrest IRA provides key wildlife habitat and connectivity including: wildlife enhancing linkages and
connectivity between Greater Yellowstone area and forests to the west and north; wolverine denning and
Canada lynx habitat; and, occupied grizzly bears habitat.
Rather than adequately protecting this key wildlife habitat IRA, S.1407 mandates that livestock permittees have
motorized access across the proposed Wilderness. This is a clumsy and unnecessary attempt to override the
seminal Wilderness Act objective prohibiting motorized use and cuts against the BHDL NF Forest Plan
conclusion:
"The [Snowcrest] area is manageable as Wilderness. … There are no
Contractual obligations or resource needs which would limit [Snowcrest] Wilderness availability."
Instead, the BHDL NF should continue to evaluate and decide on an individual, as needed, permit basis when
livestock and water development management require permittee motorized use. The Partnership did not
propose mandated motorized use by permittees.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Delete blanket permittee motorize use authority returning to BHDL
administrative authority to determine need and appropriateness on a case-by-case basis with consideration given
to local conditions and Wilderness objectives.
HIGHLANDS IRA
This 21,055 acre IRA is another area that provides important wildlife linkages and connectivity between the
Greater Yellowstone area and forests to the west and north as well as Wolverine denning and Canada lynx
habitat.
S. 1470, mandates the use of the proposed 20,392 acre Wilderness for non-conforming, motorized military
training activities. This requirement is questionable given that the BHDL NF has not identified military activity
as a use and has concluded that the "… area would be manageable as Wilderness. The Partnership proposal did
not mandate authorizing non-conforming military activities.
The USFS has the authority to administratively evaluate and decide any military training permits requests on an
individual, as needed, basis.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Eliminate blanket military training approval language and retain BHDL
administrative authority to responsively decide on a case-by-case basis the need and appropriateness for such
training.
OUTFITTER AND GUIDE PERMITS
S. 1470 provides all existing outfitter and guide permits to be exempted from being reevaluated in proposed
Wilderness stating that they are deemed to have met all requirements necessary for permits in Wilderness areas.
This provision is interpreted to allow even permitted motorized outfitting and guiding to continue operation in
areas designated as new Wilderness. This would be a major conflict. The Partnership proposal did not exempt
existing outfitter and guide permits from reevaluation.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Eliminate the S. 1470 provision at Sec. 202(m) that prohibits the USFS from
using current authority to evaluate outfitter and guide permits in new Wilderness areas with consideration given
to Wilderness objectives.
MANDATED RESTORATION LOGGING
S.1470 has Congress mandating specific levels of BHDL NF restoration logging; an unsettling prospect.
Preferably, the BHDL NF, as management agency, should continue to make on-the-ground decisions. The
BHDL NF has the authority, expertise and knowledge to balance timber production with resource capabilities
and constraints. The Forest Service believes that S.1470 mandates unreasonable restoration levels, could
conflict with resource protection laws, and be overwhelmingly costly. The Partnership proposal provided for
mandated timber treatment levels for within the BHDL NF.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Eliminate provisions for mandated levels of restoration logging. Defer to the
Forest Service for on-ground treatment needs, levels and timing decisions.
RECLAIMING NEW LOGGING ROADS
S.1470 allows turning new logging roads into ATV trails and other recreation trails as an alternative to having
them reclaimed. This provision confuses the reclaiming of new restoration project roads.
Furthermore, more than 6,000 miles of open, motorized trails and roads exist in the BHDL NF. Are more miles
of motorized trails/roads necessary? The Partnership proposal did not address converting new restoration
logging roads to recreation trails.
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Require that the BHDL NF travel planning process be used when determining
if any new restoration logging roads should become recreation trails rather than be reclaimed.
SOUTHWEST MONTANA BLM WSAs
BLM has selected twelve southwest Montana areas totaling 133,184 acres to be WSAs. S. 1470, arbitrarily
proposes that only five become Wilderness, and that the remaining seven be permanently released from
Wilderness consideration. The five proposed Wildernesses would total 60,980 acres or about only 46% of the
total BLM WSA acreage. On the average these five selected WSA have their acreage reduced by 32%. The
Partnership's proposal did not consider any southwest Montana BLM WSAs.
No details are available on why these five BLM WSAs were selected and why seven were released. All twelve
BLM WSAs are valuable wild lands. Any key Wilderness designation decisions should have been based on
resource analysis and a prudent, open public process based on in-depth resource analysis which seems to be
lacking. The only stated reason for releasing the seven WSAs; "[S.1470] resolves the longstanding dispute over
[WSAs] which are currently managed as wilderness areas." No information has been forthcoming on the exact
nature of this "dispute."
RECOMMENDED CHANGE - Eliminate the S.1470 provision releasing seven BLM WSAs from further
Wilderness consideration. Require that the disposition of these seven WSA be decided later using a thorough,
public process involving the BLM and providing detailed analysis of each area.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the committee with this testimony.
Sincerely,
Frank and Patsy Culver
Bozeman, MT
cc: Senator Jon Tester
My name is Aaron Kindle. I live in Missoula, Montana and I'm the father of two children. I own a
small painting business and attend graduate school at the University of Montana. I was born in Laramie,
Wyoming and have lived in the interior west and been following public lands and natural resource issues my
entire life. My grandfather was the founder of a mining company and I have an uncle who was a rancher for
many years. Understanding the rural west is part of my personal make-up. I am not insensitive to the struggles
of those depending on natural resources to survive.
However, there is a right way and a wrong way to manage our public lands. We can no longer give up
our future and my children's future for short-term unsustainable public lands giveaways. I am deeply troubled
about the fate of our nation's most treasured public lands. I have watched these lands dwindle and lose their
ecological integrity throughout my life. Places I knew as a child are degraded and/or have been lost to
development just in my lifetime. I am only 33 years old and I have seen changes that are simply shocking and
unacceptable. These precious lands are our heritage and one of our nation's most treasured attributes. People
travel from all over the world to visit the western U.S. They do not come here to experience over-cut and
roaded landscapes. They travel here to enjoy pristine landscapes, clean air and water, and our friendly way of
life. These unique characteristics are increasingly threatened and we cannot afford to sacrifice what is left.
Currently your committee is considering Senator Jon Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and I am
writing you to express my deep concerns regarding this bill. Below you will find a fairly lengthy examination
of the bill and the problems I see. I urge you to carefully examine the bill and insist that Senator Tester either
change several key provisions or remove the bill from consideration.
S. 1470 or the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) intends to solve several public land management
problems in one fell swoop - the wilderness designation drought, timber supply uncertainty and associated job
losses, and road maintenance and restoration needs, among others. Although these are admirable goals and
certainly worth serious consideration, the desire to get something done seems to have precluded performing the
necessary amount of planning and prescience needed for a bill of this magnitude, thus creating glaring
omissions.
The most notable omissions are language ambiguity, direction on how the bill will conform to
environmental laws such as the NEPA, where funding will come from, and whether or not land managers will
be able to meet the deadlines prescribed in the act. Other omissions include lack of considerations of market
and on-the-ground conditions regarding the logging mandate and resulting cost to taxpayers, specifically
concerning the stewardship contracting model, gaps in the language concerning restoration components, the
degradation of wilderness qualities through motorized use and military landings inside wilderness area
boundaries and lastly, an explanation of roadless area management. Below I will lay out each of these problems
and explain why they are troublesome.
Ambiguity in FJRA language has caused confusion among those attempting to decipher how this act
will translate to on-the-ground application. There is a significant gap between what the bill says it will do and
how it might actually be accomplished and funded. This gap may leave managers underfunded and confused
without further guidance. The act fails to consider what are sure to become extreme difficulties for land
managers. For instance, what if carrying out the mandates requires superseding other laws such as the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the Clean Water Act
(CWA)? If NEPA analysis cannot be completed in one year as mandated in the FJRA, will NEPA requirements
be waived? If an endangered species will be harmed, does the act nullify the species protections since it came
after the ESA? The mandate and other laws could contradict one another and FJRA does not stipulate how to
proceed in those circumstances.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was passed to ensure that public officials and
private citizens had the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding actions that create
environmental impacts on federal lands. In order to carry out the mandates required by NEPA, considerable
time and expertise must be invested. According to numerous experts, completing NEPA analysis generally
takes about three years (Nie, 2009). The FJRA directs federal agencies to complete environmental analysis
within one year. "Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, in
accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary concerned shall plan, and issue a record of decision for, 1 or more
landscape-scale restoration projects…" (FJRA, Sec. 102 (b)(1)). Furthermore, in Section 107, FJRA clarifies
the duty of the Secretary concerned by stating: "To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) under clause (i), the Secretary concerned shall prepare 1 environmental impact
statement that covers all components of the landscape-scale restoration project that is the subject of the
environmental impact statement to ensure that any additional analysis will not be required" (FJRA, Sec. 107
(6)(A)(ii)).
Moreover, the FJRA does not appropriate additional funding so analysis can be sped up without cutting
corners; making it highly unlikely the one-year requirement could be met. According to University of Montana
Environmental Studies Department Chair, Len Broberg, recent statements by USFS Region 1 staff indicate the
entire Region 1 NEPA budget was used to analyze the 10,000 acres treated in 2008 (Broberg). The one-year
requirement is further problematic because analysis must be completed for an entire "landscape-scale" project
or 50,000 acres. If the entire Region 1 budget was spent analyzing 10,000 acres in 2008, how does Senator
Tester believe USFS officials will be able to complete analysis for 50,000 acres without additional funding
and/or staff?
The above-mentioned requirements would place additional stress and constraints on federal agencies
that already struggle with completing NEPA analysis in a timely and cost-effective manner. Attempting to
complete analysis in one year, as required by the FJRA, would likely have one of three possible results: costs
would be considerably higher than normal, the one year requirement would not be met, and other pending
projects would delayed/tabled. Consequently, agencies may then be compelled to rush the NEPA process.
Tracy Stone-Manning, a member of Senator Tester's staff, recently stated that the FJRA will not supersede
existing laws, rules, or regulations (Stone-Manning, pers. comm., 10/29/09). One could interpret this statement
to mean that they expect that NEPA requirements will be met. How and with what funding remains to be seen.
Considering the requirement to finish environmental analysis in one year, agencies may try to issue a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) after completing an Environmental Assessment (EA) so they do not
have to produce the more lengthy and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Considering the
size and scope of "landscape-scale" projects, it is hard to imagine how agencies could legitimize this route.
Accordingly, if agencies take the EA route, litigation may soon follow. "As the level of NEPA compliance
increases from a Categorical Exclusion to EIS, the risk of successful legal challenge diminishes and the time
required to comply with NEPA increases" (Eccleston, 1999 p. 9). If projects instigated by the FJRA become
mired in litigation, it would diminish a main intent of the act: to reduce gridlock and litigation (FJRA Sec. 2
(b)(2)). Furthermore, "when challenged, EIS's are normally easier to defend than EA's, because an EA must
prove that none of the potential environmental impacts is significant or that any such impacts can be mitigated"
(Eccleston, 1999 p. 163).
If a project is litigated and the agency rushed analysis, the likelihood of defending their actions will be
diminished, reducing the intended effectiveness of the act. Moreover, the complexity and novelty of
"landscape-scale" projects may themselves require additional analysis by nature: "Factors such as the degree to
which an action may be controversial, unusual circumstances, or the complexity of the proposed action, can
have a substantial bearing on determining the ultimate length of an EA" (Eccleston, 1999 p. 162).
Further confounding those analyzing the act is Section 102 (12). In this section the act states, "Except as
otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary concerned shall manage, in accordance with each applicable law
(including regulations)" (FJRA Sec. 102 (12)). It seems as though the act's language contradicts itself here.
FJRA directs officials to speed up NEPA analysis and authorize activities that would violate the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule (RACR) and possibly the CWA and the ESA, while it also directs managers to follow
existing laws. A large gray area remains about what might happen on the ground if the act and other existing
laws contradict one another.
Another critical factor concerning the reduction of gridlock Senator Tester refers to comes from
examining the collaborators. It seems that in order to reduce gridlock, the Senator would have targeted groups
for inclusion in the negotiations that have traditionally litigated against timber sales and other forest uses.
Instead the Senator has collaborated with mainstream groups that have not sued (at least in the last several
years) regarding forest management. According to the Forest Service Website, none of the collaborating groups
has even filed an administrative appeal on an agency action in Region 1 for at least four years (USDA-Appeal
Responses). Therefore, if the concerns of the groups not included in the collaboration were not addressed in
FJRA, the likelihood they will not file appeals or bring suit again seems very low. Once again, I fail to see how
a reduction of gridlock will occur.
The mandated logging portion of the bill is likewise troublesome for at least four key reasons. First, the
bill includes a mere five companies slated to gain from affected acreage. Although the act does not implicitly
state the timber will go to these companies, it does state the intention to "maintain the infrastructure of wood
products manufacturing facilities that provide economic stability to communities located in the close proximity
to the aggregate parcel" (Sec.. 102 (2)(b)(D)(IV). One can easily infer that these companies would at very least
have unfair access to project design and bidding. Serious ethical questions must be asked about the fairness and
fiscal responsibilities associated with this portion of the act. If millions of dollars are garnered through timber
sales, should five companies reap all of the profits? This could easily be construed as a "pork" project when
considering the small number of people which stand to gain. In addition, economic analysis regarding the
benefits to rural communities has not been provided so one cannot determine if the costs outweigh the benefits.
These facts and the costs associated with the bill are likely to catch the attention of lawmakers once FJRA
receives a hearing.
Second, questions remain regarding the legality and feasibility of mandated logging in accordance with
bedrock environmental laws such as NEPA, the CWA and the ESA. Problems complying with NEPA were
discussed above. As for the ESA, questions remain about endangered species such as Bull Trout and Grizzly
bears. "The law requires federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the
<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov>U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, to
ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
The law also prohibits any action that causes a "taking" of any listed species of endangered fish or wildlife"
(ESA Summary, U. S. EPA, 2009).
Roads have proven to be the main threat to these two species and although FJRA directs managers to
comply with road density objectives of the Grizzly Bear management plans, some bear experts claim these
objectives are not sufficient. Brian Peck, a long-time wildlife consultant and Grizzly Bear expert, claims that
the 1.5 miles/sq. mile objective for the BHDL portion of the FJRA is not nearly strong enough to safeguard
Grizzly Bears (Peck, 2009). A 2005 report by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks also cites several examples of
road avoidance by Grizzly Bears across the state of Montana. Grizzly Bears avoided areas with road densities
above 0.31 miles in Yellowstone, 0.57 miles in the Cabinet Mountains, 0.31 miles in the Swan Mountains and
0.25 miles on the Rocky Mountain Front (Montana FWP, 2005). The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee
(IGBC) used a 0.3 miles from any road or motorized trail criteria to classify areas as core Grizzly Bear habitat
(IGBC, 1994).
Furthermore, the Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Southwestern Montana, including the BHDL
National Forest, recommends no more than 1 mile/sq. mile road density for suitable Grizzly Bear Habitat
(Montana FWP, GBMP for SW Montana, 2002). FJRA would allow a 1.5 mile/sq. mile density even after
temporary roads were removed. The consequences of the FJRA could result in Grizzly Bear mortality and in
turn violate the ESA which requires managers to protect critical habitat and prohibits the harm or taking of a
listed species (ESA Summary, U.S. EPA, 2009).
Bull Trout would also be threatened by the FJRA. There is a strong negative correlation between road
density and Bull Trout abundance (Dunham and Riemann, 1999) and in western Montana, analysis illustrated
"that Bull Trout strongholds occur in areas with road densities less than 0.4 miles of road/sq. mile of land area"
(Hitt and Frissell, 1999). In the Swan river drainage, studies showed a correlation between roads and increased
fine sediment, which negatively affects Bull Trout embryos (Leathe and Enk, 1985). Clearly, additional road
building will negatively affect Bull Trout population and quite possibly violate the ESA. Several other
threatened and endangered species also reside in the areas affected by the FJRA and could be negatively
affected in the same or similar ways.
The potential for Clean Water Act violations also exist. Road building and logging has numerous
detrimental effects on water quality including increasing sediment, increasing water temperatures, increasing
the likelihood of slope failure, introducing harmful pollutants from vehicle chemicals both from road building
equipment and subsequent use by other logging equipment (Montana FWP, 2005). Therefore, timber
harvesting, particularly at the levels prescribed by the FJRA, has the potential to severely degrade water quality
and possibly violate the CWA. Additional roads also have the potential to further degrade watersheds by
introducing noxious weeds which already cover approximately 8.4 million acres of Montana (Pokorny and
Sheley, 2005). Additional roads, even if removed, will likely cause widespread weed infestations. A Montana
State University study showed that one vehicle in one trip can spread up to 2000 spotted knapweed seeds over a
10 mile route (MSU Extension Service, 1992).
If these deleterious effects become realized, key objectives of the FJRA such as "improve(ing) the
habitats of fish and wildlife, including several species of fish and wildlife that are threatened or otherwise of
concern" (Sec. 2 (a)(1)(A)) and "demonstrate the manner by which - such actions can help achieve ecological
and watershed health objectives" (Sec. 2 (a)(1)(D)(ii)) will fail and key purposes of the act will not be realized.
Third, numerous questions remain about the economic and environmental feasibility of the
Beaverhead/Deerlodge (BHDL) provisions. Forests in the BHDL are dominated by low-timber-value
Lodgepole pine and some estimates state that past logging operations have cost taxpayers roughly $1400 per
acre (Richards, 2009). According to these numbers, logging 7000 acres per year in the BHDL would cost
taxpayers approximately $9.8 million per year and put the overall costs at around $100 million. A 1994 report
compiled for Congress by natural resource specialist, Ross Grote, showed losses on timber sales on the
Beaverhead and Deerlodge national forests ranging from two to four million dollars annually from 1989 - 1993
(Gorte, 1994). These facts are especially noteworthy considering the current extremely low timber prices which
would certainly drive these figures even higher.
The mandated harvest levels cause concern for another reason as well. Dating back to the beginning of
logging operations, on the then separate Beaverhead and Deerlodge National Forests, an analysis of the timber
harvest reports for USFS Region 1 indicates that only once in the history of timber harvest activities did harvest
levels reach the 7000 acre mark - in 1971. No other year exceeded 6000 acres (Region 1 harvest report, 2008).
Additionally, since the Beaverhead and Deerlodge national forests merged in 1996, average harvest has been
975 acres per year with no year exceeding 2500 acres (Region 1 harvest report, 2008). FJRA proposes to nearly
triple the acreage harvested in the heaviest harvest year in recent times and to exceed the average by over 6000
acres. How bill writers expect the USFS to finish analysis and manage this level of timber harvest remains to
be seen.
Lastly, the restoration component of the bill is not mandated and will rely on the Stewardship
Contracting model. Stewardship Contracting uses proceeds from extractive operations to finance restoration
activities. Though the Stewardship Contracting model seems to be an innovative and effective idea and
sometimes is, lumber prices are in the midst of the steepest decline in the nation's history, so many question
whether this model will work (Jamison, 2009). And, as previously mentioned, most of the logging is prescribed
on low-value Lodgepole Pine, which decreases viability even further.
"…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 the money doesn't materialize?…Consider, for example, the White Mountain stewardship project in
Arizona. The Government Accountability Office found that this project incurred greater costs than expected
and such costs 'have taken a substantial toll on other forest's programs' " (Nie, 2009).
Since the restoration component is not mandated, it seems likely that not completing the restoration
requirements, completing them to very low standards or siphoning funds from other projects would be the likely
result on the BHDL.
Special use provisions in the FJRA pertaining to designated wilderness areas are another major concern.
The bill contains language for military landings in the proposed Highlands Wilderness Area and motorized use
in the East Pioneer and Snowcrest proposed wilderness areas. There are two specific problems worth noting
with regard to these special-use provisions. First, Congress uses precedent to determine whether or not certain
uses are acceptable in wilderness and other protected public lands. If these uses are allowed in wilderness areas,
not only will three wilderness areas in Montana be subject to these uses which do not conform to the Wilderness
Act, but it will also provide the precedent for others lawmakers to use to degrade the integrity of the wilderness
areas in their states. "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 the RJVA (FJRA), Montana's
delegation will be asked to play by the same rules when a different wilderness bill is being considered" (Nie,
2009 p. 4). The implications of FJRA may therefore change the course of wildlands protection across the nation
well into the future.
Second, the allowance of military landings in what would become the Highlands Wilderness Area and
the allowance of motorized vehicles for accessing grazing allotments and water infrastructure in what would be
the East Pioneers and the Snowcrest wilderness areas. If these uses are allowed, the original intent of the
Wilderness Act will be violated in two ways. The first way being permanent structures contradict Section 2 of
the Wilderness Act which states: "An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of
undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or
human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1)
generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work
substantially unnoticeable…" (Wilderness Act, Sec.. 2 (c)(1)). Permanent water structures certainly would
not be permitted under this section. When viewed in isolation, allowing one user to access one structure seems
fairly innocuous. However, considering that Congress uses precedent to craft future legislation, one can
envision innumerable special uses written into future wilderness bills, possibly to the point where one may be
hard-pressed to consider certain areas wilderness at all.
The second way motorized use contradicts the intent of the Wilderness Act is by degrading the
opportunity for solitude which is to be… "protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and
which…(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude" (Wilderness Act, Sec.. 2 (c)(3)). Motorized use certainly
degrades opportunities for solitude by creating noise, disturbing wildlife, and being visually disturbing to some
individuals.
Military helicopter landings also violate these same provisions of the Wilderness Act in several ways.
A study conducted by military researchers regarding the impacts of both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft
shows numerous negative consequences from rotary-winged aircraft landings. These effects include behavioral
responses in wildlife, auditory damage to wildlife, and interference with foraging, predation, and mating
activities. Physical damage to the land has also been noted such as scorching of adjacent vegetation, melting of
snow, ice, and permafrost, stem and branch breakage, and erosion and its associated effects on plant
communities (Efroymson et. al., 2001). These damages clearly contradict the intent of the Wilderness Act and
cause damage that lasts for periods well beyond the actual landings. These negative effects degrade the
opportunity for solitude, create noticeable impacts by humans, and effect several "forces of nature" as described
in the Wilderness Act.
The inclusion of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) in the "Timber Suitable or Open to Harvest"
category on the FJRA maps is another cause for apprehension. IRAs provide numerous ecological benefits to
humans and wildlife including purifying water, acting as a safe haven for endangered and threatened species,
sequestering carbon, and drawing recreationists, hunters and anglers which in turn pour millions of dollars into
nearby economies (Montana FWP, 2005). Moreover, roads have proven to be the number one threat to
ecological integrity in national forests through habitat destruction and fragmentation, mortality sinks,
displacement and disruption of migration patterns, exotic species introductions, sedimentation into streams, and
pollution, among numerous other detrimental effects (Noss, 1995). As previously mentioned, Tester staffer,
Tracy Stone-Manning has stated that FJRA will conform to all existing rules, laws, and regulations (Stone-
Manning, pers. comm., 10/29/09). However, the FJRA maps show numerous IRAs as "Timber Suitable or
Open to Harvest" (FJRA, Proposed land Designations, 2009). Typical timber harvest is not possible without the
use of roads so if these areas are ever harvested, at least temporary roads will have to be constructed. Although
Congress has the power to trump past laws and/or regulations by passing new laws, citizens made it clear during
the 2001 Roadless Rule comment period that they wanted IRAs to remain unroaded, including approximately
78% of Montanans who commented (Montana Wilderness Association, 2009). The inclusion of IRAs in the
"Timber Suitable or Open to Harvest" category creates uncertainty and makes it difficult for roadless advocates
to support.
Furthermore, the first purpose listed in the FJRA states "the purposes of this act are (1) to sustain the
economic development and recreational use of the National Forest System land and other public land in
Montana" (FJRA, Sec. 2 (b)(1)). Releasing roadless lands and WSA's could directly contradict the economic
development purpose according to leading economists. In a February, 2000 presentation, the Former Chair of
the Economics Department at the University of Montana, Tom Power, showed that from 1969 to1995, Montana,
counties with wilderness grew their employment rate at twice the rate of those without and that those same
counties had a more diverse economy, often due to environmental amenities (Power, 2000). And further, in
another paper written in 2004, Dr. Power noted the negative economic effects of timber harvest compared to
preserving those same landscapes.
"We have analyzed that tradeoff in the context of timber harvest in Montana where additional timber
harvest, while generating jobs and earnings, often does significant damage to water quality, fisheries, scenic
beauty, wildlife habitat, roadless area values, and recreation opportunities. Our analysis suggests that the
population and tax base losses associated with the disamenity effects of expanded timber harvest may outweigh
the positive impacts associated with an expanded economic base. The result of increased timber harvest may be
a small net loss of residents and the tax base associated with them" (Power, 2004 p. 16).
The value of Montana's roadless areas cannot be overstated. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks compiled
a report in 2005 that outlines the critical importance of these areas both to wildlife and the state's economy. The
report noted watershed values, native plant communities, endangered species, usable wildlife habitat, and
habitat security as key reasons roadless areas are worth preserving. The report further states the value to
Montana's economy derived from hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing, and noted the critical importance of
roadless areas to maintaining strong plant and animal populations and retaining the longest general elk hunting
season in the nation. Avoidance of roads by threatened and endangered species such as Grizzly Bears were also
cited as reasons to keep these lands roadless (Montana FWP, 2005).
Furthermore, the backlog on road maintenance for national forests in Montana currently resides at
approximately $669 million (Zimmerman & Collier, 2004) and legislation aimed at protecting IRAs including
the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA) and the Roadless Area Conservation Act (RACA)
enjoy wide support in Congress - each has over 100 sponsors (Govtrack, 2009 H.R. 980 & H.R. 3692)..
Therefore, considering the negative value to taxpayers that accompanies development of roadless lands and the
wide-ranging political and public desire to conserve these areas, including IRAs in the FJRA is both
economically and politically infeasible..
Possible Solutions
I believe there are six key ways Senator Tester could gain additional support for FJRA and save himself
the anguish of having to engage in a protracted battle that will likely result in bill failure.
1) Provide a comprehensive economic analysis. Basic economic facts and figures regarding job creating and
the benefits to rural communities are an absolute necessity for determining the bills merits. Commissioning a
broad examination regarding the economics of the bill is well within the power of the Senator and should be
prepared as soon as possible.
2) Formally declare that IRAs will not be developed. IRAs have been fought over for decades and leaving
language regarding the potential development of these areas vague only means one thing: these areas may be
developed in the future. The values these areas hold, and will continue to hold as long as they remain unroaded,
are well documented and far outweigh any short-term jobs or economic stimulus. Formally declaring IRAs offlimits
would save Senator Tester the wrath of advocates who support public lands, wilderness, wildlife, and
fiscal responsibility and show a good-faith effort to protect what Montanans from all walks-of-life have
illustrated they care about deeply.
3) Allocate additional money or time for environmental analysis. One year is clearly not enough time to
complete a thorough examination of the possible effects of "landscape-scale" projects using regular agency
staff. Forcing this provision could have numerous deleterious effects including analysis from other projects
stacking up when the first project is delayed, litigation when watchdogs find that agencies cannot complete
satisfactory analysis in the required time, and the embarrassment that could follow if implementation is delayed.
4) Mandate the restoration outlined in the bill. Mandating logging but not restoration breeds mistrust and
alienates potential allies. If the Senator truly intends to see restoration occur, why not mandate it? A logging
mandate without a restoration mandate is too hard to swallow. By simply mandating restoration, a large deal of
criticism goes away.
5) Remove the motorized use provisions in what would become designated wilderness areas. These
provisions cater to a very small number of individuals and degrading these areas for the desire of a few
individuals seethes disrespect for the wilderness ideal. Even purchasing new horses and equipment necessary
for servicing the infrastructure for these individuals at issue is a better plan than allowing these uses in
wilderness areas. Requiring that grazing rights and access to infrastructure die with current lease-holders is also
another option that is both fair and effective.
6) Formally declare that all bedrock environmental protection laws such as NEPA, ESA, and CWA will be
followed. Although section 107 of FJRA guides managers to follow applicable laws and regulations, it also
contains language in several areas that guides managers to activities that may lead to violations of these laws.
Questions regarding the possible usurping of these laws will make passage of the bill much more difficult and
increase the likelihood of litigation.
Conclusion
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is the first attempt to designate wilderness in Montana for over a
decade. However, designating wilderness is not the single purpose and a careful contemplation of the trade-offs
required to gain wilderness designation is paramount. The long wait for wilderness designation seems to have
created an atmosphere of compromise. While compromise can be a good thing, certain principles and values
must be adhered to. Weakening the intent of historical and widely supported laws such as the Wilderness Act,
the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act are poor
compromises. Although we cannot yet know for sure whether or not the FJRA will diminish these laws,
ambiguity in the bill's language leaves too much room for error.
Asking already overburdened agencies to complete large-scale environmental analysis in one year is
likewise a troubling compromise. The negative consequences of this requirement could be far-reaching and last
for years - not the kind of outcome anybody wants to see. There are also serious questions about whether or not
the mandated logging component is a bailout for companies that cannot compete in the current marketplace.
Citizens deserve an economic analysis of the FJRA before the bill proceeds any further. Our country is in the
midst of troubling economic times and we need assurance that the money will be well spent. And, if logging is
mandated then restoration should be mandated as well. A central component of the bill is to protect and
enhance wildlife habitat and protect watersheds. These objectives can be best accomplished by congressionally
guaranteeing that restoration will occur.
Allowing roadbuilding in our nation's last remaining roadless areas is also a compromise that should not
be made. The value of these areas is greatest when left unroaded as has been clearly illustrated by diverse
sources. Compromising away these precious natural resources has never been, and never will be, a good idea.
Although Senator Tester should be commended for tackling such contentious subjects and introducing a
bill that would protect some of Montana's best wild places, FJRA currently has too many deficiencies to be
considered acceptable legislation. Without including the recommendations mentioned above, the bill simply
cannot be supported by those concerned with wildlands protection, fiscal responsibility, and responsible public
lands management nor will it be able to achieve its own stated purposes.
Please carefully review the bill and ask Senator Tester to address the above-mentioned problems before
proceeding with S.1470. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Aaron Kindle
Missoula, MT
WHEN: Wednesday, April 7th 7:30 - 9:00 pm and again on Monday, April 12th 5:00 to 6:30 pm
WHERE: Missoula Public Library (301 E. Main St) - Small Meeting Room
The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign is hosting the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act Study Club. The purpose of the Study Club is to read the actual language of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (S.1470) in order to gain a better understanding of the legislation. The Study Club is free and open to all members of the public.
Please bring your own copy of the bill, available to download at:
http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/upload/forest_jobs_and_recreation_act.pdf
The Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign is a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, forest restoration and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy. We are 5th generation Montanans, small-business owners, veterans, retired Forest Service supervisors and rangers, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, scientists, teachers and community leaders.
I wonder how people feel seeing a sea of dead trees through their front windows. I wonder how they feel having to cut down the dead trees around their homes that used to provide welcome shade, beauty and wildlife.
no matter the article you always manage to find a way to rant about dead trees, beatles and fires; and that only folks who live in the woods know about forest management. Your prejudism and off topic comments are growing tiresome.
This is about the Tester's FJRA, we don't need it to do any of the necessary work in our national forests in MT. To claim we need to pass this biull to do any work (as many supporters do) is typical fear mongering and lies. The forest service met and exceeded numerous thinning and restoration goals despite understaffing and funding.
Excuse me if I don't believe your claims. Can you back them up with facts?
that's exactly my point. you manage to find a way to rant on about restoration forestry regardless of the real issue (FJRA) and chide anyone who calls you out ,and then claim they don't support restoration forestry. I certainly never said I did'nt want restoration forestry, and i'm sorry if you experienced losses to the lack there of.
BTW check out the forest service recent testimony on the FJRA reagrding restoration, thinnig and other goals achieved or exceeded.
You could at least admit your prejudiced, baseless accusations that only people who live in the woods know about forestry or that I don't support restoration forestry are false, but you won't.
FYI I live on 80 acres adjacent to the NCDE
Excuse me if I don't believe your claims. Can you back them up with facts?"-foto
What are you blubbering about, if you actually read MY comments instead of skimming and paraphrasing as you accuse me if you'd know that I support sustainable restoration forestry. No where did I claim I want a "do nothing apporach", so I don't know what your shouting about making me only recreate in "burned over snaglands", but you really sound like a crazy old fart. All you do on every post is rant about dead snags and anyone who questions you about your rants, you claim wants a do nothing approach. What a simplistic, prejudiced outlook. Your a bit of an extremsit regarding wildland fire, that's obviuos.
Heres the facts toto
"Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell told Tester, “If you look at 2009, it was probably the toughest market that we’ve had with the integrated wood products industry. But we were still able to accomplish close to 97 percent of our timber targets. We also exceeded our wildlife improvement targets and we also exceeded our hazardous fuel improvements targets.”
The Forest Service also ended 2009 with more national forest timber under contract to logging companies in our region than at any point in the past decade. In fact, enough timber is already under contract to fill 60,000 log trucks lined up from Missoula to Miles City. What’s missing is demand for lumber."
My definition is to restore forest densities and species composition. I think we need to reduce fuel loading regardless of the timber market. I also think fires should not be left to burn green forests and endangered species habitat. There are a great many things that COULD be made out of the huge amounts of excess trees that are feeding massive firestorms. If the mills could be guaranteed a sustainable amount of timber, they could find ways to utilize wood instead of heating our atmosphere with wildfires supplying massive amounts of GHG's.
You are going to have to supply a link to Tidwell's quote. 300,000,000 board feet is a minimal amount of volume for the timber industry in Montana. On a single small Ranger District, we cut 90,000,000 board feet of all dead trees in a single year.
The truth is that we are in the middle of a disaster that is MUCH bigger than Katrina. AND, it won't be over with for decades. I guess you'll just have to embrace the death and destruction of your forests, continued heating of our atmosphere and the excessive losses of biodiversity.
The facts are that people want to eliminate logging by turning it all into burned wilderness. People in the urban east want to lock up forests into wilderness areas and "wildlife corridors". Dead forests are NOT suitable as wilderness or wildlife corridors.
AND, ya know, I didn't claim that YOU want a "do nothing approach" but, where do you stand on the burning Roadless Areas? However, it IS very clear that a segment of the public wants exactly that. I've already said that I don't favor the Tester Bill. I also don't favor destruction of our public lands through preservation. It's the Sierra Clubbers and people like Hanson and Wuerthner who are pushing for the elimination of timber projects. Those are who my comments are directed at.
I see you have asked for a link to Chief Tidwell's quote. You can watch the exchange between Senator Tester and Chief Tidwell here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdxM87gwwio
At the 3:15 to 4:15 mark in the video the following exchange took place, which is the source of Tidwell's quote.
Senator Tester: "How often do you plan on giving the committee the kind of analysis [of progress made on timber, fuel reduction or restoration work] you just spoke of?"
Chief Tidwell: "We'll continue to work w/ the Committee to address your concerns. Throughout the year we are more than glad to come up at anytime to show the progress we've been making on accomplishments. I would like to reference what we were able to do in 2009. If you look 2009, it was probably the toughest market that we've had with the integrated wood products industry. But we were still able to accomplish close to 97% of our [timber] target in 2009. We also exceeded our wildlife improvement targets and we also exceeded our hazardous fuel improvements targets."
Also, regarding the 300 million board foot figure. That came from the Missoulian's business publication
(http://mtinbusiness.com/inbiz-0110/bus02.php).
"At the end of the 2009 fiscal year, we'd sold nearly 300 million board feet in the Northwest" said U.S. Forest Service Region 1 forest management director Bruce Fox. "That's as high as it's been in over a decade."
[NOTE: I assume this should mean USFS Northern Region, also called Region One, as the USFS doesn't have any sort of a "Northwest" classification or region and Mr. Fox works for the USFS's Northern Region].
Thanks.
I'd bet that more than a BILLION board feet of timber has died in the last few years in Region 1. Those dead trees are simply waiting for the inevitable spark to lead to environmentally and economically destructive firestorms. We'll soon see Montana on the news, spewing GHG's and begging for Federal help to deal with local fire agencies running out of dollars.
Here's an idea.... Let's ban imported wood from Canada, and then we'll see the price of wood products come up. Oh, that darn Clinton, with his NAFTA thingy, stops that from happening.
this is totally inane. see, there's this cycle thing that happens out in nayture- day turns to night, planets spin, forests sprout, grow, burn, dump nitrogen into the soil so that their seeds might do it again. given time, even people's perspectives are known to evolve once they accept the fact that they choose to live in a landscape known to burn occasionally and allow themselves to appreciate the diverse beauty of the morel- and woodpecker-rich landscape that comes post "catastrophic" burn.
but specifically, are you arguing that the massive burnt sections of the scapegoat, bob marshall, bitterroot, rattlesnake and anaconda-pintler wilderness areas "are NOT suitable as wilderness or wildlife corridors"?
really? i've noticed that elk migrate en masse into post-burn areas for grasses and forbes that thrive in the sunny, rich soil. no, really.
sorry, but it feels like backtracking when a discussion on the affects tester's bill has on jobs or wilderness gets clouded with absurdist claims about "dead" forests.
The wholesale conversion of endangered species habitat to "something else" clearly goes against the Endangered Species Act. When forests are eradicated of ponderosa pine, in favor of lodgepoles, many species leave the area, as well. I don't think we want to trade 400 year old forests for 80 year old forests. I also don't think that there is any shortage of woodpecker habitat.
We have NREPA looming on the horizon, yet again seeing eastern city folks shoving eco-dogma down our throats. Then we have that pesky Wilderness Act that specifically bars dead and dying forests from becoming "Wilderness". Soooo, I fully expect dead forests to be designated as off-limits "wildlife corridors".
I would suggest asking people living in the Bitterroot Valley if they like their new forests, teeming with clouds of unstoppable bark beetles. Sadly, an entire generation of humans won't see forests similar to what Lewis and Clark saw. Chances are, their children won't see them, either. In the face of "climate change", many people want to ensure that human restoration activities will not happen.
I fully expect that Tidwell was told to completely cooperate with Tester in the hope that the bill will pass or fail on its merits or failings. After Sherman slammed it so hard in testimony, I'll bet that someone in the Democratic hierarchy had a little talk with someone high up in Washington. After all, we can't have a Democratic Congressman crashing and burning, can we?!? The bill has to fail, not because it is flawed but, because of something else.... anything else! If there's a chance to blame the Republicans, they can't have anyone believing that the bill sucks.
In the end, my money is on eastern politicans voting it down, regardless of political party. Every politician wants to snag some "green cred", especially if there is no impact on their homestate. "Voting against Wilderness logging" is very good to display, come election time.
Tidwell was conveniently vague in his talk about targets. I wonder how many of those projects were put together under the Bush Administration. However, one thing should be noted; 300 million board feet is more than it used to be, given that it is thinning volume. Maybe a better measurement of effectiveness should be acres treated.
These "place-based bills" definitely have the attention of the Forest Service. They don't like having activities dictated to them. Inefficiency isn't their cup of tea. I have worked under just that type of situation before, doing "Quincy Library Group" projects in California. Collaboration didn't save them from litigation, either, BTW.
Roading and logging the entire plumas national forest did'nt seem to help with all the burnt frests there. In fact the small 25,000 acre bucks lake wilderness out of the 1.2 million acre plumas national forest is quite pristine with only the north fork of the feather river canyon having burned, and guess what the roaded side of the canyon burned also and more severly.
Your prejudice rhotirc about only eastern city people wanting wilderness or wnating it all wilderness really displays your hateful, illogical pointo of view.
Give it a rest Hateware
http://plumasnews.com/index.php/home/6810-plumas-fire-safe-council-discusses-program-with-supervisors
Of course, the article trumpets all the good stuff QLG has done, and rightfully so but, it also makes no mention at all of the successful lawsuits brought on by professional litigator-for-profit Chad Hanson. The issues involved in the QLG were less contentious than the NEPA and Roadless/Wilderness issues of Tester's Folly, which IMHO doesn't have a chance of passing.