U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

55–181 u 1999

FIELD HEARING ON THE TARGHEE NATIONAL

FOREST

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST ROAD CLOSURES

AND THE TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST TRAVEL

PLANS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FEBRUARY 13, 1999, REXBURG, IDAHO

Serial No. 106–8

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ADAM SMITH, Washington

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

RON KIND, Wisconsin

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

————— —————

————— —————

DOUG CRANDALL, Staff Director

ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff

JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held February 13, 1999 ............................................................................ 1

Statements of Members:

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 1

Simpson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 7

Statements of witnesses:

Barrett, Hon. Lenore, Idaho State Representative ........................................ 48

Blackwell, Jack, Regional Forester, Ogden, Utah accompanied by Jerry

Reese, Forest Supervisor, Targhee National Forest .................................. 62

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 100

Brown, Janice, Executive Director, Henry’s Fork Foundation, Ashton,

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 56

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 98

Burns, John, Former Targhee National Forest Supervisor, Carmen,

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 37

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 96

Christiansen, Neal, County Commissioner, Ashton, Idaho ........................... 13

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 83

Cook, Adena, Public Lands Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition, Idaho Falls,

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 12

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 81

Craig, Hon. Larry, a United States Senator in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 3

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a United States Senator in Congress from the State

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 5

Gehrke, Craig, Regional Director, Idaho Wilderness Society, Boise, Idaho 49

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 92

Gerber, Jim, President, Citizens for a User-Friendly Forest, St. Anthony,

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 10

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 75

Hawkins, Hon. Stan, State Senator, Boise, Idaho ......................................... 9

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 75

Hoyt, Marv, The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho Falls, Idaho ........... 21

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 103

Ingot, Bill, Rancher, Island Park, Idaho ........................................................ 51

Jeppesen, Gerald, Madison County Commissioner, Rexburg, Idaho ............ 24

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 115

Lyons, Hon. James R., Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared statement of ................ 93

Mackert, Brett, Commander, Fremont County Search and Rescue, St.

Anthony, Idaho .............................................................................................. 26

Mealey, Stephen P., Director, Idaho Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho ............. 35

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 87

Moulton, Roy, Former County Attorney, Driggs, Idaho ................................ 53

Affidavit by ................................................................................................ 128

Robson, Brent, Teton County Commissioner, Driggs, Idaho ........................ 55

Affidavit by ................................................................................................ 130

Ruesink, Robert, Snake River Basin Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Idaho accompanied by Michael Donahoo, Eastern Idaho

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Pocatello, Idaho ............. 60

Shurtleff, Bill, Commission Chairman, Bonneville County Board of Directors, Idaho Falls, Idaho ................................................................................ 23

Prepared statement by .............................................................................. 87
Page

IV

Statements of witnesses—Continued

Siddoway, Jeff, Idaho Fish and Game Commission, Terreton, Idaho .......... 40

Thomas, Eric, Recreationist, St. Anthony, Idaho ........................................... 58

Wood, Hon. JoAnn, Idaho State Representative ............................................ 46

Additional material supplied:

Idaho Environmental Council, prepared statement of .................................. 147

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, prepared statement of .................................... 138
(1)

FIELD HEARING ON THE TARGHEE NATIONAL

FOREST ROAD CLOSURES AND THE

TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST TRAVEL

PLANS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

FEBRUARY 13, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST

AND FOREST HEALTH,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Rexburg, Idaho.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in the

Rexburg Tabernacle, 51 North Center Street, Rexburg, Idaho, Hon.

Helen Chenoweth [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Subcommittee on Forest and Forest

Health will now come to order.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want to thank all of you for coming out

today. And I just want to say that during this hearing, we appreciate all of you offering each other the courtesy that is needed for

us to be able to make sure everyone on the panels are heard and

that everyone has their chance to testify and that those of you in

the audience can see those who are testifying; so we would ask if

the signs could come down. If you wish to display them or hold

them, you are welcome to stand along the side.

So thank you all very much for attending this very important

hearing concerning road activities on the Targhee National Forest.

In my tenure as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have had the

good fortune of being able to travel to national forests around this

great country and to see first-hand the impact that Federal regulations and policies and laws have on the management of our forests.

Unfortunately, I have to say that Federal forests across the country

have become a political playground for the Clinton-Gore Administration and for their extreme environmental policies.

[Audience response.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. We will ask that the audience not clap or

cheer for anyone who is testifying, and that includes the members

of this panel. We would appreciate your courtesy.

The Forest Service mission of caring for the land and serving

people has, by administrative fiat, been changed to locking up the
2

land and keeping people out. This attack on rural America is putting forests and communities at risk.

Just north of here in the Panhandle National Forest, fir beetle

outbreaks have moved local foresters to implement an aggressive

effort to harvest and remove the affected trees in an attempt to

prevent catastrophic fires in coming years. Unfortunately, the administration, with their environmental allies, are trying to stop

this, putting their political agenda ahead of forest health and restoration activities. But nowhere is the administration’s agenda of

locking up the land and keeping people out more evident than it

is here in the Targhee.

As you are aware, last summer, the Forest Service closed 400

miles of roads on the Targhee without seeking public input or performing an environmental analysis. The surface of some roads was

ripped to a depth of three feet to prevent motorized access. Nearly

400 miles of roads were obliterated by placing six to eight foot high

earthen barriers in the roads. Nowhere in America have we seen

these kinds of extreme measures taken to prevent public access. In

fact, usual terms did not adequately describe these monstrous barriers, so they have become commonly referred to as tank traps.

Only in World War II and in the Gulf War have we seen such constructions before, and those were built to stop the advancement of

enemy tanks and equipment during battle. One has to ask why in

the world is the Forest Service using battle tactics against the

American public. Whatever happened to the honorable calling of

serving the people and caring for the land?

It is evident that when the Forest Service dug those traps, they

buried their common sense.

The road obliterations had immediate effect on Idahoans as access to traditional family camping sites, hunting spots and bicycling and hiking areas was cut off. For many people, snowfall has

posed a serious safety problem for snowmobile riders who often

cannot see the tank traps. In addition, Fremont County search and

rescue personnel are unable to reach many areas of the forest and

expect their response time will be affected by these traps.

As road closures spread to the rest of the forest off-highway vehicle users use will be curtailed and additional recreation and hunting spots will be eliminated. This has and will continue to adversely affect local rural economies.

The primary reason given by the Forest Service for this public

access restriction is to protect grizzly bear and elk. Elk populations,

however, are at an all time high and are doing terrific, according

to the Idaho Fish & Game Department. Likewise, grizzly bear are

expanding outside recovery areas into new habitat and the Federal

agencies are beginning the process of delisting.

Given that elk and grizzly bear are generally doing well in these

areas raises a question of why is the Forest Service and the U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service pushing so hard to eliminate another species, and that is people—from these very beautiful national forests.

So in closing, at this time, I would like to take a moment to

thank everyone who helped with this hearing, and in particular, I

would like to thank Jim Gerber, Adena Cook, especially Senator

Stan Hawkins, and my colleagues in the Idaho delegation.
3

I would also like to introduce our Clerk of the Committee on the

Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health, Natalie Nelson, who

will be up here working with us; and my Chief of Staff on the Forest Subcommittee, Doug Crandall.

Also for anyone who would like to add comments to the record,

but could not testify, we have provided comment sheets located at

the back of the room. However, if it is more convenient, please submit your written comments to the Subcommittee within 10 working

days. All of these comments will be placed in the official record of

this hearing.

And now, it is my distinct pleasure to present to you the Chairman of the Forestry Committee in the Senate, our senior Senator

Larry Craig.

[Applause.]

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAIG. Helen, thank you very much. Let me ask unanimous consent that my full statement be a part of the record.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered.

Senator CRAIG. Helen, let me also thank you for scheduling and

holding this hearing. As Helen mentioned, I am Chairman of the

counterpart Forestry Subcommittee on the Senate side, and while

I was contemplating a hearing, as most of you know by watching

both Senator Crapo and myself, we have been a bit preoccupied for

the last month, and that has now been resolved and we will be on

with the legislative business of our state and nation. So I thank

you, I agree with you.

So it is important that this hearing be scheduled in light of several events that are coming together at this time for all of us to

be concerned about, and that is a new forest or road management

plan that the United States Forest Service has and is proposing,

and how it will impact all of the forests of our nation. As you know,

the Targhee was early in developing its forest plan. As a result,

when Chief Dombeck announced his road moratorium a year or 18

months ago, the Targhee was left out because of the stage it was

in the planning process.

It was during that time that Senator Crapo and I—Mike was

then the Congressman—asked—I should not say we asked to meet,

many of you asked if you could meet with us in Idaho Falls as it

related to the Targhee forest plan, and we met. Supervisor Jerry

Reese, who is here today, attended that meeting, and there was a

great deal of concern about the character of the plan itself, the new

proposed plan, and the change of direction that it was focusing on.

I expressed at that time my real frustration that for the first

time in the state of Idaho, we would have a forest plan that would

say that this forest is closed unless designated open, that that was

a tremendous reversal of a historic cultural policy, if for no other

reason; that we in the west loved our public lands and wanted full

access to them, but we would accept closure when it was appropriately designated for the right purposes. But to decide that all

forests are closed unless designated open was a rather medieval

concept known as the king’s forests. All of us resented that, and

certainly serfdom of that day resented it.
4

As a result of that, the forest plan itself went to the regional office where there was a review asked. And what stage we are finally

in is yet to be determined, but our concern, and Helen said it very

well, was it appeared that a plan was beginning to be implemented

prior to the plan being final.

Now there are many of you in the audience today who think you

hold a different point of view than this Congressional delegation

might hold. You might be a bit surprised if you would just listen.

The Targhee Forest, since 1984, has been designated, at least in

four areas, as grizzly bear habitat. And that forest area has been

closed, and we all know that, and you know it. And the bears are

recovering and all of us are happy about that. In fact, I was very

excited about the idea that we had finally had an effective recovery

plan where we could prove in certain areas the Endangered Species

Act could work and we were about ready to move toward delisting.

Was the plan and closure being complied to? Well, in looking at

the statistics, there was a high level of compliance. Was it a perfect

compliance? No. There were some folks who moved around the

gated roads, but in large part, it was complied with.

Why then are we here today? I think many of you and your organizations would have been filing lawsuits today if the kind of earth

moving activity on the Targhee had been done by anybody other

than the Forest Service and had been done for anything other than

what you thought it was being done for that you liked. Let me put

it this way—I do not believe you can have it both ways. Now I do

not believe the Forest Service can implement a plan as dramatic

as this one is without first bringing it to completion. They cannot

do it, nor would they allow it to be done under a draft environmental impact statement. And yet, much of this has been done. I

believe road closures for the purpose of protecting grizzly bear is

important and it has been important on the Targhee since 1984.

And it has worked.

But you want us to play by the rules and you enforce that

through your lawsuits and your energy and your public activity.

And we do. And we want our Federal agencies to play by the rules

too. And they must. That is what this hearing is about. How are

the rules being laid out and how are they being played by.

I believe in road closure for the purpose of protecting unique

habitat and wildlife values, when necessary and where Idaho,

Idaho Fish & Game and the U.S. Forest Service and our citizens

are in step. But I must tell you, the pictures you see in front of

you were not taken by a freelance photographer, they were taken

by me and my staff when I climbed in and out of those tank traps

that Congresswoman Chenoweth talked about. And trees were uprooted and laying across the roads and rocks were strewn everywhere. If that had been a logging company or a mining company,

there would have been lawsuits filed by every environmental organization in the nation, and you all know it. And yet you are here

today defending that? I hope not. If you are here defending the

bear, that is another story. Count me in.

And then I went down to Macks Inn. Just less than a mile and

a half off a highway in a heavily trafficked public area where people go to fish, where this area fishes and enjoys the recreation of

this resource, I ran into more of these tank traps. And I must tell
5

you, I asked Supervisor Reese right afterwards, what in the heck

are they there for. It just did not make sense. That is why we are

here today. Not that we are against the grizzly bear—we are for

the proper and rightful management and the processes of management. And that is what we are here to seek out, because if it does

not happen, we will change the rules—because it must happen, so

that we can have a multiple use resource, so we can protect these

valuable natural resources, so we can have grizzly bear and elk,

and they are thriving on the Targhee and we are pleased about

that.

But you do not continually change the rules to fit just one side.

That is unacceptable. The Forest Service has to comply with the

National Environmental Policy Act, like any other group must that

is using or utilizing the resource under the law, and the management most especially. That is what we are here for. That is what

I am here to listen to. These kinds of decisions do have impacts,

they have impacts on the environment, on wildlife, on the public

and you all know that, and that is why we are very concerned

about it.

You have heard all you are going to hear from me, I am here to

listen. But thank you all, and I mean all of you, for coming out

today. It is an important issue. Our Forest Service is struggling

right now to find a sound management approach. We have a lot of

talented people in the Forest Service and they are very frustrated.

The Forest Service cannot be managed out of the executive offices

in Washington. Most importantly it cannot be managed out of the

Council of Environmental Quality. It must be managed here, on the

ground, by the supervisors, using good science and not political

science.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator Craig, thank you very

much. And now we will hear from Senator Mike Crapo.

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I appreciate very much the opportunity that you have given us to hold

this hearing. Larry and I both had to jump in an airplane last

night to get out here, but it truly is much more rewarding to be

out here in Idaho working on the Idaho issues than some of the difficult, difficult times we have had in Washington the last month.

And I say that notwithstanding the fact that it is evident from the

feelings that people have already expressed here today that there

are strong disagreements over the proper way to manage our public

lands.

It seems to me that—although I agree very strongly with some

of the concerns that have already been raised here about the tank

traps and about whether the management of the forest system has

followed the legal procedures of the land, as all others are required

to follow it, and as to whether the right policies have been achieved

in terms of assuring proper public access to our wonderful natural
6

resources, while maintaining the adequate protections of our environment.

I am going to limit my comments to one issue. And this may

sound like a broken record to some of you who have talked to me

privately or been to other places where I have made comment. But

I continue to believe that we do not have to sacrifice either our environment and our wonderful rich natural resource heritage or our

economy that is so significantly based in our natural resources here

in this region, in order to achieve proper management.

I believe that some of the solutions to help us achieve a fix, if

you will, that will properly balance all of these needs, may require

changes in Federal law to allow more real local management and

real opportunity for people like yourselves to impact public policy,

or else we may continue to end up with a situation in which the

winner is whoever has control or the greatest access and support

at the White House during a given administration.

But I do not think that is the right way for us to manage. I believe that everybody in this room lives in Idaho because they love

the quality of life that we have here. And that quality of life depends on us protecting and preserving our wildlife, our fisheries,

our natural resources, which are one of the greatest treasures that

Idaho has. Everybody also has to have a job. And when an economy

is so dependent on our natural resources, as ours is, many, if not

most, of those jobs and the families that depend on those jobs will

depend on our managing our natural resources so that the people

can have access to those natural resources, yes, for economic activities including tourism and recreation.

It is interesting to me—and I have said this to many of you before—that when you hear someone from one side of the issue talking about one of the disputes in Idaho, they will say I believe we

have got to protect the environment, but we have got to make sure

that I keep my job. And from the other perspective, they will say

I believe that we have got to make sure we have got jobs and that

we protect the economy, but I think we have got to do such and

such to protect the environment. Everyone seems to want to have

to qualify that they are not dismissing the other side of the equation but that they have a point of view that suggests that we have

not yet reached the proper management balance with regard to our

natural resources.

And what I am saying is that I believe those people, all of us

when we say that, are telling the truth. The vast majority of Idahoans do not want to destroy the environment and they want to

make sure that our management policies protect and strengthen

these treasures. And the vast majority of Idahoans do not want to

eliminate jobs and restrict access to our natural resources any

more than is necessary to assure that we protect them. And that

is the balance that we have got to reach.

Now, as I said, I have some real problems with some of the

issues that are going to be brought up here today. But I will commit to everyone in this room, whether you are on the job side of

the equation or on the environment side of the equation, because

as I have said I believe ultimately all of us are on the same side

of the equation and that is to preserve both, that working together

to allow local input into these decisions and then making sure that
7

we find the common ground where we can build forward to have

reasonable management policies that people can accept is an objective that I think we must achieve.

I think that this hearing will give us an opportunity first of all

to let people from many different perspectives voice their feelings,

and I would encourage everyone to listen carefully to those with

whom you disagree, because they have a point of view and they

have some valid points. And if we can look for common ground, we

can find a lot of it. And that is what I will be looking for in today’s

hearing, Madam Chairman. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It is certainly my pleasure to introduce no

stranger to you, my colleague and your Congressman, Mike Simpson.

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this

hearing here today. Senator Craig, Senator Crapo, it is nice to have

you here today, being the former Congressman from this district.

It is my pleasure to welcome all of you that may not be from this

area to what is now my district. I have had the opportunity to represent the State of Idaho over the past as the Speaker of the State

of Idaho and now as the Congressman from this district. I have

also operated a dental practice for the last 22 years in Blackfoot,

some 50 miles south of here. So I and my wife have spent a great

deal of time both in Boise and in Blackfoot, but we also have a

place in Driggs. And so the Targhee Forest is something that we

appreciate and enjoy and something that is very near and dear to

our hearts. That is why it is so disheartening for me to see land

managers that turn once beautiful forests into what appear to be

eyesores and potential hazards.

Idaho’s public lands are a priority to the residents of this beautiful state. Idahoans tend to become emotional when public access

is threatened. The controversy over the development and implementation of the Targhee Forest Plan has escalated feelings on

every side of this issue, as can be seen here today. The failure of

the Forest Service to follow the NEPA process and their own prescribed method of road closures only contributes to the public’s distrust of those responsible for managing public resources.

I am concerned that the Targhee Forest might be the tip of the

iceberg instead of the end of the road. We must ask the question:

Is this the beginning of an attack on the right of citizens to enjoy

the lands that are rightfully theirs. I and many of my fellow westerners live in the west because we love and enjoy this lifestyle. We

value and nurture the way of life and the beautiful natural resources that surround us here. I find it disturbing that the Federal

Government seems to feel it necessary that it needs to keep the

local citizens, those that have had a way of life and stewardship

on this land, off the land. I also find it confusing that in order to

protect the forest we must deface it. I have real concerns about the

government’s lack of consideration for the aesthetic value of the

Targhee Forest. Most of the people in this part of the country
8

would agree with me that you do not go in and put permanent

scars on the land and call it conservation. If any Idaho citizen were

to take similar action on the forest, they would be immediately

thrown in jail, as has already been mentioned.

Though they may not agree, the individuals on these six panels

here today are both thoughtful and intelligent people, each of

whom feel passionately about the Targhee Forest, each of whom

have their own points of view. Considering the caliber of individuals here, it is both logical and feasible that we ought to be able

to work together to develop a workable solution to this problem.

Sports Afield recently named Driggs the best outdoor sports

town. That in itself illustrates how important the Targhee Forest

is to the residents of this area, both for their personal enjoyment

and for their economic wellbeing. To cut off the roads to the

Targhee Forest that are the lifeblood of communities in southeast

Idaho seems to be irresponsible.

I have worked and will continue to work to ensure access to public lands for everyone. Workable solutions must involve the community and their interests and their interests must be taken into consideration. It is in this spirit that road closures and their methods

of implementation should be negotiated with local interests.

Today, I am truly here to listen to you—the Federal and state

agencies, the local groups, the county commissioners, state legislators, user groups, conservation groups and the Idahoans that enjoy

these public lands. It is my hope that at this hearing chaired by

my colleague, Congresswoman Chenoweth, we will find the beginning of a workable solution for everyone. I hope that everyone, as

Senator Crapo said, is here to listen to those people that they

might disagree with, because everyone does have a legitimate point

of view and we can work together and we can solve this if we do

not polarize the issue.

Thank you, Congresswoman Chenoweth.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Congressman Simpson.

Now, I would like to introduce our first panel, if they would come

up to the front here and take their place behind their name plaque.

Mr. Jim Gerber, President of the Citizens for a User-Friendly Forest; Ms. Adena Cook, Public Lands Director for the Blue Ribbon

Coalition; The Honorable Stan Hawkins, State Senator, Boise,

Idaho; Mr. Neal Christiansen, County Commissioners, Ashton,

Idaho.

As you take your place, I want to ask you to remember that we

have many witnesses that we need to hear from today. It was important to me to be able to accommodate all of you and we must

bring the hearing to a close at 5 p.m. So, I need to ask all of you

to keep your oral remarks limited to five minutes. You may submit

your entire testimony for the record and it will appear in the record

in its entirety. And I assure you that if you have any written additional comments, they too will appear in the record.

I also want to explain the lights to you. You will see a green and

a yellow and a red light. The green light will be on for four and

a half minutes—and they are just like traffic lights, you can just

go for four and a half minutes and then when the yellow light
9

comes on, you speed up and then when the red light comes on, it

means stop.

Senator CRAIG. And Madam Chairman, when the red light comes

on, within half a second after it comes on, do the chairs not

eject——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. They do, they fall through the floor.

[Laughter.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. As explained before, and I think you received

some of the rules involving this, it is the intention of the Chairman

to place all outside witnesses under oath. Now this is a formality

of this Committee that is meant to assure open and honest discussion and should not affect the testimony given by the witnesses.

Now I believe that all the witnesses were informed of this before

appearing here today and you each have been provided a copy of

the Committee rules. So if you would please stand and raise your

hand to the square, I will administer the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I would like to open this panel

hearing from Senator Stan Hawkins.

STATEMENT OF HON. STAN HAWKINS, STATE SENATOR, BOISE,

IDAHO

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I can assume that

the light situation here was intended to rein in the politicians, and

I will do my best to comply with the technology.

Let me first formally welcome all of you, as our Congressional

delegation. This may be a historic moment in fact in resource management in eastern Idaho, and I sincerely welcome all of you here

and speak on behalf of the crowd and our constituents and the

other elected officials.

I am the State Senator from the 28th legislative district of Idaho

and that includes the northern part of Bonneville County, all of

Teton County and a good part of Fremont County. I am a native,

I was born and raised here, spent all my life here and I can tell

you that this is a very diverse area and we depend on resourcebased activities to help us fund everything from roads, bridges,

schools, many of our public facilities depend upon a healthy and a

good resource policy.

For generations, our land use practices in fact have preserved

this area in a condition that now causes us to fight about it sometimes. We want to maintain that which has been maintained and

frankly, I am amazed many times at some of the illogical and

unsupportable claims that are made on both sides, for that matter,

by those who would have you believe that we are going to have to

stop using the resources if we are ever going to hand this area

down to the next generation.

As local officials, we are charged with this funding mechanism

that relies heavily on a resource-based economy, and frankly, panic

management and emotional management simply is not going to

work, and we are seeing that in the legislature right now. We are

seeing an ag economy that is suffering, we are seeing all kinds of

problems that I think, at least in part, has to be solved with a balanced approach to the use of our resources.
10

We are told to count on the new and emerging tourism economy

to solve these problems. Frankly, it is interesting to me that many

of those people who are telling us to let tourism pick up the slack

and that there will be no impact if we do that, they are the same

ones who many times want the launches on our rivers limited, they

want the roads closed and they want motorized vehicles banned

from the public lands and from our parks and so on.

We have people with good intentions who are decrying the urban

sprawl and the lack of control on development and tell us that we

need to protect our farm economy and then in the next breath we

hear many of the same people saying we need the water to move

fish. I just have to say we have got to find balance. I am constantly

considering these issues, and frankly, I am tired of battling, trying

to maintain the way of life that I grew up in, enjoying those natural resources and using them as well; and frankly, we need to get

on with some sound management and some sound decision-making.

Now many would say we have already a process to allow that to

take place and we give input, we come to the hearings. County

commissioners and sheriffs and legislators and the emergency service providers attend hearings. We testify and we speak as if that

will make a difference. And in the end, we become frustrated. The

plans and the actions are seldom, if ever, reflective of the comments and the wishes of the local interests as expressed by those

of us who attempt to speak for the majorities that elect us.

Frankly, it is my hope that this hearing will move to the questions that are raised by these pictures and get to the bottom of the

main question here of this hearing, and that is did the Forest Service in fact follow the law when they moved forward with these decisions. It is an important question. Again, we are thankful that you

are here, we are grateful for you being here and we look forward

to your help in resolving this issue.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Senator Hawkins may be found the

at end of the hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Gerber.

STATEMENT OF JIM GERBER, PRESIDENT, CITIZENS FOR A

USER-FRIENDLY FOREST, ST. ANTHONY, IDAHO

Mr. GERBER.Congresslady and Congressmen, my testimony will

address the three reasons the Targhee Forest gave us for closing

and obliterating roads on the forest. These are: protect grizzly bear,

protect elk and reduce erosion. I will explain why we in CUFF do

not believe these are valid reasons for road closures on the

Targhee. Please keep in mind as I discuss them that the majority

of the people in eastern Idaho do not support road closures, so the

pressure to close roads is not coming from us. The question then

is: Where is the pressure to close roads coming from?

The first reason the Forest always gives for closing and obliterating roads is to protect grizzly bear.

I have an overhead transparency of a map to discuss the grizzly

bear issue. The dark blue line is the outline of Yellowstone National Park; the Targhee Forest lies along the lower left boundary

of the park.
11

The map shows the results of a ten-year radio-telemetry study in

and around Yellowstone National Park. The map is taken from a

scientific paper written by Drs. Richard Knight and Dave Mattson,

former employees of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee and

experts on grizzly bear behavior.

Prior to 1977, park biologists radio-collared a number of female

grizzly bears in and near the park and then released them. For the

next ten years, biologists flew over the park and through the wizardry of radio electronics located each bear and marked its position

on a map with a black mark. At the end of ten years, the scientists

produced this map. Every bear management unit—and there are

18 in the park—is covered with black marks indicating the location

of bears; every BMU, that is, except one. That one is the Plateau

Bear Management Unit in the southwest corner of the park. It is

absolutely white. For ten years, while biologists were flying over

the park locating female collared bear, no bear ever walked out

into the Plateau Bear Management Unit. Congressmen, we are setting 164,000 acres aside for the grizzly bear in an area where the

bear does not even want to be.

The second overlay is a statement taken from the same study.

The highlighted portion in yellow says ‘‘Low densities of telemetry

locations in unroaded areas northeast of Yellowstone and in the

park’s southwest corner may be a result of poor habitat condition.

. . .’’ So here we have the premier authority on grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park saying that the Plateau Bear Management

is poor habitat.

When you combine this statement with the previous map and

add the fact that the Plateau BMU is hot, dry habitat with no

water, you get a clear picture that this area is not good grizzly bear

habitat. The question then is why are the Targhee Forest and U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service pushing so hard to emphasize grizzly bear

here. We hope your hearing can shed some light on this question.

The second reason the Forest gives to close roads is to protect

elk, but elk are doing well on the Forest, having increased 600 percent since the 1960s. This increase occurred at a time of heavy salvage logging and associated roadbuilding to harvest millions of beetle-killed trees. This increase in elk associated with more roads

does not tell us roads are a problem for elk on the forest. Again,

the question is why is the Targhee Forest pushing to close roads

when the elk population is at an all-time high and thriving, according to the Idaho Fish & Game Department.

The third reason to close roads is to reduce erosion. This issue

revolves around ghost or two-track roads. The theory being that

since these roads are not constructed or maintained, they must be

adding large quantities of sediment to streams. However, most of

these ghost roads are located one-quarter mile or more from a

stream. These roads erode each year, but that sediment runs into

the adjacent vegetation and is captured. Little, if any, sediment

ever reaches a stream.

In summary, bears and elk are doing fine and water running off

the Targhee is clear. This does not indicate a need for the excessive

road closures proposed by the Targhee Forest. Since the impetus to

close roads is not coming from us in eastern Idaho, we wonder
12

where it is coming from. We hope your hearing can shed some light

on this question.

Thank you and that concludes my comments.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Gerber.The Chair now recognizes Ms. Cook.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerber may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF ADENA COOK, PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR,

BLUE RIBBON COALITION, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO

Ms. COOK. First of all, I am very proud that Idaho’s entire Congressional delegation has come here to investigate and hear testimony on this local issue, but this is not just a local issue. It is happening to greater or lesser degree in almost every national forest

in the country. So this is a microcosm of what is happening everywhere else.

Thinking out of the box is a popular euphemism for creative

problem solving. Tough issues can demand unconventional ways of

thinking and processes that reach beyond established boundaries.

Nowhere is this more important than in the management of our

public lands.

When Targhee Forest planning began eight years ago, there was

promise that a new plan process would attempt new solutions. Dr.

Bill Shands, one of the nation’s foremost experts on forest planning, was put in charge of public involvement. He advocated taking

planning out of the box. This was long before that euphemism became popular. It was hoped that if the public were involved in each

step of the process, that consensus or maybe even comprehension

would result.

Under Dr. Shands’ direction, the process went very well for the

first couple of years and understanding was occurring, maybe even

a little bit of consensus. But this was not to last. The Office of Supervisor changed—Bill Shands passed away. The preservation direction of the Clinton Administration was emerging and the Forest

Service was being reinvented.

Out came a box with a big label—ecosystem management. Its

management criteria were slanted in a preservationist direction.

Locally based solutions and citizen involvement became less important and polarization started to develop.

Now the Blue Ribbon Coalition has always been a strong advocate of cooperation with land managers. They are our partners. We

have demonstrated many successes as a result of this partnership.

One of the key elements of success in this way is constructive give

and take. Another is dedication to on-the-ground problem solving.

But the inflexible standards of the new forest plan stimulated

not this give and take that we needed, but more polarization. For

example, it mandated tough road and trail density standards, not

only in the bear management units, but throughout the whole forest. It counted a single track trail where motorized use was allowed

as having the same impact on wildlife as a Federal highway. And

it closed—imposed a ‘‘closed unless posted open’’ fiat on most cross

country travel.

This inflexibility continued as the process moved forward. A multiple use alternative developed by local citizens, which was in13

cluded in the Targhee draft plan, was dropped in the final plan because it failed to conform to established parameters.

A travel plan was issued shortly after the final forest plan was

released. This decision designated open roads and trails and decided which trails would be closed. The regional office received

1,276 appeals on this decision and the appeals were upheld by the

regional office because the public was not given an opportunity to

comment through site specific process.

And then finally, toward the end of last summer, nearly 400

miles of road were obliterated without site-specific documentation.

And this not only obliterated the roads, but obliterated any public

dialogue that would have examined gates site specifically to determine if they were effective or not; determine whether informal

routes were essential and could be traded for other routes; address

concerns about winter recreation safety; determine if the obliterations were necessary in developed parts of Island Park.

So now, Targhee’s current management is in a box that is inflexible, inhibits on-the-ground solutions and discourages constructive

communication. The Targhee is but one example of how thinking

in a box constrains land management problem solving.

Committed to top down mandates that come in a box, other national forests face similar difficulties. And that is why we are here.

We need you to help us work toward solutions and help us think

out of the box.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Ms. Cook.

The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Christiansen.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cook may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF NEAL CHRISTIANSEN, COUNTY

COMMISSIONER, ASHTON, IDAHO

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly welcome this opportunity to state a few of my concerns from a county

commissioner’s standpoint. Also, I am a former logger, I have been

there and watched this forest drop down to where the jobs are pretty near non-existent in the forest.

I was elected to office in 1994 and re-elected in 1996. I have

served now for four years continuously as a county commissioner.

During that time and before, the previous four, five, six, eight

years, I worked with the Forest on some of these issues that we

are facing today, including the forest plan revision and subsequent

travel plan.

As I said before, I was for years a logging contractor and am currently Vice President of the Associated Logging Contractors of

Idaho. We represent some 560 logging contractors throughout the

state plus their families and the jobs that they hold. So as such,

I am very familiar with the resource utilization and the forest end

of the forest management of it.

Fremont County is heavily dominated by Federal land. Between

the Targhee Forest and the Bureau of Land Management, 60 percent of our county is federally owned, most of it, of course, is Forest

Service land. As a result, Federal land management policies have

a large impact on Fremont County. Those who use the forest also

live elsewhere. Tourists are heavily impacting us now, we have a
14

heavy summer home residency. I would like to interject here that

this road closure affected practically all of Fremont County, it went

from south of the river, north to the continental divide, east to the

Teton County—or south from the Teton County line to the Clark

County line on the north and on the west, I think there is one road

closed in Clark County and we were able to put a stop to it before

they hit the Teton County line, but it completely wiped out Fremont County, two-thirds of Fremont County, as far as access to

timber extraction.

By example, I point to the loss of the 25 percent funds in the last

eight years or so. In 1991, Fremont County had $213,000 in 25 percent resource money coming in. From then on, it has been a steady

reduction in receipts and this year, we had a mere $48,000 in 25

percent resource money and a good share of that was from cabin

lease sites, very little from grazing or from timber receipts. Practically all of the reduction results in the decline of the timber receipts. The Forest seems oblivious to this impact, even though we

have pointed out the problem many times.

So it is not surprising that we, the county commissioners, were

less than enthusiastic about the revision of the forest plan. Still,

the public involvement process is the only game in town and hopefully in the enlightened 1990s, they will have an open mind, but

this has not happened.

To summarize, I would like you to keep in mind that Fremont

County is heavily dominated by federally-owned lands, with 60 percent in Federal ownership. It is very important, therefore, that the

Forest carefully consider the effects its actions have on us. That

has not always been the case. Since 1991, as I explained before, our

25 percent resource money has dropped to practically nil.

The Forest proposes major reductions in public access and with

little input from the commissioners or the public. In addition, 380

miles of roads were obliterated this summer with these tank traps

without any public input. This action violates both NEPA and

NFMA. Since our constituents did not request the obliterations, we

wonder where the pressure to do so originated from. We hope your

hearing can shed some light on this problem.

Thank you, ma’am.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christiansen may be found at

the end of the hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

I want to thank the panel for their testimony and I want to remind the members that under Rule 4(g) in our Committee Rules,

even members are limited to five minutes in their questioning. And

one thing about being Chairman, you have to wield the gavel. So,

I will closely adhere to that five-minute rule for all of us.

The Chair would like to yield for the first set of questions to Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I will

play by the rules.

Mr. Gerber, would you please tell us for the record what your organization, Citizens for a User-Friendly Forest, is, why was it

formed, what kind of an organization is it?

Mr. GERBER. Citizens for a User-Friendly Forest is a group of forest users in eastern Idaho. We consist of loggers, OHV people,
15

ranchers, snowmobilers, two summer home groups, three county

commissioners, a mayor and a number of small businesses from Island Park to Idaho Falls. And we kind of grew out of a citizens involvement group for the Targhee Forest. We could see the forest

was not headed in the same direction that we wanted to go. So we

developed our own group and developed our own alternative and

presented that to the Forest.

Basically, we believe the forest should provide a broad range of

goods and services along with the access needed to provide those

goods and services.

Senator CRAIG. Would you tell us about the ballot that took place

in Madison, Fremont and Teton Counties concerning your organization’s proposal?

Mr. GERBER. Yeah, in May of 1966, there was an advisory ballot

placed on six counties that touched the Targhee National Forest,

and as a result of that—and what it did was give those who voted

a chance to choose between the Forest Service’s preferred alternative and our CUFF alternative. It was generally known that our

CUFF alternative allowed more access, more timber harvest and

generally more use of the forest. And as a result of that vote, 78

percent of those six counties preferred our CUFF alternative, compared to 22 percent for the Forest Service.

Senator CRAIG. In total numbers of participants, what does 78

percent represent, do you recall? What were the total number of

people who participated in the balloting?

Mr. GERBER. I do not recall exactly, there were probably 20,000

or 30,000 people.

Senator CRAIG. How many?

Mr. GERBER. Twenty or thirty thousand.

Senator CRAIG. Twenty or thirty thousand.

Mr. GERBER. Yeah, in all six counties.

Senator CRAIG. I see.

Adena, I am well aware of your organization and have worked

with your organization and taken testimony from you over the

years as it relates to public land management issues. You talk

about out of the box thinking and coming at a problem in a different way. I was very early on watchful and hopeful that the collaborative process that the Targhee was engaging in would work,

because it had all parties at the table, or certainly appeared to.

And then it did not work.

Would you again for the record reiterate why you think it broke

down? The players that left, was that largely the problem?

Ms. COOK. Well, yes, it was partly a situation where key players

did leave, specifically Dr. Shands, whose ideas had kind of held

things together.

But one of the crucial things that happened just as Dr. Shands

died and just as the supervisor’s position was changing hands, was

that preservationist groups filed a lawsuit on the way grizzly bears

were being managed. And that lawsuit was settled by the Forest

Service with the understanding——

Senator CRAIG. Out of court, right?

Ms. COOK. Yeah, it was—the lawsuit was settled.

Senator CRAIG. Yes.
16

Ms. COOK. With the understanding that the road density would

be brought way, way down in the bear management unit. Now this

was right during when the plan was going on and——

Senator CRAIG. Was this not also a group that had been a participant at the table?

Ms. COOK. Yes, yes. So here we had this extra thing that was

going on outside the public process and the Forest Service agreed

that all these roads would be taken out while the process was just

sort of underway. Well, this broke down the developing consensus,

as far as I was concerned. And in fact, those of us who really cared

had to push hard to make the Forest adhere to the NEPA process

and the new plan revision as opposed to just going out there and

closing the roads right then and there. And we were successful in

doing that.

The new supervisor, Jerry Reese, did decide that the roads would

not be closed right then and there, they would be—the question

would be addressed as a part of the forest plan. But the damage

had taken place at that point as far as the developing consensus.

Senator CRAIG. I see my time is up. Senator Hawkins and Commissioner Christiansen, let me thank you both very much for your

testimony and I appreciate you being here. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Senator Crapo.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Commissioner Christiansen, I want to start with you, so I will

go from the other end there. You indicated that you have had a

dramatic reduction in the 25 percent funds that the county has received. And if I read your testimony correctly, the reduction has

been from a $213,000 level in 1991 to a $48,000 level today.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Right.

Senator CRAPO. So if I understand you correctly, you are talking

about more than a 75 percent reduction in funds.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Yes, I will say in fact that is just from 1991.

In the late 1980s we were taking in upwards of $400,000 a year.

Senator CRAPO. Four hundred thousand?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. That was the peak of the salvage operation

on the Targhee. Of course, we realized that could not last forever.

Senator CRAPO. Right, that was an unusual circumstance.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Yes, it was an unusual thing, but we still

maintain our forest should generate more than eight million board

feet a year.

Senator CRAPO. Right. You believe though that the $48,000 level

is not the proper sustainable level?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. I might say that probably close to $40,000 out

of this comes out of cabin lease sites, which has been that way forever.

Senator CRAPO. So only about $8,000 comes from grazing a timber?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. From grazing and timber harvest.

Senator CRAPO. Is the county in the process of seeking to get approval of—I do not know what the right word is, but of submitting

its RS-2477 roads to the Federal Government for approval and acceptance? Is the county doing that?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Yes, we are recording our RS-2477 roads

and——
17

Senator CRAPO. How is that process proceeding?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. How is it, you say?

Senator CRAPO. In other words, I have heard——

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. It is a slow process.

Senator CRAPO. That was my question. I have heard that there

is a feeling that there is not much progress being made in resolving

the RS-2477 road issues.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. No.

Senator CRAPO. Is that your experience in the county?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. That has been our experience. We do not

agree on the methods of the Forest Service and the county commissioners do not agree on the wording of the RS-2477 roads.

Senator CRAPO. All right, thank you.

Adena, I am going to move to you because I know my time is

going to turn to the yellow light here pretty quick. I was very interested in the testimony you provided, both your written and oral

testimony, about Dr. Shands and the effort to find consensus. And

as I am sure you know, that is something that I would hope to see

us try to focus on and recreate.

One of the questions that I have with regard to the off-road vehicle usage issue and one of the issues that has been brought to me

the most often is the question of leaving roads or leaving trails and

just going cross country where there are no trails. Can you address

your perspective? And I assume you are speaking on behalf of your

association, is that correct?

Ms. COOK. Excuse me?

Senator CRAPO. Are you speaking on behalf——

Ms. COOK. Yes, I am, yes.

Senator CRAPO. Would you tell me whether there is a position

with regard to how the forest roads ought to be managed on the

issue of off-road vehicle usage in terms of leaving the trails and

leaving the roads for cross country usage.

Ms. COOK. Right. In general, we adhere to tread lightly, which

means to stay on established routes and to not cause off-trail damage. And in fact, under the current rules, any time the off-trail

damage does occur, the Forest does have a right to close those

routes down.

Now we urge our members to adhere to these tread lightly rules,

but a lack of flexibility occurs when you only designate those routes

that can be open and everything else is closed. In order to close a

route or a trail or anything else, you should have a good reason,

just like there is a good reason to stay on established routes.

Senator CRAPO. But you are not disagreeing with the policy that

established routes should be kept to by those who are using offroad vehicles?

Ms. COOK. I am sorry, I could not hear, we are getting an echo

here.

Senator CRAPO. I understand. You are not disagreeing with the

tread lightly policy.

Ms. COOK. Oh, absolutely not. And people need to take care of

the land as they go out and enjoy and use it, no matter what their

form of transportation.
18

Senator CRAPO. I see my time is about up. I have got a lot more

questions, but we will get to them later on. Thank you, Madam

Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator.

The Chair recognizes Congressman Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Gerber, you mentioned during your testimony that there

were three reasons given for the road closures—one was grizzly

bear habitat, the other was elk habitat and the third one was the

erosion; and that the grizzly bear seem to be doing fine coming

back, reaching the possibility of delisting; the elk habitat seems to

be fine, record numbers of elk according to the Idaho Fish & Game;

erosion does not seem to be a problem. You said that the pressure

for these road closures does not seem to be coming from us, that

it is potentially coming from someone else. Would you care to speculate on that? Are there other species, are there other things out

there that I am not aware of that is going on that would force the

Forest Service into this?

Mr. GERBER. I am not aware of any other species. If I was going

to speculate, I would say it is maybe an internal thing between the

Forest Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, almost a

mindset these days that you have to protect everything, almost to

the exclusion of human beings.

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you think that there is a mindset in the Forest

Service that the only way to protect habitat is to keep people off?

I remember that years ago the debate occurred on whether the

Alaskan pipeline would destroy the caribou herds, and now you

find pictures of them, that is where they care to spend their winters, is next to the Alaskan pipeline. Is that the kind of science we

are using here?

Mr. GERBER. It seems to be. Unfortunately it just looks really

like there is almost—when you look at these pictures down here,

it looks like a big billboard that says ‘‘human beings stay out, you

are not welcome here.’’

Mr. SIMPSON. Adena, is it possible to alter the prescribed road

density policy for the forest plan to increase public access and also

protect and maintain the habitat for the bear management units?

Ms. COOK. Well, we believe that there is. However, to do so

would require a forest plan amendment and we have thus far been

unsuccessful in persuading anyone that that needs to happen. Procedurally, however, the decisions on the forest plan appeals have

not yet been resolved. The final decisions have not come down from

the Washington office. So procedurally, I do not see how they could

start a revision process until those questions are cleared up. It has

been about a year and a half and I am not sure why a decision on

those appeals has not been rendered yet. But that is an interesting

question.

Mr. SIMPSON. Is the concern if they were to open the forest plan

again that we would lose some things that we currently have in the

current forest plan—it might go in the wrong direction, from your

point of view?

Ms. COOK. That is always possible because—although I will say

that I do not think the whole thing has to go back to the drawing

board and we do not have—we have already made a lot of progress.
19

I think there is just some fine tuning that has to be done and the

densities and the questions need to be made on a more site specific

basis. I just think they were made on too broad a basis. So I think

there is some fine tuning, I do not think you have to go back to

square one.

Mr. SIMPSON. Commissioner Christiansen, Senator Crapo mentioned the 2477 roads. How has the road closures affected your

process in developing those 2477 roads or declaring those 2477

roads? Has it made it more difficult?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. How they have affected the process of the RS2477 roads?

Mr. SIMPSON. Uh-huh.

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Well, really not that bad except that there is

a couple of roads that are within this grizzly bear recovery zone

that is probably going to be controversial, mainly over there on the

Centennials, but it does not look like or sound like in the Clark

County end of the Centennials that—that is going along pretty fine

and hopefully it does not affect those.

Mr. SIMPSON. In this plan, if you declare a 2477 road and it is

accepted, does that affect the road density or does it mean they just

close other roads?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Well, I assume in the grizzly bear management units, we are going to have to include it in the density, although we should not have to.

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you have an answer to that, Mr. Gerber?

Mr. GERBER. I am pretty sure that it would be included within

the road density standard. You could check with Jerry Reese when

he gets up here, but I believe that would be how they interpret it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Congressman.

I want to turn my attention to Senator Hawkins. I know that

when you first approached us about bringing the Committee in, you

were very, very concerned about the local economies and how they

would be impacted based on these decisions on road policies.

For the record, would you explain what your thinking was, your

concern about the local economies in your district?

Mr. HAWKINS. Congresswoman Chenoweth, for the most part, we

are faced with funding many of the things that people expect from

government in this area from basically a couple of sources—property tax predominantly is an issue, and when you up end and essentially terminate an economy that was once based on the resource industries, you typically remove a lot of property tax base

from the rolls and that causes a shift. And when that shift occurs,

it essentially means that the local residents then are faced with

funding the same things with less base to spread it on.

The symptoms of that are everywhere. We just recently put the

finishing touches on a new school in Teton basin, took 20 years to

pass a bond to get that school built finally. And frankly, when that

bond passed, it impacted a smaller base, to the extent that many

farmers were very adversely impacted by that.

From a broader sense, Congressman Simpson got out of the legislature just in time because we are now facing the specter of the Department of Fish & Game having the biggest budget problem that

I can remember. I have been in the legislature 15 years and this
20

is as bad as it has been. And frankly, I believe when you close

roads, there are many people who want access to hunt and fish

that essentially begin to say this is not the way I want to do it,

I cannot walk, I will not walk, I cannot expect my young children

to walk——

[Audience comment.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Will the gentleman yield? I would appreciate

very much that the audience not interrupt the testimony.

Mr. HAWKINS. I am one that believes that the budget problems

of the Department of Fish & Game now face at least are affected

by the policies that we are making on public lands, and I think

that there is some resistance now and we have seen that in the tag

and license sales, we are seeing a flattening of those purchases. I

believe that is part of the mix, not all of the mix.

So those are the things that I am concerned about.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Very well.

Mr. Gerber, I wonder if we could throw the first overhead back

up on the screen there. You showed us that in the southwest corner

there, there is virtually almost no sightings at all.

Mr. GERBER. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Could you point out and describe for the

record where the roads are that they are using the tank traps in

your counties?

Mr. GERBER. Okay. This is the Targhee portion of the Plateau

Bear Management Unit, this whole thing is about 455,000 acres

and about 164 out here. These are the roads out here that were

tank trapped. And you can see there were no black—for that ten

year period, there were no female grizzly bear that were in there.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. For the record, so we can get it on the

record—I know what your background is, but those who read the

Congressional Record do not. Can you give us your background?

Mr. GERBER. I am a forester, I worked for the Forest Service for

30 years, mostly in timber management and forest planning. I retired in 1994.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Gerber, based on your background, can

you see the logic in this at all? And as a county commissioner, were

you consulted ahead of time with regards to the impact on the

county that it might have?

Mr. GERBER. I have to say that I can see no logic for what I see

out there on the ground from a biological standpoint or a common

sense standpoint.

And we certainly had no input into any of these road closures

ahead of time.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And is it not true that under Idaho law, roads

that are under the county jurisdiction, you have been granted by

the state sole jurisdiction over the roads and the activity on those

roads, right?

Mr. GERBER. I am sorry, I am not quite following.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Under Idaho law, you have been granted the

authority as a county commissioner and the jurisdiction——

Mr. GERBER. Yeah.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] to handle activity on roads under

county jurisdiction, which would include RS-2477 roadways.
21

Mr. GERBER. Right, under state law, county commissioners do

have total control over the RS-2477 roads and I have to correct you,

I am not a county commissioner, I am a public consultant, public

land advisor to the county commissioners.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. I see my time is up, but let me ask

Mr. Christiansen very quickly, were you consulted ahead of time as

a county commissioner with regard to the activity that took place?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. Excuse me?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. As a county commissioner, were you consulted

ahead of time with regards to the activity that you see here in the

pictures?

Mr. CHRISTIANSEN. We were not.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much.

I want to thank this panel very much for your outstanding testimony. I know we all wish we had more time with you and we will

look forward to reviewing your entire testimony. And as I said earlier, if you have additional comments that you would like to enter

into the record, you have ten days to do so. Thank you very much.

And now I would like to recognize the second panel as this panel

leaves.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to call to the panel Mr. Marv

Hoyt, representative of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho

Falls, Idaho; Mr. Bill Shurtleff, County Commissioner and Chairman of the Bonneville County Board of Directors, Idaho Falls,

Idaho; Mr. Gerald Jeppesen, Madison County Commissioner,

Rexburg, Idaho and Mr. Brett Mackert, Commander, Fremont

County Search and Rescue, St. Anthony, Idaho.

Gentlemen, you have all heard me explain about the lights and

what they mean—the green light will be on for four and a half minutes, the yellow light for 30 seconds and the red light means stop

your testimony. And also, as you know, you have received a copy

of the Committee Rules and we will be swearing you under the

oath. So I wonder if you might stand and raise your hand to the

square.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hoyt for his testimony.

STATEMENT OF MARV HOYT, THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE

COALITION, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO

Mr. HOYT. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

We know that the ostensible reason for this hearing was the Forest’s use of tank traps to discourage the illegal use of closed roads.

GYC readily concedes that tank traps may not be the best way to

keep the scofflaws off the roads. In fact, back in 1994, when the

Forest had the money and the staff, GYC and other conservation

organizations proposed that the Targhee rip and reseed those same

roads. If our proposal had been implemented back then, it would

have made the use of tank traps unnecessary this last year.

Unfortunately, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, loggers, folks on the

Idaho Congressional delegation and county commissioners, all came

out in opposition to this proposal. We knew then and we know now

that gates have not prevented the illegal use of roads. We also
22

know that most of the same people who claim to be concerned

about tank traps are the very ones who did not want the roads reclaimed.

Now, some five years later, the Forest has limited funds to effectively close these roads; therefore, the use of tank traps. We would

like to offer a solution.

If tank traps are the real issue, then we would be more than

happy to work with the delegation, the Forest Service and other interested parties to seek funding necessary to obliterate and permanently put these roads to bed.

As far as scars and aesthetics go, I know that is a concern for

some folks, it is for us too, and if you want to look at scars, look

at the hundreds of thousands of acres that have been clear cut and

the thousands of miles of roads that you can see from outer space

on the Targhee—that is a scar that will not go way for perhaps

centuries.

Access management is more than just tank traps and grizzly

bears, it is about more than that, it is about protecting of a variety

and array of public resources—water quality, fisheries, wildlife,

soils and so forth. GYC believes that the Targhee National Forest

took some very positive steps in terms of access management in the

revised forest plan. The most important step was setting road density standards for the various management prescriptions. We also

believe that the elimination of indiscriminate and highly damaging

summer time cross country motorized travel across part of the forest was a significant improvement.

We also think that eliminating the use of ghost roads was an improvement, and finally the new signing system for the roads, open

roads and open trails is an improvement.

These elements should eventually solve the problems caused by

the widespread and illegal use of ghost roads.

As for grizzly bear, some have said that the Plateau is not good

grizzly bear habitat, bears do not use it. I will read from a February 4, 1999 memo from an Interagency Grizzly Bear Team committee member, which says, ‘‘I think that if the Forest Service can

get their planned road reductions implemented, the change will go

a long way to improving the BMU for grizzly bears. With the road

reductions, I think most bear biologists would consider the BMU

good grizzly bear habitat. Without the reduction, it is still bear

habitat and grizzly bears do use it. With fewer roads and less

human impacts, habitat effectiveness in this unit can only increase.

If the population is increasing and expanding, in time, grizzly

bears will occupy secure habitats available to them. Remember also

that the landscape is dynamic. Unforeseen changes within the

greater Yellowstone area may increase the relative importance of

the Plateau BMU.’’

There were 169 grizzly bear sightings on the Targhee reported

to the Targhee between 1985 and 1997 and this does not include

the grizzly bear sightings, which were numerous this past year, as

we all know. There were also 44 grizzly bear sightings in 1997

alone, within one mile of the Targhee border inside Yellowstone

National Park, in the Plateau Bear Management Unit.
23

We think that the Forest Service has made some long-overdue

changes in travel management. We also believe that modifying or

abandoning these would be a bad idea.

So far, the American public has spoken convincingly in this matter. This is not just a local issue. There have been 5,171 comments

received by the Forest Service as of February 11. Of those, 98.6

percent prefer closing roads, 95 percent of the Idahoans have said

close the roads. Idahoans who make up .06 percent of the population of the U.S. make up 15 percent of those commenting on this

forest plan and are in favor of closing roads. I think those are some

significant numbers and I think that the delegation needs to understand and the folks in this room, that this is a national forest, we

all have a right to say and speak about it as we wish. We all have

feelings about it and I think that many Idahoans and the American

public are in favor of road closures to protect these resources.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hoyt.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoyt. I wonder if

you might provide for the Committee copies of the surveys that you

quoted in your testimony.

Mr. HOYT. I would be more than happy to, Madam Chairwoman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bill Shurtleff.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoyt may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF BILL SHURTLEFF, COMMISSION CHAIRMAN,

BONNEVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IDAHO FALLS,

IDAHO

Mr. SHURTLEFF. Madam Chairman, Senator Craig, Senator

Crapo, Representative Simpson, members of the panel and guests,

my name is Bill Shurtleff and I am the owner and manager of Call

Forest Products. I also fill the position of Bonneville County Commissioner. However, today my testimony will be based upon my 29

years of experience as a timber resource user.

Let me begin by telling you that during the 1970s and the 1980s,

as the Forest Service was constructing many of the roads we are

now discussing, the constant mantra was that their roads were the

number one asset of the Forest. These were the roads that would

allow them to manage the forest into the future. These were the

roads that would allow them to fight fires, thin trees, make inspections, open for recreation and even perhaps allow some harvesting

of trees, if needed.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been taken to the woodshed by a sale administrator because a logging machine had damaged a road shoulder or surface. We were also shut down if dust

reached a certain level which would cause a loss of road surfaces.

All of this was enforced in order to preserve and maintain the number one asset of the Forest—the road.

Now all of this has been reversed. I am certain others will talk

about the process that the Forest Service went through in order to

implement their new policy, but I would like to talk about what the

long-term effect will be. By closing these roads in a manner that
24

will virtually stop all travel for long periods of time, these roads

will deteriorate to a point of uselessness. The only two means that

the Forest Service has at its disposal to repair these roads is hard

money, which I am sure you are aware there is very little of, or

the selling of timber where the road construction or repair is tied

to the sale.

In the Targhee, this is very unlikely to take place. The very

small sale volume that is available on the Targhee will not economically carry much road construction or maintenance.

It is my opinion that this entire process will basically close off

large portions of the forest to any management. What will return

is the same forest we faced in the 1950s, a forest of lodge pole pine,

old and diseased, dying and then finally burning. We know this because we have seen it happen before. And let me insert that I think

that the Targhee right now is basically in extremely good condition,

it is primarily a young, vibrant forest, based upon what we have

done in the past. The strange thing to me is that I thought the action we took in the 1970s and 1980s was specifically meant to avoid

this happening again.

My opinion is that roads could be closed in such a manner as to

allow inspection travel, minor maintenance travel and still accomplish the objective of X number of miles of road per acre. This

would not stop all road deterioration, but perhaps it could reduce

it to the point that the road could be reclaimed at some need in

the future.

I know our topic today is road closure, but I cannot let this opportunity pass without commenting on what I believe to be the underlying design to close the entire Targhee National Forest to any

type of commercial harvesting. It is my opinion that this is an objective of the present forest plan by the manner in which it is being

carried out. I will say no more on this subject, but would love to

discuss this topic further at your convenience.

In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I have great respect for the job you are both performing—all four of you, I should say. I have some feeling for the

difficulty involved.

I thank you very much.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Commissioner.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes Madison County

Commissioner Gerald Jeppesen.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shurtleff may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF GERALD JEPPESEN, MADISON COUNTY

COMMISSIONER, REXBURG, IDAHO

Mr. JEPPESEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of

the Committee. It is an honor for me to be here to talk to you

today. I represent the fourth generation of a farm community and

farm family that live in close proximity to the Targhee Forest and

have recreated and used those resources through the last four generations to build homes and to recreate and do all the things that

people in this area enjoy doing in the forest.
25

In the very beginnings of the forest plan, I was a member of the

citizens committee and did follow that process as a member of the

Soil & Water Conservation District in Madison County, and then

later represented Madison County Commission on that same council. I do concur with what the conclusion was.

We went through that process and everybody seemed to agree

and it was a very workable process. But things seemed to change

with the changing of the road density in the bear management

units. Everyone on that committee had agreed to a certain number

of roads and then we were told we could not do that because of an

agreement with Fish & Wildlife Service, and then the next thing

we knew was when the open road plan came out, the same agreement that we had agreed to on the bear management unit, the primary one, was asserted to all the other areas of the forest. That

was very, very disturbing to us because that was never mentioned

until that final plan did come before us as county commissioners

or as residents.

At that point, we became very involved in the 2477 process and

before you, you have a map of Madison County’s assertions. What

we have done is we have taken the roads that are recognized by

the Forest Service on their plan, those are in yellow. The ones that

are in purple are the ones that are designated by our county and

the county commission as designated 2477s and those that do overlap have kind of a yellow-purple color. So if you would like to review that with me later, I would be glad to go over that map with

you.

We did submit this to the Forest Service, they did come out with

their second DIS on open roads. We found quite a bit of confusion

on their maps. They have designated some of our roads that were

designated as 2477s as closed, others were listed for decommission

and we were very upset by the prospects of that. I do have in your

file though a letter from Jerry Reese that did come forward after

the plan was submitted and said that no action would be taken on

those roads without consultation with county commissioners in

Madison County, and we do agree with that proposed approach on

these roads. We believe that no designation can be made on them

until some kind of an agreement is made between the county commissioners and the Forest Service on those roads. We have also

asked that those roads be eliminated from the forest plan process

because we do believe that counties do have the authority over

those roads and they should not be included in the forest plan to

begin with because those are county roads.

One of the great diversities of this is two years ago, the Forest

Service approached us to actually take over ownership of many of

the roads we have listed as 2477s. We did at that time take over

approximately eight to ten miles of those roads, we have maintained those for the last two years, but because of paperwork with

the Forest Service we have not received title for those, so there is

no way for the state to pay us for those roads, for the upkeep that

we have been doing on them.

We believe that roads, if maintained properly, do not have any

effect upon the environment or upon streams or anything in the

area, and we have been doing our part to maintain those roads.
26

We are very concerned about closure of ghost roads. Most of

those roads are a quarter of a mile to half a mile in length. The

primary use of these roads is for the public to get off the main road

to camp and enjoy the surroundings of the forest without having

someone drive through camp every 15 or 20 minutes. Most of the

local residents have used these camping sites for many years with

little or no effect on the forest. Closure of these roads would force

campers into organized campgrounds that are already crowded or

force them to camp on both sides of the roads that are heavily trafficked. This in turn will force the public out of the forest putting

undue pressure on private landowners.

This is not the forest experience that most of us have grown up

with and we would ask for your support in this investigation to

help make these roads be open because they do provide a valuable

part of the culture and nature of Madison County and the surrounding areas.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Commissioner.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And now we will hear from Commander Brett

Mackert of the Fremont County Search and Rescue.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jeppesen may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF BRETT MACKERT, COMMANDER, FREMONT

COUNTY SEARCH AND RESCUE, ST. ANTHONY, IDAHO

Mr. MACKERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman and fellow supporters.

This summer—first of all, I bring to you a story of how I was exposed to this road closure issue. I work at a correctional facility in

the state of Idaho and in that correctional facility, we take youth

to the forest and we do service projects for the Forest. Our service

project chosen for the day was to scout areas to put trees, a very

worthy project, I would say, a very worthy project, to go in and actually put trees into the forest. That is the idea of forest management.

When we get on site that morning, we have to go through a

locked green gate, as all of you are probably aware of what they

look like. There was no traffic behind that gate or there had been

none. We drive down the road for about a mile and a half to two

miles, we come to another locked green gate. Still no traffic on the

road, still none. Immediately behind the second locked green gate

is where the tank trap started—one, two, three. Evidently they did

not feel like the gates was working in that area. They were, they

were working very well. There was absolutely no way anyone could

get around the gates where they were located.

Not only were there tank traps, there were large rocks rolled

onto the road and then I would think that the thing that appalled

me more than anything else at that point was a tree, a single tree,

broken off about 15 feet in the air, 10 to 12 inches in diameter, toppled in amongst these tank traps. For someone who is supposed to

manage the forest and take care of the trees, it appalled me. I said

little about it, you know, at that point, the damage had already

been done.
27

I was called to Island Park to look at another situation. I was

asked to go and look at the Flat Rock Road in Island Park, a popular road in the summer time for people who ride four-wheelers.

It is a flat area, there is no hills, the road is just entirely flat. On

that road, the tank traps started and approximately every 75 yards

there was another one and another one and another one. Well we

had walked down the road a short distance and my young son, who

is seven years old, he says to me, he says, ‘‘Dad, what does the sign

say?’’ And there a sign next to a tree said the following, in essence

it was this is a forest test plot, damage to this area is something

to the nature of imprisonment in law, enforceable by the Forest Supervisor. Piled at the base of this sign is the branches off the tree

where the excavator had scraped them off approximately 15 feet in

the air.

That day, we walked past 14 tank traps. We did not go to the

end of the road, that was as far as we made it, was 14 of them.

Fifty trees had the bark and branches scraped off of one side of

them, six trees were busted off and tipped over and 14 tank traps.

I am sorry, that is significant, that is not taking care of the resource, that is destruction of a resource.

One of the three reasons that Mr. Gerber spoke of was erosion.

I wonder how those 14 tank traps that we walked past are going

to look come spring time, and where that dirt and that erosion is

going to head to. It is a sad, sad thing in this world that we can

destroy this and say it is for the betterment of the forest. There has

got to be a better method—there has to be.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mackert.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Senator Crapo for questioning.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Marv, I would like to direct my first few questions to you. It

seems to me that one of the issues with regard to the tank traps

is whether the gates actually work, and if I understood your testimony, you do not believe the gates do work to keep the traffic off

the roads.

Mr. HOYT. That is correct. I think that from my own personal experience they do not work; for many people I have talked to, they

do not work; and from a project called the Road Scholar Project

where a group of young folks monitored those gate closures and the

effectiveness of them over a two year period on the bear management units and found—and I do not have the exact percentage, but

a high percentage, well over 50 percent, were not effective at all.

Partially effective, there was a percentage and so forth. So no, it

is not only my opinion and my thought, it is—I think it is pretty

well substantiated.

Senator CRAPO. What did you think of the suggestion by Mr.

Shurtleff that—I think it was Mr. Shurtleff—that—I hate to characterize other people’s testimony for them, but I think what he was

saying is that he thought we could find a way to monitor it effectively, but that we should keep the roads available for potential future use, just stop their usage now.

Is that fair, Mr. Shurtleff, as a restatement?

Mr. SHURTLEFF. [Nods head.]
28

Senator CRAPO. What do you think of that idea both in terms of

if it could be achieved, would that be an acceptable solution, and

do you think it could be achieved?

Mr. HOYT. I think that it could be an acceptable solution. Keep

in mind that the areas where most of those roads go were lodge

pole clear cuts, it is going to be 60, 80, 100 years from now before

those trees are available for harvest. And I think the other thing

to keep in mind is that since the road closures have not been effective and unless there is a significant increase in the Forest Service’s budget for law enforcement to make sure that the roads stay

close and those closures are effective, it simply will not meet the

requirements of the biological opinion.

Senator CRAPO. What is the road density now in the Targhee and

what is the level of road density which is acceptable from your

point of view for proper management?

Mr. HOYT. Well, I think that each of the management prescriptions, each has its own road density. In grizzly bears, it is .06 miles

per square mile, I believe. In the core areas, it is 0 miles per

square mile. For elk, it is other densities. So each area of the forest—there is not a blanket prescription that covers the entire forest. And all of those were calculated to protect not just grizzly bear

and elk, but water quality, cutthroat trout spawning and so forth.

And I think that they are a key component and a key element of

the forest plan. And for folks to say that we could change that

without doing a significant plan amendment or without involving

the public or taking a lot of time, are simply fooling theirselves. If

the entire forest plan is based on road density standards, which it

is, to protect those resources, we would be looking at a significant

amount of time, significant amount of money and I do not think

that the outcome would be any different than what we are looking

at today. And I do not think the American people or the people of

Idaho or the Forest Service or anybody else is really interested in

jumping back into that after spending the last eight years doing

that.

Senator CRAPO. You know, one of the things that I think is a core

issue that a lot of these other issues relate to is the question of

whether the forest is open except when designated closed or closed

except when designated open. I think that gets to sort of what I

think Senator Craig referenced as the culture of our usage of the

forest historically here in this area. I know that is my cultural experience here. And I come to it from an approach of supporting

open unless designated closed, but supporting reasonable management for making sure that we close those areas that need to be

adequately protected.

You gave some numbers in your testimony about the support for

closing the roads.

Mr. HOYT. Yes.

Senator CRAPO. Were those numbers directed at supporting an

open versus closed—excuse me, a closed unless designated open

policy or were they a tabulation of those who supported one or another version of closing roads?

Mr. HOYT. I believe that virtually—I would say that over 90 percent, maybe 98 percent of the figure that I gave you favor road closures and each of those, what they say is—and I think you have
29

seen some of these postcards with comments that have come in on,

they say keep the ghost roads closed, keep the road density standards and keep the signed open, otherwise closed part of the forest

plan. And I think that the important thing to remember on that

particular issue is it directly relates to the issue of road density

standards.

In the past, for many people, virtually anybody that has spent

any time on our national forests, when you see a road closed sign,

it is almost always full of holes, laying face down in the mud with

motorized tracks beyond it. And that is why it is important to have

it signed open. People are not going to tear those signs down then,

you will have plenty of people that will try to violate that, but it

will be a blatant violation, and I think it is the way to prevent

those signs from being torn down.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Congressman Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

Marv, let me ask you, do you agree with the statements that

were made that the grizzly bear were doing fine and coming back

and that the elk herds were doing—are doing fine?

Mr. HOYT. I think since the Forest Service began better enforcement on some of its road closures and so forth, that the elk populations have increased. That is a layman’s observation and I would

certainly defer to Fish & Game, and I think that anybody that really wants to get at the answer to that question ought to be talking

to the biologists that work for Fish & Game in this region. They

are the only ones that I believe can answer that clearly and effectively and accurately.

Mr. SIMPSON. I will ask the Forest Service and those people and

I will ask those individuals at the proper time too.

If it is true that they are coming back, then what are we protecting, if—by going in and doing the tank traps? I mean apparently the gates, even though some people were going around them,

were doing the job they were intended to do.

Mr. HOYT. Again, I cannot answer specifically, I am not a biologist, all I can say is that the gate closures have helped that problem. However, I believe it was prior to 1990 or so, and I am probably not exactly accurate on that, there used to be—actually it was

prior to that, back in the 1970s, that area had I think a 30 or so

day any elk season. That was cut down to a five day spike only

hunt in the 1980s because of the amount of roads and habitat alteration. I think over time the elk numbers have come back. I do

not know the exact figures.

For grizzly bears, I think that the Interagency Grizzly Bear

Team that I quoted from the memo stated it correctly, grizzly bears

do not—will use the BMU if the roads are effectively closed. And

that is the issue, it is not just closed, not just gated, but effectively

closed. And they have used it more often in the last few years, notwithstanding the ancient research that Mr. Gerber’s slide was

based on. There is much, much more recent data that shows the

exact opposite. So again, I would defer to biologists to answer that

question.

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask just a general question and any of you

might want to answer it, if you can. It is a rather naive question
30

on my part, I guess. It seems like environmental questions are the

ones that seem to divide us the most, are the most politically sensitive that we get, as we have out here, people on both sides of the

issue very emotional about it. I think an overwhelming majority of

people, whichever side of the issue you are on here about closing

these roads, agree with saving grizzly bear habitat, elk habitat,

stopping erosion in the forest and so forth. Most people do not want

clear cuts. There are people on both sides, there are people on one

side who feel that any human being in a forest is an intrusion and

should not be there. There are people on the other side who feel

that any clear cut tree was meant to cut. But an overwhelming majority of people are environmentally sensitive people that want to

take care of our national forests. How do we resolve this problem

that seems to divide us so much politically?

Mr. HOYT. You know, if I had the answer to that, man, I would

be a millionaire consultant. There is not an easy answer to that

question. I think a lot of people look at things differently and that

is the problem. I think that the Forest Service has actually made

a pretty good attempt. There were, by some calculations as many

as 3,300 miles of open roads or roads that were built on the

Targhee and were there ten years ago. There are now, if this forest

plan and this travel plan, which we hope to see implemented, there

will be about 1,600 and some miles of roads, about half. To me,

that seems to be striking a balance. And I think that is what we

are really talking about, is balance. We are not in favor of closing

all the roads or all the trails. We would like to see a balance, a balance that effectively promotes wildlife protections, allows those of

us who like and prefer non-motorized muscle powered recreation to

be able to do that without having to walk or run into a motorized

vehicle, but also allowing the folks that like motorized vehicles to

have their place in the forest too. I cannot imagine with 2,200

miles of open roads and trails still open that people say there is

no access. That is enough to stretch from Chicago to Seattle. That

is how many will be left open after this travel plan is implemented.

It is not denying anybody access, just maybe not to a specific place

and every place by motor.

Mr. SIMPSON. Anybody else care to——

[Applause.]

Mr. JEPPESEN. Really quickly, from the standpoint base as a

farmer and a land manager, we would like to see the forest managed. What we see happening is everything ceasing to exist and no

management at all happening. There has to be a mix here where

there is good management of the forest. That has to be done in

many, many different ways. There has to be some grazing and

there has to be some forest cutting and there has to be recreation.

All those things are important components of the forest and they

have to be there or we go back to that philosophy that the only way

to manage something is for nobody to be there at all. I do not think

we can live with that kind of explanation in this time and age.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Senator Craig.
31

Senator CRAIG. I notice that Commissioner Shurtleff was wanting to respond. Go ahead and respond and then I will ask my questions.

Mr. SHURTLEFF. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Craig.

What I wanted to respond to is I want to kind of preface the fact

we say everybody is for grizzly bear habitat and want to preserve

that, and I do too. But I want to specifically make sure it is habitat

before I try to preserve it. I do not want to just preserve it because

it is a piece of ground.

[Applause.]

Mr. SHURTLEFF. The other thing that I wanted to respond to

there was we talk about the amount of roads that we will be able

to use will be cut in half. And I have no problem with that, to be

very honest with you. What I want to make sure that the other

half that we block off are still available to us, because let us go

back to the original reason we built these roads in the first place.

We built these because the Targhee was a dead, dying forest and

we had to do something about it to revive it and bring it back into

operation. If we wipe out half those roads, we will be exactly in the

same place somewhere down the road because we will have half the

amount of roads. What I am saying is that if we need to block them

off for certain periods of time, let us keep them blocked off to where

they can be reopened, they can be revitalized if needed at some

point in the operation. To block them off now, they are gone.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair really does appreciate—and I would

like to stop the time for the Senator, your applause, but the fact

is that we must conduct this hearing and be finished by 5 p.m. So

I would ask from this point in time on that you restrain from applauding. Thank you very much.

Now we will start the clock again.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have always

said as I have chaired committees applause is not recorded for the

record. And we do appreciate it, but it will eat into time and I

think the testimony and the questions that go into the record are

more important.

Mr. Hoyt, a couple of questions of you. I have I guess in the

course of the last 17 years attended over 200 hearings on resource

management. Almost all of them have been polarized with conflict.

I am very concerned about that. I have not been at all excited

about the conflict in the end. I do not know how to express it otherwise. I have seen communities divided, I have seen anger result in

physical violence.

And it largely began when we decided that we would start managing our resources from the top down. We would decide national

schemes, force them into local or regional areas with little domestic

or local input. I understand why that happened, it was to build a

greater environmental ethic than existed at the time. I think that

this country has come a long way in a positive sense in the last

20 years in the growth of a positive environmental ethic. I think

it is reflected in this room today. I think it is reflected from both

sides.
32

There is no question what we think about our environment

today. Everybody wants to be an environmentalist. I do not know

of a politician this year who ran on an anti-environmental platform. Everybody is for clean air and clean water and quality habitat for wildlife. But the conflict still goes on. It is people versus no

people in some instances.

I have just completed two and a half years of hearings with everybody at the table including every environmental group that

wanted to come, to try to find a way around the conflict, to look

at new decision-making processes that would result in less conflict.

We have examined one that seems to work a bit, it is called the

community collaborative process, with all parties at the table

equally represented.

That is why I watched the Targhee so closely. It seemed to be

working for a time until a group spun off and filed a lawsuit. I do

not recall now who that group was. Were you involved in that?

Mr. HOYT. That lawsuit was filed by the Idaho Conservation

League, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Wilderness Society and a variety of other groups, several of whom were participating in——

Senator CRAIG. But not at the table?

Mr. HOYT. No, that is incorrect.

Senator CRAIG. Did those environmental groups have representation at the table of negotiation?

Mr. HOYT. Absolutely. Lynn Kincannon, who you well know, I

believe——

Senator CRAIG. Yeah, I know her well.

Mr. HOYT. [continuing] worked for the Idaho Conservation

League and was attending those meetings until she was threatened.

Senator CRAIG. Threatened?

Mr. HOYT. Yes.

Senator CRAIG. I see.

Mr. HOYT. She said that she was threatened and intimidated and

that happened in about 1994 or 1995 and she said she would not

go back.

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, the reason I asked that question—

because obviously it broke down for some reason. A lawsuit was

filed, the Forest Service would not fight it, they negotiated it out

of court, settled it and we have the conflict we have today based

on road density, I do believe.

Mr. HOYT. That lawsuit only applied to the Plateau Bear Management Unit on the Targhee, it did not apply to the entire forest.

Senator CRAIG. That is correct. But it did apply to the road density in that area, did it not?

Mr. HOYT. It applied the road density standards that the science

said were needed to protect grizzly bears and the reason the

Targhee and the Forest Service settled in court—not out of court—

they settled that——

Senator CRAIG. It was in court?

Mr. HOYT. It was settled in court. That lawsuit is still valid and

can be re-activated at any time.

Senator CRAIG. Oh, I know it is, that is why the Forest Service

is making the decisions it is making, I understand.
33

Mr. HOYT. But that lawsuit, the decision was—their solicitors,

their biologists looked at it and realized that they had in fact ignored the Endangered Species Act, and to be in compliance with

that law, they felt that they had no recourse.

Senator CRAIG. Where is the science of road density? Who determines what is the right density?

Mr. HOYT. That is based on research by various grizzly bear biologists that has taken place for many years. Some of those are

parts—part of that research has been conducted in Idaho and

around the west, and Idaho scientists have been involved with

that.

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, the reason I bring this point up is

because the negotiations failed or at least certain groups felt it was

failing and they spun away and filed a lawsuit.

I am trying to craft a law that would allow full representation

at the table and once a community collaborative process was decided, while people could spin out and file in court who think they

could win a better position in court, it would hopefully result in

less conflict. And in areas where it has been effectively used, it appears less conflict is occurring. Somehow, we have got to get there

and bring local communities of interest back into the process.

So I just want to make that statement for the record because I

was hopeful it would work here. It has not worked, largely because

the formal structure did not exist and certain groups were not willing to play within the range of that structure, Madam Chairman.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Mackert, you—did you wish to comment to that?

Mr. MACKERT. You know, we have been around Fremont County

for years taking care of the people in Fremont County that get lost.

For years and years we have done this, I have been involved in this

since I was 18 years old and I am now 39. I have been the commander of our rescue unit for seven years. And when I asked our

people how many roads were being breached, they come up with

five—five.

We have the authority to open those gates and go and help find

people. Inevitably what we find as soon as we open the gate is

trees that are tipped over, nature taking its course to reclaim the

road. And most of the time that stops us. The destruction that has

went on in this forest is—I just cannot bring words to describe it,

it is sad.

I pose the question to you, if you have a flat tire, do you send

your car to the crusher to fix it? If the gate did not work, move the

gate a little bit or put a little bit more of a barricade around the

gate. Do not do the destruction to the forest that was done, please.

It is sad.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Mackert.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Sorry, no applause, please.

I would ask that all signs be held down, as I did at the beginning

of the hearing, so those behind you can see. Thank you very much.

I would like to ask Mr. Shurtleff what would you consider to be

the reasonable timber sale level for the Targhee considering growth

rates, in a forest that is predominantly lodge pole pine with very
34

little Doug fir or whatever other species in it? What would you consider to be the reasonable timber sale level and the volume estimates?

Mr. SHURTLEFF. From my experience, Madam Chairman, it

would be somewhere around 20 million board feet I think this Forest Service could handle, but let me tell you, I am not too concerned about the level that we start as long as we are on an approach. What concerns me most of all is the fact that now that we

have established an annual sale quantity of approximately eight

million feet, of which my understanding is they will only accomplish about half of that if they are lucky. That means they are

going to actually sell about four million feet. Of that four million

feet, it will be predominantly Doug fir. My opinion is that what

they are doing basically is driving those who have situated themselves to be lodge pole pines—and to be honest with you, we

thought we were basically a conservation type outfit. In other

words, we stuck around and were going to try and stay here so that

we could help preserve, because we do think it takes some tree

thinning, some harvesting to make a forest survive. What I am concerned about is the fact that now the plan that they have in place

is going to be predominantly Doug fir, so therefore, lodge pole pine

users or people who can use that and put a product to it will all

be gone when the Doug fir runs out because 20 years ago, we

thought that Doug fir was basically gone out of the Targhee. So

that is my big concern, is the way they are interpreting and using

the plan is basically going to take all the resource users out of the

business. Then at some point in time when they say well gosh, we

could sell some lodge pole pine now, they will say but there is nobody here to buy it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Shurtleff.

I wanted to ask Mr. Hoyt. I have reviewed the testimony of Mr.

John Burns and also of Steve Mealey, and we will be hearing from

them on the next panel, but I am going to let you have a peek at

their testimony in my question, because Mr. Burns says that the

elk herd has grown from 800 to 4,000, and as you know, even Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and many other people have testified too and stated that the grizzly bear population is growing, to

the point now where the grizzly bear may even be delisted. And

what we are hearing now from Fish & Wildlife Service and so forth

is that it may take more money and more space for the grizzly

bear. So we have a growing population of grizzly bear that is expanding out. What happens when it expands clear into areas such

as this? I mean, it is not impossible to think that could happen. Do

we just move the people out?

Mr. HOYT. Well, I guess my answer to that is that the grizzly

bear has been here long before people and probably may well be

here long after people have lived in this area. It just so happens

for the last 100 or so years, we have managed to kill most of them

off. I think that I would certainly hope that the director and one

of the commissioners who may speak from Fish & Game do not refute the last eight years of what their staff biologists have been

saying about grizzly bears and about elk on the Targhee National

Forest. That would certainly be a shame and it would certainly

cause me to question whether those are political statements or
35

whether they are reflecting the views of those dedicated wildlife biologists that work for that agency.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Hoyt, as the grizzly bear population expands, as their sightings expand, is it the vision of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition to be able to close the roads wherever the grizzly bear population expands?

Mr. HOYT. No, that has never been our position. Right now,

while we do not believe the sort of boundaries of the recovery area

are probably adequate to sustain grizzly population, a recovered

grizzly population, frankly we do not have a recovered grizzly population and currently there is no intent on anybody’s part that I

know of, except for some who believe that the U.N. is flying around

in black helicopters trying to do this sort of thing, that that would

ever take place.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hoyt.

I want to thank this panel for their outstanding testimony. I

think we are just about on time and we will call the next panel.

I will call Mr. Steve Mealey, Director of Idaho Fish & Game, accompanied by Mr. Jeff Siddoway, Idaho Fish & Game Commission.

Mr. Siddoway is from Terreton, Idaho, Mr. Mealey from Boise,

Idaho. Mr. Mealey is also accompanied by Mr. Fred Wood, Idaho

Fish & Game Commission from Burley, Idaho.

Also, the second member of the panel is Mr. John Burns, former

Targhee National Forest Supervisor, now residing in Carmen,

Idaho.

We would ask that the hearing room come to order please. I

would ask that the panel, anyone who is going to be giving a statement for the record, please stand and raise your hand to the

square.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mealey.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MEALEY, DIRECTOR, IDAHO FISH

AND GAME, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be here. I am

Steve Mealey, Director, Idaho Department of Fish and Game and

pleased to be here with Commissioners Burns and Siddoway.

I want to begin my statement very briefly, and the longer statement is submitted for the record, but just a brief summary.

I would like to clarify, first of all, the road status that would result from implementation of the proposed action inside the grizzly

bear management units and outside those units.

Accompanying my testimony are some pie charts that show those

numbers, but simply, they show that inside the bear management

units, some 38 percent of roads are left open and 62 percent are

decommissioned or have some motorized restrictions. I want to also

make clear that Fish and Game was not a part of the consultation

process and had no jurisdiction in the decision.

Outside the BMUs, the situation is reversed, with 65 percent of

the roads remaining open and 35 percent decommissioned or restricted.

The Fish and Game Department worked with the Targhee Forest

in developing travel management planning outside the BMUs. We

developed criteria that were necessary to meet department goals
36

for hunting and fishing opportunity for the sports men and women

of the state. Elk and cutthroat, that is Yellowstone cutthroat, were

the key species of concern. Let me speak about each briefly.

Yellowstone cutthroat have been petitioned for listing under the

Endangered Species Act, as I am sure you know. Some road closures on the Targhee were implemented to address Yellowstone

cutthroat needs, especially those related to 303d listed streams related to sedimentation and other impacts to Yellowstone cutthroat.

Maintaining and improving habitat is essential to keep the species

off the list and retaining state control over management.

Let me turn briefly to elk, and I have a map attached to my testimony that will illustrate this. For the Island Park Zone, which

makes up a number of elk management units, big game management units, our post-season elk population goal is for some 1,800

cow elk, some 575 bull elk and up to 350 adult bulls. We also

would like to have a 35 bull per 100 cow ratio and some 22 adult

bulls per 100 cows in this area.

The elk hunting goal is to provide as much general season hunting as possible and minimize the use of restrictive controlled hunting. Our purpose is to maximize hunter freedom and to maximize

hunter opportunity.

Currently our elk population goals in the area are being met. I

also want to say that our hunting opportunity goals are not. And

the reason for that is that we simply have more controlled hunting

opportunities than we would like. Basically there are two strategies

available to the department and the commission to deal with this.

As elk hunting demand increases, we only have two strategies to

respond. We can either meet our elk population goals through restricted hunting opportunity through controlled hunts with minimal travel restrictions, or we can provide general hunting opportunity with some restricted access. Based on some extensive public

input, the Commission, with the Department’s recommendation,

has chosen the option which maximizes general hunting opportunity, minimizes controlled hunts and provides that through some

limited access management. And as I said, outside the bear management units, that has resulted in about two-thirds of the roads

remaining open.

If there are questions that relate to the logic for why these are

needed to provide for quality herds, that is appropriate ratios of

bulls to cows, I will be happy to address that in a question, but I

will not burden you with the details of that, it is in my testimony

right now.

Again, I want to repeat the situation for us with elk. Generally

the public has told us that they prefer general hunting opportunity

on the Targhee National Forest with some travel restrictions as opposed to more controlled hunts, the loss of general hunting opportunity and fewer travel restrictions. We are about to engage in our

annual series of public hearings before our 1999 big game seasons

and if our assumption is not the case, then folks need to come to

these meetings and let us know. I certainly urge strong public participation in the process so we can make, in our final recommendations to the Commission, those that best reflect the feelings of our

strongest constituents, those people who hunt and fish.
37

Let me close by saying that we have recently revised our elk and

deer plans for this area and we will also soon be inviting Forest

Service planners to sit down with us to make sure that our earlier

planning criteria remain valid.

I will be very happy to answer any questions.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Director Mealey.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. John Burns.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mealey may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF JOHN BURNS, FORMER TARGHEE NATIONAL

FOREST SUPERVISOR, CARMEN, IDAHO

Mr. BURNS. Madam Chairman, Congressman, Senators, thank

you for the opportunity to speak today.

I have been a member of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission

since 1996. Prior to that, I retired as supervisor of the Salmon Forest in 1994. From 1980 to 1989, I was supervisor of the Targhee.

The Targhee Land Management Plan was developed and implemented during that period.

My purpose today is to provide some historical perspective which

may be of value to the Subcommittee and you as you examine the

question of roads and wildlife on the Targhee. Indeed, those very

questions were central to us as we developed the original Targhee

Land Management Plan and implemented the salvage program in

the 1980s.

By 1980, an epidemic of pine bark beetle had killed several hundred thousand acres of lodge pole in the Island Park and surrounding plateau areas. Those who did not see the forest as it was

then, now have a very difficult time imagining the devastation that

was present at that time. Lodgepole is particularly adapted to regeneration. The tree has cones which remain closed until the tree

dies and heat causes the cones to open, releasing the seed. This

combination of factors, vast insects killed pine stands and the reproductive characteristics of the tree, led us to devise a strategy to

reforest most of the Island Park and plateau area. It would also

salvage most of the useable wood. At the same time, road construction and logging disturbance would be held to a minimum on the

1.8 million acre forest.

Our plan was intended to replicate the effect of natural fire, but

without the damaging effects of wildfire. The trees were cut in

large blocks, clear cuts, removing the logs and letting the sun dry

out the cones on the scattered slash and the treetops.

Two other major considerations—much of the area in question

was classified as grizzly bear habitat under the Yellowstone guidelines. We received a section 7 finding of ‘‘no jeopardy’’ from the U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service due to the fact that the salvage program

would focus mostly in Situation II habitat and in non-grizzly habitat. In other words, that area of the Targhee, the plateau country

and most of Island Park, were actually considered incapable of supporting a resident grizzly population.

Concurrently, the Targhee was involved in shifting sheep grazing

to avoid sheep/bear incidents. Typically grizzlies would move out of

the park in early fall and take sheep prior to winter hibernation.

Also, an intensive campaign was launched to eliminate bear
38

attractants such as open dumps which were associated with the

human population in Island Park. In addition, improved cleanup of

highway killed deer, elk and moose was accomplished. The net effect, of course, was that the major elements of food for grizzlies in

that locality—livestock, garbage and road kills—was significantly

reduced or eliminated. If bear use and sightings have since declined, it should not surprise anyone. The second additional factor shaping the salvage program was elk. Most of the Island Park and plateau area was not prime elk

habitat. The Douglas fir breaks on the sides of the buttes and plateaus was considered good habitat, but the lodgepole country had

little undergrowth and little surface water and was not. Elk typically migrated across the area to their winter range in the junipers

and sandhills country west of St. Anthony in just a matter of a few

days. The principal concern relating to elk was increased vulnerability to hunter harvest as a result of more roads and less hiding cover.

This question was examined in great detail considering such things

as the acreage to be treated each year, the road miles to be built

and the speed of reforestation and tree growth. Our analyses indicated that the planned program would not adversely affect the elk

population goals, but we did recognize that hunting limitations

might be necessary in order to achieve other goals.

A major additional benefit was realized as much of the acreage

that was cut actually grew back in species other than lodgepole—

aspen, for example, and other shrubs and herbaceous vegetation.

This helped the wildlife.

In any case, it soon became obvious that hiding cover was rapidly

reestablishing itself in the treated areas. The new stands were capable of concealing an elk quite quickly and they now provide very

challenging hunting. They are dense and thick and it is hard to

hunt.

The bitter lesson of ignoring habitat management now faces the

Idaho Fish and Game Commission in the Clearwater country of

northern Idaho. What was once the finest elk herd in Idaho has

crashed due in large part to predators and the inexorable decline

in habitat capacity for big game when the forest closes in with maturity. Unfortunately, the need for active forest management is all

too often ignored or even denigrated until disaster—be it insects,

fire or declining big game herds—faces us. We need to keep in

mind that we have to manage the forests for the type of future desired.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns may be found at the end

of the hearing.] Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Burns. The Chair recognizes Mr. Simpson for the first line of questioning. Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Mealey, I have got the Fish and Wildlife guys here now. It

has been mentioned that the grizzly bear habitat or the grizzly

bear population is increasing, is on the increase, and that the elk

population is on the increase. Is that accurate or inaccurate? Mr. MEALEY. Senator, I am sorry that I did not hear. Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Mealey, it has been mentioned that——
39

Mr. MEALEY. Congressman—excuse me.

Mr. SIMPSON. [continuing] the grizzly bear are on the increase

and that the elk population are on the increase. Is that accurate

or inaccurate?

Mr. MEALEY. That is accurate.

Mr. SIMPSON. If those are in fact on the increase and we are closing roads in order to protect their habitat, is that not sort of evidence that the road closures before the gatings were in fact being

effective and that the tank traps were not necessary?

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chair, Congressman, let me separate that

question into two pieces.

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay.

Mr. MEALEY. Because you have asked me the question that I said

I would defer until you asked me a question. It is clear that the

elk herd in this part of the world has expanded from a handful of

elk in the 1930s to approximately 4,000 now. And you can tell by

my response I am referring to an area that is larger now than the

Island Park Zone. This herd expanded in the presence of a lot of

human activity, including road construction, timber harvest, livestock grazing and lots and lots of activities, including general hunting.

So it is fairly easy to say, goodness, there is no problem. But in

fact, there is a very serious problem. And that is that unrestricted

access resulted in harvest of the bull segment of the herd to the

extent that in the late 1970s, hunters were so effective that they

were literally killing all the spike bulls.

So the question was not so much the total number of elk as the

quality and the composition of the herd. And without getting too

detailed here, you do recall that I mentioned some parameters for

the herd that included wanting some 25 adult bulls per 100 cows.

The reason for that is to assure that breeding occurs at the appropriate time in the season and adult bulls will do that in September,

the first time that the cows cycle, assuring that calves are born

around the first of June and obtain a weight that allows them to

get through the winter. If you lose that segment of the herd and

breeding occurs by the younger segment, sometimes the cows do

not bear until late June, as a result of late breeding. That has implications for calf survival.

So what was important was that we restrict the harvest so that

we could retain a good quality of herd composition. So it is more

than just having 4,000 elk, it is having the right kind of elk. And

that is why I mentioned the herd objective.

Now there were two ways that we could obtain the proper herd

objective; either through controlled hunting with relatively liberal

road access management, or the other option that I mentioned was

general hunting opportunity with some route restrictions. We opted

for the latter course and the proposed Targhee plan does include

that set of criteria, in order that we could maximize hunting opportunity and freedom for our sportsmen.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. MEALEY. You did ask me about grizzly bears and I gave too

long an answer to the first one, but I have an idea someone is

going to ask me that question as well.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
40

Without objection, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to

ask Mr. Siddoway, before I call on Senator Craig, if you have comments. I know that you were here accompanying Mr. Mealey, but

if you have comments, I and the rest of the panel would love to

hear from you, Mr. Siddoway.

STATEMENT OF JEFF SIDDOWAY, IDAHO FISH AND GAME

COMMISSION, TERRETON, IDAHO

Mr. SIDDOWAY. Thank you, Madam Chair. My comments will be

brief.

I tried to get a hold of Doug Crandall, who was setting up this

panel, and he and I never did actually connect. I wanted to know

if I should provide written testimony and he said no, do not worry

about it, you will just be accompanying Director Mealey. But then

since you swore us in and put us under threat of perjury, I have

been sitting over here real concerned about how I could confess

having sex with a grizzly bear. So it is all about sex and if I say

something that someone challenges, they cannot throw me in jail.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SIDDOWAY. I do have quite a history with the Targhee Forest. I grew up in St. Anthony, just north of here. A large segment

of the elk winter range for the Island Park or the Sand Creek herd

includes our private land. I do not mean to be repetitious of what

John Burns said, but the elk do migrate from Harriman State

Park—or did migrate from Harriman State Park and from Yellowstone Park to the Big Junipers where they had a sanctuary. A lot

of that was just because of the way the hunting seasons were structured and they would make that run in about a 24-hour time.

There was not a lot of cover left up on the forest and the hunting

became an absolute nightmare. When we would be tending our

sheep out there on the junipers, towards the fall, the hunters

would come in and it was just party hunting, shooting the animals

out of the backs of pickups and runs, and it was just a nightmare.

And they did pretty well eliminate all of the bulls in the herd and

that is what caused the restrictions.

I guess as far as the Department comes from and as far as Jeff

Siddoway, the old redneck sheep herder that used the Targhee for

managing sheep and recreation and breaking colts, versus what is

Fish and Game, there are probably two different answers. But

since I am accompanying Director Mealey and here as a commissioner, we can control the quality and the quantity of this herd two

ways—we can either have a restrictive access or we can have a restrictive hunting season. And the Fish and Game obligation is to

give as much opportunity while protecting the habitat as we can.

And pretty well, that has boiled down to try to give the longest seasons. Since 1991, we have been in a spike only. That caused a lot

of hunters to move out of the area, about 60 percent of the hunters

left the area because of the spike only. That put us into the controlled hunts for the big bulls.

Since then—I did not call any politicians, but I did call our regional supervisor and got several sheets of paper over the last few

days in preparation for this—we do have our objective management

that the whole department, all the biologists, put together and goes

through it. It states specific numbers of animals for specific units
41

and areas. Our Island Park area, we have an objective of 1,500

cows, 575 bulls I believe, and 300 of those mature bulls. Currently

we have about 975 bulls, almost 50 percent more. We have about

500 plus mature bulls and we have I think around 2,200 mature

cows. So we are well above our objectives right now.

The object here is to give more hunter opportunity in the future.

We will be going out to our scoping meetings, as was mentioned

here, this month and hopefully we can give that opportunity.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Siddoway, Commissioner, for

that very interesting testimony.

Senator Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Do not worry about your oath and your personal

activities.

[Laughter.]

Senator CRAIG. We took care of that yesterday.

Mr. Burns, you said something that I think is tremendously valuable to repeat. And I say so because there are a good many people

in this audience that are now defending a Targhee that is not a

Targhee that was.

As a young person, I camped with my parents in the Targhee

that was and I know why you made the decisions you made and

the Targhee was logged, it was a climax forest and it died. It died

very dramatically. It was sitting there waiting for a big burn, but

somebody like you got in in front of it and stopped it.

What would have happened to the Targhee that was if changes

had not been made and the Yellowstone fire in 1988 had come up

against it?

Mr. BURNS. Senator, my view is that a tremendous amount of the

Island Park country would have burned in one of the three runs

that the Yellowstone fires made to the westward, when we had the

dramatic wind shifts that would suddenly reverse the situation.

Senator CRAIG. In fact, it did break into the forest.

Mr. BURNS. Oh, yes, in places. But what we found was that the

young growth—it was relatively easy to control the fire because the

younger trees would not burn with that intensity of the mixed dead

and dying older timber. So we fortunately had the best of all

worlds in controlling that fire situation. Frankly, the Targhee was

the only forest in the Yellowstone complex where that fire season

was actually managed and controlled.

Senator CRAIG. And that is the rest of the story. And I appreciate

you saying that because I am very frustrated at this moment by

people who think that they are defending something that is static.

I appreciate the need for road closure because the roads that are

there now were placed there to change the character of the climax

forest you described. And everybody knew it would not last, that

once those dead and dying trees were taken out, it was going to be

over with, or at least a large portion of it would be. And that is

true and there has been mill closures in the area simply because

there was no supply left. Nobody really—everybody was concerned

about the loss of jobs, but they understood the supply was gone.

I guess my frustration today is that obliterating roads versus

closing roads and making sure they are kept closed for some future

management use, does not make a lot of sense.
42

Director Mealey, what I cannot understand, and I know you have

been intimately involved in this because I first got to know you

when you were known as a biologist, a bear biologist, a grizzly bear

biologist, and not a—well, I guess then it was the Boise Forest and

now Idaho Fish and Game. But you were very much involved in

putting a plan together to manage bear in the Yellowstone and in

the Yellowstone region. Did you ever believe that the amount of

road closure that is now being recommended in current forest plans

was necessary?

Mr. MEALEY. Senator Craig, the short——

Senator CRAIG. Maybe I ought to reword that, road closure existed, it was recommended and it happened. Road closure versus

what is currently going on today in the ratio of roads and the road

density—did you ever envision that in your initial studies as a necessary tool?

Mr. MEALEY. Senator, let me answer that in the context of the

grizzly bear management guidelines, of which Mr. Hoyt notes that

I am somewhat dated now because I did leave Yellowstone some

years ago, but I was the author of the guidelines that as I understand is still a part of the forest plan.

Senator CRAIG. I believe those are still the operating rules, are

they not?

Mr. MEALEY. Yes, sir. Now I need to answer the question in the

context of those management guidelines. And let me say that, for

those that may not know, there were three management—actually

five management situations in them. Of course, the I being an area

where the bear is the primary use and habitat centers and components make the area necessary for its needs and survival. Management Situation II is an area where habitat components are present

but population centers do not generally exist. Well, given that

stratification system, the Plateau Bear Management Unit was classified as a Situation II area. So in a Management Situation II area,

and I will not go through the details of those directions, but in a

Management Situation II, if push comes to shove, by definition, the

grizzly is accommodated but not to the extent that it excludes other

uses. And if the area is so important that the bear requires that

consideration, then the area should be reclassified from II to I. Now

that is what the guidelines still say.

So in the construction of those guidelines, you asked me a question and I will answer it directly. In Management Situation II, no,

I did not, as author and as we discussed those, anticipate road densities that we currently see. Now again, that was related to the

first question, I think, and that is what is the habitat quality of

the Plateau Unit. And I think that might have been what Congressman Simpson was getting at, that the Plateau Unit has relatively low habitat quality.

Senator CRAIG. In fact, when you talk about the Plateau Unit,

was there not a discussion in time that it might be considered for

being taken out of the mix because it just did not work?

Mr. MEALEY. No, Senator, I do not recall that, but I do know and

much of my life was related to this question, and that is that years

ago in my thesis and later others have documented the relatively

low habitat quality of that area, and it has to do with the fact that

the soils are rhyolitic, relatively infertile and porous, not normally
43

accumulations of sedimentary soil that make it rich. And as a result, the vegetation is lodge pole pine and pine grass and low

huckleberry, with the exception of some micro-sites that are quite

rich, but they are widely dispersed. As a result, habitat quality is

not high and inherently does not have a high quality for bears to

live there.

Recognizing that, it was designated a Situation II. We always

recognized the Plateau Unit as uncertain in terms of its overall

quality and when we constructed the recovery requirements; that

is, the standards for recovery, we identified that there would be 16

or 18 bear management units where bears could be on a six-year

average, and we did that mostly because of the uncertainty of the

Henry’s Lake and the Plateau Bear Management Unit. But the

short answer, I did not anticipate densities that low there, simply

because it was not assumed that bears would be there in that density.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Senator Crapo.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Mealey, I was going to ask you to follow up on the bear part

of Representative Simpson’s question, but I think you may have

just done that. Do you want to add anything to that answer?

Mr. MEALEY. I do want to say something about uncertainty.

There is no question about the fact that we all want a recovered

population. I do recall telling Chuck Lodell, when he was still the

state supervisor, that I frankly disagreed with the anticipated road

standards in the Plateau Unit, and I did so because they did not

appear to be consistent with the direction for the unit on the Situation II area in the Plateau.

Now when I say they did not appear to be necessary, let me tell

you why I said that. And this is not a rhetorical issue, it is a structured, logical issue. If something is necessary, it is necessary to

meet the requirements for recovery, which were the four recovery

standards, and that is that there would be at least 15 females with

cubs a year on a six year average, that there would be a target

number mortality of no more than 8.8 per year, that there would

be a female mortality per year of less than 2.6, and that there

would be bears, females and young, documented in 16 of the 18

bear management units on a running average. Now the point is

that at that point all those criteria had been met with the exception of the female mortality. And it was unclear to me why those

standards were necessary in light of its classification. If it was

changed to I, then I can certainly agree that it would be. The biology has not supported it being moved.

Now the habitat effectiveness standard that is currently being

tested there assumes that with lower human activity, perhaps

bears will occupy the area to a greater extent than they currently

do, and I think that is probably a reasonable hypothesis to test and

I will be interested to see the outcome. That is the current Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee’s position, to do that test and that

is what is going on.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I have no further questions, Madam

Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator.
44

I wanted to continue along that line of questioning, so I am going

to interrupt your drink of water. I wonder if we might throw Mr.

Gerber’s first slide up on the screen again, and while we are doing

that, I want to re-ask a question or a statement that was touched

upon. The Yellowstone grizzly bear management guidelines, are

they widely used today, and who are they used by?

Mr. MEALEY. Madam Chairman, it is my understanding, and I

have been out of the Forest Service for some time and my information gets rapidly dated, but I do understand that the guidelines are

still a part of the Targhee Forest plan. So I guess in terms of their

use, they are certainly still a part of the forest planning process,

is my understanding.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you authored those?

Mr. MEALEY. Yes, ma’am, I did.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And did you author them as part of a research

project for your masters, or what? How did this happen?

Mr. MEALEY. Well, not directly. I was the first graduate student

for the Interagency Study Team after the Craigheads left the park

and my thesis, which I finished in 1975, was grizzly bear food habits in the Yellowstone ecosystem, which I completed, and that reflected some understanding of habitat quality and food habits. And

based on that work then, I as a wildlife biologist on the Shoshone

Forest in 1977 and 1979 then finally completed the guidelines

based on that information that was available at the time, and I

think it is still fairly recognized as reasonably valid.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Director Mealey, what I would like you to do

is to point out to us on the map where the Plateau Unit is and then

explain for the record what constitutes good grizzly bear habitat

and what kind of habitat you find there.

Mr. MEALEY. Well, the Plateau Unit is the area denoted in red,

and I might point out that when I refer to that as a relatively infertile area, it refers to the fact that the Yellowstone caldera is

here, of course, and that great eruption resulted in the dispersal

of what is referred to as rhyolitic soil, pumicy, sandy soil that resulted in a plateau inside the park, and that extends out on that

large outflow. So what you have—when I referred to it in my thesis, and I think the current research still recognizes that that is inherently low-productivity, it is not rich soil, it is porous, the water

goes right through. So you get vegetation that is a cold desert, if

you will, plants that do not require a lot of water live there. And

so it is inherently low productivity compared to a high quality area

which might be Hayden Valley, for example, in the Park, which

was an old lake bed that has hugely deep deposited sediments that

are very rich in all forms of life, which is where the highest concentrations of grizzlies occur, of course. Any species is going to be

where the food is, where the table is set closely.

Out on the Pittstone Plateau, it is probably one of the—and this

map accurately shows sightings—grizzlies avoid the area because

it is not a pleasant place to be if you are looking for food and you

are a bear. The habitat quality is somewhat better as you go west,

but not significantly better.

Now the supposition is, and I think the data that I looked at

showed that there has been one sighting in the last six years in
45

the area on the Plateau Unit on the Targhee and I believe that was

1994 for a female with cubs.

The thing that was interesting to me when I was doing my work

in the park was that even though the roads were present on the

Targhee in great numbers, you still did not see bears in the park

in the same ecosystem where there were no roads. So I was convinced at that time that it was probably more a function of the inherent productivity of the habitat than it was the presence of

roads. The current test, however, is that perhaps road density is

a deterrent and that is the logic for the test and that is currently

ongoing with the supposition that reduced roads could make the

area somewhat more attractive. I think there would be some inherent limitations on the extent to which it would be attractive.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. If Siddoway is not grazing sheep up there and

the bears are not able to feed on the sheep, what other natural food

substance does the bear look for that is not present there?

Mr. MEALEY. Well there are micro-sites that—when I say a

micro-site, I mean a relatively small place that in many places provide very rich arrays of foods, they are just widely distributed. So

if the density in other parts of the park become great, bears can

be forced to the margin and this is a place where they could well

go, and that has already been acknowledged by Mr. Hoyt and others today, and that is a reasonable point. But there are some

places, Robinson Creek and others, that have some fairly rich

foods, but they are widely distributed and they are not highly

abundant. So in that sense there are some foods that could be

available.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are white pine—is white bark pine a food

source for the bear?

Mr. MEALEY. They are very important, white bark pine is not as

abundant in this part of the area as it is in other parts of the park.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So can one conclude that even if we close all

the roads in that area, because of the natural habitat or lack of

habitat, it will not increase the bear density?

Mr. MEALEY. I think the supposition is that question should be

tested. One of the things—and I want to go back to what I said earlier, when we constructed the criteria for recovery, we said there

is 18 bear management units and it says that 16 of them should

be occupied on a running six-year average. The reason for that, it

recognized the uncertainty about the Plateau and the Henry’s Lake

BMUs. We were not certain, and so we left some slack in the system and I think that that is yet to be resolved. Right now, we recognize that bears may not occur there and biology and ecology are

very uncertain things. It is clear that as populations expand, this

is a place where they could go. There are probably real limitations

on how many can be there.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Is it wrong to conclude, Director Mealey, when

you say they could go, that they would likely be passing through,

or is this a place where they would settle? I mean, you have just

testified to the fact that it does not yield a food source.

Mr. MEALEY. Right. Well, Madam Chair, it is my personal belief

from a biological-ecological standpoint, that it is certainly true that

the area currently lacks distinct population centers. I do not believe

that it ever will have population centers, just because of the inher46

ent limitations of the habitat. I do not think there are many ecologists that disagree, I certainly spoke with Mark Harrelson and others, who—Tom Puchler and others, who are very knowledgeable—

feel that the area’s quality as grizzly habitat could be enhanced

with reduced presence of humans and I think that that is a reasonable question to ask and a reasonable thing to test. But my sense

is that the likelihood of that occurring is quite low and that is a

function of the ceiling set by the inherent quality of the area.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Director Mealey, and

I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, my light has been on

for quite some time.

I want to thank this panel for your very fine testimony. I do

want you to know that we have other questions that we would like

to submit to you and we will do so in writing right away and would

appreciate your response at your earliest convenience.

And again, I do want to say should you wish to add any remarks

to your testimony, you may do so within ten days. Thank you.

I would like to call on the next panel. We will hear from the Honorable Lenore Barrett, who will be accompanied by the Honorable

JoAnn Wood, both Representatives in the Idaho State Legislature;

Mr. Craig Gehrke, Regional Director, Idaho Wilderness Society

from Boise; Mr. Bill Ingot, Rancher from Island Park, Idaho; and

Mr. Roy Moulton, former County Attorney, Driggs, Idaho.

[Pause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The hearing will come to order, please, and I

would like to ask the panel members to please stand and raise your

hand to the square.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to first state that Representative

JoAnn Wood also was—initially had contacted us about this situation and so I would like to open this panel by asking Representative Wood if she has any comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOANN WOOD, IDAHO STATE

REPRESENTATIVE

Ms. WOOD. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I am Representative JoAnn Wood, District 26 encompassing four

Idaho counties, and I do wish to acknowledge my Senators and my

Representative and thank you for being here to hear our testimony.

I am presently the Vice Chairman of the Idaho House Transportation Committee and an Executive Board member of the MHTA,

Multi-State Highway Transportation Agreement, for 11 of our western states of the United States.

I am here to testify on behalf of the people of District 26 who

would not be in attendance here to give testimony, but who have

contacted me requesting that I do something in their behalf to protest the actions of the Forest Service in the Targhee National Forest surrounding our communities.

In 1993, our state grappled with the preemptive actions of the

Federal Government in regards to the inherent rights of passage

upon the land of her citizens that is guaranteed under the revised

statute 2477, codified as 43 United States Code 932. May I read

the legislative intent of House Bill 388?
47

‘‘Section 1, Statement of Legislative Intent. The State of Idaho

recognizes that existing Federal land rights of way are extremely

important to all Idaho citizens. Two-thirds of Idaho’s land is under

control of the Federal Government and access to such Federal

lands is integral to public use. The Idaho State Legislature recognizes the necessity for establishing a procedure for identifying and

confirming the existence of previously established Federal rights of

way to protect those rights previously granted to and vested in the

citizens of Idaho.’’

The citizens of Idaho’s concerns were also addressed in 1993 by

the Idaho Senate in Senate Bill 1108. To emphasize just how important these rights are to the Idahoans who are enclosed by the

federally managed lands, we sent a memorial to Congress, House

Joint Memorial 10, and may I quote from that, Madam Chair?

‘‘We as memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Idaho, assembled in the Second Regular Session

of the 54th Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that

whereas on January 22, 1998, U.S. Forest Service Chief, Michael

Dombeck, proposed a major overhaul of the forest road system, including a proposal to halt all road construction in wilderness areas

of national forests; and whereas, forest roads are an integral part

of maintaining forest health, and as well as integral part of its

socio-economic base that would short-change rural counties of millions in revenue for having Federal forests within their boundaries;

and whereas, a road moratorium would preempt all state and local

laws and regulations; now, therefore, be it resolved by the members

of the Second Regular Session of the 54th Idaho Legislature, the

House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that

the Congress of the United States is urged to recognize state and

county rights of way under Revised Statute 2477 and take appropriate action to invalidate the proposed policy changes for forest

wilderness areas; and be it further resolved that the Congress of

the United States be urged to do all within its statutory authority

to deny funding for the implementation of the proposed policy

change by administrative fiat.’’

And Madam Chairman, this is really the information that I

would like to submit to you in the attachments to my testimony,

if I might; and tell you that we feel that the Federal Government

has ignored the specific requirements for cooperative consultations

with the local and state government officials required in the NEPA

process; we feel that they have not considered both the state government and her citizens in preparing a forest management plan

that puts the main consideration of the planning and management

of unsubstantiated threatened or endangered species of animals

that is not compatible with the habitat, let alone the culture and

economic wellbeing of Idaho’s people that are occupants of the adjacent communities, farms and ranches.

We spent considerable time, the State of Idaho did, in with 11

western states in trying to influence the ISTEA reauthorization T21, to help us be able to afford to maintain our roads to the national forests and parks and scenic byways. That state tax money

that went into those roads is really important for us. We feel like

the Federal Government stepped up to that and did offer to help

us in that we are a very low population state and we have many,
48

many miles of road to maintain. We do not want to be shut off from

that, Madam Chairman. Our people do not want to be shut out

from passage across these lands and to be able to live and enjoy

the lands that they love here.

So we are asking you with my testimony here that you might

again take into consideration the preparations that the state has

made and the petitions that we have made to the Congress to take

into account our concerns in the State of Idaho.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just want to say for the record how much I

appreciate and I know all of us do, the Idaho delegation, your leadership on this issue. And without objection, all of your documents

will be entered as a part of the record, and I thank you so much.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes Lenore Barrett.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wood may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF HON. LENORE BARRETT, IDAHO STATE

REPRESENTATIVE

Ms. BARRETT. I am Lenore Barrett, Idaho State Representative

for Legislative District 26, Custer, Lemhi, Clark and Jefferson

Counties.

Here it is, Madam Chairman. Yesterday’s Statesman, ‘‘Feds Ban

Road Building on Forest Lands, the first step to closing off forest

lands.’’

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Okay, now we are even, please no more applause.

Ms. BARRETT. Add to that the decommissioning of roads that is

currently going on in areas other than just the Targhee, incidentally, but you add that and you have got a runaway train that is

not going to stop until it crashes into the station. So where does

that leave us? We can jump off the train and not hang around the

station, I guess.

Madam Chairman, I do thank you and the distinguished Committee for allowing us to speak here today. And I did just point out

that the road closure is not new, it is merely being accomplished

on a larger, more accelerated scale.

In the Post Register, Madam Chairman, you were quoted as

wanting to know what the U.S. Forest Service thinking was behind

their road decommissioning activity. The answer is simple—when

roads are gone, people are gone except for the elitist few who boot

up for a walk on the wild side of nature.

[Applause.]

Ms. BARRETT. The question is not why do they do it, but why are

they allowed to do it. The Federal Government claims sovereignty

over a third of the United States, most of that being in the west.

The equal footing doctrine says that public lands automatically become state lands upon statehood and the Federal Government does

not have the constitutional right to require forfeiture of land as a

condition of statehood. Ergo, the underlying issue in road decommission is jurisdiction. In the organic act that created the Forest

Service, we read ‘‘The state wherein any such national forest is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its ju49

risdiction.’’ Federal land managers do not possess police powers unless it is obtained from the state through specific legislation. In

Idaho, no such legislation exists.

Thus, the county has jurisdiction over the roads. Idaho Code 31-

805, 40-107, 42-048 and 40-604. Not only does the Federal Government habitually violate state sovereignty, it does not even subscribe to its own Federal statutes, including but not limited to, Organic Act, Administrative Procedure Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Sustained Yield Act, General Mining Law of 1872, RS2477, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act,

Forest Management Act, et cetera, et cetera—and also the Federal

Ethics Code.

Clinton’s budget proposes spending $359 million, a 28 percent increase over current spending, to maintain and close forest roads

aimed at protecting grizzly bear habitat. Idaho does not support

this. Idaho opposes grizzly reintroduction and the decommission of

existing roads. Idaho opposition is a legislative policy statement recorded in House Joint Memorials 2 and 6 and House Joint Memorial 10. And Mr. Speaker, now Mr. Congressman, was co-sponsor

with Representative Wood and myself on House Joint Memorial 10.

Most of the Federal schemes designed to depopulate the west,

such as wolves, grizzlies, Federal reserved water rights, wilderness

designation, ad nauseam are formalized under the Endangered

Species Act. Why does Congress allow us to suffer at the hands of

this unconstitutional Frankenstein’s monster. The ESA is not pursuant to the Constitution and it is a flagrant violation of the 10th

Amendment. It is technically invalid and should be repealed.

So what is the thinking behind closing forest roads? Listen to the

following: ‘‘Fifty years ago, environmentalist Aldo Leopold wrote

his seminal work, A Sand Country Almanac. In it, Leopold spoke

of his personal land ethic and the need for land managers to extend

their own ecological conscience to resource decisions. In 50 years,

we will not be remembered for the resources we developed, we will

be thankful for those we maintained and restored for future generations. Thanks for your hard work. Mike Dombeck, Chief’’

Madam Chairman, mankind cannot exist without access to and

productive use of our God-given natural resources. Man must

produce or die. If we do not produce, there will be no future generations.

Thank you.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Representative Barrett.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Craig Gehrke for testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barrett may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF CRAIG GEHRKE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, IDAHO

WILDERNESS SOCIETY, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. GEHRKE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity

to testify regarding the draft environmental impact statement for

the motorized road and travel plan for the Targhee Forest. The

Wilderness Society has been involved for a very long time in management issues on the Targhee and other forests within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
50

We support the efforts of the Targhee Forest to develop a plan

for motorized road and trail travel. The growing off-road and offhighway vehicle use is having an impact on natural resources on

the Targhee and the Forest Service is to be commended for taking

this issue on and trying to put together a plan to deal with those

impacts. While we do not support the preferred alternative, we do

support several concepts within that preferred alternative and we

will be making recommendations during this comment period of

what we would like to see improved in the draft alternative.

The issue of motorized travel management on the Targhee often

gets characterized as grizzly bears versus everything else. I do not

believe that is a correct characterization. We believe that the Forest Service does need to take steps on the Targhee to enhance and

recover the grizzly bear and comply with a biological opinion issued

by the Fish & Wildlife Service, but motorized travel issues go far

beyond just grizzly bears.

The final EIS for the revised Targhee travel plan was clear in its

assessment that off-road vehicle use and roads are among the primary causes of impacts to soils, to water quality and to aquatic

habitats on the Targhee. And my written statement has several citations in the final environmental impact statement. Management

of roads and motorized trails is not only about grizzly bears, but

also about clean water, about fish, elk and other forest resources.

The Wilderness Society supports the initiative by the Forest

Service, as set forth by this travel plan, to eliminate indiscriminate

cross-country use across parts of the Targhee National Forest.

Again, as the final EIS for the forest plan made clear, this type of

use is causing damage to soil, it is causing water quality and fish

and wildlife habitat impacts. Taking actions to address this type of

use is a significant step forward to better protect the resources on

the Targhee.

We also support the efforts to reverse the long-standing system

of signing trails or roads as open or closed to motorized use. By

only signing closed trails, the Forest Service was inadvertently providing an incentive to tearing down or vandalizing such signs with

the offenders later claiming that they did not know about the closure. Signing trails as open would remove the incentive to remove

those signs. My experience as a Forest Service employee years ago

included replacing many bullet-riddled signs and finding them

thrown off in the ditch and putting them back up again.

I think what is important to keep in mind here while we talk

about this travel plan is that several of the actions that are proposed here were determined through the Targhee forest plan, not

necessarily this travel plan. We believe that some of the actions

like the road density standards can only be addressed by going

back and amending or revising the Targhee forest plan, not this

draft travel plan.

Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the Forest Service is under

an obligation to reduce road densities in the grizzly bear management units in order to comply with the biological opinion issued by

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on their revised forest plan. If we

stop those efforts, we are going to have to go back and get a new

biological opinion and basically open up the forest planning process

again.
51

The conservation groups were part of the 1994 court action on the grizzly management on the Targhee and are not going to tolerate very much of a delay in getting these road density standards

in place. The 1994 court settlement between the Forest Service and

the conservation groups resulted in a commitment from the agency

that it would address the deficiencies in the prior forest plan relating to the Plateau, Madison and Bechler–Teton bear management

units. Later, the Forest Service decided to take those deficiencies

and rectify them through the forest revision process rather than to

address each management unit separately.

We believe that the proposed road and trail travel plan for the

Targhee National Forest is a step forward in addressing some of

the resource impacts that are being caused by off-road and off-highway vehicle use on the forest. Further actions beyond those proposed in the draft travel plan, such as specific actions to reduce impacts to Yellowstone cutthroat trout and its habitat, should be incorporated in the final travel plan.

I did want to make a point to reiterate a point Marv Hoyt mentioned regarding the Plateau Bear Management Unit, that again a

document from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Team dated 1999 says

that there is still bear habitat in the Plateau Bear Management

Unit and the bears do use it. His statement was that with fewer

roads and less human impacts, habitat effectiveness in this unit

can only increase.

I would urge the Committee to very carefully look at this, this

is not ten years old like the information we were seeing on the

screen a little bit ago, this is from 1999, this is talking about people who are managing the bears today, with on-the-ground conditions today and bears are on the ground today, not in 1977, not in

1987—1999.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Gehrke.

[Applause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes Mr.—the Chair will

interrupt the hearing to say once more please no applause. We are

going to have to ask security to ask you to leave if you continue

this. I do not want to have to do that. Thank you very much.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bill Ingot.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gehrke may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF BILL INGOT, RANCHER, ISLAND PARK, IDAHO

Mr. INGOT. I do not have a speech written up. I never got my letter from you until a couple of days ago. I am a rancher in Island

Park and I also own a lodge up there. My dad came there in 1898,

so I have just about been there that long myself—I might not look

like it, but I have.

[Laughter.]

Mr. INGOT. I have seen the roads go from trails up there before,

then they logged the country, then we had the roads up there and

it has went on like that for 25 years since they have logged up

there. Now all at once this year before they done their plan, EPA,

they come in and started dozing the road up. I was probably the

first one to know about it because it happened on a weekday, I
52

seen the person who was going up to flag the roads. I asked them

what they were doing and they said they were going up to flag

some more roads to be closed. I said you have got them all closed

now, you know, the Meadow Creek Road there. And they said no,

we are going to close some more.

Well, immediately when I found out what they was closing, I

went down to Jerry Reese—they was closing one right into my

ranch and I own 1,600 acres of land there, to our south fence. So

I went down to Jerry and I says they are going to close this road,

and Jerry says where is this at. Well, he showed me on the map

and I said I can’t tell on the map, but I can tell you where it is

at. He said I do not know which one it means, but anyway, I finally

got through to Jerry, he said okay, I will take care of that, there

will not be a problem. I have got to finish this story before I go on

with the rest of the deal.

But anyway, that night when I come back, my neighbor up there,

they had went up and closed a road to what they call Garner Canyon. They had the road closed up the mountain, we have used that

for 50 years, we pull our sheep gear up there, but they closed another road that takes off to the left and goes over about a mile to

a head gate out of a creek and there is a widow up there, so she

could not get up to her head gate.

So I called Jerry again. They had already closed that road, so he

had to come back down after he got the tractor out of a mudhole

up on what they call Two Top up there. I went up to get a picture

of that, they had the cat buried and had another cat in there to

get it out, pull it out. I did not get a picture of it, I was too late.

But anyway, they went up to re-open that road.

Well, it was stuff like that. Then I went up to see what they were

doing, and I could not believe it. I mean, I have been there all my

life, and the damage they done up there now, it will be 100 years—

well, we will never be around to see it unless somebody lets me

take a cat and go up there and smooth them out again, but it is

ridiculous the way they done this.

Some of these roads are 50 yards long, they made a dike 15 feet

high, but you can drive out around it if you wanted to. I mean

there was no planning in it at all and yet it cost the taxpayers

about $300,000 to do this. We are broke anyway, the Forest Service

is broke.

But like I said, as far as the bear management, they need all

these road closures for the bear. I have been there since day one

on the bear, since the grizzly bear came into Island Park, when

they quit feeding them in Yellowstone. They fed them there for 100

years, then they took the bear off of the garbage and sent him out

onto the public. Well, when he come out in the public, he did not

have anything to eat, so he started on cattle, sheep, people or

whatever he wants to eat. He is the boss, I guarantee you.

And I had my sheep, I run my sheep on Two Top for 65 years.

Well, a bear got into my sheep up there, took the range away from

me, moved me to another allotment. That was supposed to be

counted permanent and now I understand that there is nothing

permanent any more.

I did not think that yellow light would ever go on, but anyway,

I just do not like the way they closed the roads, I do not think
53

there is any sense of it. As far as the bear needing that much density, he comes right to our lodge, he comes on our porch, he crosses

the road right by our house, he has been around there the last 20

years. And the elk population, we have got a bigger elk population

than we ever had in the history of Idaho.

When my dad come to the country in 1898, there was not an elk

in the country and now we have got over 4,000 head. We winter

a lot of them out on the Jeff Siddoway range, there is land out

there we winter the elk on. But we are at about capacity of all the

elk we can winter. So as far as that goes, I have no idea why they

want all these roads closed for the grizzly bear, because the grizzly

bear is going to go where he wants to go. And we have got enough

population to pretty well back up anything, I am sure. They cannot

count every bear and they have already got the population way

above where it was to start with that they wanted.

The red light is on. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Ingot.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Moulton for testimony.

STATEMENT OF ROY MOULTON, FORMER COUNTY ATTORNEY,

DRIGGS, IDAHO

Mr. MOULTON. Thank you, Ms. Chairman, Honorable Senators

Craig and Crapo and Congressman Simpson. I truly appreciate you

being here and indulging us in this opportunity to speak with you

today. I think it shows us a lot about your commitment to Idaho

and we appreciate you being here.

I am sorry that you have to do this every day and I am not sure

what motivates you, but I appreciate the effort you put out on our

behalf.

I was interested earlier in your statement, Senator Craig, when

you said that despite all of our efforts, there seems to be a lot of

acrimony when it comes to this business of making public land

management decisions that we can all live with. And I think you

even focused a question to Mr. Hoyt to see what he thought about

how that could be resolved. I happen to have an opinion about that,

not that I expect that if it is a good one anybody will give me any

money like Mr. Hoyt thought.

But I can remember when we first started studying the impact

of NEPA and specifically this phenomenon of what I will refer to

as a private attorney general or the standing of individuals to sue

about land management decisions. It was quite a phenomenon and

we discussed the implications of that in public land law in school.

We even speculated about where it would go and whether it would

be wise and if it would create a flood of litigation.

I think history has now told us that that phenomenon, that little

part of this arguably laudable legislation, is something that as a

nation we need to go back and look at. I think this business of if

I do not like the decision, I am going to take my ball and go home

or I am going to go to court, more accurately, actually increases the

potential for acrimony greater than any other thing we could have

going on in our system.

Now I think historically, the left wing of the environmental community was quickest to get funded and quickest to see the biggest

advantage of not in the public process but through the courts. Now,
54

after—you know, a lot of us farmers are a little slow to learn, but

we finally have started to learn that if we are going to have influence, we had better get our war chest and our lawyers. CUFF got

its act together finally and we were able to stop some of the behavior that we are here—at least temporarily that we are here in this

hearing about. I do not think that answer is right either. What we have effec- tively done is abdicated a legislative and executive process to the

judiciary. It is expensive, it is time consuming, it breeds acrimony

and I have to question, as a citizen, as long as we have it whether

we are going to be making informed decisions. If we go back to the objective of NEPA, it was that we would make informed, science-based decisions about our public land use.

Now I participated, for all of my adult life, in these kind of hearings. I have never seen my interests, and I think I have been there

with a majority of community voicing similar interests—I have

never seen in this last 15-20 years, those interests recognized in

the management decisions that were ultimately made. If I can, I

want to real quick give you an example. Recently I have proposed on behalf of a client an exchange. I think it could be defended—and I see the yellow light is on, so I

do not have time to tell you all the details, but I think it could be

defended as one of probably the few best exchanges that could ever

be proposed to the Forest Service. The client wants to take the land

that he would get in exchange, take it out of the public domain,

manage it for elk habitat, put a permanent easement on it so that

he could increase the public values; and the land that he is proposing to give, trade into the public domain, is land on the Fall

River that has been identified by the environmental communities

as having extremely high public value for winter range and so

forth.

Recently I wrote a letter suggesting that exchange and I got a

letter back from the Forest Service basically saying well, we might

do it, but be advised it will be two to three years at a minimum.

Now having been a little more involved than what I am able to tell

you here, I honestly believe that even though the Forest Service

would like to recommend that exchange, they are so gun shy about

exchanges because of the whipping they have taken in the legal—

in the courts, once they have recommended exchanges or land use

decisions, whatever they are, that I think they are so gun shy, they

do not even dare participate or be part of an exchange that would

probably be in the interest of all sides. So I really think—and this is the substance of my testimony,

that we really need to go back to NEPA and visit this notion that

people should have influence in the public process, vis-a-vis the

courts. I think that was a dangerous thing to do in the first place

and I do not think it is something that serves either side of the debate even now. And it is terribly expensive. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moulton may be found at the end

of the hearing.] Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Moulton. I want to say that the delegation unanimously feels that our first

responsibility is to be here to listen and so because we have two

more panels, we are going to forego asking oral questions unless
55

one of you have a burning desire to ask a question. We will submit

our questions in writing.

And the second thing I want you to know, Mr. Moulton, I think

I can speak for my colleagues, is yes we do sit through hearings,

but it is wholly different to be here in Rexburg, Idaho and being

able to listen to all of you. Thank you very much for your time.

I will recognize the next panel as they come up. Mr. Brent

Robson, Teton County Commissioner, Driggs, Idaho; Ms. Jan

Brown, Executive Director, Henry’s Fork Foundation, Ashton,

Idaho and Mr. Eric Thomas, Recreationist, St. Anthony, Idaho.

[Pause.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Committee will come to order please.

Ms. Brown, Mr. Robson, I wonder if you might stand and raise

your hand to the square, and Mr. Thomas, will you join us and

raise your hand to the square please.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Robson

for testimony.

STATEMENT OF BRENT ROBSON, TETON COUNTY

COMMISSIONER, DRIGGS, IDAHO

Mr. ROBSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Craig, Senator Crapo, Representative Simpson. I consider it an honor to be

here today. It hurts me to be here; the sun is shining outside and

it hurts me to sit on a hard bench for a long time too, but I appreciate your indulgence and your willingness to come and listen to us.

I have be a county commissioner in Teton County for—I am

working on my third term, so as you can see, I may have a mental

deficiency. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here. I want to tell

you just a few things about a personal encounter that I had with

a tank trap but before I do that, I want to tell you a little bit about

where I come from.

My grandfather came to Teton Basin when he was 16 years old

on a train from New York, without any accompaniment. He came

out and homesteaded there in Teton Valley. My other grandfather

operated a fishing lodge on the Teton River for many years; in fact,

was honored by the California legislature in a resolution into his

activities in being a person that worked well with people.

I had the opportunity when I was a little guy growing up of

spending some time with both of those great men. They taught me

an ethic and something from a personal encounter that you can

only gain from being there. I had the opportunity of being there

with them in this national forest that we are talking about. We

spent a lot of time out there walking those woods, learning how to

hunt, how to fish, how to trap, how to enjoy the outdoors. One of

the most outstanding things I remember from those two men was

both of their reverence for the land and the importance that I had

as a little guy growing up to learn how it was important to them

to take care of that land that they used—and I want to emphasize

that they used.

I had an unfortunate experience while traveling on the Targhee

Forest of encountering a tank trap in the winter on a snowmobile.

I suffered an injury to my back and have since then had considerable discomfort as a direct result of that injury. I was out there
56

doing what I like to do in the winter time and that is ride a snowmobile. I was not aware of the condition that I was about to come

on and encountered it and suffered the consequence.

I think I learned from that incident the importance and responsibility that I had as a person to take what action that I could to

influence any process that would allow an obstruction like that on

the public domain that might be injurious to the traveling public.

I do not want to elaborate any more on that situation, it was important to me, it affected me and had some basis in my actions as

an elected official, as a county commissioner, in trying to influence

the Forest Service to stop the obliteration in Teton County, to sit

down with us and see if we might be able to come to a more reasonable way that we could carry out road closures without doing

such an unsightly and unsafe and destructive process to our national forests. And that is what prompted us as a county commission to attempt to bring the Forest Service to the table with us to

discuss this problem before it continued to occur in Teton County.

We were able to do that, had some meetings with them and it has

brought us to this position that we are today. We are waiting to

further meet with the Forest Service to see if we might be able to

go out and come to a better resolution of how we could deal with

our little part of the problem on the Driggs District of the Targhee

National Forest.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robson may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I would like to ask the members

here—I would like to go out of order and just—with unanimous

consent—and just ask you for the record specifically if you can just

tell us maybe in 30 seconds, what was your encounter and what

was the consequences you referred to.

Mr. ROBSON. Boy, that is a fast one, 30 seconds.

I was on a snowmobile outing and ran into a tank trap that had

been constructed, to my best knowledge, about three years ago. It

was much smaller than those tank traps that have been constructed of late. However, it was devastating to me. I just basically

ran into it, it threw me up into the air and off the machine. I lit

on the ground and had a broken back as a result of it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Where did the break occur, in the lower back,

the upper back?

Mr. ROBSON. Yes, in the lower back.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Mr. ROBSON. Sure.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown.

STATEMENT OF JANICE BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

HENRY’S FORK FOUNDATION, ASHTON, IDAHO

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Craig, Senator Crapo, Congressman Simpson, all staff.

It is wonderful that you are here on a bright sunny day rather

than the blizzards we have been having lately. I appreciate your

coming and spending all this time.

The Henry’s Fork Foundation—and I am the Executive Director—the Henry’s Fork Foundation is a non-profit organization
57

based in Ashton. I personally am a resident of Island Park and

have lived there 16 years as a full time resident and for 10 of those

years as a business owner. The Henry’s Fork Foundation’s mission

is to understand, restore and protect the fishery, wildlife and

unique aesthetic qualities of the Henry’s Fork Basin. That includes

some 3,000 miles of streams, of rivers, of irrigation canals throughout 1.7 million acres in the Henry’s Fork Basin. That includes

Madison, Teton, Fremont Counties and of course half of that, or the

headwaters anyway, are in the Targhee Forest. So it is very important—and I am going to basically use my time to talk about the

importance of the headwater streams.

Interestingly, if you look at the EIS on the Targhee, there are identified 4,248 stream crossings in the road system, so we are

talking about those crossings as being the most vulnerable part of

the road system to erosion and then to immediate sedimentation

into the streams. The most conservative, or you might say the most

encouraging alternative allows for 1,260 of those road crossings to

be obliterated or removed through culvert removal or other means

of stabilization. And so even if we had the best situation, we would

be looking at still several thousand stream crossings that are to remain. It is our primary concern about watershed health.

Let me quote from a report that goes back to 1966, a noted forester and research hydrologist named Walt Megahan was up on the

Moose Creek Plateau and wrote these words: ‘‘I had only a few

hours observation on the Moose Creek Plateau; however, these

were enough to provide some distinct observations that are worthy

of mention. I felt that many of the soils and subsoils that were encountered along the roads on the Moose Creek Plateau are among

the most erodible I have seen in the [Intermountain] Region. This

is to be expected, considering the nature of many of the parent materials described earlier in this report.

‘‘Wherever erosion hazards in the area are high due to steeper

slopes developed by road construction, increased runoff due to road

construction, et cetera, the actual erosion rates are high. The roads

appeared to be causing most of the damage; there appeared to be

little problem on the existing clearcut areas.’’

Indeed, if you look back at the report, the DEIS talks in terms

of 85-90 percent of all the sediment in streams on the Targhee are

from roads, not the clearcuts themselves. I will go back to the

quote:

‘‘Presently, the eroded material is being carried down to intermittent stream channels and being deposited. Flows in these channels

could carry this material downstream and possibly to the perennial

streams. An unusual climatic event or increased flows due to timber cutting or both could cause such flows. It is even possible that

such flows occur commonly on a yearly basis.

Actually, the nature of the country on the Moose Creek Plateau

is such that roads could be fitted to the terrain quite effectively

and thereby reduce much of their impact. This has not been done

for the most part on the existing roads.’’

So I think it is very important to recognize that whether or not

we had the money or the engineering capability or whatever to

build this large road system over the 25 years on the Targhee, that

we know we still have problems. I am not saying they are exten58

sive, but we have enough road crossings, you know, stream crossings that we need to be concerned. Our three recommendations are as follows, to the Forest Service:

1. To properly inventory those roads that require stabilization or obliteration. That means let us take a careful look, not just at road

miles but those places where we are most vulnerable to erosion

problems.

2. To implement adequate stream monitoring. Right now, the Forest Service has very little money to do proper stream monitoring so we know what progress we can make. 3. To provide adequate funding for the enforcement of travel re- strictions. I might mention that, yes, it is probably a small minority of people who do go around gates and violate road closures, but

until we are able to apprehend them and basically give them a consequence, we will not be able to get the message out that going by

these gates and going on closed roads is illegal. And we need to basically punish those as an example to others. It is just like any

other types of law enforcement in this country, let us make sure

that those who violate the law receive a consequence.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Ms. Brown, for that very constructive testimony.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thomas.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF ERIC THOMAS, RECREATIONIST, ST.

ANTHONY, IDAHO

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I am a lifetime Fremont County resident, I was born there and

raised there. Except for the two years I spent in Boise going to

school, I have been there my whole life.

I am a volunteer for the local search and rescue unit, I was past

commander for two years. I camp, I hunt, I fish, I own and operate

a Honda ATV, I drive a modified four wheel drive GMC pickup.

One of my most favorite activities is to drive in the backroads of

the forest and the desert. Seventeen years ago, I was hit by a car

while riding my bicycle on a rural road between St. Anthony and

Parker. The accident left me with a severed spinal cord and confined to a wheelchair as a quadriplegic for the remainder of my life.

I have a few concerns on the road obliteration as a search and

rescue volunteer and as a sportsman and as an outdoor enthusiast,

but what concerns me the most is the handicap access to the public

lands. Three years ago, I took my younger brother hunting, it was

his first year of being able to hunt deer. We went up to Island Park

and around the Red Rock Road there is a dirt road that went off

there to the west. We went back towards the foothills. My little

brother harvested his first deer back there and I was really saddened to find out that that road has been tank trapped and that

I will not be able to take my youngest brother to the same spot to

hunt.

Most of the tank traps that I have encountered, I do not see a

way for handicap access. They talk about the forest, being able to

still enjoy it, you may have to walk or ride a horse or a snow ma59

chine. I do not do any of them. I have a hard time seeing what the

Forest Service, the people who made the choices to tank trap the

roads, had in mind for the handicapped individuals. I guess if you

are not in a wheelchair, you do not really think about it too much.

Even the building here, whoever set it up, luckily we had three

strong gentlemen that carried me up the stairs so that I could give

my testimony today.

I am not a handicapped access activist. I would not expect wheelchair accessible trails throughout the wilderness areas. I would like

to be able to experience the public lands though the same as everyone else. I am not against closing roads, I just do not believe that

obliterating the roads is the answer.

I live in Fremont County because of the diversity of the outdoor

activities available there and I really enjoy the people who live

there. That is part of the reason I went into search and rescue, so

that I could help people in need. I would hate to see the forest access restricted to the main highways. Backroads are the only way

that people like me can independently experience the whole forest.

In closing, these tank traps and the way that they are talking

of closing the roads, I am afraid that before it is all said and done

and when my children are my age, the forest will be restricted only

to the main byways.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Thomas, and I cannot help

but comment that while your spinal cord injury impaired your ability to use your arms and legs, it certainly did not affect your courage and your perseverance and you are an example to all of us.

Thank you very much for being here today.

We will excuse this panel now unless any of the members have

any particular questions. Do you?

Senator CRAIG. I do. Just one, and I will be very brief.

Jan, I am struggling with the very thing you are struggling with

about existing roads and sedimentation and erosion coming from

existing roads versus obliteration or changing those road structures, and the ability to treat those existing roads lightly, seedings

and that type of thing.

What I saw was tremendously disturbing and what I also saw

was that they did not come right in behind it and smooth it out

and seed it and prepare it in a way that it would stop the erosion.

I can appreciate the need to take out some roads, I can also appreciate the need once a road stabilizes in place, to close it for certain

reasons and leave it alone, or to at least try to rehab it in a way

that it would create a low maintenance environment and create

minimal erosion.

Has there been any discussion about doing that instead of what

appears to be a very disturbing activity now?

Ms. BROWN. Our organization—Madam Chairman, Senator

Craig, our organization has not been involved in a detailed study,

but you know, we would like to be. I think everyone recognizes that

the Forest Service is limited on resources right now, but I think it

is the kind of project that could actually build the kind of community effort that Senator Crapo would like to see and that is an

identification of those areas that are the most serious, maybe some
60

of these tank traps on some steep slopes are causing problems, I

am not saying they are not.

Senator CRAIG. Yes.

Ms. BROWN. But let us identify those that will be effective in closures, let us identify those in meadows perhaps that are not going

to do any good, and let us be precise about it and then go about

rehabilitating those roads that simply are not going to be needed

for future timber sales. We should be doing this in a very methodological—whatever—situation. Let us be ordered about it.

[Laughter.]

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you. That is what frustrates me too

because I know they have spent a lot of money doing what they are

doing.

Ms. BROWN. Thank you.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Crapo, do you have any questions?

Senator CRAPO. No.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Simpson, do you have any questions?

Mr. SIMPSON. No.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the panel very much for your testimony and for your time, and you do have ten days to supplement

your testimony should you wish.

The Chair will call forth the last panel. Mr. Robert Ruesink, who

is the Snake River Basin Office Supervisor for the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service in Idaho. He will be accompanied by Mr. Michael

Donahoo, Eastern Idaho Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service in Pocatello. We will also hear from Mr. Jack Blackwell,

Regional Forester, Ogden, Utah accompanied by Mr. Jerry Reese,

Forest Supervisor, Targhee National Forest.

Now that you have gotten yourselves seated, would you please

stand and raise your hand to the square.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I will call first on Mr. Ruesink.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT RUESINK, SNAKE RIVER BASIN OFFICE SUPERVISOR, U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, IDAHO

ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL DONAHOO, EASTERN IDAHO

FIELD SUPERVISOR, U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, POCATELLO, IDAHO

Mr. RUESINK. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity

to participate in this oversight hearing on Targhee National Forest

road closures. My name is Robert Ruesink, I am Supervisor of the

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Snake River Basin Office in Boise,

Idaho.

In that capacity, I signed a biological opinion dated March 31,

1997, which addressed the effects of the Targhee National Forest

plan revision, including the site specific travel plan, on the grizzly

bear, listed as a threatened species under authority of the Endangered Species Act. That biological opinion represented compliance

with Section 7 of the Act and associated regulations at 40 CFR 402.

It is that opinion and the recommendations contained therein that

form the basis of my statement to the Committee today. I would

like to submit for the record a complete copy of the biological opin61

ion and a copy of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Task

Force Report on grizzly bears and motorized access management.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. RUESINK. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been working with the Forest Service during this forest plan revision as required

under Section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act.

Those sections of the Act specify the responsibilities of all Federal

agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes

of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and also to ensure that any action

that they authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. In developing the alternatives, the Forest Service held many pub- lic and agency meetings and the Fish & Wildlife Service was a participant in many of those and helped to provide input regarding effects of different alternatives and some of the considerations on

listed species on the Targhee. Formal consultation was initiated in November of 1996. The biological opinion addressed only the potential effects of the revision

on the grizzly bear. Other species were considered, such as the bald

eagle, peregrine falcon, Ute Ladies’ tresses, which is a native orchid, and the gray wolf, and it was determined that the revision

and the travel plan would not affect those species.

The Targhee National Forest forms part of the Greater Yellow- stone Ecosystem, one of six grizzly bear recovery areas, and contains three bear management units, two of those have been further

subdivided—Henry’s Lake 1 and 2, Plateau 1 and 2 and BechlerTeton.

I will skip over several references and documents to past consultations and get right to the heart of the matter in this consultation.

In the forest plan revision, the Forest Service defined the goals and objectives in grizzly bear habitat as follows:

1. Habitat conditions will be sufficient to sustain a recovered

population of grizzly bears. 2. Allow for unhindered movement of bears (continuity with Yel- lowstone National Park and adjacent bear management units).The

four objectives to support those goals were:

1. Meet recovery criteria in the grizzly bear recovery plan.

2. Implement guidelines developed by the Interagency Grizzly

Bear Committee.

3. Provide safe, secure sites for relocation of nuisance bears.

4. And implement the road density standards in the BMUs within three years of signing the Record of Decision.

The environmental baseline that the Fish & Wildlife Service considered in preparing this biological opinion noted that it had

changed considerably since the 1985 forest plan was prepared.

Management activities, including timber harvest and road construction, reduced vegetative cover, lowered food values and created a vast road network. We believe that those baseline conditions

increased the risk of direct mortality to grizzly bears because of the

high road densities; increased the risk of habituation of grizzly

bears to human activities along the roads; displaced grizzly bears

from critical and important feeding sites, (i.e. spring and fall
62

ranges); led to increased habitat fragmentation and the loss of

habitat needed for security.

I will move quickly to the biological opinion and some of the recommendations in that opinion.

We recommended that the Targhee implement and complete an

open and total motorized route management program for roads and

trails on the forest by the end of calendar year 1999 that would

contribute to the conservation, survival and recovery of the grizzly

bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

One of the key points of that route management program was to

have in place standards which set open motorized route standards

not to exceed .6 miles per square mile and not more than a total

route density of one mile per square mile. And those are consistent

with Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee access management

guidelines.

I see that my time is up. Just two more points very quickly if

I may, Madam Chairman.

Roads constructed or reconstructed for timber sale purposes

should be single purpose roads according to the IGBC guidelines.

New roads or road reconstruction should be of minimum design

specifications and placed on the landscape to reduce costs and facilitate reclamation of the roads after the timber sale is completed.

In summary, the Fish & Wildlife Service believes that the

Targhee National Forest plan revision if implemented as proposed

will provide habitat necessary for grizzly bear recovery in the

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. It is an essential part of the conservation strategy currently under development, which is designed

to be the management guidance for a delisted population of grizzly

bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Ruesink.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Blackwell.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruesink may be found at end of

hearing.]

STATEMENT OF JACK BLACKWELL, REGIONAL FORESTER,

OGDEN, UTAH ACCOMPANIED BY JERRY REESE, FOREST SUPERVISOR, TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST

Mr. BLACKWELL. Madam Chairman, Senator Craig, Congressman

Simpson, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am accompanied by Jerry Reese, Forest Supervisor of the Targhee Forest.

The Targhee Forest personnel have worked hard on a travel

management plan for the entire forest based on their revised forest

plan. The extensive forest road system, constructed primarily to

harvest timber, has served its purpose and is larger than what is

feasible to safely maintain and what we can afford today. Poorly

located and maintained roads reduce water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and soil stability.

Some key points regarding the Targhee travel management planning process. First, the revised forest plan.

The Forest Service completed the revised forest plan in April

1997 after seven years of hard work and with extensive public involvement. The revision addressed the extensive road system the
63

Targhee built in the 1970s and 1980s, much of which has served

its purpose and is no longer needed for timber harvest. Therefore,

the issue became how much of the road system should be maintained for other uses.

Because the public identified access as a major issue, the Forest

Service developed a specific travel plan to accompany each of the

seven alternatives considered in the revised forest plan EIS. The

revised forest plan established motorized road and trail density

standards for each management prescription area and also designated areas open for cross country motorized use.

Balancing motorized access and other key resource concerns, particularly wildlife and fish, was the major focus for the revision of

the Targhee Forest plan. To reach that balance, the Forest Service

addressed these four concerns:

1. The need to develop a comprehensive grizzly bear habitat

management strategy in response to the settlement of a 1994 lawsuit regarding roading and logging in the grizzly bear recovery

area.

2. The need to meet the Idaho Department of Fish and Game elk

vulnerability goals that we heard earlier.

3. The need to improve water quality to reduce the likelihood the

Yellowstone Cutthroat trout would be listed as an endangered species.

4. The desire to produce a travel management plan to provide a

reasonable mix of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities while meeting the habitat needs of grizzly bear, elk and

other species.

Next, I would like to discuss the remand decision.

The Forest Supervisor signed the Record of Decision for the travel plan, implementing direction for the revised forest plan on August 15, 1997. Citizens for a User Friendly Forest and the Blue

Ribbon Coalition appealed the decision and the deciding officer partially remanded the decision to the Forest Supervisor in January

1998.

The remand directed the Forest Supervisor:

to keep the revised forest plan direction, including road density

and cross country motorized use standards, that guide the

travel plan;

to implement the winter travel plan;

to prepare a new analysis of roads and trails open to summer

motorized access;

to address RS-2477 assertions made by several counties; and

finally to get more public involvement and analyze the site-specific effects of individual roads and trails.

After working with the counties on the RS-2477 issue and reviewing all comments regarding specific roads and trails, the Forest Supervisor released a new travel plan DEIS in late November

1998. The supervisor analyzed four alternative networks of roads

and trails open to summer motorized use. The Forest also held

public meetings and the comment period is open until March 5. I

expect that final EIS on the travel plan to be done in June 1999.

Now I would like to mention briefly the relation of road closures

to the biological opinion on the revised forest plan.
64

Effective road closures in the grizzly bear recovery area relate directly to the forest plan biological opinion provided by the Fish &

Wildlife Service. This requires the Forest Supervisor to achieve the

revised forest plan road density standards within the grizzly bear

recovery area by the end of calendar year 1999.

I want to point out though that these revised plan standards

were developed jointly, and this is not something that the Fish &

Wildlife Service forced down the throats of the U.S. Forest Service.

We worked collaboratively together on these.

In the remand of the travel plan, the Forest Supervisor had the

opportunity to issue an interim closure order in the BMUs to comply with the density standards in the revised forest plan and the

time frames established by the biological opinion, and did so on

March 24, 1998. Last summer, forest personnel began to close

roads within the BMUs to comply with the biological opinion. The

work was completed quicker than we thought it would take.

Finally, I would like to mention briefly the method of road closure.

Much of the controversy which developed this past year relates

to the method the Forest used to close the roads in the bear management units. In most cases, the Forest used large earth berms,

the most effective way of closing roads to meet grizzly bear habitat

standards. However, some forest users have told us the berms also

limit other recreation activities. Snowmobilers in particular have

expressed concern that these berms could affect their safety.

To address these concerns, forest personnel have worked extensively this fall and winter with the Idaho Snowmachine Association

and local snowmachine organizations to provide signing and other

information to alert snowmobilers. As a result, forest personnel

have modified some berms in key snowmobile areas in the Situation III area next Macks Inn, while still meeting the objective of

restricting summer motorized access. Outside the BMUs, the Forest has more options on how to close roads and we will continue

to work with interested citizens to address the least disruptive

ways to close roads.

Madam Chairman, that concludes my statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Blackwell.

The Chair recognizes Senator Craig for questions.

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Ruesink, I have spent as much time as I

could studying the science of road density and where you all get

your figures and therefore make your determinations as to what is

the preferred road density per square mile. Could you briefly walk

us through the science of road density and how we arrive at that

as a tool to determine the viability of a unit for, in this case, grizzly

bear habitat?

Mr. RUESINK. Senator Craig, in responding to that, I would like

to state right up front that unlike Director Mealey, I have not done

research on grizzly bears and certainly do not consider myself an

expert on grizzly bear biology. This forces me to rely on information

that is provided by researchers and that is reviewed and analyzed

by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee and then accepted by

that group, which includes representatives from the Forest Service,
65

Park Service, the State fish and game agencies, Fish & Wildlife

Service, Bureau of Land Management, as the best science available.

Mr. Donahoo, who is with me, is the person that has done most

of the work in preparing this biological opinion. He may be able to

give you a better answer than I, but I am not able to address that

point.

Senator CRAIG. If he could, I would appreciate it, thank you.

Mr. DONAHOO. Thank you.

In answer to your question of where do we come—I believe your

question is where do we come up with the .6 mile per square mile

and the one mile——

Senator CRAIG. That is correct.

Mr. DONAHOO. [continuing] per square mile total densities.

This is based on information that has been obtained from biologists, as Mr. Ruesink pointed out. It has been modified somewhat

and applied to the situation here on the Targhee Forest in order

to address the specific needs and habitat requirements of the grizzly bear on this particular forest. And that was developed jointly

with the Forest Service biologists to come up with those densities.

Senator CRAIG. Yeah. I understand how you got to where you got

or how you come up with it. I guess what I have tried to find out

over the last couple of years is where has the science been done,

how were the studies laid out, how did we determine that a certain

volume of roads created certain activity among certain wildlife populations. And I will be honest with you, it looks like we have made

some interesting guesses because I have not really found the

science.

Mr. DONAHOO. Biology sometimes appears to be guesses, just because of the biological nature of the animals that we deal with. The

thing I would say here is that there have been studies done

throughout the Yellowstone Ecosystem, throughout the CabinetYack Ecosystem and I have quite an extensive library, if you will,

of references that I would be glad to share with you. I really would

not want to foist that off on you, quite frankly, but——

Senator CRAIG. No, I would not want you to either. But I guess

what my concern is and my red light is on and I will quit—because

of the character of the law, we are almost subject to the science of

the biologist, period, end of statement. There is very little challenge, very little ability to modify, and certain groups have found

that out and if you do attempt to modify it, boom, you have got a

lawsuit on your hands. And therefore, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

and Forest Service and in this instance I think it is quite clear, err

on the side of no conflict or err on the side of not arriving at a conflict environment where the ultimate test of the science could

occur. You just simply err on the side of a biologist’s opinion, no

matter what the conflict is and then you work the conflict out in

rooms like this. That is terribly frustrating to those of us who seek

public policy that create stability instead of instability.

I guess that is my frustration. I have tried to find out how you

got to those decisions and now I find out that if there is any risk—

or at least I am being told if there is any risk of reopening the

plan, that somebody may threaten the listing of bull trout. I call

that blackmail.
66

Again, does the science, or do you believe the science of the current road density, as is now being implemented in the plan, solve

the problem that you believe may exist as it relates to the Yellowstone Cutthroat? Is the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in that position now?

Mr. DONAHOO. Sir, it is only one part of the problem, as has been

expressed before. Road densities, road standards are not the only

aspect that we need to address with any given species. And as has

been pointed out with the grizzly bear as well, road density standards are not the only problem.

Senator CRAIG. I appreciate that.

Mr. DONAHOO. There are such other things as cover, et cetera.

The same types of issues can and probably will be addressed with

respect to the Yellowstone Cutthroat trout. I have a prepared statement concerning the status of the Yellowstone Cutthroat trout and

the actions that are being taken by Idaho Fish and Game, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and others, to address

potential issues with the petition of——

Senator CRAIG. Do you have the statement with you?

Mr. DONAHOO. I do, sir.

Senator CRAIG. If you would submit that for the record, I would

enjoy reading it. Thank you.

Mr. DONAHOO. I would be glad to, thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator. Senator Crapo.

[The information referred to may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Blackwell, I will address this question to you, but I would

encourage you to refer the questions I have to whoever has the information that I am asking for, if you feel there is someone there

who has a closer feel for this.

One of the issues that has come up in the hearing today that I

do not think has been answered and I suppose we will need more

time than even in this hearing to answer it, is whether the gates

really work and if so, how well. I do not think anybody has said

they are 100 percent effective, but it seems to me that there has

been some question raised as to whether they are largely effective

or whether they are largely ineffective. Do you have an opinion on

that, and is there any objective information that you have to support your approach to this?

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, generally, we think they have had their

problems and several things, a predator project report, our own

monitoring and so forth and monitoring trips with other folks have

found tracks around gates, you know, those kinds of things.

Senator CRAPO. Can I interject here just for a second? I do not

want to stop your full answer, but one of the questions I have had

even with regard to the tank traps is can people not just drive

around the tank traps?

Mr. BLACKWELL. I might just mention how they were sort of put

together on the ground. What our folks tried to do was go to—well,

maybe I will go back just a little bit and talk about the whole thing

because I think it is kind of important to understand. The basic option in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Access Management Report to
67

meet the total motorized access route density standard of one mile

per square mile is basically to obliterate the road.

Senator CRAPO. Right.

Mr. BLACKWELL. And reclaim it. That is pretty expensive and a

lot of these roads have been in place for awhile and the cut and

fill slopes are fairly stable and we did not think that was probably

totally necessary. So we worked with Fish & Wildlife Service and

others and generally tried to just deal with the terminus of the

road. And our folks would generally go in and try and find a point

where they could make an effective closure and then kind of work

back out to the terminus. Some have very few, because they got a

good place, so to speak, to make the closure; some have quite a few.

Senator CRAPO. So when you said that you felt—back to the

question on gates, when you felt the gates were not as effective as

possible, do you have any idea as to how effective that is? Are they

stopping half the traffic or 90 percent of the traffic?

Mr. BLACKWELL. I cannot give you a percentage number but

what they did when they went on the ground to design these is actually looked for evidence that the gates were being violated and

that sort of thing, and tried to find the places where they were

being violated and to shut those off. And we found an awful lot of

that.

Senator CRAPO. I see my time is about up and I have a number

of questions which I will submit for the record, but one I wanted

to ask here, which is really core to the issue for me. And again, Mr.

Blackwell, you may choose yourself or ask someone else to follow

up on this, but the real core question to me here is whether we

should have the forest closed unless designated open, or open unless designated closed. Is there a rationale that you could explain

as to why it is that you have selected the approach of closed unless

designated open?

Mr. BLACKWELL. There is not an easy answer, it has been tried

both ways in many parts of the country. I think the first round of

forest planning, you saw national forests all over the country doing

it either way.

The consensus seems to be that most of us would prefer open unless posted closed. That is not working very well, for some of the

reasons you heard today—the signs get torn down, disappear and

then it does not work.

It is hard on us to have to propose that and we do it with great

reluctance. And I am not sure the final chapter is written yet, but

that is where it seems to be heading, Senator.

Senator CRAPO. Madam Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent

to ask one follow-up question on that?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered.

Senator CRAPO. It seems to me that your answer is consistent

with what I have been hearing and that is that the rationale for

changing to a closed unless designated open system is based on the

inability to enforce the other system. Jan Brown has suggested

that we need additional resources into enforcement.

If we went to a system that was sort of like it is for hunting

areas, if you are going to go hunting, you have to know what is

open and what is closed and when—if that type of a system were

in place so that we did not have to worry about whether the signs
68

were up or not and so forth, but people were required to know what

is open and what is closed, and if we had adequate enforcement,

do you feel that that would be a better way to approach the issue

rather than closing the forest unless it is designated open?

Mr. BLACKWELL. Yes, I do.

Senator CRAPO. Thank you.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Simpson for questions.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Blackwell, I get very concerned when I start reading in the

paper about activities that create such hostility on both sides of the

issue that you start, for lack of a better term, finding bombs on the

outside of Forest Service buildings and those kinds of things. I

think we have created an environment that is totally unacceptable,

that we have got to change somehow. I know that is a concern to

you and it is a concern to every Forest Service employee.

What sort of public input did you receive before you did this and

did you adequately inform the public, in your opinion, before you

did this of what you were going to do when you did the tank traps

and, in retrospect, how would you have done it differently?

Mr. BLACKWELL. Congressman, can I ask Forest Supervisor

Reese to answer that?

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure.

Mr. REESE. Well, actually, we have been at this for quite awhile,

as has been mentioned. We have been working through the forest

plan for a number of years, we actually produced maps for every

alternative in the forest plan and went through a number of public

meetings on that. We have identified in the forest plan EIS even

the number of miles that we would probably obliterate if given alternatives were selected; that sort of thing.

When the remand decision came down, we sent out news releases

detailing how we were going to deal with the remand, work our

way through that, through the new EIS, issue the closure orders,

that sort of thing. And we felt like we had provided information of

the direction we were going. Perhaps we could have spent more

time right about that time and in very great detail said what obliteration means, that sort of thing, maybe we did not do enough of

that.

The only other thing I could say is trying to find some way to

both be effective, be somewhat cost-effective in how you do it, and

achieve the objectives in the time frame. You know, it is kind of

a conundrum.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, just to follow up on that. Did you inform the

local officials that you were going to do this? Because I understand

some of the problem that is created here is the distrust that the

local officials have, that they are hearing one thing from, particularly you, they were meeting with you at one time, and you were

telling them one thing when exactly the opposite was happening

out in the forest.

Mr. REESE. Well, I am not sure what you are referring to there.

I tried to be upfront with everyone.

Mr. SIMPSON. Did you inform the local officials that this was

going to go on, beforehand?
69

Mr. REESE. Well, I know the Fremont County officials were involved with this when we were doing the bidders tours and so forth

to set up the contracts. We notified Teton County in advance. So

I think so.

Mr. SIMPSON. I guess one of my great concerns is that the public—I like to consider myself a fairly informed individual, I read

several different newspapers and obviously having been the Speaker of the House, I get news releases all the time. The first time I

heard about this was when local officials started to call me and say

do you know what they are doing in the Targhee Forest. And started to send me pictures and actually took me out there to show me

what was going on. I had no knowledge of it beforehand, the Forest

Service did not seem to go out of their way to try to inform people

that they were going to do any of this, and obviously it does not

take a scientist to figure out that this was going to be relatively

controversial.

Mr. REESE. Well, I think we have recognized that basically

through the forest plan process and we have had a number of public meetings, various ways of notifying the public through that

process, and maybe we misread this tail end thing, but I think we

made a major effort through the whole thing to keep people involved, and some stay involved and some do not. But you know, I

do not know how much—we tried anyway, I will say we did our

best.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, let me just suggest that we try better in the

future and maybe we can avoid some of the controversy at least before we get into it, or at least address some of it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.

I have here some pictures of road number 469 at the Squirrel

Creek area. The first picture was taken September 29, 1998 and

the same identical location, a picture was taken 10/1/98. And I also

have here two pictures of road number 469 at Jackass Loop Road.

The upper picture taken September 29 and the lower picture at the

same location taken October 1. And without objection, I would like

to enter these into the record. I would also like for the other members to view them because what you see there and what you see

in the pictures here goes far beyond, Mr. Reese, far beyond what

Congress ever intended in terms of what we appropriated money

for road closures of ghost roads and in fact, purchaser road credit

closure was led by me in the House in cooperation with Senator

Craig. This goes far beyond it and it defies common sense.

I want to know, Mr. Reese or Mr. Blackwell, where does the buck

stop. Who made this decision to build the tank traps? Who is responsible?

Mr. REESE. I am.

[The material referred to may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How much money was involved in this

project? We have heard figures of $300,000, we have heard figures

of $600,000.

Mr. REESE. Originally when we first looked at this, when we

thought we would probably be looking at obliterating the roads

completely, we estimated it would be about $600,000 for the BMUs

or about $1,500 a mile. This entire, the 400 miles that we have
70

done so far, which is 85 percent of the total, cost about $107,000

and that includes the modifications we made to some of them. And

so we were able to do it for about 20 percent of what we originally

estimated, by focusing on the terminus, trying to do the minimum

amount of disturbance. Even though they are hefty, we tried to

minimize actually the amount of disturbance we covered on the

ground, and in fact only disturbed a total of about 150 acres in an

area of about 450,000 acres.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Reese, did you consult with Mr. Blackwell

about your decision?

Mr. REESE. About——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. To build tank traps.

Mr. REESE. To do the road obliteration work and——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. No, specifically to build tank traps, did you

consult with Mr. Blackwell?

Mr. REESE. We consult—do you want to answer that?

Mr. BLACKWELL. No, go ahead.

[Laughter.]

Mr. REESE. We consulted regularly through this process on what,

you know——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want to know this, did you consult with Mr.

Blackwell about building tank traps——

Mr. REESE. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] and did he authorize this?

Mr. REESE. I——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Blackwell, do you care to answer the

question?

Mr. BLACKWELL. I concurred with what the Forest was doing and

I would like to take a stab to correct the misimpression that tank

traps have not been used before. So-called tank traps have been

used for a long time. The pictures and the magnitude here in the

instance we are talking about today are the greatest magnitude I

have ever seen, but I stand behind Mr. Reese in being aware of

what was going on here.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So for the record, your testimony is that you

were specifically consulted about the tank trap project and you personally okayed it. Is that your testimony?

Mr. BLACKWELL. My testimony is that I was aware of it in advance, I did not know the specifics, Madam Chairman, of size, but

I was consulted in advance and I did know about it.

[Comment from the audience.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would ask that the audience remain quiet

until we are finished.

[Comment from the audience.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. We will have to ask security to ask you to

leave, we are just about through with the hearing.

Mr. Reese, why did the Forest Service not do a site-specific

NEPA study and an analysis as required by the law before you engaged in building and constructing the tank traps?

Mr. REESE. We believe we did. If you follow the sequence of

NEPA documents, the forest plan EIS, the travel plan EIS, the remand decision. In the remand decision, it says—it specifically

asked me to consider the appropriateness of a closure order to implement the biological opinion, the density standards in the biologi71

cal opinion, and I did that. And part of implementing the density

standards in the biological opinion is to reach those road density

standards according to the Interagency Grizzly Bear guidelines by

the end of calendar year 1999.

Now we started into this looking at obliterating the entire road

prism. We felt we would be very lucky to get half of it done in one

summer, and therefore needed at least two field seasons to do it.

And so we issued the order, began the work; because of the way

we were able to negotiate to do it, we were able to do it much more

rapidly and much more economically than we estimated. We are

quite a bit farther along than we thought.

So I believe the answer to that question is we did the NEPA, we

got the biological opinion and implemented the biological opinion.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Reese, did you take into consideration the

potential of human harm?

Mr. REESE. Pardon?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Did you take into consideration the potential

of human harm and harm to the wildlife in your analysis and did

you publish the analysis before you embarked on the work?

Mr. REESE. Specifically about the tank traps, you mean?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. About the tank traps.

Mr. REESE. Not specifically about the tank traps, but we did in

the EIS identify the impacts of obliterating roads and that sort of

thing.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But not involving your decision to build the

tank traps?

Mr. REESE. Well, I see that as an implementing decision.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. It is not, it is different. Now what I am asking

you is, Mr. Reese—what I am asking you is this: Before you made

the decision to build the tank traps, did you analyze the impact on

human safety, did you analyze the impact on the environment with

regard to erosion and sediment load and did you publish—did you

publish that analysis specifically?

Mr. BLACKWELL. Madam Chairman, you are not going to like

this, but I do not think it is appropriate for us to answer that since

we are in the middle of a lawsuit on the NEPA issue of the closures.

[Applause.]

Mr. BLACKWELL. I just am advised constantly in lawsuits not to

get into a public discussion of the merits of a lawsuit when they

are active, and where this discussion is going right now is right

smack to the merits of that lawsuit.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, Mr. Blackwell, you are not in a public

discussion, you are in an official Congressional hearing, but I am

aware of your concerns. I do want to say for the record that this

was a bad decision, this was never envisioned by Congress. You

have gone over the pale, pushed the envelope too far, and I have—

I know at least one of you on the panel fairly well and have great

respect for you, but this has got to stop. Or we will have to make

sure that there is a reaction in the budget.

We cannot see this——

[Audience response.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Will the hearing please come to order?

We cannot see this continue.
72

[Audience response.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think you know how strongly I feel about

that. And with that, I want to thank you very much for your testimony.

You have ten days to add to your testimony, should you wish,

and we all have a lot more questions we would like to ask you and

we will submit them in writing.

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes?

Senator CRAIG. There is another piece of information that frustrates me that I would like to see if you could provide for the

record. I have traveled the Targhee and I have seen the closed

gates and this is a rancher that has built a lot of gates over time

and know when gates work and when gates do not work and when

gates are violated. And I must be honest with you, I did not see

a lot of destruction, I saw very little. I saw some gates that had

been poorly maintained, but not torn down, not fences run over and

I did not see a lot of tracks around the gates. I got out and walked

around them, through the grass. There were not trafficked areas.

The roads that I saw beyond the gates did not appear to be heavily

or at all trafficked in some instances, and yet we hear that the

tank trapping and the road obliteration is a result of needing to

stop trafficking activities, as one item, amongst others.

Mr. Hoyt said there was information, new information. I would

like to know if studies were done, if there was a person out there

on the Targhee that kept those gates maintained and fences built,

or if a downed fence, as I know, having been a rancher, invites activity if it is down and not properly maintained.

I must tell you that once you have made that kind of an investment—I do not know how many Powder River gates you have got

spread across the Targhee, but a sizable number and wing fences

along those gates, but once they are up, proper maintenance is relatively low in cost and maintenance invites discipline on the part

of the public. Yes, I have seen signs torn down and signs shot up

and because I have seen them in the past and spent all of my life

traveling on Forest Service lands here in Idaho, I looked for that

specifically because I had been told that was the logic for what you

did, or one of the logics. And I must tell you I did not see much

of it, if any.

I would like to know the evidence, the research that was done,

if it was done; the studies that were made, the surveys that indicated that there was a great violation of that, because Senator

Crapo mentioned something very interesting, I can get around

those tank traps in a heck of a good four wheel drive vehicle if I

want to. My dirt bike can certainly get around them, if I wanted

to. But if I knew there was somebody out there enforcing it and

there was as strong likelihood that I might get caught, there is less

likelihood that I would want to do it.

Those are the kinds of human chemistries that we get involved

in as our relationship to the public on these public lands. That is

what frustrates me, that we have gone now to a three or four hundred thousand dollar expense, you are going to have to go in, I

hope, and seed these tank traps and make them acceptable. After

one year of erosion, you will go in and disturb the ground and incur
73

some more erosion. It is those kinds of things—I saw a job half

done when I was up there this fall and that means it has gone

through a winter cycle and it is going to have to, in many instances, be redisturbed and reshaped again. That is, you know, a

bit frustrating.

But anyway, I am sorry, Madam Chairman, you have been kind

to indulge me. I would like to know how you arrived at that decision because I did not see gates torn down and I saw reasonable

maintenance, but some that needed more, and I just did not see

those smashed down grassy areas and trafficked areas around

those gates and I must have viewed at least 10 or 12 gates.

Thank you. You do not need to respond. If you have got the

science, information, the studies that indicate that you came to a

decision based on needing to do it because it was being accessed,

that is what I need to know and I believe the Greater Yellowstone

Coalition said they had information in that area. That would help

me fill out at least my mind’s record of this issue.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do want to ask Mr. Crapo or Mr. Simpson

if you have any closing comments.

Senator CRAPO. We have a joint question.

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the penalty now if someone goes around

a gated road and someone from the Forest Service catches them?

And what is the likelihood of it being imposed?

Mr. REESE. It was just increased, I believe in Idaho, and do not

quote me but I think it is about $500.

Mr. SIMPSON. How often—any idea how many of those violations

have actually been assessed?

Mr. REESE. In an average year, you mean?

Mr. SIMPSON. On the Targhee.

Mr. REESE. Probably about ten. I would agree that enforcement

is going to be a key part of the picture because there is nothing

that is absolutely effective without enforcement.

Mr. SIMPSON. Just in closing, I would like to say that I do appreciate you coming and answering the questions. We were not trying

to grill you, but I was trying—I did want to have some answers to

some of the questions.

[Audience comment.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Wait just a minute. I am here to find out information and if you cannot respect that, then why are you here?

[Audience comment.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I am sorry, but we have another thing at 5

p.m., but there is—as the Chairman mentioned earlier, the record

will be open for your comments to put in and I guarantee you, I

will read those comments.

[Audience comment.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Will the hearing please come to order.

Mr. SIMPSON. But I do appreciate you coming. I am not trying

to intimidate or threaten or anything else any of you. I did want

to find out what is going on because I want to try and reduce the

controversy and reduce this animosity between the sides so that we

do not end up one day with the type of thing that happened at the

Forest Service door in reality.

[Audience comment.]
74

Mr. SIMPSON. So I appreciate you coming and I appreciate everyone else that testified today. There are people on both sides of this

issue that I agree with and I look forward to working with.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.

I just want to say in closing that I think that our concerns are

that we diminish the controversy. There has been a lot of ill will,

there has been a lot of damage out there to the roads and the environment. I think there is a way we do not have to live with this

forever and one thing I would like to see is Mr. Blackwell, Mr.

Reese, Mr. Ruesink, Mr. Donahoo, if all of you would work with our

county commissioners and be very straightforward with them. I do

not ever again want to hear about them being told one thing and

something else happening.

[Audience disruption.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And so if you would please work with our

county commissioners.

[Loud audience disruption.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. If you would please work with our county commissioners to try to restore this. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Jerry Jayne may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
75

STATEMENT OF HON. STAN HAWKINS, DISTRICT 28, BONNEVILLE, FREMONT & TETON

COUNTIES

Congressman Chenoweth, Congressman Simpson and others: Welcome to Eastern

Idaho! We are glad you are here.

I’m the State Senator from the 28th legislative district of Idaho. The 28th District

and all of eastern Idaho is a diverse area that has for many years been reliant on

resource based activities. Farming, ranching, timber and even the INEEL depend

on our natural resources. Land, forests, rivers, lakes, underground water, open

spaces and wildlife are all part of our heritage and our lives. For generations, our

land use practices have preserved this area in a condition that now causes all resources users to activate and mobilize in what has evolved into a constant battle

over how our resources should be used. Frankly, I’m amazed at the illogical and the

unsupportable claims made by many who would have you believe that we could

hand this area to the next generation if we could just keep the current generation

from using it.

As local officials who are charged with funding schools, roads and all other public

services in a state that is predominantly publicly-owned, we simply must have a

reasonable policy of use for natural resources.

Panic management is wrong. Those who complained bitterly about the salvage

harvests of our mature trees on the Targhee some years back are the same ones

who now fight to keep harvest levels so low that we will likely see a forest in the

same over mature condition that required extreme harvest levels to allow utilization

of the resource. We are told to count on a new and emerging tourism economy.

Those who extol the benefits of tourism are the ones who want to close the roads

to our forests and want limits on boat launches on our rivers and want snowmobiles

and recreational vehicles banned from public lands and parks. We have people who

decry urban sprawl and the lack of controls that allow farm land to be gobbled up.

In the next breath, they advocate that water, currently used on farms, should be

sent downstream in hopes that fish will benefit.

Frankly, I’m tired of constantly battling to maintain the way of life I have known

and my constituents have known. We have tried to use the appropriate avenues to

achieve balance. We attend water planning hearings, big game plan hearings, forest

plan hearings, forest travel plan hearings and on and on.

We give input. County commissioners, mayors, sheriffs, emergency service providers and all of us testify. We speak for the local interests. We speak as if what

we say will make a difference. And, in the end, we are frustrated. The plans and

the action are seldom, if ever, reflective of the comments and the wishes of the local

interests as expressed by those officials who are repeatedly elected by the majorities

they speak for. As local officials, we watch the fog set in. Decision-making is done

without accountability—without any concern for the local public interest. Federal

land managers blame the state Fish and Game agency for management initiatives.

When that doesn’t work, we face the specter of one Federal agency threatening judicial interventions against another; that is, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forces

our decisions. As the fog gets thicker, ‘‘budgetary constraints’’ can be used to excuse

any action or inaction. I have heard public land officials say ‘‘we can’t maintain

roads on this tight budget’’—and yet it seems like staffing levels are higher than

they were when logging, grazing, road building and other activities were at levels

that far exceed the level of activity we see today.

Today we are here to talk about road closures. Actually, we are talking about extreme measures being leveled at the topography on roads that were recognized, in

some cases, to be open for seasonal use. The measures I’m talking about led to litigation that has resulted in the Forest Service agreeing to at least modify the dangerous and destructive impediments that were constructed. Public notice, public participation and public involvement were not adequately provided for in this decision.

Has the law of the land been violated? It’s an important question we hope this hearing will answer. For that reason, I say again, ‘‘Thank you.’’ Thank you, Representative Chenoweth, for providing this important chance for us to be heard. Thank you,

Senator Craig, for already starting legislation that could serve to insure that local

concerns are considered in the future.

Our local economy is on the line. Our way of life is on the line.

STATEMENT OF JIM GERBER, PRESIDENT, CUFF

INTRODUCTION

My testimony will address the three reasons the Targhee Forest gave us for closing and obliterating roads on the Forest. These are: (1) protect grizzly bear, (2) pro76

tect elk, and (3) reduce erosion. I will explain why we in CUFF do not believe these

are valid reasons for road closures. Please keep in mind, as I discuss them, that the

majority of people in eastern Idaho do not support road closures, so the pressure

to close roads is not coming from us. The question is ‘‘Where is the pressure to close

roads coming from?’’

GRIZZLY BEAR

The first reason the Forest always gives for closing and obliterating roads is to

protect grizzly bear.

I have an overhead transparency of a map to discuss the grizzly bear issue (also

Appendix A). The dark blue line is the outline of Yellowstone N.P.; the Targhee Forest is along the lower left boundary of the Park.

The map shows the results of a ten-year radio-telemetry study (1977-1986) in and

around Yellowstone N.P. The map is taken from a scientific paper written by Doctors Richard Knight and Dave Mattson, former employees of the Interagency Grizzly

Bear Committee and experts on grizzly bear behavior.

Prior to 1977 park biologists radio-collared a number of female grizzly bears in

and near the Park and then released them. For the next 10 years biologists flew

over the Park and, through the wizardry of radio electronics, located each bear and

marked its position on a map with a black mark. At the end of 10 years the scientists produced this map. Every bear management unit (BMW) in the Park (there

are 18 of them) is covered with black marks, indicating the location of bears. Every

BMU, that is, except one. That one is the Plateau BMU in the southwest corner of

the Park. It is absolutely white. For 10 years, while biologists were flying over the

Park locating female collared bears, no bear ever walked out into the Plateau BMU.

Congressmen, we are setting 164,000 acres aside for a grizzly bear sanctuary in an

area where the bear does not even want to be!!!

The second overlay is a statement taken from the same study. The highlighted

portion says ‘‘Low densities of telemetry locations in unroaded areas northeast of

YNP and in the Park’s southwest corner may be a result of poor habitat condition

. . .’’ So here we have the premier authority of grizzly bear in YNP saying the Plateau BMU is poor habitat.

When you combine this statement with the previous map and add the fact the

Plateau BMU is hot, dry habitat with no water, you get a clear picture that this

area is not good grizzly bear habitat. The question then is ‘‘Why are the Targhee

Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pushing so hard to emphasize grizzly bear

here?’’ We hope your hearing can shed some light on this question.

ELK

The second reason the Forest gives to close roads is to protect elk. But elk are

doing well on the Forest, having increased 600 percent since the 1960’s. This increase occurred at a time of heavy salvage logging and associated road building to

harvest millions of beetle-killed trees. This increase in elk, associated with more

roads, does not tell us roads are a problem for elk on the forest. Again the question

is ‘‘Why is the Targhee Forest pushing to close roads when the elk population is

at an all-time high and ‘‘thriving’’ according to the Idaho Fish and Game Department?’’

REDUCE EROSION

The third reason to close roads is to reduce erosion. This issue revolves around

‘‘ghost’’ or two-track roads. The theory being that since these roads are not constructed or maintained, they must be adding large quantities of sediment to

streams. However, most of these ‘‘ghost’’ roads are located 1/4 mile, or more, from

a stream. These roads erode each year, but that sediment runs into the adjacent

vegetation and is captured. Little, if any, sediment ever reaches a stream. In fact,

the water running off the forest is clean and clear. This does not tell us roads are

contributing large amount of sediment to streams in our area.

In summary, bears and elk are doing fine and water running off the Targhee is

clear. This does not indicate a need for the excessive road closures proposed by the

Targhee Forest. Since the impetus to close roads is not coming from us in eastern

Idaho, we wonder where it is coming from. We hope your hearing can shed some

light on this question.

Thank you and that concludes my comments.
77
78
79
80
81

STATEMENT OF ADENA COOK, PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR, BLUERIBBON COALITION

THINKING IN THE BOX: FOREST PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ON

THE TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST

INTRODUCTION

‘‘Thinking out of the box’’ is a popular euphemism for creative problem solving. Tough issues can demand unconventional ways of thinking and processes that reach

beyond past methods. Nowhere is this approach more needed than in national forest

planning and management.

TARGHEE PLANNING BACKGROUND

When Targhee forest planning began eight years ago, there was promise that the new plan process would attempt new solutions. The supervisor at that time, Jim

Caswell, engaged one of the foremost experts in the country on forest planning and

public involvement, Dr. Bill Shands, to direct the public involvement part of the

plan revision.

I had followed Dr. Shand’s work, and attended his lectures on several previous

occasions. He favored complete public involvement in every step of the planning

process. He wanted to take forest planning ‘‘out of the box’’ and bring it to the people (this was long before the euphemism ‘‘thinking out of the box’’ came in vogue).

I admired his thesis. He theorized that if publics were involved through each step

of the process, that consensus, or at least comprehension, would result.

Under Dr. Shand’s direction, the first couple of years went well with the Citizen’s Involvement Group (CIG). Everyone learned much about the Targhee, what decisions had to be made, and why. We knew that it would get more difficult as we

got closer to actual on the ground allocations, but many felt that the continuity, relationships, and trust built up over the past two years would help the CIG achieve

an unprecedented consensus on many issues. In 1993, events beyond anyone’s control broke this fragile consensus building. Jim Caswell was transferred. Bill Shands passed away. The preservationist direction of

the Clinton Administration was gathering steam. The Forest Service was being ‘‘reinvented.’’

Yet much information, hard data, and public input had been gathered over the

past three years. These would form the basis of Draft Standards and Guidelines,

and Management Prescriptions. The general direction of the future of the Targhee

would take shape. Members of the CIG wondered how the next crucial step would

proceed.

THE BOX REPLACES CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING AND CONSENSUS

They were dismayed when out came the box that they had hoped Bill Shands had

banished forever. But he was dead. The Forest Service had been reinvented, and

there was a big label ‘‘Ecosystem Management’’ on the box and its management criteria were blatantly preservation oriented.

Locally based solutions and citizen involvement were unimportant. Once the

premises from which the box is constructed are accepted, as they are within the Forest Service from the top down, then all answers lie within.

Polarization replaced developing consensus. The public was back where they started from five years ago, though much wiser!

The BlueRibbon Coalition has always been a strong advocate of cooperation with

land managers. They are our partners. We work in many ways to assist them in

protecting the resource while promoting balanced recreation use and public access.

Our success stories in achieving this are many, and we have a long history of success stories on the Targhee.

One of the key elements of this success is constructive give and take. Another is

a real dedication to on-the-ground problem solving.

Very little can be achieved by talking at each other with broad brush platitudes

like, ‘‘The Targhee has several thousand miles of road open under our new plan.

Doesn’t that sound like a lot? Isn’t that enough?’’ And conversely, ‘‘You’ve closed

enough roads already. We don’t need any more closures!’’

INFLEXIBLE NEW PLAN STIMULATED POLARIZATION

Yet the inflexible standards of the new forest plan stimulated this polarization,

and discouraged on-the-ground give and take. Most traditional multiple uses had

such standards applied. Motorized recreation and general forest access were especially affected. These inflexible sideboards give very little latitude for on-the-ground

solutions. For example, the new forest plan:

• mandated tough road and trail density standards, not only in the Bear Management Units, but throughout the whole forest.
82

• counted a single track trail where motorized use was allowed as having the

same impact on wildlife as a Federal highway.

• imposed a ‘‘closed unless posted open’’ fiat on most summer motorized forest

access.

UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK TOWARD LOCAL SOLUTION EMERGES

This inflexibility and unwillingness to work for on-the-ground answers manifested itself in other ways as the process moved forward:

• A multiple use alternative developed by local citizens, included in the draft

plan and strongly supported by the surrounding communities, was dropped in

the final because, we were told, it failed to sufficiently conform to established

parameters.

• A travel plan environmental assessment (EA) and decision was issued shortly

after the final forest plan was released. This decision designated open roads and

trails on the forest, and decided which would be closed to motorized use. The

regional office received 1,276 appeals on this decision. These appeals were

upheld because the public was not given an opportunity through a site-specific

process to comment on individual roads and trails. Targhee officials were directed by the regional office to go through another Travel Plan NEPA process

that afforded the public opportunity to comment on site-specific roads and

trails.

• It became apparent to citizens and organizations interested in forest access

that the new plan was inflexible and therefore unworkable. Together with local

elected officials and members of Idaho’s congressional delegation, they urged

Supervisor Reese to adjust the plan through an amendment. I attempted to persuade him that addressing access would not constitute a whole new plan revision, but he stated that it would. He refused these requests.

• Supervisor Reese issued a closure order closing the entire forest to cross-country motorized use, effectively implementing that portion of the forest plan in advance of the regional-mandated travel plan process. While this action could be

considered reasonable in bear management units, it pre-empted the process for

the whole forest.

It was explained that this action would enable the public to get used to the idea, and demonstrate how ‘‘closed unless posted open’’ would work on the

ground. Yet little public information was distributed, and no signs were posted

informing the public.

OVER 400 MILES OF ROAD OBLITERATED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC

DOCUMENTATION

The cavalier attitude toward public involvement culminated in the obliteration of

over 400 miles of road in the bear management units of Fremont County. I realized

that additional roads would be closed in this area, and that this closure could proceed in advance of the travel plan process to accommodate the grizzly bear management strategy. Many of the roads in this area were already securely gated.

However. I was appalled at the discovery that these closures would be accomplished by a massive obliteration effort. As BlueRibbon and Citizens for a User

Friendly Forest (CUFF) were preparing to file suit over this lapse of NEPA, the

bulldozers apparently were urged to go faster.

Supervisor Reese stated that this action was necessary because current closures

were not effective, and that he was mandated to reduce the road density in two

years. We were unable to engage in a productive dialogue thot would:

• Examine gates site specifically and determine whether they were effective or

not. That all of them were being systematically violated is not true.

• Determine what additional means were needed to make them effective.

• Detemmine whether informal routes were essential (like Schoolhouse Draw,

site of our October rally) and could be traded for other routes.

• Resolve and address concerns about winter travel safety.

• Determine the impact on the non-motorized recreationist.

• Determine if obliterations were necessary in the developed portions of Island

Park, where the closures would not contribute to grizzly bear security.

Teton County passed an emergency ordinance that temporarily stopped the earth

moving equipment from completing the obliteration in that County. About 22 roads

remained to be obliterated. Because our suit was pending, and because the season

was advancing, the forest service agreed to stop the work for the season.

At a Teton County Commissioners’ meeting that preceded this decision, Commissioner Brent Robson showed a video demonstrating that several of the roads on the

obliteration list had open and unsecured gates. The question was asked, ‘‘How could

the forest claim trespass if the gates were not secured?’’
83

In the ensuing discussion about securing roads with minimum impact, Ranger Patty Bates estimated that 25 percent of the current closures are effective. The

group agreed that closures should be effected by the minimum means, not maximum.This meeting was not a part of a NEPA process, but it demonstrated that give and take could still occur. This is increasingly rare, however.

CONCLUSION

Targhee’s current management attitude can be characterized by:

• Inflexibility.

• Unwillingness to seek on-the-ground solutions.

• Breakdown in constructive communication.

We do not accept excuses such as, ‘‘We’re mandated by the Endangered Species

Act. We’ll get sued if we don’t.’’ These scapegoats represent avoidance of problems,

not a commitment to solutions.

The Targhee is but one example of how ‘‘thinking in the box’’ constrains land

management problem solving. Committed to top-down mandates that come in a box,

other national forest units face similar difficulties.

That’s why we are here. We need our Members of Congress to help us toward creative solutions, to help us ‘‘think out of the box’’ to plan the management of our

public lands.

STATEMENT OF NEAL CHRISTIANSEN, CHAIRMAN, FREMONT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Congressmen and Distinguished Guests:

My name is Neal Christiansen and I am Chairman of the County Commissioners

in Fremont County. I was elected to office in 1994 and reelected in 1996 and have

served continuously for 4 years now. During that time I have worked closely with

the Targhee Forest on several issues, including the revised Forest Plan and subsequent Travel Plan.

Prior to becoming a county commissioner I was a logger on the Targhee for years

and am currently Vice-President of the Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho,

representing some 560 logging contractors. As such I am very familiar with the resource utilization end of forest management.

Fremont County is heavily dominated by Federal land. Between the Targhee Forest and Bureau of Land Management, 60 percent of our county is federally owned,

mostly Forest Service land. As a result, Federal land management policies have a

large impact on Fremont County and those who use the forest but live elsewhere

(tourists and summer home residents). Any effort by the Targhee Forest to reduce

resource development or access to the forest can have a big impact on county government.

By way of example, I point to the loss of 25 percent funds in the last 8 years or

so. In 1991 Fremont County received $213,000 in 25 percent funds. From then on

there was a steady reduction in receipts, culminating in a mere $48,000 in 1998.

The revenue is generated through cabin site leases, grazing fees, and timber sales.

Since the cabin site fees are fairly stable, the 25 percent receipts fluctuate largely

according to timber prices. Therefore almost all of the reduction results from a decline in the amount of timber offered by the Targhee Forest. The Forest seems oblivious to this impact, even though we have pointed out the problem many times.

So it is not surprising that we, the county commissioners, were less than enthusiastic about revision of the Forest Plan. Still, the public involvement process is the

only game in town, and we were hopeful that in the enlightened 90’s the Forest

would keep an open mind. It was not long, however, before we could see the Forest

had a different agenda than most of our constituents. The final Forest Plan reduced

the allowable timber harvest from 80 million board feet (MMBF) to 8 MMBF, a 90

percent reduction. The new Plan also eliminated 11 livestock allotments. Even

worse, when the proposed Travel Plan was announced it closed most of the Forest

to summer cross country motorized use, eliminated all ‘‘ghost’’ roads, and proposed

to close many roads and motorized trails. We did not know at the time that ‘‘closed’’

meant a series of 8-foot high tank traps, one after another on a road. We were soon

to find out.

In June of last year I received a report the Targhee was tearing up roads on the

forest. Not wanting to believe the report, I drove to the location and found huge

tank traps in several roads, larger than I had ever encountered in my years of logging. There was no advance public discussion of the obliterations in the final EIS

of the Forest Plan. The Forest simply began tearing up roads!! When confronted,

the Forest indicated the obliterations would soon stop. They gave no indication of

what was to come next.
84

Two months later, in August, I received a bid solicitation for road closure on the

Targhee Forest. I received the offer because I am still on the Forest’s bidders list.

Being curious, I went to the pre-work conference to find out what the work entailed.

It was only then I learned of the plan to rip the surface of roads and place tank

traps in over 400 miles of roads on the Targhee. Even then I had no idea how pervasive the traps would be. And still there was no public discussion or warning of the

obliterations to come.

Soon after the pre-bid meeting a contract was awarded and the work began. It

was only then that most people learned of the Forest’s plans, and by then it was

too late. In a month’s time the Forest and contractor flew around the Ashton and

Island Park Districts obliterating about 380 miles of road. Many people requested,

almost pleaded, with the Forest to stop, but to no avail. Finally, on the 26th of September, as the equipment was about to leave the Ashton R.D. and head to the Teton

Basin R.D. I called Brent Robson, county commissioner in Teton County, and

warned him of the onslaught was headed his way. Brent immediately placed a

weight limit on all roads crossing Teton County roads to the Forest, effectively

prohibitinq contractor’s equipment from getting to the Forest. At the same time Citizens For A User Friendly Forest and Blue Ribbon Coalition filed suit in Federal

court in Boise to stop the work until the parties of the lawsuit had time to address

the issues. As a result of these two actions the Forest finally stopped the road obliteration work for the year. We are presently in a stand off until next summer.

We have had unprecedented support from political leaders in our fight against the

road closures. Both senators and then congressman, Mike Crapo, wrote letters opposing the closures and met with Forest Supervisor Jerry Reese several times to let

Jerry know of their disapproval. All of the state legislators from eastern Idaho

signed a letter opposing the closures. The county commissioners of the six counties

that touch the Targhee Forest took the unusual step of including an advisory ballot

on the May 1996 primary ballot, allowing people to choose between CUFF’s alternative and the Forest Service preferred alternative (people supported CUFF Alt. by

78 percent). The people of eastern Idaho filed 1,272 appeals of the first Travel Plan,

an exceptional number of appeals. Yet here we are today, back at the same place

we were 12 months ago when the first Travel Plan was remanded by the Regional

Forester. The Targhee Forest has not learned a thing and is about to repeat the

same mistake they made the first time around.

Given all of the public and political opposition to the Targhee Forest’s Travel

Plan, we do not understand where the pressure is coming from to force these road

closures down our throats. We hope your hearing can shed some light on this question.

Thank you. That concludes my comments.
85
86
87

STATEMENT OF BILL SHURTLEFF, COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, BONNEVILLE COUNTY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO

Representative Chenoweth, Representative Simpson, members of the Panel, and

guests, my name is Bill K. Shurtleff and I am the owner and manager of Call Forest

Products. I, also, fill the position of Bonneville County Commissioner. However,

today my testimony will be based upon my twenty-nine (29) years of experience as

a timber resource user. Let me begin by telling you that during the 1970s and

1980s, as the Forest Service was constructing many of the roads we are now discussing, the constant mantra was that their roads were the number one asset of the

Forest. These were the roads that would allow them to manage the forest into the

future. These were the roads that would allow them to fight fires, thin trees, make

inspections, and even perhaps allow some harvesting of trees if needed. I cannot tell you how many times I have been taken to the woodshed by a sale administrator because a logging machine had damaged a road shoulder or surface.

We were, also, shut down if dust reached a certain level which would cause the loss

of road surfaces. All this was enforced so as to preserve and maintain the number

one asset of the Forest Service, the road.

Now, all of this has been reversed. I am certain others will talk about the process

that the Forest Service went through in order to implement their new policy, but

I would like to talk about what the effect will be. By closing these roads in a manner that virtually stops all travel for long periods of time, these roads will deteriorate to a point of uselessness. The only means that the Forest Service has at its

disposal to repair these roads is hard money, which I’m told is in short supply, and

the selling of timber where the road construction or repair is tied to the sale. In the Targhee, this is very unlikely. The very small sale volume that is available on the Targhee will not economically carry much road construction or maintenance. It is my opinion that their entire process will basically close off large portions of the forest to any management. What will return is the same forest we faced in the

1950s. A forest of lodge pole pine, old and diseased, dying and then finally burning.

We know this because we have seen it happen. The strange thing to me is that I

thought the action we took in the 1970s and 1980s was specifically to avoid it happening again. My opinion is that roads could be closed in such a manner as to allow inspection travel, minor maintenance travel, and still accomplish the objective of so many

miles of roads per acre. This would not stop all road deterioration, but perhaps it

could reduce it to the point that the road could be reclaimed in the future.

I know our topic today is road closure, but I cannot let this opportunity pass with- out commenting on what I believe is the designed method of closing the entire

Targhee National Forest to any type of commercial harvesting. It is my opinion that

this is an objective of the present Forest Plan in the manner that it is being carried

out. I will say no more on this subject, but would love to discuss it further at your

convenience.

In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I have great respect for job you are both performing, and I have some feeling for

the difficulty it holds. Thank you again, and I would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MEALEY, DIRECTOR, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND

GAME

Madame Chairman:

I am Steve Mealey, Director, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. I am pleased to be here today with Commissioners Burns, Siddoway and Wood to present Fish

and Game’s perspective on the Open Road and Motorized Trail Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the Targhee National Forest. Let me begin by clarifying the road status that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action inside the Targhee National Forest Grizzly Bear Management Units (BMUs) and outside those units. I have illustrated this by means of pie

charts. They show that inside the BMUs 38 percent of the roads are left open and

62 percent are decommissioned or have motorized restrictions. Road management

decisions within BMUs reflect completion of the Endangered Species Act consultation process related to grizzly bears prescribed by Federal law, between the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. Fish and Game was not part of

this consultation process and had no jurisdiction in the decision.

Outside the BMUs the situation is reversed, with 65 percent of the roads left open

and 35 percent decommissioned or restricted. Fish and Game worked with the
88

Targhee National Forest planning team regarding travel management outside

BMUs. In the Targhee Forest planning process, Fish and Game personnel provided

the Forest Service planning team with criteria necessary to achieve Department

goals for hunting and fishing opportunity and for fish and wildlife populations, as

specified in our species management plans. Elk and Yellowstone cutthroat trout are

the key species of concern. While Fish and Game criteria cannot be cited as the sole reason for any particular road restriction, these criteria, along with many other multiple-use considerations,

clearly were responsible for many restrictions outside BMUs. I’d like to take a few

moments to discuss Department rationale for elk and cutthroat trout road management criteria.

Yellowstone cutthroat trout were regarded as a sensitive species in the forest planning process. They have recently been petitioned for listing under the ESA. Yellowstone cutthroat are an extremely important recreational resource on the Targhee

National Forest supporting a world class fishery in the Snake River. Some of the

road closures on the Targhee National Forest were implemented to address water

quality issues associated with 303d listed streams and to reduce sedimentation and

other impacts to Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Maintaining and improving habitat for

Yellowstone cutthroat is essential to keeping the species off the endangered species

list and retaining state control over their management. The Commission has adopted hunting and population goals for all elk manage- ment zones in Idaho. For example in the Island Park Zone, the post-season elk population goal is 1,200–1,800 cows, 400–575 bulls and 250–350 adult bulls. The plan

calls for 30–35 bulls per 100 cows and 18–22 adult bulls per 100 cows. The elk hunting goal is to provide as much general season hunting as possible and minimize the

use of restrictive controlled hunts. Under the current spike bull general hunt and

controlled hunt permit system for bulls other than spikes, all the elk population

goals are being met. The hunting goals are not being met because we have many

controlled hunts for bulls. As the demand for elk increases, only two management

strategies can meet elk population goals: restricted hunting opportunity through

controlled hunts with minimal travel restrictions, or general hunting opportunity

with restricted access. Based on extensive public input, the Commission has chosen

the option which maximizes general hunting and minimizes controlled hunts,

through access management. The challenge is to maximize general elk hunting in Idaho to preserve freedom of choice for hunters. Access management as proposed in the DEIS for areas outside

BMUs is the best alternative for retaining quality elk herds without losing hunting

opportunity to controlled hunts. This conclusion is based on numerous studies conducted in several intermountain states over the last 20 years. In Idaho, Fish and Game elk researchers have investigated the impacts of forest roads on elk. In highly roaded areas of the Clearwater and Coeur d’Alene River

drainages, nearly two out of every three bulls were harvested each year during the

hunting season. In the more heavily roaded portions of the Island Park zone, nearly

90 percent of the bulls were harvested in a five day season. In contrast, mortality

rates in low-road-density areas were half of those in highly roaded areas.

This demonstrates the effectiveness of road management restrictions in reducing

bull mortality rates without shortening elk seasons or implementing controlled

hunts. Proposed road restrictions outside BMUs provide adequate security for elk

and, therefore, provide needed herd quality while retaining general hunting opportunity and avoiding more controlled hunts. Most roads can be open most of the year,

providing access for hunters, woodcutters, berry pickers, fishermen, and other users

including timber harvest.

The mission of Fish and Game is to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage all

wildlife for the citizens of the state for continued supplies for hunting, fishing and

trapping. Our first mandate is to maintain viable wildlife populations. After this obligation is fulfilled, remaining surpluses can be offered for hunting and fishing opportunity. General hunts (as opposed to controlled hunts) provide Idahoans the maximum hunting opportunity with the fewest restrictions.

In 1976, Director Joe Greenley implemented a ‘‘bulls only’’ management strategy

which triggered an impressive increase of elk across the state. Record elk numbers

resulted from protection of cows. Hunter demand, hunter density, hunter access and

use of ATVs, timber harvest and roads all increased as elk numbers increased. The

irony is that as we reached record elk numbers, we also discovered a serious problem: our herd quality was suffering—we didn’t have enough adult bulls. Unfortunately, on the Targhee National Forest, bull elk became highly vulnerable to hunters as habitat security decreased and access increased. The resulting ratio of bulls

to cows reached a low ebb and became biologically and sociologically unacceptable

to the hunting public. As I said, we had large elk herds without enough bulls.
89

By 1991, the health of the Targhee National Forest elk herd reached a point that

action was necessary. The Commission faced shortening the existing five-day season,

but that was not acceptable to hunters and it would not have helped the situation.

Other options included either closing the general season and implementing controlled hunts or retaining the general season but restricting harvest. The Commission chose to restrict harvest by limiting all general hunts to spikes-only. Hunting

of bulls other than spikes was limited to controlled hunts. This was an unpopular

but necessary action to preserve some general elk hunting while avoiding the extremely restrictive alternative of making all elk hunting controlled hunts. Let me

make this point clear: the hunters didn’t like the spikes-only season and the Department didn’t like it but in the end we all realized there was no other choice.

The result of the spike-only season was a biological success: in just one year, the

bull:cow ratio went from less than 20 bulls per 100 cows to over 50 bulls per 100

cows. Equally important, the five-day elk wars became a thing of the past, and some

controlled, any-bull hunts are now being offered that provide a highly desirable

quality hunting experience, including mature (trophy) bulls. In eight years, we have

gone from providing only five days of hunting to now offering 14 days of general

spike hunting, 32 days of general archery hunting, and 29 days of general muzzleloader spike and antlerless hunting. It is important to remember that hunters paid

a high price for this success: they lost their general season opportunity to hunt bulls

other than spikes and this sacrifice resulted in 60 percent of the Island Park hunters leaving the area to hunt elk in other units. Fish and Game wants to correct the

remaining declines in ratios of mature bulls to cows that still occurs in some management units in the Targhee National Forest without causing a shift in hunting

pressure to other places that could deplete other herds currently in good shape.

In 1998, after considering a full range of options, the A-B zone tag concept was

chosen as the way to do the most to improve elk herds, while retaining the most

hunting opportunity. With this strategy, we have approached our management goals

for the Targhee National Forest. Future travel management outside BMUs will be

important for Fish and Game to continue this progress towards providing more general elk hunting in the Targhee National Forest.

By itself, the big game season setting process is complex and very often emotionally charged. This becomes even more intense when compounded with the issues of

access management. We recognize there are many sides to these issues and we need

to hear from you. The Department will be conducting our usual series of public

hearings before setting the 1999 big game seasons. The public has told us they prefer general hunting opportunity on the Targhee National Forest, with some travel

restrictions, as opposed to more controlled hunts, the loss of general hunting opportunity, and fewer travel restrictions. If this isn’t the case, folks need to come and

tell us. I urge strong public participation in this process so all points of view are

considered in the final Department recommendation to the Commission.

Since we have recently revised our elk and deer plans, we will also be inviting

Forest Service planners to sit down with us to make certain our earlier planning

criteria are still valid.

Thank you, Madame Chairman, for this opportunity. I will now stand for any

questions you may have.
90
91
92

STATEMENT OF CRAIG GEHRKE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, IDAHO OFFICE, THE

WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding the draft environmental impact statement for the motorized road and trail travel plan for the Targhee National

Forest. The Wilderness Society has been long involved in forest management issues

on the Targhee and the other National Forests which comprise the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We are striving to insure that these National Forests and others

across the nation are managed primarily for values and resources that are not ordinarily available or protected on private land, including clean water, backcountry

recreation, wilderness, wildlife habitat, roadless areas, biological diversity, nature

education, and scenic beauty.

The Wilderness Society supports the efforts of the Targhee National Forest to develop a plan for motorized road and trail travel. Growing off-road and off-highway

vehicle use is having an impact on the natural resources on the Targhee, and the

Forest Service is to be commended for developing a plan which begins to deal with

these impacts. While the Society does not support the preferred alternative in the

draft environmental impact statement in its entirety, we do support several of the

concepts within the draft plan. We will be urging that the Forest Service take steps

beyond those outlined in the preferred alternative to better address the complete

range of issues involved in travel planning on the National Forests.

The issue of motorized travel management on the Targhee has unfortunately been

characterized by many as grizzly bears versus everything else. That is an incorrect

characterization. While the Forest Service does need to take certain steps on the

Targhee to enhance the recovery of the grizzly bear and comply with a biological

opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the motorized travel management issues goes far beyond just grizzly bears.

The final environmental impact statement for the revised Targhee National Forest management plan was clear in its assessment that off-highway vehicle use and

roads are among the primary causes of impacts to soils, water quality, and aquatic

habitats on the Targhee (FEIS pgs. III-18, III-l9,III-26,III-73, III-75, IV-12 for a few

examples). Management of roads and motorized trails is not only about grizzly bears

but about clean water, fish, elk, and other forest resources.

The Wilderness Society supports the initiative of the Forest Service, as set forth

by the forest management plan, to eliminate indiscriminate cross-country motorized

travel across much of the Targhee National Forest. Again, as the final EIS made

clear, this type of use damages soils, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat.

Taking actions to address cross-country motorized travel is significant step forward

to better protect the resources of the Targhee.

The Wilderness Society also supports the Targhee’s efforts to essentially reverse

the long-standing system for signing trails and roads as open or closed to motorized

use. By only signing ‘‘closed’’ trails, the Forest Service was inadvertently providing

an incentive for the tearing down or vandalizing of such signs, with the offenders

later claiming ignorance of the closure. Signing trails as ‘‘open’’ will remove the incentive to remove the signs and hopefully lead to better travel management.

The restrictions on cross-country motorized travel and the new signing system are

components of the Targhee motorized trail and travel plan that The Wilderness Society will support for adoption on other National Forests in Region Four. These

types of management actions are much needed, for example, on the Salmon-Challis,

Sawtooth, and Boise National Forests.

It is important to keep in mind that these management actions were determined

through the Targhee Forest management plan, not the draft travel plan. Changing

these actions can only be done through the forest plan amendment process, and not

by changes in the draft travel plan. Furthermore, as stated earlier, the Forest Service is under an obligation to reduce road densities in the grizzly bear management

units on the Targhee to comply with a biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service for the revised forest plan. To stop these efforts would likely

require a new biological opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as a forest management plan amendment.

Conservation groups will not tolerate significant delays in meeting the road density standards that resulted from the biological opinion for the revised Targhee forest plan. In 1994 a court settlement agreement between the Forest Service and conservation groups resulted in a commitment from the agency that it would address

deficiencies in the prior forest management plan relating to management of the Plateau, Madison and Bechler-Teton bear management units. Later, the Forest Service

decided to address these deficiencies through the forest plan revision process, rather

than address each bear management unit separately.
93

The preferred alternative in the draft travel plan for the Targhee, while taking

positive steps in motorized travel management, does need to be strengthened in several key areas. One critical issue that the draft travel plan does not deal well with

is the impact of off-road and off-highway vehicles and road management on the Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

A petition has been filed to list the Yellowstone cutthroat trout under the Endangered Species Act. The Targhee Forest travel plan does not adequately address declining populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout across the forest, despite numerous references in the final EIS for the forest management plan that off-high vehicle

use and roads are the primary causes of impacts to soils, water quality, and aquatic

habitats. Stream crossings and roads and motorized trails within aquatic influence

zones of Yellowstone cutthroat need to be decommissioned to reverse the declining

population trends for the Yellowstone cutthroat.

It is particularly important that the travel plan address impacts to Yellowstone

cutthroat trout habitat from motorized use within the South Fork Snake River

drainage. The Snake River system is the only major river drainage, outside Yellowstone National Park, that has a relatively healthy Yellowstone cutthroat population.

Protecting cutthroat habitat in the tributary streams of the South Fork is critical

to the species’ long-term survival.

The Forest Service has an opportunity through the Targhee Forest travel plan to

demonstrate that, in the case of the Yellowstone cutthroat, it can take the necessary

steps to reverse the decline of a species and not wait for the species to be listed

under the Endangered Species Act.

The Wilderness Society also urges the draft travel plan to include closures of recommended wilderness areas, such as the Palisades roadless area, to motorized use

to protect the wilderness characteristics of these areas as prescribed by the revised

forest plan.

The Targhee travel plan should not address RS-2477 claims. In December 1997

the Chief’s Office directed Regional Foresters to defer from processing RS-2477

claims except in cases where there is a demonstrated, compelling and immediate

need to do so. No such needs have been demonstrated on the Targhee National Forest.

The Targhee travel plan should distinguish between single and two-track OHV

trails. To not do so would allow the gradual conversion, through use and deliberate

construction, of single-track trails open to motorized use to two-track trails and thus

to de facto permanent motorized trails.

The Targhee travel plan should not allow wheeled vehicles on groomed snowmobile trails. Other national forests, like the Boise, Caribou and Clearwater National Forests, do not defined wheeled vehicles as over-the-snow vehicles. Despite

the fact that the Targhee Forest management plan found that off-highway vehicle

use is one of the leading contributors to soil loss and water quality impacts, the

Targhee is proposing to allow wheeled vehicles to use snowmobile routes in late fall

and early spring—times when resource damage from rutting and erosion are most

likely to occur.

In summary, the proposed motorized road and trail travel plan for the Targhee

National Forest is a positive step towards addressing the resource impacts caused

by roads and off-road and off-highway vehicles on this forest. Further actions beyond those proposed in the draft travel plan, such as specific actions to reduce impacts to the Yellowstone cutthroat trout and its habitat, will need to be incorporated

in the final travel management plan.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LYONS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Madam Chairman, Congressman Smith, Members of the Committee, thank you

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Forest Service’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2000.

I would like to present a brief overview of our budget request and highlight some

of the priorities we’ve identified in terms of three broad areas. Chief Dombeck will

address these and other areas in greater detail. The three areas I want to highlight

are; (1) the priorities of the President and the Department of Agriculture in managing the rich natural resources of this nation’s forest and range lands; (2) the Forest Service priorities under the leadership of Chief Dombeck to implement the service’s Natural Resource Agenda; and (3) the emphasis being placed on the Forest

Service to be accountable to Congress and the American people for its performance

and use of Federal funds.
94

Last year when I testified before several committees, including this one, I stated

that despite the contentious debates on several Forest Service management issues,

Congress and the Administration have more agreement than we do disagreement.

Despite the differences regarding budget priorities and several environmental riders

which were part of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations debate, we worked together

and developed a bill which helped the Forest Service move forward towards improved forest and ecological health and sustainability. I continue to believe we have

common interests, and greater agreement than disagreement, although I’m sure we

will be involved in tough debate again over this year’s budget.

First, a brief overview. This budget proposes an overall increase in discretionary

appropriations of 6.5 percent. The budget includes a healthy emphasis on the basic

programs necessary for managing the agency’s 192 million acres, which include a

$30 billion infrastructure, 383,000 miles of road, 74,000 authorized land uses,

23,000 developed recreation sites, and uncounted dispersed recreation sites. In addition, the budget proposes a substantial increase of $37.2 million to enhance the

agency’s leading role in forest and rangeland research. Finally, the budget proposes

major increases in State and Private Forestry programs, which is a key element of

the President’s initiatives.

President and Department Priorities

Let me turn now to the important priorities of this Administration. As you know,

the President has proposed several initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 budget including two that were first initiated as part of the fiscal year 1999 budget. Principally,

the President’s goal in fiscal year 2000 is to develop Forest Service programs that

help assure that all the nation’s lands, not just National Forest lands, provide clean

water for the taps of faucets, open spaces and expanded recreation opportunities for

rural and urban residents alike, and improved sustainability of products, wildlife,

and biodiversity on healthy public and private lands.

Thus, the President has proposed the Lands Legacy Initiative, the largest one

year investment ever in the preservation of America’s lands, and the continuation

of the Clean Water Action plan to continue to focus on priority watersheds where

protection and improvement programs are so desperately needed.

Madam Chairman, I believe the Lands Legacy Initiative is bold and essential for

America as we enter the new millennium. This $1 billion program, which includes

$217.6 million in Forest Service funding, will focus on working with states, tribes,

local governments, and willing private partners to protect great places, conserve

open space for recreation and wildlife, and to preserve forests, farmlands, and coastal areas. Currently, 30 million people live within an hour drive of national forest

land. As the President noted in his State of the Union address, 7,000 acres of farmland and open space are lost every day. The number of tracts of forestland of 50

acres or less doubled from 1978 to 1994 as our landscape was carved into smaller

pieces. Access to, and the health of, these lands is diminishing as a result of this

fragmentation. To address these serious concerns, the President’s budget proposes

to significantly increase funding of the agency’s State and Private Forestry Programs, with an increase of $80 million or 48 percent over fiscal year 1999. With this

increase we will focus on promoting the retention of open space and smart growth

that will provide conservation opportunities and experiences for many additional

millions of Americans.

The Forest Service is the national expert at providing recreation to the public

through family oriented recreation such the Sunday drive, weekend camping trip,

short family hike, or week long backpack or rafting trips. The Lands Legacy initiative, through emphasis on State and Private Programs and increased Land Acquisitions promotes this type of recreational access as well promoting the availability of

clean water, healthy watersheds, and open space. The national forests are the watersheds for more than 902 communities in 33 states. Many millions of additional

people depend on water provided from other forested lands. Through emphasis on

state and private partnerships, which promote smart growth acquisitions and easements, more Americans will be assured of long term access to public land and the

clean water it provides.

The fiscal year 2000 budget contains several additional initiatives that are important to note.

As was proposed last year, the Administration again intends to forward legislation

that will stabilize payments to states. I believe it is essential to provide these payments through a process that does not link the output of forest products to the education of our rural school children or the quality of the roads used by their parents.

If enacted, the legislation will result in long term predictability of payments that

the states and counties of America need.
95

Other legislative initiatives are important aspects of this budget, including proposals to maximize return to the government for authorized uses of national forest

land to improve forest visitor experiences. The President also will propose legislation

which requires purchasers who harvest timber and special forest products from national forests, pay fair market value for these products and a greater share of the

costs of managing these programs, thus reducing the use of appropriations.

Natural Resource Agenda

The President’s initiatives are fully compatible with the aggressive program initiated by Chief Dombeck last March which established the Natural Resource Agenda.

I am proud to support this four point program which focuses agency attention on

watershed protection and restoration, sustainable forest management, the forest

service road system, and the critical recreation program.

This budget strongly supports the Natural Resource Agenda with significant funding increases. Wildlife, grazing, fire, fisheries, and other programs increase by $48.6

million to support watershed health and restoration. Increased funding contained in

this budget is essential for restoring and protecting watershed health.

A second element of the agenda promotes sustainable forest management. With

proposed budget increases of $113.2 million, programs such as Forest and Rangeland Research, in addition to the State and Private programs I have already mentioned, will engage coalitions among communities, conservationists, industry, and all

levels of government to collaborate and integrate management of national forest

lands with those practices on state, tribal, local and non-industrial private lands in

order to promote long term land health.

Management of the national forest road system is a third component of the Natural Resource Agenda. With a funding increase of $22.6 million, this road system,

which is expansive enough to circle the globe more than 15 times, will receive critically needed funds for maintenance.

As you know, Secretary Glickman recently announced a new interim rule for road

management. While this issue is very contentious, all of us can agree that the national forest road system is critical to land health and is essential to meet the recreation and livelihood of millions of Americans. Simply put, I strongly support Chief

Dombeck in his effort to significantly reduce new road building until we are better

able to manage the road system we presently have. The President’s budget will provide increased funds for road maintenance and allow the Forest Service to implement road management plans for America’s long term access and land health needs.

Lastly, as part of the Natural Resource Agenda, the President’s budget continues

to provide strong emphasis on recreation. The Forest Service is the largest supplier

of recreation in the United States. We are pleased with the emphasis Congress has

also shown in promoting recreation. The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program is

one such example, and a resounding success. Through this program, we have improved facilities and the visitor’s experiences at fee sites. However, I want to emphasize that 95 percent of recreational experiences on the national forests involve

use of non-fee dispersed sites. The President’s budget continues to emphasize this

area of recreational use through appropriated funds. I strongly encourage your continued support of these appropriations in order to continue quality experiences for

those who use the forests for highly dispersed activities, and who are either unable

to pay for use of these sites, are not close to fee sites, or who desire to recreate in

the undeveloped non-fee areas of the national forests.

Also in support of the Natural Resource Agenda, I want to note that the Committee of Scientists, commissioned by the Secretary to review land and resource

management planning processes, are soon to release their landmark report. Shortly

thereafter the Forest Service will complete preparation of proposed land management planning regulations which will guide future revisions to land management

plans. These regulations are long overdue. I am confident when implemented these

regulations will result in a long-range planning framework suited to accomplish

sound resource management in accordance with environmental laws and the mission of the Forest Service.

Forest Service Accountability

The success of the Natural Resource Agenda and the initiatives proposed by the

President are critical to long term health and conservation of the national forests

and the nation’s state, local, and non-industrial private lands. Effective Forest Service leadership is what will facilitate these long term successes. However, leadership

will not be successful if the Forest Service does not aggressively address what can

only be described as severe lapses in its financial management and overall performance accountability. As you know, the agency’s financial health, decision making,
96

and overall accountability has been scrutinized and extensively criticized in more

than 20 studies initiated by Congress, the Department, and internally.

Let me say, I have no doubt the Forest Service has got the message! Through reorganization and placement of professionals in top leadership positions, the agency

has placed the financial management role in a position that assures attention and

oversight in equal stature and priority to its natural resources management agenda.

While I believe it is important for Congress to actively perform its oversight of the

agency’s financial condition, I believe it is also important to ask for some degree of

patience. The agency’s books and records took a decade or more to turn sour. It will

take at least the rest of fiscal year 1999 to implement a new general ledger and

at least through fiscal year 2000 to receive a clean financial opinion.

Meanwhile, it is clear the Forest Service is taking action to improve. This includes

paying detailed attention to management of indirect costs, restructuring the process

for charging overhead to permanent and trust funds, and actively working on implementing performance measures consistent with the Results Act, which should ultimately lead to proposals for a revised budget structure that reflects the integrated

nature of work it accomplishes on the ground.

Madam Chairman, in my testimony today I have discussed important Presidential

initiatives, the Natural Resource Agenda, and progress being made to improve agency accountability in relation to the fiscal year 2000 budget. These three areas represent important areas of change for the Forest Service as we approach the next

century. I am confident that with your support we can work together to build a Forest Service program that accomplishes long term land health objectives, delivers

clean water, provides quality access, assures diverse recreational opportunities for

greater numbers of Americans, and continues providing strong livelihoods for communities for generations to come.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you. I would be pleased to answer any

questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. BURNS, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Madam Chairman, members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity

to speak today. My name is John Burns. I reside in Carmen, Idaho and have been

a member of the Idaho Fish & Game Commission since 1996. Following a 33 year

career with the U.S. Forest Service I retired as Forest Supervisor of the Salmon National Forest in 1994. From 1980 to 1989 I was Forest Supervisor of the Targhee

National Forest. The Targhee Land Management Plan was developed and implemented during that period.

My purpose today is to provide some historical perspective which may be of value

to the Subcommittee as you examine the questions of roads and wildlife on the

Targhee. Indeed, those very questions were central to us when the Targhee LMP

was prepared and we proceeded with the intensive lodgepole pine salvage program

in the 1980’s.

First, a few words about the forest situation that existed when I was assigned to

the Forest.

An epidemic of pine bark beetles had killed several hundred thousand acres of

lodgepole in the Island Park and surrounding plateau areas. The percentage of dead

or dying trees exceeded 80 percent in many localities, and the epidemic had not run

its course. Those who did not see the forest as it was then can now hardly imagine

the devastation.

The lodgepole commonly grew in almost pure stands, and typically the trees were

of similar size and age. This is a characteristic of lodgepole, which is particularly

adapted to regeneration after fire. The tree has cones which remain closed until the

tree is killed and heat causes them to open releasing seeds. As a result, fires which

do not consume the tops and cones often result in a new forest of lodgepole.

Also, in the Island Park and plateau areas the lodgepole stands do not normally

give way to Douglas fir. Forest succession is arrested at the lodgepole seral stage

due to a lack of cold air drainage in deep winter. Young Douglas fir are simply

freeze dried—desiccated.

This combination of factors—vast insect killed pine stands and the reproductive

characteristics of the tree—led us to devise and propose a strategy that would reforest most of the Island Park and plateau area. It would also salvage most of the usable wood in its ‘‘shelf life’’ of ten to fifteen years before the dead trees fell over. At

the same time, road construction and logging disturbance would be limited to a relatively small part of the 1.8 million acre Forest.
97

Aside from the strategy of concentrating activity, we would replicate the effect of

natural fire but without the damaging characteristics of wildfire. This would be

done by cutting the trees in large blocks or clearcuts, removing the logs and letting

the sun dry out the cones in the scattered tops or slash. Then using dozers with

brush rakes to pile the slash while simultaneously scarifying the soil surface to expose mineral soil for the seed to germinate.

Two other major considerations were involved. Much of the area in question was

classified as grizzly bear habitat under the Yellowstone Guidelines, adopted without

modification in the Forest plan. Most of the plateau country was Situation II due

to the very scattered and scarce habitat components that support grizzlies. Some

Situation III habitat was found in the northwestern part of Island Park, and a block

of Situation I lay north and east of Henry’s Lake.

An intensive review of the Forest Plan, containing the roading and salvage logging plans, was conducted by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This resulted in a

Section 7 finding of ‘‘no jeopardy.’’ In-large part this was due to the fact that the

salvage program would focus in Situation II, and that area of the Targhee (the plateau country) was not considered capable of actually supporting resident grizzlies.

Concurrently, the Targhee was involved in shifting sheep grazing out of the Situation I areas to avoid sheep–bear incidents. Typically, grizzlies would move out of the

Park in early fall and take sheep prior to winter hibernation. Also, an intensive

campaign was launched to eliminate bear attractants such as open dumps, associated with the large human population of Island Park. In addition, improved cleanup

of highway killed deer, elk, and moose was accomplished. The net effect, of course,

was that the major elements of food for grizzlies in the locality—livestock, garbage,

and road kills—was eliminated. If bear use and sightings have since declined it

should not be surprising.

The second additional factor shaping the salvage and road program was elk. Most

of the Island Park and plateau area was not elk habitat—summer or winter. The

breaks of the plateaus and buttes, country dominated by Douglas fir, was good habitat, but the lodgepole country with little undergrowth and little surface water flow

was not. Elk typically migrated across the area to their winter range in the Junipers and sandhills country west of St. Anthony quite rapidly, a matter of a few

days.

The principal concern relating to elk was increased vulnerability to hunter harvest as a result of more roads and less hiding cover. This question was examined

in great detail considering such things as the acreage to be treated each year, the

road miles to be built per year, and the speed of reforestation and tree growth. Our

analyses indicated that the planned program would not adversely affect the elk population goals, but we did recognize that hunting limitations might be necessary to

achieve other non-biological elk objectives such as numbers of mature bulls, etc.

It should be noted that the large proportion of roads built would be closed by

gates as soon as salvage activity was completed at the entry point. This was done,

and incorporated a special informational signing program as to the reasons and benefits. The road system was designed such that periodic use for thinning and future

harvests could be accomplished.

A major additional benefit was realized as the lodgepole stands were treated. As

much as 25 percent of the acreage contained not only new pines, but a flush of

aspen growth due to the stimulation of dormant aspen clones under the lodgepole

canopy. Other shrubby and herbacious species responded vigorously as well and the

result was a much more diverse vegetative community. In turn, the wildlife responded and during the 1980 to 1989 period our monitoring found significant increases in populations.

The elk herd wintering west of St. Anthony during that period increased by half,

exceeding the target size of the herd. Moose and deer responded in similar fashion.

It soon became obvious that hiding cover was rapidly reestablishing itself in the

treated areas. In fact, the new stands of trees quickly were capable of concealing

an elk and providing extremely challenging, if not almost impossible, hunting conditions.

I am not informed on current forest analyses, but if the rate of growth in the

1990’s approximates that of the 1980’s the Island Park and plateau areas contain

huge amounts of effective hiding cover as well as greatly improved vegetative diversity and production of desirable species for wildlife food.

I would note that the bitter lesson of ignoring habitat management now faces the

Idaho Fish & Game Commission in the Clearwater country in northern Idaho. What

was once the finest elk herd in the State has crashed due in large part to predators

and the inexorable decline in habitat capacity for big game when forests close in

with maturity. Unfortunately, the need for active management is all too often ig98

nored or even denigrated until disaster—be it insects, fire, or declining game

herds—faces us.

The Targhee program replaced a dead and dying forest with a new and vigorous vegetative community. It supports an equally vigorous wildlife community and can

no doubt do so for several more decades before drastic action is once again required.

In the meantime, experience suggests the means to manage the forest on a continuing basis should be carefully maintained and utilized.

The Idaho Fish & Game Department has recently developed a new generation of

elk and deer management plans which address all aspects of our herd objectives.

I am sure Department personnel would be happy to work with the Federal agencies

to evaluate the effects of any specific planned forest management actions in relation

to those objectives.

That concludes my comments. I will be happy to respond to any questions you

may have. Thank you.

References: I suggest the Subcommittee obtain and examine the following document and detailed large-scale map packet.

The Greater Yellowstone Area An Aggregation of Natl. Park and Natl. Forest

Mgt. Plans Coordinated by Targhee National Forest Planning Staff Published 1987

STATEMENT OF JANICE M. BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HENRY’S FORK

FOUNDATION

Honorable Congressman Chenoweth, Committee members and other elected officials.

My name is Janice Brown, and I am testifying on behalf of the Henry’s Fork

Foundation, a nonprofit conservation organization based in Ashton, Idaho. Our mission is to ‘‘understand, restore and protect the unique fishery, wildlife and aesthetic

qualities of the Henry’s Fork of the Snake River.’’ The Henry’s Fork watershed comprises 1.7 million acres in Idaho’s Fremont, Teton and Madison counties, plus that

portion of Wyoming’s Teton County on the west slope of the Tetons and the southeast corner of Yellowstone National Park. According to Idaho’s Comprehensive State

Water Plan for the Henry’s Fork Basin (1992), there are over 3,000 miles of rivers,

streams and irrigation canals in this watershed, with almost all originating on National Forest land administered by the Targhee National Forest. Approximately half

of the entire basin is publicly owned land, with a full 70 percent in Fremont County

where our office is located.

The Henry’s Fork Foundation was formed in 1984 by Idaho anglers concerned

with the apparent decline of the Henry’s Fork wild rainbow trout fishery. Since then

the organization has expanded to 1,700 members in 48 states and six countries who

support the collaborative, scientific approach for which the Foundation has become

known. Our program of integrated research, restoration and stewardship has resulted in a number of habitat improvements within the watershed and increasing

trout populations. Our commitment to education and public outreach is reflected in

five years of cofacilitating the Henry’s Fork Watershed Council in conjunction with

the farmers of the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District. We firmly believe that local,

participatory forums such as the Watershed Council can constructively involve all

citizens, scientists and government agencies while honoring the environmental laws

and regulations so necessary to sustainable resource management.

I wish to focus my testimony on the relationship between road access and fisheries, water quality and stream channel morphology within and downstream of the

Targhee National Forest. But before our concerns are detailed, it is important to

present the larger, historical context of this issue.

Interestingly, prior to 1960 there were relatively few roads on the Forest and the

off-road vehicles so common today were not widely available for recreation purposes.

Prior to the 1960s, most of the recreation in the Island Park area was focused on

fishing and had been so since the late 1800s when the native Yellowstone cutthroat

trout was commercially harvested in Henry’s Lake and the vicinity. In order to protect the native fish from exploitation, the new Idaho Fish and Game placed their

first conservation officer in Island Park near the turn of the century. Rainbow trout

were introduced for both commercial and sport fishing, with several entrepreneurs

engaged in trout farming using the rich, natural springs so characteristic of the

area. In the early 1900s, several fishing clubs were established along the Upper

Henry’s Fork, and many descendants of the earliest club members are active with

the Foundation today. The famous Railroad Ranch—now Harriman State Park—had

been purchased as a fishing and hunting reserve by a consortium of investors prior

to 1900, including three Guggenheim brothers, and the Harrimans of Union Pacific

railroad fame became involved in 1906.
99

Enlargement of Henry’s Lake in 1925 and construction of the Island Park Res- ervoir in the late 1930s created important irrigation storage for downstream farmers, but also enhanced the Island Park fisheries. A mixing of waters occurs in these

reservoirs, combining the nutrient-rich waters running off the Henry’s Lake and

Centennial mountains with the pure spring waters emerging beneath the volcanic

plateaus to the east. The result is a diverse and abundant aquatic insect community, which is a rich food source for trout and accounts for the enormous size of fish

in the Island Park area. Although there has been much controversy in recent years

about how to best manage these trout populations and the nature of fishing regulations, there is little question that high quality habitat and the connectivity of tributary streams to the main stem rivers is essential to maintain the Henry’s Fork status as a world-class trout fishery. The summer recreational economy in Island Park is directly dependent on these outstanding angling opportunities, as a 1996 study conducted by Weber State University illustrates. Over 300 bait and fly anglers were interviewed throughout Island Park to determine their recreation and expenditure patterns. The study estimated the value of a day’s fishing between $200 and $300 per person, and that the

average group travels 560 miles each way to Island Park. Previous studies of those

using outfitter services indicate even higher expenditures. There has been a marked

rise in construction of recreational summer homes in Island Park since 1992, with

$151 million invested in home construction in 1998 alone.

Because the rivers and streams of the Targhee National Forest are so vital to the economy and well being of those living and recreating in the Henry’s Fork watershed, it is incumbent on the Forest Service to invest more time and money in protecting these valuable resources. We are generally pleased that protection of aquatic

influence zones and native fishes received increased attention in the revised Forest

Plan, as HFF participated in the public involvement process and submitted comments on the draft plan. However, we are concerned that the issue of access management has focused on human recreational desires and conflicts rather than the

essential issue of soil stability and watershed health. Although the Targhee has not

experienced the severe landslides and mass movement characteristic of North Idaho

and the Cascades, it would be erroneous to assume that there are few erosion problems on the Targhee road system. In a 1966 report, the well-respected Forest Service research hydrologist Walt Megahan notes his concerns about the road building that was underway to accommodate the huge Moose Creek salvage sale that would support the St. Anthony stud

mill for 25 years to come. Although he was asked to estimate changes in water

yields that might occur from such widespread clearcutting on the Moose Creek Plateau, he also commented on the evidence he observed of stream sedimentation

caused by roads:

I had only a few hours observation on the Moose Creek Plateau; however, these were enough to provide some distinct observations that are worthy of mention.

I felt that many of the soils and subsoils that were encountered along the roads

on the Moose Creek Plateau are among the most erodible I have seen in the

[Intermountain] Region. This is to be expected, considering the nature of many

of the parent materials described earlier in this report.

Wherever erosion hazards in the area are high due to steeper slopes developed by road construction, increased runoff due to road construction etc, the actual

erosion rates are high. The roads appeared to be causing most of the damage;

there appeared to be little problem on the existing clearcut areas. Presently, the eroded material is being carried down to intermittent stream channels and being deposited. Flows in these channels could carry this material

downstream and possibly to the perennial streams. An unusual climatic event or

increased flows due to timber cutting or both could cause such flows. It is even

possible that such flows occur commonly on a yearly basis. Actually, the nature of the country on the Moose Creek Plateau is such that roads could be fitted to the terrain quite effectively and thereby reduce much of

their impact. This has not been done for the most part on the existing roads. Evidence of the poor road conditions became apparent following the 1988 fire sea- son when a 17,000-acre ‘‘slop-over’’ from the North Fork Fire burned the upper watershed of Moose and Chick creeks. A northern segment of the Fish Creek Road and

the entire Black Canyon loop road were long closed to travel because of the damage

caused to roads during spring runoff and thunderstorm events.

With the advent of access management on the Targhee came the welcome prospect of road decommissioning and obliteration to eliminate logging roads no longer

needed for accessing timber. It was clear to Fish and Game officials that the reduced forest cover had affected elk hunting opportunity on the Targhee and that

grizzly bear habitat was also marginalized. Few had anticipated the boom in off100

road vehicle use that would result in a backlash from those who over the past two

decades had become accustomed to using old logging roads and traveling cross-country across public lands. Almost lost in the debate between wildlife habitat needs and

demand for access was the lingering problem with road cuts, eroding road beds and

poorly maintained stream crossings. The recent listing petition for Yellowstone cutthroat has brought the issue of road impacts to streams back to the forefront, as has the recent completion of the native

trout inventory cooperatively conducted by the Henry’s Fork Foundation and

Targhee National Forest. Of the 112 streams surveyed on the Dubois, Island Park

Ashton and Teton districts of the Targhee, ten streams hold only Yellowstone Cutthroat trout and 23 streams held cutthroat in addition to other salmonid species.

These 23 are in danger of losing their cutthroat component given the observed trend

for nonnative brook and rainbow to outcompete the native species. The ten streams

that hold only cutthroat should be isolated from future timber sales and human access to reduce the risk of sedimentation, with road obliteration a high priority (unless the barrier protecting the population is itself a road crossing). Because the Foundation’s interest lies in restoring watersheds to health wherever possible, we support Alternative 3M- in the DEIS and urge Congress to make funding for the following recommendations among your highest priorities for the U.S.

Forest Service budget:

1. Properly inventory those roads that require stabilization or obliteration. The

Travel Plan DEIS as presented is only an access management plan and does not

consider long-term stability of the road system. It does not analyze alternatives of

partial or complete obliteration that may be needed in some locations to adequately

protect aquatic ecosystems and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout. Use of gates or tank

traps to limit human access do little to resolve erosional problems and may in some

cases exacerbate current instability. It appears that the application of scientific expertise to the problem of road erosion has been limited thus far on the Targhee, and

we recommend that a greater effort be made. The HFF is also willing to assist in

restoration planning and implementation. In addition, the Forest has not satisfactorily distinguished those system roads needed for future timber sales from those

roads that should be decommissioned with partial or full obliteration.

2. Implement an adequate stream monitoring program for those streams most vulnerable to erosion or other human impacts. Most forests have few resources to engage in long-term monitoring to assess the results of their activities. States are required to keep tabs on stream health according to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water

Act, and the Forest Service should assist state officials by monitoring those streams

originating on public land. It will be especially important to monitor those streams

with Yellowstone cutthroat that may play a role in providing transplants to fishless

streams.

3. Provide adequate funding for enforcement of travel restrictions. Few of the

agreed-upon road closures will ultimately succeed without sufficient enforcement actions that convey the seriousness of access management. It will be critical that those

who choose to violate road or area closures be apprehended and held accountable

for their illegal actions.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of those HFF members who

consider an angling experience on the Henry’s Fork to be among the most important

recreational experiences provided by our National Forest system.

STATEMENT OF JACK A. BLACKWELL, REGIONAL FORESTER, INTERMOUNTAIN REGION,

USDA FOREST SERVICE

MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today to discuss travel management on the Targhee National Forest.

The recent actions on the Targhee National Forest to close roads with earth

berms within grizzly bear management units (BMUs) have generated considerable

public interest. The Forest Service constructed these closures to meet requirements

set forth in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion for the Revised Forest Plan and did so only after long intensive public involvement.

While addressing immediate needs in the BMUs, forest personnel continue to

work on a travel management plan for the entire forest based on the Revised Forest

Plan. The extensive forest road system constructed primarily to extract timber has

served its purpose and is larger than what is feasible to safely maintain. Poorly located and maintained roads reduce water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and soil

stability. Through travel management planning, forest personnel are working to

identify a safe maintainable road system that continues to provide access for a wide
101

variety of activities such as recreation, grazing, and timber harvest while improving

habitat conditions for grizzly bears, elk, and cutthroat trout. I will summarize some key points regarding the Targhee travel management plan- ning process and then would be happy to answer your questions.

Targhee Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

The Forest Service completed the Revised Forest Plan in April 1997 after 7 years of hard work and with extensive public involvement. The revision addressed the extensive road system the Targhee built in the 1970s and 1980s, much of which has

served its purpose and is no longer needed for timber harvest. Therefore, the issue

became how much of the road system should be maintained for other uses. Because the public identified access as a major issue, the Forest Service developed a specific travel plan to accompany each of the seven alternatives considered in the

Revised Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Revised Forest

Plan established motorized road and trail density standards for each management

prescription area and also designated areas open for cross country motorized use. Balancing motorized access and other key resource concerns, particularly wildlife and fish, was the major focus for the revision of the Targhee Forest Plan; to reach

that balance, the Forest Service addressed these concerns:

(1) The need to develop a comprehensive grizzly bear habitat management

strategy in response to the settlement of a 1994 lawsuit regarding roading and

logging in the grizzly bear recovery area;

(2) The need to meet the Idaho Department of Fish and Game elk vulnerability

goals by improving elk security and reducing vulnerability of mature bull elk;

(3) The need to improve water quality to reduce the likelihood the Yellowstone

Cutthroat Trout would be listed as endangered species; and

(4) The desire to produce a travel management plan to provide a reasonable mix

of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities while meeting the

habitat needs of grizzly bears, elk, and other species.

Targhee Travel Plan Decision and Remand on Appeal

The Forest Supervisor signed the Record of Decision for the travel plan, imple- menting direction from the Revised Forest Plan, on August 15, 1997. Citizens for

a User Friendly Forest (CUFF) and the Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) appealed the

decision and the deciding officer partially remanded the decision to the Forest Supervisor in January 1998. The remand directed the Supervisor:

to keep the Revised Forest Plan direction, including road density and cross

country motorized use standards, that guide the travel plan;

to implement the winter travel plan;

to prepare a new analysis of roads and trails open to summer motorized access;

to address RS 2477 assertions made by several counties; and

to get more public involvement and analyze the site-specific effects of individual

roads and trails.

After working with the counties on the RS 2477 issue and reviewing all comments regarding specific roads and trails, the Forest Supervisor released a new Travel

Plan Draft EIS in late November, 1998. The supervisor analyzed four alternative

networks of roads and trails open to summer motorized use. The Forest also held

several public meetings and the comment period on the draft EIS was extended to

March 5, 1999. The Forest Service expects to complete the final EIS and travel plan

in June, 1999.

The preferred alternative in the forest travel management plan draft EIS would provide 1,672 miles of road and 536 miles of trails open to summer motorized use

and 862 miles of trails to foot and horse travel. By the end of 1999, the forest would

close a total of 939 miles of roads, 466 miles inside grizzly BMUs, of which 398

miles were closed in 1998, and 473 miles would be closed outside the BMUs.

While continuing to provide a good mix of recreation opportunities, the Forest also plans to improve management of the road system by:

(1) reducing maintenance needs thus focusing its limited maintenance and reconstruction dollars on the higher priorities;

(2) restoring soils and water quality that poorly located and maintained roads

and trails cause;

(3) providing secure habitat for recovery of the grizzly bear by implementing the

travel plan in concert with other forest plan standards and guidelines;

(4) restoring the habitat in cutthroat trout watersheds to help prevent listing

under the Endangered Species Act;

(5) providing flexibility to choose management options, such as timber sales, to

meet vegetation objectives within the BMUs; and
102

(6) meeting the elk vulnerability goals of the Idaho Department of Fish and

Game.

Relation of Road Closures to the Biological Opinion on the Revised Forest Plan

Effective road closures in the grizzly bear recovery area relate directly to the Forest Plan Biological Opinion provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This requires the Forest Supervisor to achieve the Revised Forest Plan road density standards within the grizzly bear recovery area by the end of calendar year 1999.

To meet those goals, the following standards developed in accordance with the

definitions in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) Task Force Report

on Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management apply to each BMU, except the developed area around Macks Inn in Grizzly Bear Management Situation 3:

(1) no more than 0.6 miles of roads and trails will be open to motorized use per

square mile of land in each BMU; and

(2) the combination of open roads, trails, and restricted routes—such as gated

roads—may not be more than 1.0 mile per square mile.

Compliance with the second standard will require the Forest Service to effectively

close some routes, not just gating them.

In the remand of the travel plan, the Forest Supervisor had the option to issue

an interim closure order in the BMUs to comply with the density standards in the

Revised Forest Plan and the time frames established by the Biological Opinion and

did so on March 24, 1998. Last summer forest personnel began to close roads, within the BMUs, necessary to comply with the biological opinion. Closures were started

in 1998 to ensure that they would be completed by the end of the calendar year

1999. While the majority of these routes were already closed to motorized use by

gates, gates alone do not assure that they will no longer be used. The Forest may

make some minor adjustments as a result of the new travel plan EIS, but it must

meet the open road density standards in grizzly BMUs.

Method of Road Closure

Much of the controversy, which developed this past year, relates to the method

the Forest used to close the roads in the BMUs. In most cases, the Forest used large

earth berms, the most effective way of closing roads to meet grizzly bear habitat

standards.

However, some forest users have told us that the berms also limit other recreation

activities. Snowmobilers, in particular, have expressed concerns that these berms

could affect their safety. To address these concerns, forest personnel have worked

extensively this fall and winter with the Idaho Snowmachine Association and local

snowmachine organizations to provide signing and other information to alert

snowmobilers. As a result, forest personnel have modified some berms in key snowmobile areas in the situation 3 area near Macks Inn, while still meeting the objective of restricting summer motorized access. Outside the BMUs the Forest has more

options on how to close roads, and we will continue to work with interested citizens

to address the least disruptive ways to close roads.

Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer questions you may have.
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160