U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–118 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–705 

EXAMINATION OF THE FOREST PLAN 

REVISION PROCESS IN REGION 1 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

DECEMBER 2, 2005—MISSOULA, MT 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

Professional Staff 

BRUCE EVANS

GINNY JAMES

LEIF FONNESBECK

RYAN THOMAS

REBECCA BENN

PETER KIEFHABER (Minority) 

RACHAEL TAYLOR (Minority) 

SCOTT DALZELL (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

MICHELE GORDON
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening statement of Senator Conrad Burns ....................................................... 1 

Statement of Dale Bosworth, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Charles E. Keegan, director of Forest Industry and Manufacturing Research, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, School of 

Business Administration, University of Montana ............................................. 9 

Prepared statment ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement of Sherman Anderson, president, Sun Mountain Lumber Company ....................................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Statement of John Gatchell, conservation director, Montana Wilderness Association .................................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Statement of Russ Ehnes, president, Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, representing the National Off-Highway Vehicle Council ......................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Statement of Mike Hillis, senior wildlife biologist, Econsystems Research 

Group .................................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

(1) 

EXAMINATION OF THE FOREST PLAN 

REVISION PROCESS IN REGION 1 

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Missoula, MT. 

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., at the University of Montana, College of Technology, 909 South Avenue West, Missoula, 

MT, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Burns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We’ll get things all settled down here. It’s 10:30 

in the morning, and that’s the witching hour. We like to start on 

time, and then we like to move out on time. 

Thank you very much for coming. I want to thank the witnesses 

for coming this morning to testify before this panel. We had a couple of colleagues of mine that were going to come out, and they 

took a look at the weather and one of them cancelled a week ago 

and the other one cancelled this pretty quickly. I guess they’re not 

as tough as us in Montana. 

They took—I can’t imagine what it would be like in Washington, 

DC, if we had these kind of conditions. We live in an area back 

there that they’ll cancel school on a forecast. It doesn’t have to be 

doing anything. 

So, but nonetheless, we will get on. But I will tell you that the 

record will be reviewed by everybody on the committee. This is an 

oversight hearing of appropriations, and we have several of the 

stakeholders here as we are looking at the subject of Forest Planning in Region 1 of the Forest Service. 

The Chief of the Forest Service is with us here today, Dale 

Bosworth, right down in center field, and we appreciate you being 

here. We have Charles Keegan from the University of Montana; 

Sherman Anderson, of course, president of Sun Mountain Lumber 

Company; John Gatchell, conservation director from the Montana 

Wilderness Association; John, thanks for coming today. I know 

you’ve got another event going on in Billings, and so I appreciate 

you making the effort of being here today. 

Russ Ehnes, executive director of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council and Mike Hillis, wildlife biologist for 

Ecosystems Research Group. We appreciate all of the witnesses 

being here today. 
2 

The National Forest Management Act requires that each forest 

within the National Forest System revise its forest plans every 15 

years. The plans guide how the various parts of each forest will be 

managed. In Montana, the Forest Service is currently working, or 

will commence in 2006, five different forest plans on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, on the Flathead, Lolo, Bitterroot and Kootenai National Forests. The combined area of these forests is over 11.1 million acres and, the management decisions made in these plans and 

revisions are all critical to us who live here in the State of Montana. 

As the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that controls the purse strings of the Forest Service, I have criticized the 

forest planning process in the past as being sometimes overly complex and expensive. Currently, the Forest Service spends 6 to 7 

years and several million dollars by providing these plans every 15 

years. 

So I’m pleased the Forest Service recently issued new planning 

rules that are designed to make the planning process faster and 

less expensive. With the exception of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

the remaining forests in Region 1 will be revised under the new 

rules. In my view, making this process more efficient means that 

the excessive amounts that were being spent on planning can now 

be spent on reducing our hazardous fuels, treating our acres for 

invasive weeds and addressing the bug infested timber stands that 

are now common throughout the West. It is also important that 

adequate public involvement is maintained in the revision process, 

and I will keep a watchful eye on that to ensure that this happens. 

While I’m pleased the Forest Service is trying to become more efficient in its planning process, I have several concerns about this 

process and how it moves forward. Unlike other Federal management agencies, the Forest Service has a multiple-use mandate, and 

it’s not clear to me that the Agency is following this mandate in 

its recent work on forest plans here in Montana. 

For example, in the draft environmental impact statement for 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge the Agency’s preferred alternative would 

reduce the allowable sales quantity of timber from 40 million board 

feet to 9 million, a 78 percent reduction; increase in the number 

of wilderness acres from 174,000 to 249,000, a 43 percent increase, 

and impose many new restrictions on public access, particularly 

motorized vehicles like ATVs and snowmobiles. 

Now, these numbers may be justified, and if they are, we’d like 

justification for those numbers. That’s the only thing that we’re 

questioning here is the justification for the numbers. So I find the 

proposals troubling if we don’t have something or some way to 

backup those numbers and give us good, solid reasons why they 

should come out a lot different when they first went in. 

I firmly believe that without a sufficient timber industry infrastructure in the State, we harm our State. We have to maintain a 

market place for wood fiber. We’ll not be able to address the forest 

health crisis in our Nation’s forests if we don’t have an infrastructure. 

I would tell you that in the current budget climate we have to 

rely on Government to pay the entire cost of cleaning up the national forest. Or, should we have another way to do this and do it 
3 

in an environmentally safe way, which provides jobs and is also 

healthy to rural communities? 

I’m also concerned about additional wilderness recommendations. 

It’s in the Beaverhead Plan, and I will tell you why. Whenever 

those recommendations are made, the Forest Service has a habit 

of managing these acres as wilderness, so we get de facto wilderness without Congress taking any action at all. 

These designations limit the ability for many folks to enjoy the 

areas in the forests. Not everyone has the physical capability to access these areas without the help of motorized vehicles. It also limits the agency’s ability to fight fires in these areas because motorized firefighting equipment is not allowed in those areas. 

So it’s my intention to explore these and other issues here today, 

get it on record and start the dialog as we complete these plans. 

They should be consistent on every forest, and there should be a 

standard operating system on how we make decisions with regard 

to our land management. 

In closing, let me also add that I know the issues that we’re discussing here are controversial and some of them are very emotional, and we have a lot of people here that represent a wide 

range of views. That is good, and I expect the people to express 

those views. But this is a hearing, and a hearing is where we get 

information on record and that’s how we, as policy makers, make 

our decisions. 

So let me also add that the record will be kept open until December 16, so any member or the public can submit comments and testimony that will be included in the record of this hearing today. 

Those comments may be submitted in my office here in Missoula. 

If you can provide these comments electronically as well as in written form that would be most appreciated. 

So I appreciate the folks coming out today. We haven’t had a 

good old-fashion winter in Montana in a long time. People have got 

to understand that we live in a part of the country that if it don’t 

winter, it doesn’t summer. So we are finally, maybe, getting back 

to some normality here in this part of the country. 

So with that we will start off with our witnesses today. Now, witnesses, identify yourselves, because we have a court reporter over 

here, and he has a hard time sometimes identifying voices. So you 

always want to say who you are and also get your microphones into 

place so everybody can hear. We’re going to start off with Dale 

Bosworth, who is Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. 

Let me say up-front that we’ve worked a lot with the Forest 

Service and Dale and his office in Washington, DC, and under very 

difficult circumstances. They have to make some very difficult decisions. But nonetheless, Dale has been one Chief that I’ve really enjoyed working with because some way or another we cut through 

some of the red tape and solve some problems that should be 

solved. 

So, Chief Bosworth, thank you for coming today, and we look forward—if you would keep your testimony to about 7 minutes—your 

full statement will be made part of the record and then we will 

have a little question and answer period, and we’ll start a little dialog at the table and bring out some other issues. So, Chief, thank 

you for coming today. 
4 

STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

the opportunity to be here. It’s always good to be back in Montana 

even if it’s for a hearing. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk 

about forest planning, and the revisions here in Montana. 

A series of legislative initiatives, dating back to 1960, including 

the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest 

Management Act would recognize the complex nature of managing 

natural resources for the American people and the changes that occurred to manage supply and societal values over time. 

Forest and grassland plans identify the availability of lands and 

their suitability for resource management. The goal of this planning is sustainable use of natural resources as well as sustainable 

communities. 

Five western Montana national forests now are currently in the 

forest planning revision process. All the forests with the exception 

of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are revising their plans using the new 

2005 planning rule. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge continues this revision under the 1982 rule since it had already completed this draft 

plan, which was ready for public comment at the time the new rule 

was published. 

Region 1 is using a zone approach that recognizes the similar interests of communities within zones, along with their similar resources, ecosystems, and opportunities in order to spend planning 

dollars more efficiently. 

The present Montana planning zones are the Kootenai National 

Forest and the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, which has some 

land in Montana. The Western Montana Zone, which includes the 

Flathead, the Lolo and the Bitterroot, and then the BeaverheadDeerlodge is a separate zone on its own. 

We began land management planning under the provisions of the 

National Forest Management Act and the 1982 Planning Rule. We 

believed at that time that the early forest plans would provide the 

strategic framework for management of national forests. 

We also believed that the plans had the necessary analysis and 

disclosure to implement forest management projects and activities. 

Through a series of legal challenges we learned that individual 

projects would need additional, extensive site-specific analysis. 

New legislation regulations and case law changed the operating 

environment over time and those required changes to forest plans 

in order to bring proposed activities into compliance. The complexity of navigating through the process became very lengthy. It 

became very difficult. I’ve referred to it as the ‘‘process predicament,’’ and the Forest Service faced many public challenges as we 

attempted to fit our management proposals into plans that were 

quickly becoming out of date. 

Several attempts were made over the past decade to develop a 

new planning rule that would help better define the role of forest 

planning or streamline the process for responding to change and 

shorten timeframes. The current planning rule was adopted in January. 

The new rules require the Forest Service to engage the public in 

a cooperative manner during the revision process and continue that 
5 

approach throughout the planning revision. The old planning process required analysis of several alternatives that displayed a range 

of management themes and levels of resource outputs. 

Various interest groups would then align themselves with whichever alternative most reflected their concerns, and that left the 

Forest Service in the position then of trying to seek a compromise 

solution among all those variety of interest groups. 

The collaborative approach does not focus on multiple alternative 

development, but rather on bringing communities together up front 

in the process to work together to find common themes and to find 

common interests. 

Both communities of place and communities of interest play key 

roles in finding areas of agreement. Competing interests and some 

level of disagreement, we’ll always have and they will continue as 

we move through the planning revision process. 

I believe the level of polarization over our new process will be 

less than we experienced in the first round of forest planning. It’s 

also important to understand that this public participation process 

requires everyone’s energy, and it requires lots of patience. 

Parties need to be at the table in order to have their concerns 

addressed, and since there are no alternatives developed under the 

new rule, the interests may have some difficulty in recognizing how 

their interests are addressed unless they remain engaged in the 

process. 

The new generation of plans will allow adaptive management 

and changes based on consistent monitoring and evaluation. This 

continuous and proven methodology will be applied using processes 

that are internationally recognized. 

The Forest Service will develop and implement environmental 

management systems (EMS) that require regular, cyclical planning, 

implementation, monitoring and review. The Northern Region, I 

think, is on the cutting edge of revising plans under the 2005 planning rule. 

I’m really proud of the regional forester, Gail Kimbell, and the 

Region 1 employees as well as the public for embracing cooperative 

participation as evidenced by the involvement of resource advisory 

committees, of forest stewardship projects and other community interests. This concept of collaboration is more than just words on 

paper. It defines a new spirit of partnership of Forest Service and 

the communities that we serve. 

Forest and Grassland plans revised under the 2005 rule will be 

strategic documents, and they’ll focus on how the agency, working 

in concert with the public and other Government agencies, will 

manage the landscape to reach desired future conditions that are 

deemed to be beneficial to the socioeconomic and ecological attributes of the area, which is a part of communities and not apart 

from them. Instead of rules and standards focused on prohibition, 

the new approach centers on identifying and achieving desired future conditions. 

Public scoping has identified many issues that will need consideration during the final revision process. While each forest and 

grassland has issues that are unique to that unit, there are issues 

that are common to all planning zones. 
6 

Three major key issues that appear throughout Montana national forests are: Lands generally suitable for timber harvest. Another one is lands proposed for wilderness designation, and the 

third one is lands generally suitable for motorized or nonmotorized 

use. These issues are going to continue to be among the most difficult challenges to developing collaborative solutions. 

A highly debated and often misunderstood component of forest 

plans are the lands generally suitable for timber harvest. In the 

first round of planning, these were one category of lands identified 

solely with an eye to potential timber harvest. 

This led to expectations that were never realized. We have legal, 

resource, socioeconomic and organizational factors that interacted 

to reduce the outputs. A primary goal for Region 1 under the new 

rule is to identify lands suitable for timber harvest, working with 

communities that result in expectations that can be met, that can 

be met reliably and are still ecologically sound. 

The 2005 planning rule identifies two types of land uses for 

which the timber removal is suitable: That is lands generally suitable for timber production and lands generally suitable for timber 

harvest. There’s a difference between those two. 

The Forest Service has long recognized that the timber harvest 

is a viable tool to accomplish several management objects. Forest 

inventories have identified sites where silvicultural prescriptions 

can be applied to contribute to the demand for wood fiber while 

contributing revenue to the national treasury. 

Forest plans are going to continue to examine and identify lands 

to be recommended to Congress for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Communities and the public working 

collaboratively with the Forest Service will have the opportunity to 

participate in the identification of lands that the agency will recommend for wilderness designation. 

Motorized versus nonmotorized travel and all the associated implications are undoubtedly among the most controversial challenges 

facing the Forest Service. I want to clarify what will be determined 

by forest plans and what will be determined outside the process. 

The revised plans are strategic and will only identify lands that 

are suitable for motorized use and lands that are generally suitable 

for nonmotorized use. Forest plans will not make site-specific motorized and nonmotorized route decisions. The final travel management rule will guide forest and grasslands and decisions that designate specific routes. They’ll be using a separate, public collaborative approach. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service is committed to an open 

and participatory forest plan revision process, and local communities will have a say in those decisions that directly impact them. 

So that concludes my statement, and I’ll be happy to answer any 

questions. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to talk with you today about the status 

of Forest Plan Revisions in the Northern Region 1 which includes all of Montana, 
7 

Northern Idaho, North Dakota and portions of South Dakota. I am accompanied 

today by Northern Region Forester, Gail Kimbell. 

A series of legislative initiatives, dating back to 1960, has given us the MultipleUse Sustained Yield-Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Forest and 

Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Act. These and other laws recognize the complex nature of managing renewable resources for the American people and the changes that occur in demand and 

supply over time. Forest and grassland plans—developed with the assistance of the 

public and interested agencies and groups—identify the availability of lands and 

their suitability for resource management. The goal of this planning is sustainable 

use of natural resources and sustainable communities. 

Five western Montana National Forests, as well as the three Idaho National Forests in Region 1, are currently in the revision process. All of the forests, with the 

exception of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, are revising their plans under the 2005 rule. 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge continued its revision under the 1982 rule since it had 

already completed its draft plan which was ready for public comment at the time 

the new rule was published. Region 1 has decided to accomplish the revision process 

by organizing the work in planning zones. This approach has been employed to recognize the similar interests of communities within the zone, similar resources and 

ecosystems, and opportunities to spend planning dollars efficiently. 

The current planning zones are: 

Clearwater—Nezperce Zone (Idaho) 

Kootenai—Idaho Panhandle Zone (Montana/Idaho) 

Western Montana Zone (Flathead, Lolo and Bitterroot NFs/Montana (includes a 

small portion of Idaho)) 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge (Montana) 

We began land management planning under the provisions of the National Forest 

Management act and the 1982 Planning Rule. We were optimistic that the early forest plans would provide a strategic framework for management of the national forests. We also believed the plans had the necessary analysis and disclosure to implement forest management projects and activities. A series of legal challenges taught 

us that individual projects would need additional, extensive, site-specific analysis. 

Sometimes this added analysis developed new information that was not consistent 

with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, resulting in plan amendments. Furthermore, new legislation, regulations, and case law changed the operating environment 

over time, requiring additional changes to Forest Plans in order to bring proposed 

activities into compliance. The complexity of navigating through the process became 

very difficult—I’ve referred to it as process predicament—and the Forest Service 

faced many public challenges as we attempted to ‘‘fit’’ management proposals into 

plans that were quickly becoming out of date. 

Several attempts were made over the past decade to develop a new planning rule 

that would help better define the role of the Forest Plans, streamline the process 

for responding to change, and shorten timeframes. The current planning rule was 

adopted in January of this year. The Forest Service is pleased that we can move 

forward with our revision processes. We are optimistic that the new rule will provide for a more efficient process and allow the agency to respond to change in a way 

that benefits forest and grassland management and communities. 

The new planning rule provides for broad and continual public participation during the planning process and throughout the plans’ implementation. The new rule 

requires the Forest Service to engage the public in a ‘‘collaborative’’ manner during 

the revision process and continue that approach throughout plan revision. The old 

planning process required analysis of several alternatives that displayed a range of 

management themes and levels of resource outputs. Various interest groups then 

aligned with whichever alternative most reflected their concerns. This left the Forest Service in the unenviable position of seeking a compromise solution among these 

interest groups. 

The collaborative approach does not focus on multiple alternative development, 

but rather on bringing communities together ‘‘up front’’ in the process to work together to find common themes and to find common interests. It is a tangible expression of the kind of citizen involvement encouraged by so many at the recent White 

House Conference on Cooperative Conservation. Both communities of place and interest play key roles in finding areas of agreement. Competing interests and some 

level of disagreement will continue as we move through the plan revision process; 

however, I believe the level of polarization will be less than we experienced in the 

first round of forest planning. It is also important to understand that this public 

participation process requires everyone’s energy and patience. Parties need to be at 

the table in order to have their input addressed. Since there are no alternatives de-
8 

veloped under the new rule, interests may have difficulty recognizing how their interests are addressed unless they remain engaged in the process. 

The 2005 rule allows forests, as they revise plans, to ensure they remain current 

and congruent with changes in the physical and social environment. New generation 

plans will allow ‘‘adaptive management’’ where they are consistently monitored, 

evaluated and updated. This continuous improvement methodology will be applied 

using processes that are internationally recognized. The Forest Service will develop 

and implement Environmental Management Systems (EMS) using the ISO 14001 

Standard. The EMS process requires regular cyclical planning, implementation, 

monitoring and review. This process relies on application of the best available 

science and certified audits. 

The Northern Region is on the cutting edge of revising plans under the 2005 planning rule. I am proud of Regional Forester Kimbell, Region 1 employees, and the 

public for embracing collaborative participation as evidenced by the involvement of 

Resource Advisory Committees, Forest Stewardship Projects, and other community 

interests. This concept of collaboration is more than just words on paper. It defines 

a new spirit of partnership of the Forest Service and the communities we serve. 

Forest and Grassland plans revised under the 2005 rule will be strategic documents and focus on how the agency, working in concert with the public and other 

government agencies, will manage the landscape to reach desired future condition 

deemed to be beneficial to the social, economic, and ecological attributes of the 

area—a part of communities, not apart from them. Instead of rules and standards 

focused on prohibitions, the new approach centers on identifying and achieving desired future conditions. The plans will be revised with collaborative public participation and the best available science and identify activities necessary to reach those 

desired conditions over time. This process will allow continual monitoring to incorporate new technology, current and future scientific findings, and public input. 

Public scoping has identified many issues that will need consideration during the 

collaborative process. While each forest and grassland has issues that are unique 

to that unit, there are issues common to all the planning zones, especially the forested zones. Three key issues that I want to address in this testimony are (1) lands 

generally suitable for timber harvest; (2) lands proposed for Wilderness designation; 

and (3) lands generally suitable for motorized and/or non-motorized use. These 

issues always generate controversy and will continue to be among the most difficult 

challenges to developing collaborative solutions. 

A highly debated and often misunderstood component of forest plans are ‘‘lands 

generally suitable for timber harvest.’’ In the first round of planning, these were one 

category of lands, identified solely with an eye to potential timber harvest. This lead 

to expectations that were never realized as legal, resource, socio-economic, and organizational factors interacted to reduce outputs. A primary goal for Region 1 under 

the new rule is to identify lands suitable for timber harvest, working with communities, that result in expectations that can be reliably met and are ecologically 

sound. 

The 2005 planning rule identifies two types of land uses for which timber removal 

is suitable, ‘‘lands generally suitable for timber production’’ and ‘‘lands generally 

suitable for timber harvest’’. The Forest Service has long recognized that timber 

harvest is a viable tool to accomplish several management objectives. Forest inventories have identified sites where silvicultural prescriptions can be applied to contribute to the national demand for wood fiber while contributing revenue to the national treasury. These lands, when harvested in an environmentally sound manner, 

are lands that will likely be identified as ‘‘generally suitable for timber production.’’ 

Other lands, where timber management is not the highest and best use, can still 

be harvested to help meet other multiple use objectives. Examples would be timber 

harvest that improves wildlife habitat, fire regime condition class and forest health 

can also produce timber products. In these areas timber harvest may be less economically efficient and would be incidental to other objectives. These lands would 

likely be identified as ‘‘generally suitable for timber harvest.’’ While the number of 

acres generally suitable for timber production may decrease in comparison to the 

old plans, the total acreage of lands generally suitable for timber production and 

timber harvest appear to be about the same. I want to emphasize that the collaborative process will determine which lands meet these objectives. 

Forest Plans will continue to examine and identify lands to be recommended to 

Congress for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Communities and the public, working collaboratively with the Forest Service, will have the 

opportunity to participate in the identification of lands that the agency will recommend for Wilderness designation. Region 1 has already been working collaboratively with communities and Tribal Governments to identify lands that have wilderness characteristics that make them candidates for recommendations to Con-
9 

gress. Some plan revisions may recommend acres that are logical additions to existing Wilderness because of topographic boundaries, ecotypes, or other management 

considerations. Some will recommend new acres based on the land’s suitability for 

wilderness designation. Other revisions may eliminate some areas that were previously recommended. Again, decisions will be made in a collaborative process with 

extensive community involvement. We will manage any lands recommended for Wilderness to protect wilderness values. These preliminary administrative recommendations will receive further review and possible modification by me, by the 

Secretary of Agriculture, or by the President. Congress has the authority to accept 

these recommendations when deliberating on wilderness designation. 

Motorized versus non-motorized travel, and all the associated implications, are 

undoubtedly among the most controversial challenges facing the Forest Service. I 

want to clarify what will be determined by forest plans and what will be determined 

outside the revision process. The revised plans are strategic and will only identify 

lands that are generally suitable for motorized use and lands that are generally 

suitable for non-motorized use. Forest Plans will not make site-specific motorized 

and non-motorized route designations. The Final Travel Management Rule will 

guide forests and grasslands in decisions that designate specific routes, employing 

a separate public collaborative approach. 

Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service is committed to an open and participative forest 

plan revision process. Local communities will have a say in decisions that directly 

impact them. The public at large will also be part of the plan revision process. 

Again, I want to emphasize that collaboration does not have a specific beginning 

and ending. Instead, it is a continual process where the public works with the Forest Service to determine what benefits the land and people. Collaboration continues 

beyond plan revision and includes public participation in monitoring as well as audits to ensure we are moving toward the desired condition and examining the need 

for change. It won’t always be neat and tidy, but it will always be the right thing 

to do. I am encouraged by how people in Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas are engaging in collaborative efforts. Tribal, State and Local Governments are working 

with federal agencies and the public on natural resource issues at unprecedented 

levels. I see approved revised plans not as a point of completion, but a starting point 

where community relationships will be the catalyst for land management decisions 

that have local and national acceptance. This concludes my statement, I am happy 

to answer questions. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much, Chief. I appreciate that. 

Now we have Charles Keegan who is with the Bureau of Business and Economic Research of the University of Montana, and 

Professor Keegan, or Mr. Keegan, or Charlie, it’s nice to see you. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES KEEGAN, DIRECTOR OF FOREST INDUSTRY 

AND MANUFACTURING RESEARCH, BUREAU OF BUSINESS AND 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 

Mr. KEEGAN. Thank you, Senator. I answer to those and many 

other monikers as well. For the record, I’m Chuck Keegan, director 

of Forest Industry and Manufacturing Research in the Bureau of 

Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana and 

also a research professor from the School of Business Administration at the University the Montana. 

By way of some background information, my work for the past 

28 years has focused on the structure and operations of the forest 

products industry in Montana and the other western States. For 

the past 15 years I’ve worked extensively on the financial feasibility of implementing new forest management regimes to deal with 

ecosystem restoration and fire hazard reduction. 

This morning in my remarks dealing with the forest planning, I’d 

like to concentrate on the areas of economic activity, timber output 

and industry infrastructure. First of all, looking at economic activity, I want to look at employment and state that despite declines 

in Montana’s forest products industry, it remains a substantial in-
10 

dustry in the State directly employing some 9,000 to 10,000 people 

primarily in high-paying jobs with very good benefits. 

In addition to that direct employment, there are at least an equal 

number in related sectors, many of which also are high-paying jobs. 

As the Senator is well aware, these jobs are especially important 

in a relatively low-wage State like the State of Montana. 

A less obvious but important aspect of Montana’s forest products 

industry is one that has been alluded to by the Senator and by the 

Chief of the Forest Service and that is to provide the wherewithal 

to manage forest lands in an ecologically and financially responsible manner. 

This wherewithal includes the workforce and sophisticated equipment needed to perform forest treatments in a cost-effective manner found in Montana’s logging industry and in the milling infrastructure to utilize and add value to timber harvested either as a 

commercial product or as a by-product of treatments. 

Before I get into some very little detail on the infrastructure, let 

me offer some general thoughts on timber product output from the 

national forest lands. 

Looking at inventory statistics it’s clear that some national forest 

lands in Montana are very productive from a timber growing standpoint and also have other characteristics that warrant management 

for commercial timber production. This, in my opinion, should be 

recognized in the forest plans, and it sounds like from the remarks 

of the Chief that that will be recognized in the forest plans. 

Timber production should be identified as an expected output 

from those appropriate national forest lands, and estimates of timber harvest volumes from appropriate lands should be provided in 

forest plans. 

Having said this, however, I believe that the real opportunity to 

produce substantial timber volumes and in particular additional 

volumes of timber from national forest lands in Montana is as a byproduct of properly done treatments aimed to deal with ecosystem 

and fire hazard problems which exist on literally millions of acres 

of forest land in Montana and the other western States. 

Now, a bit more about timber processing and the infrastructure 

in the state, which, as I indicated, is a key to efficiently performing 

many of these needed treatments. Despite the losses, Montana still 

has a substantial and diverse forest industry infrastructure in 

place. While individual timber processors and loggers have continued to make investments—and substantial investments as you will 

hear—unfortunately—I’m sure you will hear—unfortunately, Montana’s timber processing capacity overall has been declining and 

declining precipitously over the past 15 years. Specifically, we have 

seen a loss in excess of 40 percent of the timber processing capacity 

in the State of Montana since the late 1980s from 1.5 billion board 

feet annually to just over 900 million board feet. 

Much of this decline—not to pick on my friends from the Forest 

Service—but much of this decline has been clearly due to the very 

large 70 plus percent decline in the national forest timber sales, 

timber product outputs, over that period. 

As we look to the future, it’s clear from, at least our research, 

that further declines ranging from 5 to 20 percent and perhaps 

past 20 percent of current timber processing capacity are expected 
11 

unless the national forests substantially increase the output of timber. 

The logging sector will also decline. I’m talking about the timber 

processing sector, but that would involve a decline in the logging 

sector as well as the milling residue processing sector and the use 

of wood fiber for fuel. 

Then looking to the future: Maintaining efficient milling infrastructure in proximity to national forests will have, I believe, substantial benefits, and some of them have been mentioned. With 

adequate industry infrastructure and timber the high-paying jobs 

in the forest products industry can be sustained, and based on 

some of our analysis even increased. 

The overall economic benefits, in addition to the jobs in the forest 

products industry, the overall economic benefits of improved forest 

ecosystem conditions, reduced fire hazard accruing from the ability 

to treat the forest can hardly be overstated and are so large that 

it’s very difficult to put a value on those outputs. They include not 

only reduced firefighting costs but employment and incomes from 

other forest-based activities such as travel and tourism, not to 

mention the improvement in quality of life that all of us would 

enjoy if we had to deal with less smoke in Montana, periodically, 

for example. 

Finally, relating some of our research directly to the forest planning process and addressing the area that you raised, Senator, on 

consistency among the forest plans, I can talk about a few of them. 

One particular area in which we have worked with the Forest Service planners in U.S. Forest Service Region 1 and individual forest 

planners in other regions, we have supplied the agency with information on the capacity of the forest products industry to efficiently 

process timber of various sizes for the areas surrounding each of 

the national forests. This capacity information, I have been informed, is being used in the planning process to evaluate—I’ll wrap 

up in just a second. 

Senator BURNS. Turn that button off. I think it woke me up a 

little bit. 

Mr. KEEGAN. It confused me. 

Senator BURNS. I think it confused the audience too. 

Mr. KEEGAN. The capacity information that we have developed 

and supplied to Forest Service planning, it is my understanding, is 

being used in the planning process to evaluate the kind and quantity of timber the industry could use if that timber were made 

available. 

I’m pleased to be able to do this and to have the forest using this 

kind of information. I think it will be very useful both in evaluating 

potential commercial timber sales as well as fuels and other ecosystem management treatments. 

As an added thought I encourage the forests to identify steps 

that they might take to maintain the necessary timber harvesting 

and processing infrastructure that enables both forest management 

as well as social and economic goals of the communities immediately affected by the forests. 
12 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to be here this 

morning and that concludes my remarks. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. KEEGAN

I am pleased to respond to Senator Burns’ request for comments on the forest 

plan revision process and impacts on economic stability, public access, and commodity outputs. I will concentrate my remarks this morning on economic activity, 

timber output, and industry infrastructure. 

Despite declines in Montana’s forest products industry, it remains a substantial 

industry in the state, directly employing 9,000–10,000 people primarily in high paying jobs with very good benefits. In addition to the direct employment there are at 

least an equal number employed in related sectors many of which are also high paying jobs. These jobs are especially important in a relatively low wage state like Montana. 

Montana’s forest products industry provides the resources to manage forestland 

in an ecologically and financially responsible manner. These resources include the 

work force and sophisticated equipment needed to perform silvicultural treatments 

in a cost effective manner, and the milling infrastructure to utilize and add value 

to timber harvested as a by-product of treatments. The industry’s ability to continue 

to re-invest in infrastructure is key to adequately treating the large acreages in 

Montana that suffer from forest health problems and unnaturally high fire hazard. 

My testimony today will focus on infrastructure needs and losses in Montana’s 

forest products industry and what continues to be an enormous missed opportunity. 

That missed opportunity is the very limited application of treatments to the literally 

millions of acres of forest land in Montana and the other western states needed to 

restore and sustain desirable forest ecosystem conditions. Associated with this ecological treatment need there is a very substantial economic opportunity, which our 

research indicates could result in positive revenue flow to landowners, increased 

treatment activity, and employment opportunities. If this opportunity is not realized 

we will see further degraded forest conditions and continued declines in the forest 

products industry. 

TIMBER PRODUCT OUTPUT

Looking at inventory statistics, it is clear that national forest lands in Montana 

are very productive from a timber growing standpoint and have other characteristics 

that warrant management for ‘‘commercial’’ timber production. This should be recognized in the forest plans, timber production should be identified as an expected output from appropriate national forest lands, and estimates of timber harvest volumes 

from appropriate lands should be provided in forest plans. 

Having said this, I believe the real opportunity to produce substantial additional 

volumes of timber products from national forest lands in Montana is as a by-product 

of treatments aimed to deal with ecosystem and fire hazard problems, and perhaps 

more broadly to mimic natural processes to avoid future problems. 

MONTANA’S TIMBER-PROCESSING INFRASTRUCTURE

Montana has an industry infrastructure in place to harvest, process, and actually 

return revenue to landowners when wood is removed from forests as a by-product 

of restoration and fire hazard reduction treatments. Additional investment is needed 

by industry to stay competitive and more efficiently process the timber produced 

from these treatments. Unfortunately, while individual timber processors and 

loggers have continued to make investments, Montana’s timber-processing capacity 

has been declining over the past fifteen years because of declining national forest 

timber sales. 

Timber processing capacity refers to the volume of timber that could be used by 

mills that operate entirely on timber in round form. Recent analyses conducted by 

our organization indicate that: 

—The number of medium and large mills in Montana has dropped in half from 

over 30 in the late 1980s to 15 today. 

—There has been a more than 40 percent decline in capacity to process timber 

since the late 1980s from about 1.5 billion board feet annually to just over 900 

million board feet. 

—Much of this decline has been due to the very large declines in national forest 

timber sale volume. 
13 

Further declines—ranging from 5 to 20 percent of current timber processing capacity—are expected unless national forests substantially increase timber offerings. 

I also need to mention users of mill residuals. Residue-utilizing facilities in Montana range from very large plants, a pulp and paper mill, to substantially smaller 

users producing decorative bark, fuel pellets, or using wood as fuel. A number of 

these facilities can and do use a mix of forest waste wood and mill residuals. 

Because of declines in the sawmill sector the residue sector is facing a potential 

shortfall of wood fiber. At worst the shortfall could lead to one or more large residue 

facilities downsizing or closing, and at the least competition for wood residue would 

increase. Dramatically increased competition for a diminishing supply of residue 

could leave some users, such as new energy facilities, paying much more for their 

fuel than expected. 

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining efficient milling infrastructure in proximity to national forests will 

have substantial benefits. With an adequate infrastructure, high paying jobs in the 

forest products industry can be sustained and even increased—a particular benefit 

in many rural western areas. The overall economic benefits of improved forest ecosystem conditions and reduced fire hazard accruing from the ability to treat the forest can hardly be overstated. They include not only reduced fire fighting costs but 

employment and income from other forest based activities such as travel and tourism. 

At the request of the Forest Service Region 1 and individual forest planners in 

other regions, we have supplied the agency with information on capacity and capability of the forest products industry to efficiently process timber of various sizes. 

This information is being used in the planning process to evaluate the kind and 

quantity of timber the industry could use if made available by the forest(s). I encourage the forests to identify steps they can take to maintain the timber harvesting 

and processing infrastructure that enables sound forest management as well as the 

social and economic goals of the communities immediately affected by the forests. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. We’ve followed your work 

a lot, and you’ve done some great work here at the University of 

Montana. 

Now we have Sherman Anderson, Sun Mountain Lumber, up in 

the Seeley/Swan country. We appreciate you, Sherman, for coming 

down today. 

STATEMENT OF SHERMAN ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, SUN MOUNTAIN 

LUMBER COMPANY 

Mr. ANDERSON. Honorable, Senator Burns, my name is Sherman 

Anderson, and I live in Deer Lodge, Montana—— 

Senator BURNS. Deer Lodge—— 

Mr. ANDERSON [continuing]. Located in—— 

Senator BURNS. Wolf Creek. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I’d like to thank you for taking the time out of 

your busy schedule to make this long journey to Missoula and give 

us this opportunity. 

I have worked in the timber industry all my life. My father was 

a small sawmill owner and a logger. About 30 years ago my father 

moved to Wyoming, and I remained at Deer Lodge to start my own 

business, Sun Mountain Logging. Two years ago we purchased the 

sawmill and finger jointing operations in Deer Lodge. At that time 

I could see the danger of the Deer Lodge plant becoming another 

closed facility as I have seen so many others before. 

Sun Mountain Lumber, as it is now called, produces 2 by 4 and 

2 by 6 studs. Our annual production capacity in the sawmill is 125 

million board feet. Our finger jointing plant’s—a value added facility—annual production capacity is about 100 million board feet. 

This is enough lumber to frame 20,000 American homes. 
14 

The role of our company in the local economy is paramount. As 

one of the largest employers in the Butte/Deer Lodge/Anaconda 

area, we provide liveable wages including total benefits capable of 

sustaining families and maintaining healthy lifestyles to our 290 

employees. Our annual payrolls inject over $12 million into the 

local economy directly through our employee wages. 

As forestry professionals we as a company and as a viable industry are committed not only to responsible land stewardship but also 

to renewable and sustainable timber resource. This is a good business for the State of Montana. But as we continue to struggle to 

survive, we are reaching out longer distances, even into surrounding States to obtain the needed timber supply. Sadly, there 

are vast amounts of timber on Montana’s national forests surrounding us that are dying or burning in catastrophic fires lying 

unused and going to waste. 

On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest, the forest that’s in closest 

proximity to our facility, they had estimated 151,000 acres of beetle 

kill in 2004. In the Butte District, less than 60 miles away from 

us, 2004 estimated beetle kill was 55,000 acres. Thus far only 2,100 

acres have been proposed for some form of timber management out 

of the 55,000 acres. This is less than 3.9 percent of the estimated 

dead. 

If, or more likely when, this watershed burns, the estimated cost 

to the city of Butte to install an adequate water filtration system 

would be $15 to $20 million at today’s cost. 

Now, in our downward trend it tells the story. Going back for 5 

years, starting 2001, our volume under contract was 35 percent 

with the U.S. Forest Service, and now in 2005 this has dwindled 

to 5 percent U.S. Forest Service, 95 percent from other sources. 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest should be providing sustainable and predictable levels of production and services. The level of 

timber offered from the Beaverhead-Deerlodge has steadily declined over the past decades. 

From an industry perspective, we see several solutions to the 

problems we are facing based on the current planning process we 

have been involved with in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest. 

No. 1, U.S. Forest Service needs to incorporate industry stakeholders in the planning efforts. Without properly defining or treating stakeholders in their planning process, the BeaverheadDeerlodge Forest has created a DEIS riddled with shortcomings. 

The U.S. Forest Service needs to complete economic analysis, and 

this is the first step in doing so. 

No. 2, the U.S. Forest Service should provide scientifically defensible progressive management approaches. There appears to be 

very little consistency between forests on the use of the latest most 

defensible science as well as the many tools available to address 

these issues. For example, we encourage a more aggressive use of 

stewardship contracting to address multiple resource objectives. 

No. 3, avoiding the court systems. Region 1 alone has 360 million 

feet tied up in litigation, with 80 million feet of this in our immediate working area. There must be a means developed through legislation to limit this, or if nothing else, at least limit the time it 

takes to resolve these challenges. 
15 

No. 4, a creative approach to U.S. Forest Service budgeting needs 

to be developed. If they are to manage our forests, they must be 

adequately funded. The draft Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest plan 

and DEIS fails to publish an allowable saleable quantity, but instead, has produced estimated outputs based on past performance. 

They have cited predicted future budget constraints as their limitation to timber output. Stewardship contracts and other tools are 

not even considered by the forest, which would help alleviate budgeting issues. 

No. 5, accountability must be addressed. We continue to see some 

forests doing what they can to accomplish their goals, while others 

do little or nothing. Reducing the budget for nonperforming forests 

is not a good solution. It has a definitive negative effect and impact 

on all of us who use and depend on these forests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In summary, we are at a moment in history where we have a 

unique opportunity where timber harvesting can be utilized to help 

create a diversity and age class structure more representative of 

historic conditions. These conditions are considered models of ecological sustainability. Such an approach could reverse trends in 

timber supply and allow Montana mills to survive. Let industry be 

used to become a greater part of the solution needed to bring our 

national forests into a better managed condition. I thank you. I 

conclude my remarks and will be open for questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHERMAN ANDERSON

Honorable Senator Burns and Members of the Committee: My name is Sherm Anderson. I live in Deer Lodge, MT, located in Powell County. I would like to thank 

you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to make this long journey to Missoula. On behalf of the employees of Sun Mountain Lumber and their families, I 

thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the state of the national forest planning and the subsequent impact on our mill, community and local economy. 

I have worked in the timber industry-all my life. My father was a small sawmill 

owner and logger. I remember at a very young age working at the family sawmill 

or in the woods during summers and whenever school was out. About 30 years ago 

my father moved to Wyoming and I remained in Deer Lodge to start my own business, Sun Mountain Logging. There were numerous mills in operation back then 

and work was plentiful. We continued to expand the business. I say ‘‘we’’ because 

I have two sons and a son-in-law working in the business plus two grandsons who 

work when they are not in school. 

Two years ago when Louisiana-Pacific decided to divest themselves of the sawmills they owned, we purchased the sawmill and finger jointing operations in Deer 

Lodge. At that time I could see the danger of the Deer Lodge plant becoming yet 

another closed facility as I have seen so many others before. Sun Mountain Lumber, 

as it is now called, produces 2×4 and 2×6 studs. Our annual production capacity in 

the saw mill is 125 million board feet (mmbf). Our finger jointing plant, a valueadded facility and remanufacturing plant’s annual production capacity is another 

100 million board feet. This is enough lumber to frame 20,000 average American 

homes. (National Association of Home Builders 2005) In Montana alone there were 

2,047 single and 4,194 single and multiple unit housing starts in 2004. (Economagic 

2005) Clearly, our business provides not only in-state but serves as an export industry all over the United States, bringing outside money into the state of Montana. 

Indeed, lumber production is a cornerstone of the Montana economy. Ironically lumber production continues to decrease in our state as more and more production facilities close their doors for lack of timber supply. 

The role of our company in the local economy is paramount. As one of the largest 

employers in the Deer Lodge, Butte and Anaconda area, we provide livable wages 

including total benefits capable of sustaining families and maintaining healthy life-
16 

styles to our 290 employees. Our annual payrolls inject over twelve million dollars 

into the local economy directly through our employee wages. Our payroll provides 

a catalyst to the local economy, having a ripple effect indirectly though local contractors and services, increasing the state and federal tax bases. 

As we compete in the international community, we are working on uneven 

ground. We are subjected to different environmental standards, being required to 

spend large amount of time and money in the planning processes and dealing with 

diminishing or erratic timber supplies, conditions which hurt our ability to compete. 

As a renewable resource, timber production is truly one of the most environmentally friendly natural resource industries. No other substitute for lumber framing in houses is as environmentally friendly or economically viable. In contrast, the 

use of metal framing in construction involves the extraction of a non-renewable resource and significant processing before it can become a useable product, resulting 

in a much higher environmental impact. As forestry professionals, we, as a company 

and as a viable industry, are committed not only to responsible land stewardship, 

but also to a renewable and sustainable timber resource. This is a good business 

for the state of Montana. But as we continue to struggle to survive, we are reaching 

out longer distances, even into surrounding states to obtain the needed timber supply. Sadly, there are vast amounts of timber on Montana’s national forests surrounding us that are dying and/or burning in catastrophic fires, lying unused and 

going to waste. As an example, here are some statistics from the Beaverhead/ 

Deerlodge National Forest, the forest which is in closest proximity to our facility: 

Areas affected by beetle kill only: 

2002—73,000 acres 

2003—72,000 acres 

2004—151,000 acres 

In the Butte District, less than 60 miles away from us, 2004 estimated beetle kill 

was 54,900 acres. In 2005, that amount could easily have doubled. There have been 

only 1,622 acres of timber sold; of that, 1,574 acres are located in the Butte watershed. That sale was appealed but the Forest Service prevailed. It was then sold but 

was further appealed to the 9th Circuit Court, resulting in an injunction and halt 

to the timber harvest. The Butte District has another 530 acres proposed for sale, 

probably in early 2006. Thus far, only 2,152 acres have been proposed for some form 

of timber management out of 54,900 acres estimated dead in 2004. This is only 3.9 

percent of the estimated dead. If, or more likely, when this watershed burns, the 

estimated cost to the city of Butte to install an adequate water filtration system 

would be $15 to $20 million (at today’s cost). 

Further statistics from our company I would like to share with you: 

Our percentage of U.S. Forest Service volume, including all forests under contract, 

in comparison to our total volumes under contract, going back 5 years: 

2001—35 percent USFS—65 percent Other 

2002—35 percent USFS—65 percent Other 

2003—29 percent USFS—71 percent Other 

2004—14 percent USFS—86 percent Other 

2005—5 percent USFS—95 percent Other 

These downward trends tell the story. Our state and private lands cannot continue 

to support us at these levels. Our survival is dependant on our National Forests. 

We recently hired the Ecosystem Research Group to provide comments on our behalf concerning the Beaverhead/Deerlodge Draft Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Their comments outline a detailed, scientifically defensible approach to increasing timber supply while sustaining sensitive species habitats and 

managing close to historic landscape dynamics. As business owners and tax payers 

it is astonishing to us that we have to hire a third party to critique and analyze 

USFS planning. 

The BDNF should be providing sustainable and predictable levels of products and 

services. The level of timber offered from the Beaverhead/Deerlodge has steadily declined over the past decade. Communities that lack industrial or economic diversity 

may be negatively affected by the proposed BDNF Plan. The full effects to these 

communities have not been analyzed or disclosed in the BDNF Draft Forest Plan. 

As a stakeholder with potentially large economic impacts, we should be treated with 

a much higher weight than the BDNF has provided in their planning efforts. From 

our standpoint the BDNF is exhibiting a denial of its potential impacts on local timber dependent communities and is assuming that if they ignore the problem, it will 

just go away. 
17 

RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS

From an industry perspective we see several solutions to the problems we are facing based on the current planning process we have been involved with on the 

BDNF. 

USFS to Incorporate Industry Stakeholder in Planning Efforts.—Without properly 

defining or treating stakeholders in their planning process the BDNF has created 

a DEIS riddled with short-comings. The USFS needs to complete better economic 

analyses and this is the first step in doing so. 

USFS Provide Scientifically Defensible, Progressive Management Approaches.— There appears to be very little consistency between Forests on the use of the latest 

most defensible science as well as the many tools available to address these issues. 

For example, we encourage a more aggressive use of Stewardship Contracts to address multiple resource objectives. 

Avoiding the Court Systems.—Region 1 alone has 360.49 mmbf tied up in litigation, with 80.6 mmbf of this in our immediate working area. There must be a means 

developed through legislation to limit this or, if nothing else, at least the time it 

takes to resolve these challenges. 

Creative Approach to USFS Budgeting Needs to be Developed.—If they are to manage our forests, they must be adequately funded. The draft BDNF Forest Plan and 

DEIS fails to publish an allowable sale quantity (ASQ) but instead has produced estimated outputs based on past performance. They have cited predicted future budget 

constraints as their main limitation to timber output. Stewardship Contracts and 

other tools are not even considered by the Forest Service which would help alleviate 

budgeting issues. 

SUMMARY

We are at a moment in history where we have a unique opportunity where timber 

harvesting can be utilized to help create a diversity in age-class structure more representative of historic conditions. These conditions are considered models of ecological sustainability. Such an approach could reverse trends in timber supply and 

allow Montana mills to survive. Let Industry be used to become a greater part of 

the solution needed to bring our National Forests into a better-managed condition. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much, Sherman. We appreciate 

that very much. 

Now we have John Gatchell, Montana Wilderness Association. 

John, thanks for coming today, and we know of your conflict, so 

thank you for coming. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN GATCHELL, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GATCHELL. For the record, my name is John Gatchell. I want 

to thank you, Senator Burns. I’m here to represent the 7,000 members of the Montana Wilderness Association, which was founded 47 

years ago by Montana hunters and conservationists to safeguard 

Montana’s vanishing wilderness. 

Our members view Montana’s wilderness as a public land trust 

that will always provide great hunting, fishing, camping under the 

stars and quiet mountain trails. Our western wildlands embody 

core American values: Freedom, self-reliance, family and tradition. 

Keeping this heritage intact takes commitment, and wilderness 

designation for deserving lands is a commitment that we can rely 

on and pass on to our kids. 

We’re determined to work with friends and neighbors to achieve 

this objective, but we’re willing to listen and work with others, take 

risks and help provide leadership to move our State forward. We 

do need to see that this path has rewards. 

Forest planning matters to all of us. The forest plan is a contract 

between the people who own and those who manage our national 

forests, and this contract should provide clarity and certainty for 

all who have a stake in public lands. 
18 

In Montana different people seek different commitments in the 

forest plan contract, whether it’s small mills, snowmobilers, hunters, communities or conservationists. But we want tangible commitments. We want to know where we stand today and what will 

remain tomorrow. 

Because the forest plan looks across very large and very diverse 

mountain landscapes, it really provides a great opportunity to build 

new partnerships. As you see in our written testimony, we think 

the Seeley Lake Ranger District provides a model of new approaches to old problems. 

Five years ago Seeley Lake faced a crisis. Headlines announced 

the imminent shutdown of Pyramid Mountain Lumber, that’s the 

largest employer. Recreationists were embroiled in angry conflict. 

Today we welcome opportunities to work cooperatively with Pyramid. They’re widely recognized as a leader in forest stewardship, 

in stewardship projects, salvage sales and forest plan revision. 

The Seeley Lake Ranger District has amended its forest plan 

successfully to reflect a winter recreation plan that was jointly suggested by the Montana Wilderness Association and the Seeley Lake 

Snowmobile Club. This plan ensures great snowmobiling, but it 

also protects wintering wildlife and quiet winter trails within easy 

reach of Seeley Lake. 

Over the past year we’ve applied these new approaches to forest 

plan revision in the Seeley Lake Ranger District working out landscape-based solutions working with Pyramid, with snowmobilers, 

area ranchers and wilderness outfitters. 

Last May your staff, Larry Anderson, was present when 

snowmobilers and conservationists met in Lincoln, Montana, to 

sign another winter recreation agreement. This agreement also protects popular snowmobiling in the Lincoln area, but at the same 

time it protects wildlands and winter wildlife habitat along Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front. 

After 20 years of fighting in every arena, believe me, Senator 

Burns, there’s still plenty we disagree on, but today we’re working 

as partners committed to a single winter landscape plan and that’s 

a change. 

Other winter agreements have successfully been reached covering national forest lands in the Big Belt in the Whitefish Range, 

the Flathead forest, Big Snowies and Little Belt Mountains. When 

the Big Snowies’ agreement was challenged in court last year, the 

Montana Wilderness Association and the Montana Snowmobile Association intervened, on the same side, and successfully, thus far, 

to defend this agreement. And this takes commitment, Senator 

Burns, and the leaders of both organizations have taken significant 

risks to move our State forward. 

We believe there are other parts of the State where the ground 

is fertile for Montanans to work together. However, mixed or even 

contrary signals from Agency or political leaders can stymie dialog 

and push Montanans further apart. 

We’ve got decade’s old, deep ruts that keep Montanans severed, 

and its strong leadership from Agency and elected officials that is 

essential. This means giving people the right signals and incentives 

to do the right thing. Talk to your neighbors, work out differences, 

and you will be rewarded. 
19 

Managing off-road vehicles is probably the most contentious 

issue on our public lands today, especially for summer use. According to the National Association of Counties advances in off-road 

technology have spread noxious and invasive weeds, increased conflicts between road and recreational users, ranchers, hunters, wildlife and caused environmental damage. 

Now, Montanans cherish access to public lands, and we understand that access takes many forms that do not require off-road vehicles. Communities seek access to open space and quiet trails. 

Ranchers provide access to hunters afoot, not riding ATVs. Hunters 

enjoy access to State school trust lands but we leave our vehicles 

behind on the road. 

Public access is threatened today, not by setting responsible limits to off-road vehicle traffic and enforced travel plans. It’s threatened because Congress is considering legislation that would sell 

public lands, and that would mean no access. So, Senator, we urge 

you to protect public access by opposing bills currently being considered that would sell public lands. 

Two hundred years ago when President Jefferson acquired 529 

million acres of western land, including the area of Montana, critics 

attacked him for foolishly purchasing an immense wilderness. 

Today we have over 90,000 miles of roads, but less than 4 percent 

of Montana is actually protected as wilderness. 

Our neighboring western States each thrive with a higher percentage of wilderness. Stunning mountain lands that we have traditionally enjoyed as wilderness, from Lolo Peak to the Rocky 

Mountain Front, will not remain so for our kids without stronger 

commitments from our Government. 

As our valleys fill with subdivisions and roads and traffic in the 

years ahead—and they’re going to—Montana’s wild country is 

going to be worth its weight in solid gold. Some have made a sport 

of criticizing the Forest Service for recommending any wilderness 

in revised plans. We feel this position is irresponsible. 

Wilderness is part of the multiple use of public lands, and it belongs in our mountains along with the suitable areas for logging, 

snowmobiling and other land allocations. 

We believe the Federal Government has not done nearly enough 

to demonstrate commitment or vision for the future of Montana 

wilderness. Lands with high wilderness values and low conflicts 

have been overlooked by the Forest Service time and again. 

Draft forest plan recommendations, for example, fall significantly 

short of wilderness that is contained in the Senate-passed bill S. 

6096 cosponsored by you and Senator Baucus. 

You raised two questions about the Beaverhead-Deerlodge recommended wilderness, and they’re good questions and I think 

they’re worth answering. When you look at the BeaverheadDeerlodge you see a forest that is the largest forest we have, larger 

than Glacier and Yellowstone Parks combined. It includes 16 

mountain ranges, 400 miles of the Continental Divide, something 

like 33 hunting districts. By the way, a third of the elk taken in 

this State come out of that country, so it’s important to us. But it’s 

the diversity of it that gives us areas that have tremendous wilderness character. 
20 

You also raised the question of whether it was too expensive to 

enjoy without—motorized and ATV or what have you—and I think, 

Senator, we would welcome that kind of comparison. I know for a 

fact that my wife and I have taken our kids there since they were 

babies, camping and hiking and enjoying the Pioneers the Pintlars 

the Tobacco Roots many of these areas. The most expensive part 

of our trips is stopping for Chinese dinner, in Butte, on the way 

home, to tell you the truth. We welcome that kind of comparison. 

I think it’s a question that’s worth answering. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Our answer, to summarize, is to continue to work to build diverse support for on-the-ground solutions that include Montana 

wilderness. We hope that you will provide the kind of leadership 

that brings Montanans together at the table of trust and understanding and encourages home-grown solutions that can move 

Montana forward. Thank you, Senator Burns, for the opportunity. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN GATCHELL

Thank you, Senator Burns. I represent the 7,000 members of the Montana Wilderness Association—founded 47 years ago by hunters and conservationists to safeguard Montana’s vanishing wilderness. 

Our members view Montana wilderness as a public land trust that will always 

provide great hunting, fishing, camping under the stars, and quiet mountain trails. 

Our western wild lands embody core American values: freedom, self-reliance, family, 

tradition. 

Keeping this heritage intact takes commitment and wilderness designation for deserving lands is a commitment we can rely on and pass on to our kids. 

We’re determined to work with friends and neighbors to achieve this objective. 

We’re willing to listen and work with others, take risks, and help provide leadership 

to move our state forward. We do need to see this path has rewards. 

FOREST PLANNING MATTERS TO ALL OF US

The Forest Plan is a contract between the people who own and those who manage 

our national forests. This contract should provide clarity and certainty for all who 

have a stake in public lands. 

Different people seek different commitments in the Forest Plan contract: Whether 

its small mills, snowmobilers, hunters, communities or conservationists. 

We want tangible commitments. We all want to know where we stand today and 

what will remain tomorrow. 

Because the forest plan looks across vast and diverse mountain landscapes,—it 

provides a great opportunity to build new partnerships. 

BEYOND WARRING PHILOSOPHY: SEELEY LAKE

As you see in our written testimony, the Seeley Lake Ranger District provides a 

model of taking new approaches to old problems. Five years ago Seeley faced crisis: 

Headlines announced the imminent shut down of Pyramid Mountain Lumber. 

Recreationists were embroiled in angry conflict. 

Today we welcome opportunities to work cooperatively with Pyramid, in stewardship projects, salvage sales, and forest plan revision. Pyramid is widely recognized 

as a leader in forest stewardship. 

The Seeley lake Ranger District amended the forest plan to reflect a winter recreation plan suggested by the Montana Wilderness Association and Seeley Lake snowmobile club. This plan ensured great snowmobile areas and trails while at the same 

time protecting wintering wildlife and quiet winter trails within easy reach of 

Seeley Lake 

Over the past year we’ve applied these new approaches to forest plan revision on 

the Seeley Lake District, working out landscape-based solutions with Pyramid, 

snowmobilers, ranchers and wilderness outfitters. 
21 

1The agreements settle site-specific disputes over winter recreation on parts of five national 

forests, including two wilderness study areas, a dozen inventoried roadless areas and several 

tracts of recommended wilderness. Snowmobilers and conservationists also pledge to assist with 

education, funding, and monitoring to help ensure success in the field. Both parties believe more 

landscape agreements are possible. 2 ‘‘A WILDERNESS SO IMMENSE—The Louisiana Purchase and the Destiny of America.’’ 

Jon Kukla, 2003. 3 Critics have also argued that the Forest Service is creating ‘‘de facto’’ wilderness, in violation 

of federal law. While it is true that only Congress can add Wilderness to the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Forest Service is required to evaluate and recommend Wilderness 

where justified, and may restrict uses as necessary to protect resource values. See for example, 

36 CFR 219 (FSM), in pertinent part: ‘‘. . . all National Forest System lands possessing wilderContinued 

LINCOLN, SNOWIES AND ELSEWHERE

Last May, your staff was present when snowmobilers and conservationists met in 

Lincoln to sign another winter agreement. This agreement protects popular snowmobile areas and trails near Lincoln yet at the same time wild lands and wildlife 

along the Rocky Mountain Front. 

After 20 years of fighting in every arena, believe me there’s still plenty we disagree on, but today we are working as partners committed to a single winter landscape plan. 

Other winter agreements have successfully been reached covering national forest 

lands in the Big Belts, Whitefish Range, Flathead, Big Snowies and Little Belt 

Mountains.1

When the Big Snowies agreement was challenged in court last year, MWA and 

the Montana Snowmobile Association intervened successfully to defend this winter 

agreement. 

This takes committment, Senator Burns, and the leaders of both organizations 

have taken significant risks to move our state forward. 

There are other parts of the state where the ground is fertile for Montanans to 

work together. However, mixed or even contrary signals from agency or political 

leaders can stymie dialogue, and push Montanans farther apart. 

We’ve got deep, decades old ruts that keep Montana high-centered. Strong leadership from agency and elected officals is essential to move our state forward. This 

means giving people the right signals and incentives to do the right thing—talk to 

your neighbors, work out your differences, and you will be rewarded. 

Managing off-road vehicles is probably the most contentious issue on public lands 

today –especially for summer use. According to the Association of Counties, advances in off-road vehicle technology have ‘‘spread noxious and invasive weeds... increased conflicts with other recreational users, ranchers, hunters, wildlife, 

and . . . caused environmental damage.’’ (2003–2004 Resolution on Off-Highway 

Vehicle Management on Public Lands, National Association of Counties) 

ACCESS DOES NOT MEAN ATVS

Montanans cherish access to public land and understand that access takes many 

forms that do not require off-road vehicles: Communities seek access to open space 

and quiet trails. Ranchers provide access to hunters afoot not riding ATVs. Hunters 

enjoy access to state trust lands—but we leave our vehicles on the road. 

Public access is threatened today—not by setting responsible limits to off-road 

traffic in forest travel plans. It is threatened because Congress is considering legislation to sell public lands. This means no access. 

We urge you Senator to protect public access by opposing bills to sell public lands. 

CONCLUSION

Two hundred years ago, when President Jefferson acquired 529 million acres of 

western lands—including the area of Montana, critics attacked him for foolishly purchasing ‘‘an immense wilderness.’’ 2

Today we have over 90,000 miles of road, but less than 4 percent of Montana is 

actually protected as wilderness. Our neighboring western states each enjoy higher 

percentages of wilderness. Stunning mountain lands we have traditionally enjoyed 

as wilderness -from Lolo Peak to the Rocky Mountain Front—will not be there for 

our kids without stronger commitments from our government. 

As our valleys fill with subdivisions, roads and traffic in the years ahead, Montana’s wild country will be worth its weight in gold. 

Some have made a sport of criticizing the U.S. Forest Service for recommending 

wilderness in revised plans.3 This position is irresponsible. Wilderness is part of the 
22 

ness characteristics must be considered for recommendation as potential wilderness areas during development or revision of a land management plan. Based on site-specific analysis and public involvement, management direction is developed for inventoried roadless areas during the 

land management planning process that could include (1) protection of wilderness values . . . 

(2) total or partial restriction of certain uses . . .’’ 4See chart comparing legislation passed by U.S. Senate and House with USFS recommendations, attached below testimony. 

multiple use of public lands, and belongs in our mountains along with suitable areas 

for logging, snowmobiling, and other allocations. 

We believe the federal government has not done nearly enough to demonstrate 

commitment or vision for the future of Montana wilderness. 

Lands with high wilderness values and low conflicts have been overlooked by the 

Forest Service time and again: 

Draft recommendations in the ongoing forest plans fall short of wilderness contained in the Senate-passed bill co-sponsored by you and Senator Baucus.4

Senator Burns, you raised two questions this morning regarding recommended 

wilderness on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. First the areas, which as 

I noted fall short of wilderness contained in your 1992 Senate bill, S. 1696. More 

importantly, though, is the diverse character of this vast landscape, the BeaverheadDeerlodge is larger than Glacier and Yellowstone combined, includes 16 mountain 

ranges, 400 miles of the Continental Divide and 33 hunting districts which provide—and this is very important to us—one-third of all elk taken in Montana. 

Second you questioned whether people could afford to use recommended wilderness without motorized vehicles. This is a comparison we would welcome. My wife 

and I have often taken our kids into the Pioneers, Tobacco Roots, Pintlars, Thunderbolt Creek (Electric Peak) since they were babies. The most expensive part of our 

wilderness trips was stopping in Butte on the way home for Chinese dinner. 

Our answer is to continue to work to build diverse support for on-the-ground solutions that include Montana Wilderness. 

We hope you will provide the kind of leadership that brings Montanans together 

at the table of trust and understanding, and encourages homegrown solutions that 

can move Montana forward. 

Thank you, Senator Burns, for the opportunity to offer our thoughts today. 

COMPARISON HOUSE AND SENATE-PASSED MONTANA WILDERNESS LEGISLATION WITH USFS 

PRELIMINARY FOREST PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 

National Forest 88 Passed 1 92 Senate 2 94 House 3 FS 2005 (dr) 4 Rdls 5 Forest Total 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF .......... 335,200 9290,000 358,700 249,000 1,881,000 3,335,000 

Flat-Lolo-B’root NF ..................... 632,000 564,000 731,000 478,000 1,725,000 5,590,000 

Kootenai National Forest ............ 113,600 92,000 166,600 .................... 624,000 2,220,000 

5 forest subtotals .............. 1,080,600 946,000 1,256,300 727,000 4,230,000 11,145,000 

1 S. 2751 Montana Wilderness and Management Act. House-Senate compromise bill enacted in October 1988/left unsigned by President 

Reagan after Congress adjourned. 2 S.1696 Montana National Forest Management Act of 1991-Co-Sponsored by Senators Burns and Baucus. Passed Senate March 26, 1992, 

Amended by House. Vote Blocked on Compromise Oct 8, 1992. 3 H.R. 2473 Sponsored by Congressman Williams. Amended and Passed House of Representatives May, 1994. 

4 Preliminary wilderness recommendations contained in draft or initial draft forest plans. 

5 U.S. Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas as shown in draft or preliminary forest plans. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, John. 

Now we have Russ Ehnes, National Off-Highway Vehicle Council. Russ, thank you for coming today. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RUSS EHNES, PRESIDENT, MONTANA TRAIL VEHICLE 

RIDERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL OFFHIGHWAY VEHICLE COUNCIL 

Mr. EHNES. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. My name is Russ Ehnes, actually. That’s all right, that’s a tough one to pronounce. I’m president of the Montana Trail Vehicle Riders. I’m here today to present 

my testimony. However, I’d like to recognize the Citizens for Balanced Use, Families for Outdoor Recreation, Capital Trail Vehicle 
23 

Association and Montana Multiple Use Association have also prepared high quality testimonies in their quest to represent the thousands of citizens across Region 1 who make up their memberships. 

Their plea is for you to recognize the disparities in Region 1 Forest 

Service management policies and for you to help bring fair, responsible and balanced management to Region 1. Jointly, our desire is 

to keep our public lands shared for all the public under the sustained multiple use mandate. 

Forest planning is an important topic for thousands of Montana 

families who enjoy Montana’s great outdoors, on trail motorcycles, 

ATVs, snowmobiles and four-wheel drives. There’s a 60-year tradition of off-highway vehicle use in Montana. My kids are fourth generation trail motorcyclists. We have ridden snowmobiles since 1964. 

OHV recreation and snowmobiling in our national forests are 

more than something we do on the weekends. They’re the glue that 

binds our family together, and it is important to our quality of life 

as any form of recreation is to any other Montanan. 

OHV recreation is one of the fastest growing forms of recreation; 

we’ve already heard. A recent study by the Forest Service Southern 

Research Station found that 29 percent of Montanans classify 

themselves as participants in off-highway vehicle recreation, which 

does not even include snowmobilers. 

We also understand the potential for abuse and impacts that can 

result from unmanaged recreation of all kinds. When Chief 

Bosworth was the regional forester in Region 1, he recognized the 

value and legitimacy of OHV recreation and had the foresight to 

see that we needed sensible limits on what uses could be allowed 

with off-highway vehicles in largely unmanaged areas. 

He worked with the BLM to develop the three-State OHV EIS. 

Nearly every OHV and multiple-use organization supports that, including us. We also support the new Forest Service off-highway vehicle rule which will result in designated route systems nationwide. 

In addition to being the president of MTVRA, I actually work 

professionally as the executive director of the National Off-highway 

Vehicle Conservation Council, a nationwide, nonprofit educational 

organization dedicated to partnering with the Forest Service and 

other agencies to find and share proven effective management techniques for off-highway vehicle recreation. 

These techniques allow the agencies to provide abundant, high 

quality OHV recreation opportunities in ways that meet riders’ 

needs and expectations while preserving and protecting our natural 

resources, and they are the alternative to the ignored or closed 

management style that had prevailed for too many years. 

We’ve worked with the agencies for over 10 years to promote offhighway vehicle management workshops and have had three of 

those in Montana over the last 10 years. Many of the district rangers, rec planners and resource specialists in Montana that participate in those workshops learned those techniques and implemented 

them in many areas. 

However, it seems that some forest supervisors have chosen not 

to implement best management practices for off-highway vehicles 

and have again chosen to ignore it or close it. Unfortunately, the 

proposed travel plans that we’re seeing are very heavy on the 

‘‘close it side.’’ 
24 

We’ve seen things like elk security cited as common reasons for 

closure. Yet herds have continually increased in size, and we 

haven’t seen the peer reviewed science to show justification of how 

herds could benefit from travel restrictions. 

We as Americans expect that freedom means we’re allowed the 

liberty to enjoy public lands responsibly, without restrictions unless 

there is a valid reason identified that justifies restricted access 

over other management options. 

Instead we’re seeing proposals within Region 1 that close 40 to 

60 percent of our forests that have been open for off-highway vehicle recreation and snowmobile access. These extensive closures are 

a fundamental shift away from the freedom we expect in Montana, 

in the United States, and is not in accord with the intent implicit 

in the 2001 OV EIS. 

I’m disturbed by this new trend of designating large blocks of 

multiple-use areas off limits to motorized recreation and think it’s 

being driven by a number of factors, the first of which is the ageold battle between the preservationist community and the multipleuse community. 

I believe the multiple-use community subscribes to the philosophy of Gifford Pinchot, the person who created the Forest Service. 

We believe we can use and enjoy our forests wisely, respectfully 

and responsibly not only for recreation but also for clean water and 

other resources. 

John Muir’s philosophy is more of a hands-off philosophy that resulted in the creation of our national wilderness system and we 

need both, and we recognize that. But because there seems to be 

a majority opinion that we have already set aside enough as wilderness, we’ve seen people who promote more wilderness change 

the nomenclature of the debate. 

We’re seeing the promotion of large blocks of nonmotorized quiet 

areas particularly in inventoried roadless areas. With these areas 

closed to motorized users and all but off limits to resource development, their end game is satisfied. They’ve achieved ‘‘wilderness 

light’’ and only have to contend with a few bicycles and chain saws 

of the rarely deployed trail crew. 

We’re also seeing new designations like ‘‘wildland,’’ which prohibit mechanical and motorized use in areas but are never recommended to Congress as wilderness. This is the very definition of 

‘‘wilderness light.’’ All of this is achieved without the messy involvement of Congress, the body in which lies the sole Peoples’ 

elected authority to establish wilderness. 

Why is our community so upset right now? Just as one example 

of what’s happening all over Montana, I can tell you that since my 

father began riding trail motorcycles in the 1950s, you can no 

longer go to Bighorn Lake or Heart Lake, which are now in the 

Scapegoat Wilderness. The trail he used to ride from Rogers Pass 

to Stemple Pass is closed for grizzly bear habitat. 

Seventy percent of the Highwood Mountains are now closed; 90 

percent of the Snowies are off limits. Many trails along the Rocky 

Mountain Front are closed. Many trails in the Big Belts are off limits, and the Rocky Mountain Front Travel Plan Record of Decision 

will likely close most of the trails in the Badger-Two Medicine and 

more trails along the Rocky Mountain Front. Cumulative effects of 
25 

past closures are real. The Forest Service seems to have a hard 

time quantifying this, but all you have to do is look at the maps 

from the past 50 years. 

The result of these closures is that we’re being pushed into 

smaller and smaller areas. In eastern Montana, where I’m from, 

the Little Belt Mountains are fast becoming the last best place to 

ride. The Montana Wilderness Association wants the Forest Service 

to close half of the mountain range along with north end of the 

Crazies and the Castles in the Travel Plan. 

We are again being asked to give up half of our remaining access 

and recreational opportunities. When we balk, we are accused of 

being selfish, unreasonable or unwilling to compromise. Remember 

that compromise only works when both parties have something to 

lose. In our case, we have given up half of—given up access to millions of acres of Montana back country closures and wilderness designations. 

The nonmotorized trail users, with the exception of mountain 

bikers, have nearly 100 percent access to every area. When an area 

is proposed for closure, we’re told to leave. When an area is left 

open, the nonmotorized user is asked only to share, only to tolerate 

status quo. We believe there comes a time when people need to understand the needs of others and be tolerant. People will have to 

share some areas. We believe the time has come for that. 

Another resource we need to be concerned about is our children’s 

future. It is said that our kids are our best export in Montana. 

That’s a sad statement. My daughter is a student here at the University of Montana. My son is in high school. They would love to 

stay in the Montana, but they don’t know that they can because 

they can’t make much money here. 

The reason they want to stay is because they enjoy the time that 

we spend as a family outdoor trail riding, fishing, hunting. As 

those sports become more restricted and difficult to do and access 

to public land becomes more restricted, their desire to make the financial sacrifice it takes to live in Montana evaporates. Our talented youth are losing their incentive to stay in Montana. Our population ages and our standard of living decreases. This is now truly 

a quality of life issue. 

There are also thousands of retired Montanans who have lived 

and worked their entire lives in Montana so they could enjoy the 

wonders the State has to offer. For many a trail bike and ATVer 

a snowmobile or four-by-four is the only way they can reach the 

back country. Again, access is a quality of life issue for our seniors 

and our physically challenged. 

Senator BURNS. Can you wrap up pretty quick? 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. EHNES. You bet. Is there a better way? Yes, activity management and strong partnerships. For example, in the Little Belt 

Mountains there is a truly world-class loop experience for trail 

users, motorized and nonmotorized. Groups like the Great Falls 

Trail Bike Riders, the Back Country Horsemen and the Treasure 

State ATV Association work hand in hand with the Forest Service 

to maintain that trail system. They’ve also acquired about a quarter million dollars in grants for on-the-ground work and education, 
26 

and we’re willing to do our part as a community. Thank you for 

your time. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSS EHNES

Thank you for this unique opportunity to testify today. My name is Russ Ehnes 

and I am the President of Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association. I am here to 

present my testimony today however I would like you to recognize that Citizens for 

Balanced Use, Families For Outdoor Recreation, Capital Trail Vehicle Association, 

and Montana Multiple Use Association also prepared high quality testimonies in 

their quest to represent the thousands of citizens across Region 1 that make up 

their memberships. Their plea is for you to recognize the discrimination and disparities in Region 1 Forest Service Management policies and for you to help by bring 

responsible, fair, reasonable and balanced management to Region 1. Jointly our only 

desire is to keep our public lands shared for all the public under the sustained multiple use mandate. 

Forest Planning is an important topic for the thousands of Montana families who 

enjoy Montana’s great outdoors on trail motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles, and fourwheel drive vehicles. There’s a sixty year tradition of OHV use in Montana. My kids 

are fourth generation trail motorcyclists and we have ridden snowmobiles since 

1964. OHV recreation and snowmobiling in the national Forests are more than 

something we do on the weekends. They’re the glue that bind our family together 

and are as important to our quality of life as any other form of recreation is to any 

other Montanan. OHV recreation is one of the fastest-growing forms of recreation. 

A recent study by the Forest Service Southern Research Station found that 29 percent of Montanans classify themselves as ‘‘participants’’ in OHV recreation, which 

does not even include snowmobilers. 

We also understand the potential for abuse and impacts that can result from 

unmanaged recreation of all kinds. When Chief Bosworth was the Regional Forester 

in Region 1, he recognized the value and legitimacy of OHV recreation and had the 

foresight to see that we needed sensible limits on what uses could be allowed with 

OHVs in largely unmanaged areas. He worked with the BLM to develop the 3-State 

OHV EIS. Nearly every OHV and multiple-use organization supports the rule. We 

also support the new Forest Service OHV Rule, which will result in a system of designated routes and areas for OHVs nationwide. 

I currently serve as the Executive Director of the National Off-Highway Vehicle 

Conservation Council, a nationwide non-profit educational organization dedicated 

partnering with the Forest Service and other agencies to find and share proven effective management techniques for managing OHV recreation. 

These management techniques allow the agencies to provide abundant, high-quality OHV recreation opportunities in ways that meets riders’ needs and expectations 

while preserving and protecting our natural resources and are the alternative to the 

‘‘ignore it or close it’’ management style that has prevailed for too many years. 

We’ve worked with the agencies for over ten years to promote OHV management 

workshops all across the nation with three workshops held Montana. 

Many of the District Rangers, Recreation Planners, and Resource Specialists participated in the Montana workshops and have learned these techniques and implemented them in many areas. However, it seems some Forest Supervisors have chosen not to implement best management practices for OHV management and ‘‘ignore 

it or close it.’’ Unfortunately the Proposed Forest Plans and Travel Plans we’re seeing are very heavy on the ‘‘close it’’ side. We’ve seen elk security cited as a common 

reason for closures yet the herds have been continually increasing in size and no 

peer-reviewed science to show justification of how the herds could benefit from travel restrictions. 

We as Americans expect that freedom means we are allowed liberty to enjoy public lands responsibly, without restrictions unless there is a valid reason identified 

that justifies restricted access over other management options. Instead we’re seeing 

proposals in Region 1 that close 40–60 percent of forests that have been open for 

OHV and snowmobile access. These extensive closures are a fundamental shift away 

from the freedom we expect in Montana and in the United States and is not in accord with the intent implicit in the 2001 OHV EIS. 

I’m disturbed by this new trend of designating ‘‘large blocks’’ of multiple-use areas 

as off-limits to motorized recreation and I think its being driven by several factors. 

First is the age-old battle waged between the preservationist community and the 

multiple-use community. I believe the multiple use community subscribes to the philosophy of Gifford Pinchot, the man who created the Forest Service. We believe we 
27 

can both use and enjoy our forests wisely, respectfully, and responsibly not only for 

recreation but also for clean water and other resources. The John Muir philosophy 

is a hands-off philosophy that resulted in the creation of the Wilderness system in 

our nation. We need both; but because there is majority consensus that you have 

already set aside enough as Wilderness, the people who promote more wilderness 

are changing the nomenclature of the debate. They are promoting ‘‘large blocks’’ of 

non-motorized ‘‘quiet areas,’’ particularly in inventoried roadless areas. With these 

areas closed to motorized users and all but off-limits to resource development, their 

end game is satisfied. They’ve achieved ‘‘Wilderness Light’’ and only have to contend 

with a few bicycles and the chain saws of the rarely deployed trail crew. We’re also 

seeing new designations like ‘‘Wildlands’’ which prohibit mechanical and motorized 

use in areas but are never recommended to congress as Wilderness. This is the very 

definition of ‘‘Wilderness Light.’’ All this is being achieved without the messy involvement of Congress, the body in which lies the sole People’s elected authority to 

establish Wilderness. 

The second reason I believe we’re seeing wholesale restrictions proposed is the 

Forest Service’s belief that it doesn’t have the budget to manage recreation. While 

I know that the agency is constantly being asked to do more with less, I believe 

there needs to be a fundamental shift in the way the agency views its primary job. 

Our Forests no longer provide large quantities of timber and minerals for our society. What they still provide is clean water and high quality recreation. Perhaps the 

budget priorities should reflect this change. The Chief has identified unmanaged 

recreation as one of the four threats. If this is one of the top priorities for the Forest 

Service, how much of its budget is devoted to it? While I have no doubt there is 

a challenge with budget amounts I also believe there’s a priority problem with how 

budgets are allocated. 

Why are we as a community so upset right now? Just as one example of what’s 

happening all over Montana, I can tell you that since my father began trail riding 

in the fifties he can no longer ride to Bighorn Lake or Heart Lake, which are now 

in the Scapegoat Wilderness. The trail he used to ride from Rogers Pass to Stemple 

Pass is closed for grizzly bear habitat, 70 percent of the Highwood Mountains are 

now closed, 90 percent of the Snowy Mountains are off limits, many trails along the 

Rocky Mountain Front are closed, many trails in the Big Belts are now closed, and 

the Rocky Mountain Front Travel Plan Record of Decision will likely close most or 

all of the trails in the Badger—Two Medicine and more trails along the Front. Yes, 

cumulative effects of past closures are real. The Forest Service seems to have a hard 

time quantifying this, but all you have to do is look at the maps from the past fifty 

years. 

The result of all these closures is that we’re pushed into smaller and smaller 

areas. In eastern Montana the Little Belt Mountains are fast becoming the ‘‘Last 

Best Place’’ to ride. The Montana Wilderness Association wants the Forest Service 

to close half of that along with the North end of the Crazies and Castles. We are 

again been asked to give up ‘‘half’’ of our remaining access and recreational opportunities. When we balk, we are accused of being selfish, unreasonable, or unwilling 

to compromise. Compromise only works when both parties have something to lose. 

In our case, we have given up access to millions of acres of Montana back-country 

to closures and Wilderness designations. The non-motorized trail users, with the exception of the mountain bike riders, have access to 100 percent of every area. When 

an area is proposed for closure, we are told to leave. When an area is left open, the 

non-motorized user is asked only to share; only to tolerate status quo. We believe 

there comes a time when people need to understand the needs of others and be tolerant. People will have to share some areas. I believe that time has come. 

Another resource we need to concern ourselves with is our children’s future. It’s 

said that our kids are Montana’s best export. That’s a sad statement. My daughter 

is a student at U of M and my son is in high school. They would like to stay in 

Montana, but they know they won’t make much money here. Why do they want to 

stay? Because they enjoy the time we spend outdoors trail riding, fishing, and hunting. As these sports become more difficult to participate in and access to public 

lands for recreation becomes more restricted, their desire to make the financial sacrifice it takes to stay here is evaporating. Our talented youth are losing their incentive to stay in Montana, our population ages, our standard of living decreases. This 

is now truly a quality-of-life issue. 

There are also thousands of retired Montanans who have lived and worked their 

entire lives in Montana so they can enjoy the wonders our state has to offer. For 

many, a trail bike, ATV, 4×4, or snowmobile is the only way they can reach the 

back-country. Again, access is a quality-of-life issue for our seniors and physically 

challenged. 
28 

Snowmobiling alone has a positive economic impact of over 40 million dollars in 

Montana. If the dealers, restaurants, hotels and other businesses in Gateway communities can’t make ends meet, it becomes a quality of life issue for them as well. 

Is there a better way? Yes, active management and strong partnerships. For Example, the Little Belt mountains offer a truly world-class loop trail experience for 

thousands of trail users, motorized and non-motorized. Groups like the Great Falls 

Trail Bike Riders Association, The Treasure State ATV Association, and the CM 

Russell Back Country Horsemen work side-by-side with the Forest Service to maintain an extensive trail system where encounters with other users are rare because 

the size of trail system disperses the uses. The GFTBRA has also worked with the 

Forest Service to secure nearly a quarter million dollars in trail improvement and 

educational grants. 

We as a community are ready and willing to do our part but it will require an 

agency with a strong determination to make recreation management and access for 

all Montana’s citizens a priority. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to express our views. 

Senator BURNS. You bet. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony. We’ve got Mike Hillis now, Ecosystem Research Group, 

EGR. Mike, thank you for coming today. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE HILLIS, SENIOR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, ECOSYSTEMS RESEARCH GROUP 

Mr. HILLIS. Thank you, Senator. I’m Mike Hillis, senior wildlife 

biologist with Ecosystems Research Group. Thanks for the opportunity. Ecosystems Research Group has reviewed five forest plans 

in three western States, two regions in the last 2 years. Our intent 

had been to apply the best science and economic analyses available 

with the sociopolitical climate for a given national forest. 

I’d like to share some of those findings from those five national 

forests. Let me start out with a little commonality to all five forests. They’re all in the west. They’re all droughting, strongly disturbance dependent in terms of being influenced by fire and insects 

and disease. All five forests are older and denser than they’ve ever 

been, historically, because of 80 years of fire suppression, in spite 

of modest to moderate levels of timber harvest in all five of those 

forests. 

Let me start out by identifying some things that seem to work 

pretty well in forest planning. If we go back to 1982 as a reference 

point, that’s when early forest plan drafts were first hitting the 

street. If we look at the science in terms of our understanding of 

disturbance ecology, light years better than it was 20 years ago. 

Our ability to monitor historic conditions as a reference point is 

wonderful. We finally have a wonderful data base in our assessment, which allows us both to make decisions and to monitor over 

time. 

As Chuck Keegan mentioned we’ve got demonstrated ability to 

use a variety of tools including commercial timber harvest, prescribed burning, thinning, and road restoration to restore landscapes. So we have got a lot of things going really well. 

If you look at the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, they provide very specific direction for things like wildlife and monitoring and so forth. 

There’s obviously some things that don’t work very well, as Dale 

Bosworth mentioned: Contention. It’s kind of an ugly time to be a 

forest planner. A lot of that contention is neither civil nor objective. 

When you look at NFMA and NEPA those laws are 29 and 36 

years old and were written during a period of very different values 
29 

of what public lands are. Today they’re enormously complex. 

They’re often out of proportion to the risk involved. 

Let me put that a different way: It shouldn’t cost a quarter million dollars to do an EIS to thin 100 acres of ponderosa pine 

upwind from a subdivision. Yet that’s how we’re spending taxpayer 

dollars before we even try to apply treatments on the ground. So 

you have to think about there’s some aspects of those legislations, 

those laws, that are broken. 

We’re in an economy of growing deficits and decreasing chance 

of dollars getting to the ground to do things. So if you’re a planner, 

you think of the contention, the high legal costs, the declining 

budgets, damn little incentive to push the envelope in terms of 

doing what needs to be done on the ground to reduce the fire severity, to reduce insect outbreaks, whatever. 

Giving you an example on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, in 1999 the 

forest completed a 700,000 acre landscape assessment in the Rock 

Creek Range, which was wonderful. They involved scientists, academia, managers, other agency personnel, local community people 

and determined from a science base and an economic base what 

was needed on that landscape to restore it. That included commercial thinning, some other types of timber harvest, prescribe burning, some road restoration, et cetera. 

Well, when they got to the forest plan, they included none of 

that. Why? Too contentious, money probably wouldn’t be there anyway, cost too damn much to do it. So you see things like that and 

you say something is broken. 

Just in general, of those five national forests, we’ve seen an unwillingness to apply the best science because it’s sometimes contentious, and so they bend the science a little bit to try to satisfy everybody; an unwillingness to use timber management as a tool to 

restore landscapes even when it’s cheaper and more effective; an 

unwillingness to identify what’s needed because the funding won’t 

be there. So again, you know, those are kind of common themes 

we’ve seen. 

In summary, if there’s four things that we think under the existing laws and regs and the new rule that Dale is talking about that 

we need in forest planning is No. 1, we need better direction and 

accountability from the Forest Service. 

When we look at national and regional direction for planning, 

pretty darn good. But when we start looking at it on the forest, it’s 

all across the board. Somebody mentioned that consistency needs 

to be a goal, and it’s not terribly consistent in terms of how we 

apply wildlife values by building strategies, how we apply economic 

models, how we apply various types of direction. 

No. 2, where ecologically and economically appropriate we need 

to use timber management as a tool to restore landscapes in the 

West. Our forests are disturbance dependent. They’re getting older. 

They’re getting denser across the board. We’re not going to get 

there with prescribed burning alone or wildlife value unless we can 

also use timber management where appropriate. 

No. 3, we need to maintain working landscapes. If you think of 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge as an example, the wildlife values, the 

visual values are not just limited to national forest lands. We may 

think that national forest lands are a key. Those lands are inte-
30 

grated through ranchers, through corporate timber lands, through 

industry and communities. Unless we look at the impacts on all 

those lands together, we’re not going to maintain a lot of those values. 

Last we need to apply the best science, period. It’s fine to make 

trade-offs for socioeconomic values. But science needs to stand 

alone, and we should not compromise that to avoid contention. We 

are going to have contention anyway. We need to let the science 

stand alone. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So again, in summary, having better accountability, placing 

greater emphasis on using timber management as a tool for restoration, placing greater emphasis on maintaining working landscapes on those large scales and anchoring to the science are those 

things we feel are needed to improve the planning process. Thank 

you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HILLIS

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the committee. We have 

organized both written and verbal comments around three basic issues: (1) what is 

good about forest planning on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands, (2) those planning 

functions that are broken or don’t work well, and (3) what kind of solutions we can 

bring to the table to improve public land planning through the revision process 

under the new National Forest Management Act (NFMA) planning regulations. By 

necessity, our comments will be critical to some degree. However, please keep in 

mind that we are here to be productive and to help develop ways to improve USFS 

planning functions. 

Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) is a Montana-based consulting company providing an array of environmental analyses and services throughout the western 

United States. Our company is composed of environmental scientists, engineers, hydrologists, foresters, ecologists, fisheries and wildlife biologists, economists, and 

modeling and Geographic Information System (GIS) specialists. We have worked for 

several federal, state, and local units of government as well as law firms and industry, concentrating on science-based research and solutions to characterize and resolve environmental issues. As a company, we have worked on five forest plan revisions in three states, including two for which we developed entire forest plan alternatives. 

This hearing focuses on forest planning and forest plan revisions. While everyone 

still is getting up to speed with the new regulations, the 1982 regulations are being 

phased out. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF) Forest Plan Revision is being conducted under the 1982 planning rules. Most of the examples we discuss will come from the BDNF planning process. 

CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD GUIDE FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS

Since initial forest plans were drafted in the early 1980s, our understanding of 

forest science has vastly improved. Scientists have made huge gains in understanding how natural disturbances such as wildfire and insects have shaped forests 

in the West. Also, scientists and managers have an improved understanding of how 

human actions like fire suppression have changed the structure and resiliency of 

forests to fires and insects (Hartwell et al., 1999). 

On a majority of national forests, fire ecologists have modeled and/or mapped historical disturbances (Losensky, 1995). This has allowed resource managers to identify the Historic Range of Variability (HRV), which provides an important reference 

point to past conditions. Average conditions of the past aren’t necessarily attainable 

or even desirable given today’s social demands. Understanding HRV, however, does 

provide us with a template for retaining or restoring representative elements of historic forests. This is a key element to ensuring long-term species viability and is 

comparable to Aldo Leopold’s sage advice of 70 years ago: ‘‘The key to successful tinkering is to keep all the pieces.’’ 
31 

Another factor that has changed since the early 1980s, is that the national forests 

have developed proven and predictable techniques for reintroducing disturbances to 

restore historic conditions. For instance, techniques using selective logging followed 

by prescribed burning to restore old growth ponderosa pine are well-documented in 

the literature (Hillis et al., 2000). Also, the scale at which forest restoration is performed has completely changed. Vegetative treatments are now designed with consideration of the extent of past wildfires and insect outbreaks, to help form the 

shape and size of projects. The result is that new projects retain a more natural 

mix of edge and interior forest, a factor critical to protecting many wildlife species. 

Such landscape-scale treatments also look more natural, a factor that has substantial social value, and are less expensive to treat, a factor that may allow the treatment of more acres with increasingly limited dollars. 

Much of the contention over forest plans and vegetative treatment projects has 

focused on wildlife impacts: During the early 1980s, analyses on wildlife effects were 

largely based on individual species. As a result of limited research, such single-species analyses were always insufficient in satisfying species viability concerns. Today, 

biologists use a coarse filter strategy (Samson et al., 2004) incorporating broad-scale 

data and an understanding of disturbance ecology and historic conditions to identify 

habitats that have declined or are at-risk, and focus the assessment on species dependent upon those habitats. This method substantially improves the efficiency of 

analyses by identifying and focusing on those species that are actually at-risk and 

by not wasting analysis on species that aren’t at-risk. 

Lastly, the USFS has electronic analysis tools that were unheard of in the early 

1980s. The USFS has the ability to map various forest resources using GIS based 

on satellite imagery or other forest data. Such maps allow managers and the public 

to visualize the spatial arrangement of a multitude of forest resources, from goshawk nesting habitat to stands at risk from insect outbreaks. These tools vastly improve the ability of the Forest Service to analyze and disclose effects. 

PAST EVENTS AND CURRENT CONDITIONS IMPEDING FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS

The previous discussion concerning all the excellent tools available to managers 

suggests that (1) planning at both forest and project levels should be inexpensive, 

(2) decisions should be defensible against appeals and litigation, and (3) decisions 

should have wide public support. Obviously, that’s not the case. So, what has gone 

wrong, and what factors impede the agency’s ability to do more efficient and defensible planning? 

The laws that regulate Forest Service planning are the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the NFMA of 1976. NEPA and NFMA have had 

some very positive impacts on the planning process, including the following: (1) they 

brought the public into the decision process, (2) they made the planning process 

transparent, (3) they made the agency accountable, (4) they established a legitimate 

role for wildlife and other resources, and (5) they mandated monitoring to ensure 

that project outcomes matched project expectations. 

If there’s a shortcoming in NEPA and NFMA, it’s that those laws are very, very 

complex, expensive to administer, and difficult to meet. Because of that complexity, 

those laws are very easy to challenge. Special interest environmental groups have 

become extremely proficient in demonstrating that many USFS projects do not comply with the minutia of NEPA or NFMA. Think of it this way—a project that is 99 

percent in compliance with NEPA or NFMA will still lose in court, regardless of its 

merits. 

Another shortfall in NEPA or NFMA is that the requirements are often out of proportion to the risk when conducting some simple, routine ‘‘no-brainer’’ projects. For 

instance, a recent project in Missoula’s Wildland Urban Interface involved thinning 

approximately 260 acres of ponderosa pine. The stand had not burned in 85 years 

and was within a landscape that historically burned every 15 years. The stand 

stocking was roughly three times what the stand could support and was at extreme 

risk to insect outbreaks and/or severe wildfire. Furthermore, it was adjacent to and 

upwind of a high-density housing area. The science and economic analysis indicated 

that commercial thinning followed by prescribed burning could restore the stand 

and protect homes in the area. Unfortunately, NEPA and NFMA requirements mandate a costly analysis and monitoring plan to ensure that such projects can survive 

court challenges. In this case, the project was litigated and upheld by the courts. 

Unfortunately, the cost to taxpayers was many times greater than it should have 

been, based on the project’s simplicity. Clearly some aspects of NEPA and NFMA 

need adjustments to make planning decisions more efficient and less costly to taxpayers. 
32 

During our review of the last four Forest Plans in South Dakota, Wyoming, and 

Montana, ERG staff have identified an unsettling pattern in forest planning. Here’s 

what we’ve observed: (1) Forest Planning Teams typically evaluate the disturbance 

ecology and objectively calculate the levels of disturbance needed via logging and/ 

or prescribed burning to sustain healthy forests; (2) then, they compare that level 

of disturbance either against what budget levels they have received or are likely to 

receive in the future or against the amount of contention they expect from the environmental community; and (3) they do one of two things—they artificially limit the 

alternatives to what they expect will be, funded, or they reduce the outputs to a 

level that they subjectively feel won’t warrant a challenge from environmental 

groups. In two of the four forest plans reviewed by ERG, the Forests then ‘‘bent’’ 

or deliberately misinterpreted the science to justify why such a reduction in outputs 

was scientifically justified. 

ERG understands the approach taken by planning teams. The teams are aware 

that, regardless of how much treatment is needed, the money required won’t be 

forthcoming. They are also aware that the NEPA and NFMA litigation costs will 

likely exceed the expected project benefits, and regardless of what they do, they’ll 

be in a constant battle with the environmental community. Modern forest planning 

is not an easy task. 

SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THE BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST

ERG’s review of the BDNF Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and 

Draft Forest Plan had similar findings to the four other national forests plans we 

critiqued: 

1. The BDNF can be characterized as having outstanding wilderness and roadless 

areas, blue ribbon trout fishing streams, and some of the best elk hunting in the 

country. Categorically, the BDNF is not a ‘‘big timber forest’’ like the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. 

2. The Forest’s ecological analysis showed that the BDNF timber stands have 

been strongly influenced by wildfires and insect outbreaks. That analysis also concluded that those stands are older and denser than they were historically, and are 

substantially more at risk of higher-than-normal levels of severe fires and insect 

outbreaks. These changes are the result of fire suppression. Timber harvest did not 

occur at a scale great enough to offset the impacts of fire suppression. 

3. To put that finding in context, the 1986–1987 Beaverhead and Deerlodge plans 

allowed for –36 MMBF (million board feet) of timber harvest per year, albeit substantially less harvest than actually was accomplished. Also, under the old Plan, the 

Forest has carried out some prescribed burning, mostly on non-forested sites. While 

that seems like a moderate amount of disturbance, the Forest’s stands have continued to get older, denser, and are more at risk to higher-than-normal levels of severe 

fires and insect outbreaks. As a result, we expected that at least one alternative in 

the DEIS would have be designed to introduce enough logging and prescribed burning to reduce age class and stand densities to historic levels. No such alternative 

was presented. 

4. Instead, the ‘‘expected output’’ (that amount of timber expected to be sold per 

year) was disclosed by the five alternatives as 9, 9, 0.5, 15.7, and 9 MMBF. That’s 

a 75 percent reduction from the 1986 Plan’s timber output, and an inadequate range 

of alternatives as mandated by NEPA. The current range of alternatives appear to 

violate NFMA by being in direct conflict with Section 219.12(e), which states in 

part, ‘‘As a minimum [emphasis ours], the analysis of the management situation 

shall include the following: (1) Benchmark analyses to define the range within 

which alternatives can be constructed. Budgets shall not be a constraint [emphasis 

ours].’’ More importantly, those anticipated levels of disturbance come nowhere close 

to what is needed to keep forests from further aging, and succumbing to increasingly severe fires and insect outbreaks. The 9 MMBF figure used in three of the 

five alternatives was cited as the harvest volume best representing the timber that 

could be sold, based upon the dollars likely available to do the necessary NEPA 

analyses, timber sale contracts, and administration. Thus, the 9 MMBF was used 

as a budget-driven constraint, although it had nothing to do with modeled vegetation management needs. 

5. Management ignited fire (prescribed burning) and wildland fire use (wildfires 

that are allowed to burn when conditions are within a pre-established set of prescriptions) are disclosed in the DEIS as the management actions that will keep forests healthy, improve age class diversity, restore stands of aspen, sustain big game 

winter ranges, and reduce the severity of wildfires and insect outbreaks. We question the social and economic reality of this approach. Monies for performing prescribed burning planning and ignition have been no more abundant than timber 
33 

preparation dollars. To the BDNF’s credit, USFS staff has completed much needed 

prescribed burning on grasslands, in grass/shrublands, and within open, Douglasfir communities. Most of the BDNF’s stands, however, are dense, lodgepole pine. 

Lodgepole pine forests only bum under fairly volatile conditions. If the BDNF is serious about its intent to utilize prescribed burning to recruit aspen and achieve better age class diversity from within lodgepole pine forests, Forest staff would be igniting lodgepole pine forests on a windy, 80 degree September day. This is not a 

likely or reasonable scenario. To assume that wildfires could be allowed to burn 

under ‘‘wildland fire use’’ is equally unlikely. The harsh reality of this strategy is 

that budgets for prescribed burning project design and ignition have remained flat, 

just like timber preparation budgets. Additionally, the agency has shown no willingness to allow managers to take substantial risks during burning. In fact, the opposite is true. Recent litigation has reduced the agency’s willingness to take risks during prescribed burning. In summary, the DEIS’s reliance on burning can best be described as ‘‘wishful thinking.’’ 

6. Prior to Forest Plan revision, the BDNF conducted landscape-scale analyses for 

all major watersheds under the agency’s direction to conduct ‘‘watershed analyses 

at the landscape scale’’ (EWAS). Those EWAS analyses not only were based on an 

excellent understanding of the disturbance ecology, but also recognized the social 

values specific to each landscape. Amazingly, the DEIS largely ignored those findings. Restoration treatments recommended in Rock Creek were discounted as being 

‘‘too controversial.’’ Treatments recommended in other landscapes were disregarded 

as they were above and beyond the anticipated timber preparation budgets. 

7. The BDNF has failed to address the local economic effects of substantially reducing the acreage of suitable timber. Also lacking are the economic cost tradeoffs 

of suppressing increasingly large and intensive wildfires resulting from denser and 

older forests. 

8. Private lands and local communities are increasingly at risk from catastrophic 

wildfire; this risk stems from a management philosophy that relies dominantly on 

fire as the principle disturbance tool, up to the Forest boundary, in some cases. 

HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOREST PLANNING?

1. Anchor to Science 

Sound science will provide a strong and defensible rationale for accounting for the 

needs of the Forest, its diversity and structure, and the dynamics necessary to keep 

the forest within its HRV. Once science has characterized the forest, social and economic goals and realities can necessarily influence how the Forest will be managed 

to achieve ecosystem objectives. 

2. Maintain Working Landscapes 

Always manage the Forest in the context of larger working landscapes. In many 

cases, the Forest has a narrow range of habitat variability compared to the larger 

landscape. Holistic decisions regarding the Forest will positively affect the future of 

adjacent lands that leverage the natural resource values of a larger ecosystem. Conservation biologists are increasingly voicing their concern that conversion of private 

open lands is especially significant in reducing indigenous biodiversity (Knight, 

1999). The USFS forest planning process must give great consideration and evaluation to what positive and negative impacts these plans have on adjacent communities and their human ecosystems. At the 2003 National Society for Range Management meeting, a USFS employee wrote, ‘‘The emphasis of local ranches that hold 

public land grazing permits has changed over time from a locally dependant livestock industry to important sources of open space and habitat to maintain biological 

diversity in the rapidly developing mountain West’’ (Bradford, 2003). 

Forests that maintain both a flow of economically important goods and opportunities result in vibrant local communities. Stewardship contracting can improve the 

benefits to local communities while providing a funding mechanism to accomplish 

projects. A complete economic assessment of tradeoffs in management alternatives, 

such as funding an active timber management program compared to fighting larger 

and more intense wildfires, can be the basis of minimizing taxpayer costs. As demand among competing and often diverse interests for scarce forest resources rises, 

land managers are required to justify how such resources are allocated and to whom 

costs and benefits will accrue. For example, in the case of roadless area designations 

vs. timber allocation, the Forest Service is required to decide upon mutually exclusive outcomes. In both cases, social, economic, and ecological ramifications will result in an array of costs and benefits over time. Determining the most optimal solution, based on a well-defined set of objectives, necessitates understanding the rela-
34 

tionship between resources, total costs and benefits, opportunity costs of making 

such decisions, and a profound understanding of how resources are affected. 

Economic analysis provides an objective approach to help land managers make effective decisions about resource allocation, regardless of land management objectives. Such analysis is essential to making decisions and, moreover, justifying those 

decisions to community groups. Economic analysis can be used to provide the following: 

Systematic and objective analysis of economic effects on industry and communities; 

Market values and revenue potential for forest products and non-timber forest 

products (NTFPs); 

Supply and demand analysis of markets; 

Opportunity costs used to evaluate tradeoffs among objectives, and, more importantly, the value of USFS planning alternatives; 

Values of non-market goods and services, including wildlife, recreation, old growth 

forests, and wilderness areas; and 

Long-term assessment of fire management programs, including risk and expected 

outcomes. 

3. Focus on Landscape-Scale Treatments and Forest Restoration 

Past vegetation projects have often created fragmentation and excess roads that 

resulted from small patches connected by permanent roads. Science has documented 

that disturbance in many of the dominant tree cover types common to Montana occurred in large, infrequent events. Future projects should mimic the scale and intensity of disturbances that the forest has incurred historically. Returning to old treatment areas to restore naturally-sized patches and subsequently reducing unnecessary roads can be economically viable and beneficial to ecosystem restoration goals. 

Such reentries, driven by vegetative restoration, can fund other needed restoration 

activity that otherwise would be dependent on appropriated funding. Future projects 

should be designed to mimic natural patch sizes, minimize new permanent roads 

and be implemented at the landscape scale. 

4. Provide Strong National Planning Leadership 

Implementation of Forest Plans has been stifled by legal challenges by a minority. 

Such challenges are often successful because of inadequate Forest Plan analysis or 

documentation. Projects designed to implement Forest Plans are impeded by tiering 

off of inadequate Plans. The National and Regional offices can assist the Forests by 

providing strong, legally defensible direction regarding NEPA, NFMA, and Threatened and Endangered and Sensitive species that utilizes the expertise and experience of the Office of General Counsel. Emphasis should be on avoiding fatal flaws 

that provide the basis for successful legal challenges to Forest Plan implementation. 

SOME COMMON INFORMATION WE NEED TO CONSIDER: 

As a result of nearly a century of fire exclusion, and timber harvests that have 

not kept up with growth, forests are generally older and denser than they were in 

the past. 

In addition, long-term drought and global warming make inevitable wildfires and 

insect outbreaks occur at larger-than-normal and of higher-severity-than-normal levels. 

Aggressive management to reduce forest stocking can soften but not avoid those 

events. 

The United States suffers from a severe trade imbalance. In the 1970s the United 

States was a timber exporter. Currently, the United States is a timber importer. 

Thus, we import timber from countries with poor environmental standards, while 

watching our own timber die from wildfires or insects, and then we make little effort to salvage the value from those dead trees. The logic escapes us! 

Senator BURNS. Thank you. You and I need to have a cup of coffee. You’ve done some great work down there. As we end up the 

formal part of the witnesses today, I’ve got a couple of questions 

I want to ask. I’ll start with you, Mike. 

Back in the early 1990s we started to look at the new technologies that were coming down as far as telecommunications were 

concerned. There was a technology out there called digital, and we 

were trying to deal with all these new things happening, not only 

in communications but in information services and this type of 
35 

thing, and trying to deal with them with a 1935 law. I think I 

made a speech where digital is going to take away our ability to 

delineate or to tell the difference or any characteristics whether it’s 

AM or FM radio, whether it’s data voice or video or anything like 

that, but we will be talking about that band width. 

Are we talking about something simpler by your statement today 

as far as when we look at the National Forest Management Act 

and NEPA? Are we looking at something that’s 25 and 30 years old 

that maybe should be looked at again because we’re trying to deal 

with today’s challenges with a law that’s not outlasted its usefulness but has to be changed to deal with the times? 

Mr. HILLIS. Let me start by saying that I think there’s aspects 

of NEPA and NFMA that are wonderful: Public involvement, mandated values for scenery and wildlife and things like that. But keep 

in mind that those laws were written when the goal of timber harvest was to optimize timber yield for communities, period. Okay, 

that’s, 29 and 36 years old. 

Today timber harvest is done under three basic principles: It’s 

done to mimic historic disturbances whether that be fire or insects 

or whatever. It’s done to mimic the scale at which those disturbances occur, so that it looks pretty good. It makes more money. It’s 

cheaper, and it’s done largely with less reliance on permanent 

roads. So basically, the whole game plan has changed in terms of 

how we use science, how we use social values and economic values 

to adjust all of that. 

I’d say don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Keep those 

aspects that make good sense, but recognize that the game has 

changed, and there are aspects that make much better sense today. 

If we can recognize the past and that’s part of our history, but also 

recognize where we need to go using the best science, maybe we 

can get past some of this angst that we all feel. 

Senator BURNS. I agree with you, you don’t throw the baby out 

with the bath water. The other day we threw the baby out and 

kept the bath water. Congress has a habit of doing some of those 

kinds of things. We operate in 17 square miles of logic-free environment. We have quite a challenge. 

Chief, the reason I brought up the Beaverhead-Deerlodge is because of the drastic changes of the ASQ and the wilderness designation, and down there that you’re going through the process now 

that whenever you have moves like that, that’s a huge move. 

What’s the problem there? Are we using a different kind of method to analyze how we select what should be designated as timber 

harvest or wilderness or whatever? Or, did we change in the middle of the process to where these numbers would be drastically 

changed? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I think in some degree we’re comparing apples 

with oranges. The old plan had an allowable sale quantity of approximately 43 million board feet, something like that. Throughout 

the life that’s an upper limit. You get an allowable sale quantity 

and there’s an upper limit for all the forest plans. 

The last several years the average timber harvest on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge was in the vicinity of 9, 10, 15 million board feet, 

somewhere in that vicinity. 
36 

Under their proposed plan, they would still be offering approximately that amount, that number would not be an upper limit. 

That number would take into consideration the needs of the land, 

the expected budgets, the amount of land where timber harvest 

would be needed. There wouldn’t be anything that would prevent 

an increase in that amount other than budgets. 

So what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to come out with 

a forest plan that would explain to people how much timber they 

would expect over the next several years, taking all these things 

into account that they would be offering, and that number is in the 

vicinity of 9 to 10 million board feet again, comparing that with the 

43 million would be comparing it with a different number. 

Senator BURNS. In other words, are you trying to tell me that 

even though we’re recommending this lower number, that does not 

create a ceiling on how much timber will be available? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. That number is not an allowable sale quantity 

number. An allowable quantity sale number is the ceiling. 

Senator BURNS. It’s just like if you designate so many acres, 

though, that we manage as wilderness, are you saying there could 

be less or could be more? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I think under the proposed plan there’s an increased recommendation for wilderness, approximately—I think 

the number is about 6.5 percent of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest right now is in wilderness. Under this proposed plan 

I believe it would move up to about 13 percent of the total forest 

in wilderness under that recommendation. 

Again, they just went through a process for public comments. 

They’ve got a significant number of comments. Now, we’re going to 

evaluate those comments, and we’ll be making some adjustments 

to that proposed forest plan. So that’s how we try to work this to 

make sure we hear what people are saying, come out with something that people can get their teeth into and give us their comments, and we’ll make some adjustments. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Anderson, you’re a part of a coalition of lumber companies that are concerned about the Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

forest down there, and I think you went as far as you hired a private consultant to review the Forest Services’ work; is that correct? 

Mr. ANDERSON. That’s correct. 

Senator BURNS. Did you get that report? Have you had that report yet? 

Mr. ANDERSON. We have received it, yes. 

Senator BURNS. Can you give us some kind of an idea of what 

that report looks like? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I covered parts of it in my testimony and, of 

course, my written testimony covers it in more depth. But some of 

the facets that have been discussed here already, and that is the 

ASQ, are not addressed in the proposed plan. So from a timber 

company standpoint, what do we have to look forward to? 

In listening to John, I was kind of throwing some numbers together in my head, because he’s saying that they have 4 percent 

of the national forest. I’m saying that we get 4 percent, so I’m not 

sure where the other 92 percent is going. I was kind of gratified 

when Russ said they got 40 percent. All we got to find is another 

50 some percent. 
37 

But at any rate, back to your question. What we found, of course, 

were numerous things in the plan that were just riddle full of holes 

so to speak. We submitted our comments, and we’re hoping that 

they take those into consideration seriously and look at revising 

their plan to what we feel makes more sense. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Keegan, I have to ask you a question. As a 

Forest Service, have they put enough sales just to kind of keep up 

with the mortality that we have in the rate share in Montana? 

Mr. KEEGAN. Senator, I don’t have the State inventory figures 

with me today, but certainly—— 

Senator BURNS. Do you have those figures somewhere? 

Mr. KEEGAN. I do have those figures. I can provide them. I can 

provide them to you for the State of Montana. I guess I will be glad 

to talk to the Region 1 Forest Service folks and discuss that. 

It’s clear from the State level inventory that, at least there is an 

excess of—and the Chief can agree or disagree if he has different 

information—but it’s clear that that’s an excess of growth over removals and very high levels of mortality on national forest lands 

in Montana. 

Senator BURNS. Whenever you look—when you’re coming over 

Homestake Pass and you look off to your left, if you’re going toward 

Butte, and you see all of that bug kill out there, I think that’s what 

gets my notice more than anything else. Is there a way we can deal 

with pine bark beetle, Chief? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. There’s lots of ways to deal with pine bark beetles. One is to get out ahead of it and make sure that we’ve got 

the right stocking so that when bark beetles attack, the trees are 

more resilient to bark beetles. Remember now that bark beetles are 

a natural, native insect. It’s just that they’re reacting in an unnatural condition, which is too many trees. We have a number of 

acres in the State as well as around the West that are attacked by 

bark beetle. 

There again, we have tools that we can use. The problem isn’t 

the science. The problem is being able to get out and get the job 

done and withstand all of the appeals and the litigation and finally 

being able to do that. 

Senator BURNS. John, you know, you kind of work on the other 

side of this thing and you see what’s happening out there. How 

would you deal with this pine bark beetle? 

Mr. GATCHELL. Well, the Butte District had a sale that we supported through that very area that you’re talking about. It’s difficult, so we’ve been supportive of dealing with that. Part of it, I 

think, is being able to look across this landscape and start building 

some new partnerships that allow us to be supportive of projects 

like that, so that there isn’t as much process involved, so that we 

have some clarity about the fact that some of these lands are going 

to be managed for timber values and the forests are just going to 

move in that—— 

Senator BURNS. But how would you deal with that bug, that’s 

what I’m asking. 

Mr. GATCHELL. Tie them up actually and use them in the North 

Fork for cutthroats; they’re pretty good. 

Senator BURNS. Specifically, if we get the science out here and 

the Chief has the tools to deal with pine bark beetles—and I think 
38 

we’re in a crisis in this forest. You drive up here in northwestern 

Montana, up in the Yak, and it’s terrible. If they’ve got the tools— 

and it’s my understanding the only way you deal with the pine 

bark beetle—now granted, we had an increase in pine bark because 

we had drought. I understand they had sick trees, that’s been 

stretched. The only way we’ve got to deal with that bug is get those 

trees out of there. Do you support that? 

Mr. GATCHELL. Do I support cutting trees? We have supported 

numerous projects that involve doing that. I think there’s also a climate factor. If you look at the science, you’ll see that the warmer 

winters are really having a big affect, that’s one of the reasons 

you’re seeing so much of this. 

Senator BURNS. What we’ve got to do is deal with the affect, and 

I don’t want to deal with the symptom. I want to deal with the bug. 

To resolve that, what I’m asking these two communities together 

is to come together in some way. He has the tools and recommendations and of a way to deal with it, then I think that’s 

where we really need you to intervene with the Forest Service to 

make sure it gets done. 

Mr. GATCHELL. May I speak to that, Senator? An example was 

a project actually in Rock Creek, there was some discussion with 

Rock Creek. I understand from the district ranger she’s offering a 

contract now on a sale that involves thinning without building 

roads and included four inventoried roadless areas. We’re hoping to 

help showcase that as a model of what could be done to deal with 

situations where you’ve got crowded trees from fire suppression, 

and we did intervene with the Forest Service. 

Senator BURNS. I’m a great believer, you know, God does a pretty 

good job, as a rule, of running and taking care of his acres out 

there, but every now and again he needs a little help. We have this 

lawsuit over categorical exclusions that shutdown a lot of things 

going on. Can you give us an idea, Chief, on the use of categorical 

exclusions by the Forest Service and how that’s impacted you on 

forest stewardship and what you want to do as far as forest health 

is concerned. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. It’s a significant impact. We use categorical exclusions in places where we’ve gone out and developed a rule and 

projects we believe will have a minimum amount of affect on the 

environment. The purpose is to be able to make quick decisions and 

get out and move with those. 

Under that decision, under that court decision, we have to go 

back out with those comments and appeal for those very small 

projects, that adds probably 130 to 135 days to the process, something like that. Ninety projects in Montana would be affected by 

that. 

That means in some cases that the project will never happen, because it just takes longer, and it also takes more documentation, 

a bigger file, that takes peoples’ time to get all that documentation 

in place to deal with the appeals. So you end up with a number 

of projects that either don’t get done, or by the time they do get 

done, the insects have moved much further. 

In some cases the delay of 130 days may be more like a 6-month 

delay because you go through the winter and you can’t get back out 
39 

there until the springtime. So there’s a variety of effects that are 

caused. 

I’d like to add just one thing that Mike Hillis was talking about 

a little bit, and it has to do with the overall NEPA and NFMA, as 

he was saying, that these were developed in a different time. They 

were developed during a period when we in the Forest Service were 

focusing on extraction of natural resources, and those laws were established to either mitigate for those effects or to slow down the extraction process. 

Today we’re in an era of restoration, trying to restore these ecosystems. The very same laws that slowed down the extraction slow 

down the restoration process. In many cases, we don’t get the restoration work done that we need to have out on the land. 

Even though we work in a collaborative approach today, organizations like Montana Wilderness Association will work with us as 

well as the timber industry and in many cases come up with a proposal, but we still get litigated by other organizations. So even 

though many of us can work together, we still go through litigation 

and don’t get these things done. 

Senator BURNS. Well, I’m glad we have both of you on the advisory committee when we start revising and reforming these two 

acts. But I agree with you. I agree with you. I don’t know exactly 

how we should approach that, but you know, it’s a funny thing 

about law, and it’s a funny thing about policy, it’s a double bladed 

axe. It cuts both ways. Some way or other we’ve got to get by that 

it just seems like to me and to work hard on that. 

Mr. Keegan, I had another question for you, and I lost it. Did you 

want to make a comment on those laws? That would be kind of interesting. 

Mr. KEEGAN. What I will comment on is a concern that Dr. Carl 

Fiedler from the College of Forestry and Conservation and I have 

had in our work. Most of the work that we’ve done on restoration, 

that I have done on the financial end of it—the economic end, has 

come from Dr. Carl Fiedler, and it echoes a lot of what we have 

seen and heard here today. And that is, there is a great opportunity out there both with forest conditions to generate dollars to 

pay for the improvement of those forest conditions and generate 

employment, but that’s not being taken advantage of because there 

are certain individuals, and limited number of individuals and 

groups that will oppose any project that produces a commercial 

product. 

Many of the prescriptions to deal with these forest conditions by 

necessity require removing material that has commercial value, 8 

to 20 inch diameter douglas fir trees, for example, that pay for the 

prescription. 

So that offers a great opportunity not only to do more treatments 

and generate revenue but generate employment. But there are 

groups that are litigating virtually every project that has a commercial output and either stopping the project or causing some of 

the modifications in projects to eliminate projects and make them 

actually less effective because they are not doing a full comprehensive prescription. 

Senator BURNS. Russ, it just seems like to me when we looked 

at all the forests in restricting motorized travel in some areas that 
40 

some of your roads were shut down. They’re trying to compact or 

concentrate motorized travel in some areas where I think it would 

probably have more damage and ecological damage to the land 

than if it’s spread over a large area. Is that a wrong assumption? 

Mr. EHNES. No, actually that’s exactly true. Dispersing recreation is definitely the key to sustaining, along with active management. But just concentrating those uses into smaller and smaller 

areas certainly concentrates those impacts as well. 

Erosion or damage to trails is like pollution in that the solution 

to pollution is dilution. That is also true with use, spread the impacts over a wider area. 

Senator BURNS. How do you make those decisions, Chief, on 

these motorized things? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, the—— 

Senator BURNS. I tell you what. The reason I ask you that, as 

you move from forest to forest and even ranger station to ranger 

station, different methodologies are used to make a decision. How 

do we standardize that to get some consistency when we start the 

debate on motorized versus no motorized? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, for one thing we just recently came up with 

the final rule for travel management. That’s part of the purpose of 

that rule, was to have more consistency around the whole country 

in terms of the way we approach travel planning and off-road vehicle use. 

This rule will be in effect in December, here in a couple of weeks. 

I can’t remember the exact date. The expectation is that the forests 

now will be working with the community of interest to designate 

which roads and trails are appropriate for motorized vehicle use. 

Of course, that would be within the context of forest plans. It’s a 

great collaborative approach. 

What we really want to have is a series—system of roads and 

trails where people with motorized vehicle recreation desires can go 

out and have a good experience. We also want to have it so that 

the land is in good condition, so that the next generation of people 

can also go out and have similar kinds of experiences. 

So now it’s a hard job for the forest at the local level working 

with the motorized user community as well as the environmental 

community or the folks that prefer to backpack and work together 

and figure out which trails and which roads—or which new ones 

we should be putting in. 

We don’t have a lot of dollars for adding new trails, but we have 

a lot of partnerships. The motorized vehicle community is very willing to try to help us even constructing and maintaining roads and 

trails for motorized use. 

I think once we get it figured out, trying to find that balance of 

where we can have those motorized roads and trails, I think that 

we’ll be able to sustain that, and we can provide the kind of experience that people would like to have. 

Senator BURNS. I’m just afraid if you concentrate, you keep closing up and you keep concentrating, your impact on that land will 

be much greater than if we were more dispersed. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. There’s no question that if you limit, significantly limit, the number of places where people can go—if you had 
41 

one trail for all the users, then we’ve got one trail that would just 

get beat to heck. 

If you have 10 trails then they’re probably going to have only 10 

percent of the use on each individual trail. So we do need to have 

an adequate system of trails for people to go. We also need to have 

an adequate system of trails for people who don’t use motorized vehicles, that like too backpack, for them to go. It’s making sure we 

have the right balance out there for people to have that opportunity. 

Senator BURNS. Concentrating that you have to start putting up 

traffic lights. Do you need some more money? Are you requesting 

more money to manage your recreation resources in the national 

forests? Have we had a switch in the request of funds as you go 

through this process of forest products, recreation? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We’re—with the—— 

Senator BURNS. Let’s find out what to look for here in this next 

request. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I’ll take a hard look at it, because under this 

budget climate the conditions, as you well know, dollars are difficult right now. We are trying to find more creative ways of being 

able to get the dollars to do the job. 

When I say creative ways, we would use other kinds of dollars 

appropriated, like some wildlife habitat dollars, watershed improvement dollars to help us figure out which road and trails in 

that system, because it doesn’t all come from recreation dollars, 

that’s what I’m saying. 

By doing a good job of management you improve the water quality, improve the habitat for wildlife by controlling and managing 

and having a good adequate system. So the answer to that is we’re 

trying to find other ways to be able to—as well as working in partnership—to be able to do the job that needs to be done for travel 

management. 

Senator BURNS. Do you want to respond to that, John? You look 

like you’ve picked up a little interest here. 

Mr. GATCHELL. Thank you, Senator. Two things: One is that 

when it comes to weeds and user impact, user conflicts, conflicts 

with traditional uses not only backpackers, hikers but people on 

horse back—and I will give you the science on this, of Montana 

trail users spreading impacts over a larger area is not a good solution. I do agree with Russ that we need sensible limits. We need 

responsible limits and good management. 

But spreading those into larger areas that have traditionally not 

been motorized use areas, where we have foot and horse trails, 

would be very destructive for other uses and other issues. 

Second, I think that as we look at budgets, it just kind of hits 

you over the head that the Forest Service is not budgeted to maintain a fraction of the road system that’s been built, that we have 

new technologies today. 

One of the answers here is to start thinking—and we supported 

a bill several years ago—believe it or not, we supported a bill by 

the Trail Vehicle Riders that gave the forest supervisor authority 

to allow vehicles on Forest Service roads. 

All-terrain vehicles never belonged on our pack and saddle trails. 

They don’t fit on them. They’re not a traditional or historic use. We 
42 

supported that bill because we do agree that they should have 

somewhere to go. 

I think that you might think about funding a program that may 

be a pilot of converting roads to trails, not only for that use but 

also bicycles, because there’s a tremendous demand for trails in 

this State, and they’re cheaper to maintain. 

That doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re turning those lands, 

taking them out of the timber base, because we have different 

means of doing that. So I think that’s one way to expand the pie 

so we all don’t end up fighting over the same ground. 

Senator BURNS. You say road to trails, I’ve got to tell you—remember when we did Roads to Trails? You know, everybody said 

we’re so bad. It’s unbelievable. Do you know who did that? It was 

done in the highway conference, Transportation conference bill, it 

was Steve Symms and I that got that pushed through Congress. 

I think it’s been a pretty successful program. I support some of 

those programs. I want to maintain the infrastructure of a road 

system in the forest that allows us to do other things other than 

just timber harvest. 

I happen to look at the forest as a renewable resource. I don’t 

think it’s any different than a corn field in Iowa or grass in eastern 

Montana. It’s renewable. They grow, and they produce and they 

die. We harvest and we take care of the soil, and we go for another 

crop. That’s one of the great things about this State is the ability 

for renewables, and economically it makes no sense to lose more 

trees every year, more than we’re actually harvesting in all of our 

forests. That would basically do two things: It would make the forest more healthy and more productive and more recreation to 

enjoy. When you think about that, that’s kind of a win/win for everybody. We get down to that. 

I’ve about run out of questions. I’m going to follow up and have 

a cup of coffee with Mike Hillis. I want to help him rewrite these 

laws. I think we have multiple users here today that listen to you. 

From this we can get some collaborative thoughts. 

But I think the Forest Service—and as good as the Chief is, the 

problem I see in the Forest Service you’ve got people within the 

service that have different agendas where basically they should all 

be going in the same direction, and that’s our biggest problem, I 

think, whenever we start putting the policy on the ground. 

I realize it’s hard to control staff. I know I have a hard time at 

it. But I’m telling you, there should be one philosophy and everybody should be working toward that philosophy. I really believe 

that today. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND LETTERS

Am I forgetting anything? We appreciate—and anybody else that 

wants to make a comment and make it part of the record, we’ll 

sure do that. Then you may have some questions from the rest of 

the members of the committee. 

Those of you who are here today, if you could respond to those 

questions to the individual Senators and to the committee, I would 

be most appreciative. This record will be kept open until December 

16. 
43 

Where you signed in the address is where you send your comments and so that we can take a look at them. 

[The information follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREG WEHR, DEERLODGE, MT 

Senator Conrad Burns: I attended the field hearing in Missoula MT, on Dec. 2, 

2005. 

I started a round woods products business 21 years ago. Wehr’s Post and Pole and 

Whispering Pines Pole Co. LLC. 

I am writing you concerning the round wood industry in region 1. We who work 

in the round wood industry are the people who produce the fence rails and posts 

for most of the western United States. In the Philipsburg Ranger District we have 

seen a decline from a yearly average of 20 to 30 round wood thinning timber sale 

contracts, to just 4 sales in the last 3 years. 

In the last 4 years in Granite Co. we have lost 2 pole yards. With a loss of jobs 

and revenue in our local economy. 

Post and pole sales have never been contested by the environmental community. 

The Forest Service cites budget constraints as the reason. But yet the sale of post 

and pole sales generates revenue for the Forest Service District. 

The Forest Service use to pay people to thin the type of timber that we now pay 

them to thin. 

The work that we in the round wood industry do is exactly what the Forest Service says needs to be done we reduce the fuel load and create a more vigorous and 

healthy forest. Its a win win for our forests and our communities. 

I would like to see mandates given to the Forest Service as to quantity of saw 

timber as well as round wood timber that must be put up for sale in a given district 

every year. With this would have to accompany a revision of the appeals process. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID CRONENWETT, DILLON, MT 

Senator Burns: I am writing to encourage the conservation of Montana’s roadless 

lands as Recommended Wilderness through the Forest Planning effort, that is taking place on several National Forests around the state. 

I would like to know what specifically is driving your thrust to undo wilderness 

protections for Montana’s de facto wildlands. Clearly our high quality of life, hunting-fishing-outdoor heritage and overall economy are sustained by these mostly intact ecosystems. 

It is no secret that the motorized recreation industry is pushing to disallow any 

and all restrictions to manage ATV, snowmachine and other such recreation on public lands. They don’t suggest how the American people will pay for noxious weed 

control, wildlife harassment, ruined hunting and camping trips and safety issues 

that are directly tied to the use of these machines in the backcountry. 

Timber can be sustainably managed on already roaded landscapes throughout 

Montana. While there is a place for motorized recreation on public lands, it is inconceivable for many of us as to why you would help undo wilderness protections which 

would essentially allow and encourage motorized use in the backcountry. 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest is a magnet for ATVs and other such recreation. 

The Preferred Alternative of the forest plan strives to bring some balance to the 

area by recommending and enforcing wilderness management in several landscapes. 

While this is a great start for quiet recreation, water quality, and native flora and 

fauna, it doesn’t go far enough by a long shot. Alternative 5 only recommends 

250,000 acres out of a possible 1.9 million on the B Bar D. 

There are plenty of places one can drive to in the United States, not many where 

you can hunt elk on a two week pack trip. I therefore request that you support such 

Wilderness Recommendations being proposed in forest planning around the state, 

BUT ESPECIALLY ON THE BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE. Such designation has 

a long and revered history in our nation; it did not simply pop out of nowhere to 

ruin rural economies. All of the data points out that protected lands do just the opposite: they sustain water quality, biodiversity and a high quality of life for the 

human community. Wilderness is, in fact and in law, A PART OF THE SPECTRUM 

OF MULTIPLE USE. 
44 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER SHERMAN, WHITEFISH, MT 

Senator Burns: Today Montana has over 90,000 miles of roads and only 3.7 percent of our beautiful state is actually protected as wilderness. Our neighboring 

states enjoy larger percentages of protected wilderness and many have recently 

passed wilderness bills in a non-partisan cooperation. If we don’t protect some our 

quiet, beautiful places now our children will lose it forever and I want my grandchildren to have quiet wilderness experiences in my special places of the Whitefish 

range and Cabinet Mountains. 

Our valleys are filling with development as Montana grows. We here in the Flathead are experiencing tremendous growth. 

ATVs and other motorized vehicles belong on roads not horse and hiking trails. 

Please support the National Assoc. of Counties and call for the Forest Service to ‘‘expedite’’ plans to set responsible limits on ORV traffic, to prevent the spread of noxious weeds, user conflicts and resource damage. 

Please forgo polarizing politics and provide a new strong leadership by bringing 

people together with creative solutions. The original concept of Multiple Use included a good percentage of wilderness. Wilderness is not a BAD word, the bible 

uses it. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KLAUS H. GUMP, BIG SKY, MT 

Senator Burns: We are very blessed to live in this wonderful State Montana. But 

we need to keep it in the way we all appreciate it and love it so dearly. 

One of our greatest treasures is the wilderness in our State. When it is destroyed 

it cannot be rebuild. I urge you to do your utmost to preserve the wilderness in our 

State. 

—Less than 4 percent of Montana is protected wilderness—our neighboring stated 

enjoy higher percentages of wilderness. 

—We have sufficient roads in our national forests. Let’s leave the forests wild and 

as habitat for wildlife, like bears, elks, etc. They were there first—and they 

need their habitat. 

—Please do your utmost to protect the wilderness and the National Forests in our 

State. Let’s pass it on to our and your children as a protected area. Preservation 

of wilderness is a commitment for the future. You need to protect this commitment! 

—ATV and other motorized vehicles belong on roads not on quiet mountain trails. 

ATVs ruin nature for ever. No vegetations will ever grow back in the areas destroyed by ATVs. 

I hope this letter answers your questions and you will be a champion and leader 

in the protection of our great State of Montana. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA SENTZ, CHOTEAU, MT 

Senator Burns: It’s my understanding that you want to hear from Montanans 

about wilderness and wild places. Please consider my sentiments below. 

—People go to the mountains to find peace and quiet and open spaces free from 

the noise of ‘‘civilization.’’ This is a legacy that most Americans want to pass 

on to our kids and grandkids. 

—Montana already has 30,000 miles of roads on national forest lands. Less than 

4 percent of Montana is actually designated as wilderness. Montanans and 

Americans want our heritage of open spaces to be protected for future generations. 

—Wilderness and non-motorized wild country IS multiple use. 

—Four-wheelers and dirtbikes belong on roads, not on traditional horse and hiker 

trails in the mountains. You should support the National Association of Counties’ request that the Forest Service expedite travel plans that require responsible limits on off-road vehicles, to prevent landscape damage and the spread 

of noxious weeds. 

—Americans want their political leaders to provide strong leadership to protect 

our public lands, and not play politics that polarize. We need to come together 

to solve these problems, and we can do it. 

—Let’s keep our treasured public lands public. And let’s protect Montana’s finest 

wild country and quiet mountain trails on national forests for traditional recreation. 

Thank you. 
45 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLAIRE BAIZ, TOM BAIZ, SAMANTHA BAIZ, AND ASA BAIZ, GREAT FALLS, MT 

Senator Burns: As a native and lifelong Montanan, I am concerned about your 

questions regarding Montana’s wilderness. 

Our wilderness legacy is a priceless heritage for our children. It’s also a big reason people move to Montana: the open spaces are a deep attraction, even for those 

who never ‘‘use’’ them. Without our wilderness, we’d just be another parking lot 

waiting for development. 

Your Senate bill (S. 1696) was passed despite federal plans to recommend LESS 

wilderness. I applaud your co-sponsorship of S. 1696. With less than 4 percent of 

Montana designated as wilderness, now is the time to draw the line, for our children, for our recreation, and even for our economy! Wilderness IS multiple use. 

Please provide the leadership we need to preserve what’s left of our Montana wilderness. 

Thank you for your time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. VICKI WATSON, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator Conrad Burns: I understand that you recently asked that your constituents let you know what we think about keeping roadless areas roadless vs building 

more roads into these areas. I feel that only 4 percent of Montana is actually designated wilderness and that we already have 30,000 miles on roads on our national 

forests. Hence we need to protect the small amount of roadless area that remains. 

This roadless land is serving many multiple uses. It supports hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing and tourism. It provides key ecosystem services like air and 

water purification, moderation of flows, wildlife habitat, soil building and more. 

These lands support the high quality of life here in Montana, supporting our property values and giving our kids wholesome recreation. These lands will not be improved by roads which spread weeds, increase landslides and increase the incidence 

of human caused fires. Let’s fix the roads we have and not build more. Thank you 

for listening. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGG WHEELER, HELENA, MT 

Senator Burns: I am writing to encourage you to use your leadership to protect 

Montana’s wilderness areas. Being able to use our state’s wilderness areas for nonmotorized recreation—hiking, backpacking and cross-country skiing—is an important reason why I and my family live in Montana. Preserving this natural heritage 

is vital to maintaining the water and wildlife resources we use throughout the state. 

I urge you to seek and support legislation that will increase Montana’s wilderness 

areas and limit off-road vehicle use on mountain trails. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTIAN FRAZZA, HELENA, MT 

There is so little ‘‘wilderness’’ left compared to all the lands being developed, with 

motorized access, or commercially exploited. We need more, not less. ORVs and 

snowmobiles regularly go where they are prohibited. For example, skiing at Stemple 

Pass, in one of the few areas where motorized access is prohibited, I regularly meet 

them or must ski trails torn up by them. As Helena grows it is ever harder to find 

peace and quiet. Wilderness designation, far from ‘‘limiting’’ people’s enjoyment of 

public lands, allows it and ensures that there is somewhere left to enjoy away from 

roads and machinery. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAN TUSICK, POLSON, MT 

Senator Burns: I urge you to not to increase roads into our roadless lands. We 

go to the mountains to find peace and quiet and open spaces free from the noise 

of ‘‘civilization.’’ This is a legacy I want my grandchildren to enjoy, not the legacy 

of torn up trails and noise from ATV vehicles. 

Montana already has 30,000 miles of roads on national forest lands. Less than 

4 percent of Montana is actually designated as wilderness. Montanans and Americans want our heritage of open spaces to be protected for future generations. 

Wilderness and non-motorized wild country IS multiple use. 

Four-wheelers and dirtbikes belong on roads, not on traditional horse and hiker 

trails in the mountains. Sen. Burns should support the National Association of 
46 

Counties’ request that the Forest Service expedite travel plans that require responsible limits on off-road vehicles, to prevent landscape damage and the spread of noxious weeds. 

As an avid hunter I have experienced the damage off road vehicles can do to 

trails. I also have experienced the intrusion of those vehicles as I quietly walked 

through the woods to find my deer. Enough is Enough—we need to protect what 

remaining lands we have. I urge you to provide strong leadership to protect our public lands, and not give in to the pressure from a loud minority. Look at Yellowstone 

and the damage that has incurred from off road vehicles, what have we learned 

from that overuse of a irreplaceable, valuable public land? 

Let’s keep our treasured public lands public. And let’s protect Montana’s finest 

wild country and quiet mountain trails on national forests for traditional recreation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG PABLO, PABLO, MT 

Dear Mr. Burns: In regards to your questions at the Senate Oversight Hearing 

in Missoula on Dec. 2, I offer the following comments: 

1. The USFS recommends areas of Montana as wilderness to allow the public to 

enjoy our state’s natural beauty in a peaceful environment. 

2. With over 30,000 miles of road already on our state’s national forests, wilderness and roadless areas are a small part of the multiple use of our forests. MULTIPLE use includes people enjoying the forests on foot or horseback not just passenger vehicles, ORVs etc. 

3. Less than 4 percent of Montana is currently designated wilderness, as a hunter, 

fisherman and outdoor recreationist I value these wilderness areas to pursue my 

outdoor passions; hunting elk and deer, flyfishing for trout and hiking. 

4. I truly support multiple use of our national forests. I also enjoy snowboarding 

on ski areas within our national forests and snowmobiling/snowboarding the 

backcountry in these same forests. So Mr. Burns I truly utilize these forests with 

multiple uses. 

5. Lastly I would hope a man in your position would first realize multiple use 

really means, the ability to enjoy our national forests on foot free from vehicle noise 

and traffic, on a snowboard in a designated ski area, on a snowmobile and 

snowboard in undesignated ski areas and on a horse pursuing elk and deer. 

6. I strongly urge you to take a stand using your position to bring people together 

to protect our national forests rather than using politics to polarize Montanans 

against each other. It’s time for Montanans and our politicians to join forces for a 

well thought out solution that’s agreeable to everyone and I hope the voters will 

voice that strongly during the next election. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM AND MARY LOU SOLDANO, GREAT FALLS, MT 

Senator Burns: In answer to your questions about non-motorized areas of the forest and wilderness lands in Montana, I would like to say that most people who use 

the forest do so to escape the hectic and busy life that they lead in their daily life. 

If they wanted to hear the exciting sounds of motor vehicles all that is necessary 

is to go out and sit on their deck or front porch of their own residence anywhere 

in the state. Camping in a campground along any highway in Montana includes 

plenty of noise pollution. There are thousands of miles of roads in the forest service 

lands where motor vehicles can legally be used. There is no reason to ride them in 

off road areas. Wilderness uses are part of multiple use! The recreation industries 

generate many dollars and this revenue is renewable and sustainable from year to 

year. The demand for wilderness experiences is growing world wide and much of 

that demand ends up in Montana. The reason is that Montana is the last place in 

the lower 48 that can provide this experience. As one of our elected leaders you 

should provide leadership in the efforts to protect the wilderness and the roadless 

lands that we have left in this great state. Help safeguard our public land in Montana. Thank you for your opposition to the Pembo rider to the budget bill. Please 

help to eliminate it since it is very detrimental to our state. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED J. SCHWANEMANN, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator Burns: I found the hearing on 12/2/05 in Missoula educational and informative. 

Thinking of trees as a renewable resource is good as long a Tremendous Amount 

of Time until the next tree harvest is kept in mind. 
47 

Thinning can be a good academic way to increase forest tree production. However, 

I believe cutting strips of trees through the forest may be less expensive. The strip 

cutting does not look that well, but might serve as a fire break. 

If extraction and restoration are done commercially a tough regulatory board will 

be needed to check it. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADAM SWITALSKI, MISSOULA, MT 

I am writing to comment on the Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula on December 2nd. Senator Burns asked why the Forest Service recommends areas of Montana 

wilderness when, in his words, ‘‘wilderness limits the ability of folks to enjoy’’ public 

lands by keeping mountain areas free of off-road vehicle traffic. 

I am a Montana resident who enjoys the many benefits of Wilderness. I visit Montana’s wilderness areas approximately 25 times a year to hike, camp, and ski. Less 

than 4 percent of Montana is designated Wilderness and this is not enough for western Montana’s booming population. I go to wilderness to gain peace and quiet that 

is not available in roaded motorized areas. Wilderness is the only place where I can 

escape the noise and pollution of off-road vehicles. Besides finding solitude, wilderness is a place where fish and wildlife can find refuge and provide a source for all 

of Montana’s great fishing hunting. Hunting and fishing is simply not as good in 

the roaded and degraded public lands. Thank you for protecting our last unspoiled 

lands in the ‘‘last great place.’’ 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHIEFFELBEIN, FAIRFIELD, MT 

While the number of State and Federal Forests and Parks have not grown in any 

substantial way for many decades, the human population has. The country sides of 

just a few short years ago, are now shopping malls and new homes. The native animals and flora are displaced or destroyed. 

When I was a child my family were one of the first families to be able to travel 

around Lake Superior. It was called the ‘‘Circle Route Drive’’. It marked the first 

time in history that there was a road that linked the north shore area of Lake Superior to Minnesota and Michigan and Wisconsin. The whole area was still very pristine and beautiful with very few people. Yes, we (my family) were a part of the 

impendings onslaught of vacationers and tourists to visit the area. 

We were the start of the destruction of what had been pristine. Even with the 

best of intentions and the hope for greater commerce the area was changed for ever. 

Native American stone wall painting were stolen and ruined. A special ceremonial 

spruce tree that had grown on a rock out cropping for centuries was destroyed by 

people that gave the site little if any respect. Native peoples who had buried their 

loved ones above ground for centuries found the gravesites damaged and in some 

cases looted and insulted. 

Relationships between species in the area that had been in balance for more life 

times than one can imagine were irrevocably changed. 

We have lived here a short 9–10 years. That means that we have added to the 

stress the forests and natural resources as well. We try reverently to leave the areas 

where we travel the same as they were before we were there. However, almost every 

time we travel into the mountains we find someone hunting out of season, driving 

their choice of vehicle (cars, 4×4s, trucks, SUVS, and snowmobiles where it is ‘‘not 

allowed’’. It is not the fault of the good law enforcement officials or the parks and 

forests staff members. It is just the simple fact that Montana is extremely large and 

has a very inadequate number of officials and law enforcement personnel to ensure 

that the current laws are followed. 

So to add more opportunities for more abuse by those who know they won’t get 

caught just doesn’t make sense! Even when caught these people often just get warnings as the enforcement staff are fearful of more direct confrontations and having 

no backup close. 

Montana has thousands and thousands of roads already we do not need more. 

ATVS and all other motorized vehicle belong on roads not forests. 

We were out last weekend getting our Xmas Tree (with permit) and found people 

taking trees from areas they were not to be taken and saw where others had been 

4 wheeling in areas not allowed for 4 wheeling or driving. 

My family really likes to go camping (with tents) in the back country and not have 

to hear sounds of motors of any kind. 

If you care about long term protection of the wilderness for you and your childrens 

and my children you will help keep the wilderness a wilderness as it has been for 
48 

thousands and thousands of years. We have all got to start to think differently in 

order for our children to survive. 

Thanks for you time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF M.C. VON DER PAHLEN, RONAN, MT 

Senator Burns: I appreciate your request to hear from the public regarding the 

U.S. Forest Service’s recommendation on further wilderness in Montana and the 

current policy that restricts motorized vehicles in wilderness areas. I urge you to 

support this management policy, which maintains and upholds the ‘‘multiple use 

mandate’’ of the U.S. Forest Service. 

There are numerous roads in U.S. Forest Service that are accessible to motorized 

vehicles already. There should also be public areas that provide the non-motorized 

backcountry experience that is so unique to wilderness areas. 

These wilderness areas are already fairly limited to the American public, but it 

transports our imagination back to the time of the fur traders and pioneers, and 

it permits many an adventurous spirit to experience the wonder, beauty and abundant wildlife this continent offered Native Americans and pioneers a few hundred 

years back. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADRIAN D. LEIGHTON, RONAN, MT 

Senator Burns: Thank you for requesting the opinion of all Montanans regarding 

the issue of motorized vehicles in wilderness. Like all forms of recreation, motorized 

vehicles are important to many people, but that does not justify them being allowed 

total access to all Forest Service lands. 

The Forest Service, as you recently pointed out, is under a mandate for multiple 

use management. As a forester and college professor, I am keenly aware of the importance of this mandate. However, it is important to point out that multiple use 

does not mean ‘‘everything is allowed everywhere’’. Logging is not allowed on steep 

slopes because of potential site damage. Similarly, while motorized recreation 

should be supported by the Forest Service in appropriate areas, it is not, and should 

not, be allowed everywhere. 

Part of the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate is to protect endangered species 

of wildlife and to provide for their habitat. There are numerous scientifically sound 

studies that demonstrate the potential negative impact of motorized vehicles on 

many species of wildlife. 

Another part of the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate is to provide an experience for back country recreationists that wish to escape the noise, speed and confusion of every day life. A deep and profound element of wilderness is this very separation from ‘‘the daily grind’’. To open up wilderness to motorized vehicles would 

render this use of wilderness null and void. 

I urge you to continue to support wilderness and roadless area designations, and 

to support the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate in its fullest sense. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE WUERTHNER, LIVINGSTON, MT 

Senator Burns: I was very disappointed with your recent comments before the FS 

about motorized use of public lands. The major attraction of Montana to me is the 

abundance of wild country. One of the reasons Montana has superb hunting and 

fishing is that motorized access is limited. I have lived in Oregon which actually 

has more elk than Montana. Nevertheless, the elk hunting season in Oregon is only 

10 days long. Why? Because there’s logging roads all over the entire state. There’s 

hardly a place where an elk get away from roads and hunters. 

ATVs belong on roads, not in the backcountry. Montana has 90,000 miles of roads 

and 30,000 miles of FS roads. There is more than enough access to public lands for 

machines on these roads. 

And what is unique about Montana are its large areas of roadless country. Tell 

people in Montana that feel there is not enough access to the public lands to go to 

Oregon—there’s tens of thousands of miles of roads leading to every corner of the 

state. They can have all the terrain they want. But there are few places like Montana. Keep Montana wild. 
49 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAN BERTELSEN-JAMES, EUREKA, MT 

Senator Conrad Burns: I am a born and raised Montana woman of 55 years. I 

love Montana. I feel Montana’s wilderness, wildlands, and quiet mountain trails in 

our national forests deserve to be protected for future generations. A place where 

hunting, fishing, traditional family recreation, and Montana history can flourish. 

‘‘Wilderness’’ does not limit the ability for citizens to enjoy public lands; instead, it 

preserves this land so that indeed the land can be enjoyed. 

Wilderness is for future generations, so we need to pass it on. Our valleys are 

filling up with roads, traffic, and subdivisions... way too many subdivisions. Developers are developing for dollars and could care less about Montana! Places that 

we once went to for solitude and quiet are disappearing. These go from the Great 

Burn to the Rocky Mountain Front. Wilderness safeguards Montana’s opportunities 

to hunt, fish, camp under the stars and hike in the quiet mountain trails. It’s a commitment we MUST pass on to our kids. I have a daughter of 24 and she is upset 

with her favorite hiking places being ravaged by off-trail vehicles by their noise and 

disruption to the land. We don’t need beer cans in the Ten Lakes of Eureka. She 

feels it should cost out of state people big bucks to move to Montana. She knows 

that is not possible, but she is truly afraid that all the ‘‘land’’ will be gone or ruined, 

bought up by out of staters, by the time she’ll be able to afford to buy a small parcel. 

Her beautiful state that she loves will be gone. 

The federal government hasn’t demonstrated a vision for the future of Montana’s 

wild public lands. Recent forest plans recommend LESS wilderness than the most 

recent Montana wilderness bill passed by the U.S. Senate (S. 1696), which was 

sponsored by you, Mr. Burns. The Bush administration has done more to undermine 

the environment and this earth that sustains us than any other President. In fact, 

he has done more to ruin America’s name in the world than any other President. 

His administration may just be the downfall of this nation due to the lack on involvement of U.S. citizens, administrative control of media, and the desire of elected 

officials to get elected again by doing whatever it seems it takes rather than biting 

the bullet and doing the honorable right thing. That is your fault and ours. I am 

no longer going to stand silent. I WANT MY NATION TO STAND FOR MOTHER 

EARTH AND ITS SURVIVAL! This can start at home, the big sky country that I 

love. 

Montana has over 90,000 miles of roads. There are 30,000 miles of roads in our 

national forests. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I live in an area where there are roads, 

roads, and more roads. They can’t be maintained and noxious weeks grow rampant. 

Montana’s neighboring western states enjoy higher percentages of wilderness. Montanans want our heritage of open spaces continued into the future and we deserve 

it. I would like to see us be leaders in this endeavor rather than hill-billy, guntoting, snuff-chewing hicks! I am not like that. Why can’t Montana take the lead 

and be proactive about the environment and use resources to produce clean fuels 

for the future? Why must we dig for coal or mine for oil when that source is nonrenewable? Why can’t we take the lead? Why must people like you, Mr. Burns listen 

to individuals that can only think of now and not the future? I want to see our lands 

used wisely. God gave us the forests to use and harvest but with conservation and 

the future in mind. We are supposed to be the stewards of the land and its animals. 

God gave us the intelligence to do so, so why can’t we use this intelligence? I do 

not agree with all the suits that are filed but I am thankful for individuals that 

can spend their time keeping abreast of what is happening to this state. I am so 

busy working and trying just to pay the bills that I am not able to do so and that 

is the problem. I am taking the time tonight to let you know I am a concerned citizen about the state of Montana and this nation and that I don’t approve of the 

present administration and the lies it tells. I want you to THINK and represent 

what is right for our state AND the rest of this nation. 

People say wilderness is not multiple use. I say multiple use is only logging and 

off road vehicles like snowmobiles and ATV’s. If they had their way, they would be 

EVERYWHERE!!!! That’s all we need. Noise, beer can, trash, rutted and destroyed 

trails and fields, and more noxious weeds. We need for the Forest Service to ‘‘expedite’’ forest travel plans that will establish responsible limits on OVR use. Wilderness is multiple use. It belongs in our rugged mountains along with suitable areas 

for logging and vehicle traffic. 

I am asking you, Senator Burns, to forego polarizing politics. I want to see new 

leadership. I want you to bring people together to solve this challenge. With creativity and foresight we can keep Montana’s quiet mountain trails and wildernessthe best of the Old West-alongside the new. 

Thank you for your time. Please make a positive difference for Montana and this 

nation. We, I feel, are near the tipping point of destruction. I know I sound off the 
50 

wall. I am a school teacher of 36 years. I now teach in a therapeutic boarding school 

for adolescent girls in Eureka, Montana. I am not a nut. I am a concerned citizen 

that feels we are becoming a hateful nation without honor. I want that to change. 

Citizens need to demand and become more active in this democratic process. I did 

so tonight. Please think about what is right for Montana, not is this a republican 

or democratic issue. Let’s just do the right thing for the survival of this state in the 

best way possible... for my daughter and hers. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD J. BURGARD, COLUMBIA FALLS, MT 

I live most of the summer in a cabin near the Canadian border and the North 

Fork of the Flathead River. I strongly disagree with recent statements you made 

about wilderness not being consistent with multiple use. Folks in Flathead and Lincoln county need wilderness areas close to home. It is especially important, even patriotic, to reduce unnecessary gasoline consumption with the current petroleum situation the way it is. There is no shortage of places for motorized recreation in the 

Whitefish Range. Contrary to your thinking, I think that not including wilderness 

designations in Forest Plans would be inconsistent with the multiple use concept. 

There are certain areas that are absolutely not suitable for motorized recreation. I’d 

be happy to hike with you in those areas near my cabin to prove my point. I ask 

that you reconsider your anti-wilderness position that is making it very difficult for 

your constituents to reach a consensus on multiple use. The best thing you could 

do for Montana would be to commit to wilderness designation for many suitable 

areas. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN WERNER, RONAN, MT 

You requested comments on U.S. Forest Use in Montana: My wife and I strongly 

support wilderness designation wherever possible in our National Forests. It is the 

only way that some of our multiple use activities can be retained, i.e. XC skiing, 

berry picking, hiking, camping, fishing, hunting—without the damn roar of snowmobiles, ATV’s, jet skii’s, and a multitude of other motorized vehicles. As it is now, 

the FS does not have the personnel to monitor motorized vehicle use which often 

violates current rules and regulations. Also suggest you see Missoulian editorial on 

December 13, 2005 regards your request for comments. It has some good information. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN AND GAYNELLE STAMM, ST. REGIS, MT 

Senator Burns: At a December 2 Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula, you are 

quoted as saying ‘‘wilderness limits the ability of folks to enjoy’’ public lands by limiting the use of off-road vehicles. We live near wilderness and roadless areas, enjoy 

them in many ways, and disagree with you. Wilderness and roadless areas are vitally important to humans, wildlife, and plant life in innumerable ways and off-road 

vehicles are, according to many experts, among the most damaging things to these 

resources. Off-road vehicles belong on roads, period. Wilderness today is multiple 

use and, due to these important uses, Montana needs more wilderness. Please work 

to bring people together on these issues instead of playing polarizing politics. Montana is big enough to accommodate many uses in the bet place for each. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. VICTOR M. DAVIS, RONAN, MT 

Senator Burns: At the December 2nd Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula you 

questioned why the Forest Service recommends more wilderness when, ‘‘wilderness 

limits the ability of folks to enjoy’’ public lands by keeping them free of off-road vehicle (ORV) traffic, and wondered if this was consistent with Multiple Use mandates 

of the Service. 

My favorite use of the Forests of my country is hiking and climbing in peace and 

quiet and finding solace and comfort in God’s creation and with his creatures. This 

is not possible in lands subjected to noise of screaming engines, scars from churning 

wheels leaving tracks for decades, and toxic exhaust fumes hanging in the air. 

We already have 30,000 miles of roads in the National Forests of Montana, and 

this leaves plenty of opportunity for those who find Pleasure in the use of ATV’s 

and other motorized vehicles. 
51 

Roads and their uses in the Forests lead to increased erosion and stream and air 

pollution. The negatively impacts fisheries and wildlife and game habitat. I believe 

these assets are worth protecting not despoiling. 

I notice your Website letterhead uses pictures of three or four Wilderness scenes. 

I find it ironic that you have chosen these images to exemplify your public persona, 

and yet apparently don’t appreciate their value and potential fragility. Rather than 

a romanticized ‘‘Last Best Place’’, I find Montana to be a very real and beautiful 

land, and so valuable not only to Montana but all of America. I believe that only 

by preserving as much of this land as Wilderness, unravaged by the intrusions of 

man and his wrecking machines, can we maintain this reality. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL AND SUSAN SHERMAN, POLSON, MT 

Senator Burns: Our beautiful state is a place of wilderness, undisturbed back 

country with quiet trails, abundance of wildlife and places for hunting and fishing. 

This is why people move here, this is why real estate companies advertise with 

beautiful pictures of pristine wild places. 

This is why I want my children and grandchildren to be able to look up to the 

mountains and be able to say the same thing. Our towns here in western Montana 

are going at a rapid pace with subdivisions, people buying second homes and ever 

increasing traffic in our valleys. Wilderness designation for our deserving lands is 

a safeguard that our future legacy will have opportunities to experience quiet mountain hikes, trail rides, or fishing and hunting experiences. 

Recent forest plans are recommending less wilderness for our future. We have 

thousands of miles of roads but less than 4 percent designated wilderness. I believe 

you promised years ago that you would help Montanans secure more wild places. 

If you look at the Forest Service’s original definition of ‘‘multiple use’’ it does include 

wilderness as one of those uses. 

Yes, there is a place for ATVs but there should also be those quiet places free 

from their loud noises and the spread of noxious weeds. ATV’s spreading noxious 

weeds are also a real problem for agriculture lands. No farmer or ranchers wants 

fields of knapweed. 

We need to preserve our landscape for the future so that those of the future can 

say yes our past generations did keep this state the ‘‘last best, wild place’’ in the 

USA. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM MULLINS, HELENA, MT 

Senator Burns: I know you have lots of issues on your mind, but please consider 

my request. As a former mid-westerner like yourself, I hope you understand the importance of wilderness to all people. 

Please support a stronger commitment to Wilderness areas in Montana. 

Wilderness is multiple use. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM AND IRENE ERDIE, HELENA, MT 

I write this note on behalf of my wife and myself. We are native born and raised 

Montanans both with long and deep family roots in Montana. We have hiked many 

miles in the forests of Montana over the last forty plus years and have watched the 

transition and the impact of motorized vehicles over those forty plus years. The bottom line regarding impact of motorized traffic in the general forest is not good. Anyone that has watched this transition over the years from minimal motorized traffic 

to what is witnessed ‘‘today’’ has to be alarmed at what must be the expectation 

for ten, twenty and more years into the future. We as humans don’t exist but that 

we leave a ‘‘footprint’’ showing that we have been there. It then becomes a question 

of how much of a footprint and in this case, specific to the wildlands. Today’s forests 

and management practices in general prove that over a period of time, the wildlands 

are in trouble. If you’ve spent any quality time in the forests (perhaps with a back 

pack) you know what I mean. More wilderness is part of the solution. You allegedly 

have stated that ‘‘. . . wilderness limits the ability of folks to enjoy public 

lands . . .’’ I agree and would state that the key word is ‘‘limits.’’ There has to be 

some kind of limit. Limiting motorized vehicles is a very big part of that because 

it can be shown that too many using motorized vehicles in the forests, without limitation, just don’t care enough about what we leave for the next generation. I’d welcome the opportunity to take you for a walk in the woods and show very specific 
52 

proof of where we are headed with today’s practices, the negative impacts, and for 

the most part how it comes from motorized traffic. We can’t hike as we did twenty 

years ago, nor would we expect to hike ten years from now as we did just this past 

summer. We will accept some limits, and the answer is not to ‘‘jump on a motorized 

vehicle’’ to take us anywhere we want to go. We believe there is room for multiple 

use while initiating more limitations that will not detract from the next generations 

ability to enjoy the solitude brought by additional wilderness. Thank you for the 

consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GONNIE SIEBEL, BOZEMAN, MT 

Senator Burns: I’m stunned by your apparent statements at a recent Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula, regarding wilderness and protection from motorized use 

for roadless areas. I would like to remind you that a very important source of income in your home state nowadays is from tourism and tourism industries, the reason being that environmental protections have kept some important areas in our 

state reasonably pristine for the last several decades. Tourists (and most Montanans) don’t hike, camp, fish, float, hunt, etc. in areas trashed by high impact uses! 

People can do that in their home states where, by lack of foresight decades ago, few 

places have been spared the impacts from road building, developments, extractive 

industries and ORV use. Usually where there are roads, negative impacts follow. 

To maintain our precious lifestyle for present and future generations, Montanans 

need Montana’s undeveloped landscapes to remain as they are to find quiet and solitude. And, obviously, people from other states like what we still have in Montana! 

Wilderness belongs in our rugged mountains along with suitable areas for logging 

and motorized traffic. This IS multiple use. 

The most recent Montana Wilderness bill passed by the U.S. Senate (S. 1696) and 

co-sponsored by you, Senator Burns, recommended more wilderness than recent forest plans. At present less than 4 percent of Montana is actually protected as Wilderness. Montana’s national forests have 30,000 miles of roads. ORVs and motorized 

vehicles do not belong on quiet mountain trails and even if they move on designated 

roads they affect an area widely beyond their location. 

Senator Burns, I urge you to support the National Association of Counties’ call 

for the Forest Service to ‘‘expedite forest travel plans that will establish responsible 

limits on ORV use, to prevent more spread of weeds and other damage from ORV 

traffic.’’ I urge you to provide new leadership and bring people together to solve 

Montana’s problems. With cooperation, creativity and foresight, we can keep Montana’s best, it’s quiet mountain trails and wilderness, alongside the new. 

Thank you for your attention to such an important issue to Montanans! 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENRY LISCHER, NYE, MT 

On December 2, you asked of the Forest Service whether wilderness areas limit 

the ability of the public to enjoy public lands. 

I believe that public lands should support many different uses, but unspoiled wilderness is one of those qualifying uses. We should preserve our wild lands for the 

enjoyment of those who do not wish to be in public lands involving less natural settings, and we should preserve wild lands for future generations, which certainly will 

involve ever-growing populations. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE HAMILTOM, HELENA, MT 

Senator Burns: In your response to a December 2 Senate Oversight hearing in 

Missoula, you asked why the Forest Service recommends tracts of Montana Wilderness when in your words you stated, ‘‘wilderness areas limit the ability of folks to 

enjoy’’ public lands by keeping mountain areas free of off-road vehicle traffic. You 

questioned whether wilderness and motor free areas are ‘‘consistent with the multiple use mandate’’ of the U.S. Forest Service. I would like to respond. I just moved 

here from Arizona. I lived there for most of my life. Arizona is growing at a rapid 

pace and as immigrants and ‘‘out of staters’’ continue to move into that location, 

rapid growth means that public lands (that allow vehicles) continue to grow. If you 

have ever camped, mountain biked; hiked in any forest area in Arizona you would 

eventually run into an ATV, truck, or car full of people traveling down a road any 

where from 15–50 mph. My point here is as states grow so does public use of forest 

areas. Why expose MT wilderness areas in attempt to meet some political agenda? 
53 

Opening up wilderness areas opens up all kinds of problems. I clearly understand 

the detrimental impacts that roads have in wilderness areas. I was a tour guide in 

the Grand Canyon. 

I recently moved to Montana to be able to drive in my truck, park at a wilderness 

area and hike in and enjoy the serenity of Montana. It bothers me enough that this 

beautiful state has over 90,000 miles of road, 30,000 miles of roads in our national 

forest, but less then 4 percent of Montana is actually protected as wilderness. All 

of Montana’s neighboring western states enjoy higher percentages of wilderness. 

Why close these wilderness areas up and open to roads. It makes no sense as a senator, citizen, president, or even God. Please provide leadership in this area. It is 

critical to the intrinsic value of Montana wilderness. Please read Aldo Leopold’s 

book ‘‘Sand County Almanac’’. I think it will be instrumental in all of your environmental support and assist you in foregoing polarizing politics. 

The federal government has not demonstrated a vision for the future of Montana’s 

wild public lands. Recent forest plans recommend fewer wildernesses then the most 

recent Montana wilderness bill passed by U.S. Senate (S. 1696). Please bring new 

leadership by brining people together to solve our problems. With creativity and 

foresight we can keep Montana’s quiet mountain trail and wilderness—the best of 

the Old West—alongside the new. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. AND MRS. DONALD SNOW, KALISPELL, MT 

Senator Burns: Wilderness is for now, tomorrow and as long as people are around 

to enjoy it—more is better in Montana. 

The biggest attraction of Montana is the amount of wilderness it has. Reducing 

that amount would be VERY short sighted. With one third of Montana’s roads are 

in National Forests, we need more wilderness and less roads. We advertize our naturalness, big animals, numerous high mountains, clean air and water and beautiful 

landscapes, which draws worldwide visitors and proves the point. 

Montana needs much more wilderness, areas to visit where motorized vehicles are 

prohibited and are not contaminated with exotic, invasive, noxious plants brought 

in via motorized transportation. 

Please lead us to a solution which considers what is best in the very long term 

for Montana and its citizens—multiple use, sensible and very long view of Montana’s beauty. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOEL VIGNERE, LAKESIDE, MT 

Sir: Montanans deserve and want MORE Wilderness. Wilderness is consistent 

with multiple use. Wilderness does not ‘‘. . . limit the ability of folks to enjoy’’ (your 

words) our public lands. To the contrary, it enhances my friends and neighbors and 

my enjoyment of our public lands. It is valuable to me because I know I will be able 

to get away from the stench and noise of motorized recreation. Hopefully this legacy 

will remain for my children and theirs also. There are thousands of acres in Montana that deserve the protection of designated Wilderness. I urge you to help provide the necessary leadership to bring about a solution to the polarizing politics that 

have accomplished virtually nothing. Let’s work together for the betterment of Montana’s future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RICK MORONEY, BOZEMAN, MT 

Senator Burns: I am requesting that you support the preservation of all roadless 

lands in Montana. Please seek wilderness designation for all remaining federal 

lands that qualify. This is probably the best thing you can do for the long term economic welfare of Montana. These roadless lands are one of the things that sets Montana apart from the rest of the nation. A large segment of the population values 

these lands, and would like to live in close proximity to them. These people often 

move their businesses to Montana, or increase commerce in other ways. 

In regard to roaded lands; Please see that federal agencies have enough funding 

to properly enforce their motorized regulations. It is unfortunate, but a few thoughtless motorized users don’t follow the rules, causing great damage to our lands. The 

scars that they leave contribute to increased weeds, erosion, and degraded water 

quality. Perhaps it would be wise to severely limit motorized access until mechanisms are in place to protect the land. Please observe that almost without exception 

private landowners, allowing public access, almost always restrict that access to 
54 

non-motorized use, only. Why should we accept a lesser standard for publicly owned 

lands. Thank You for your efforts on behalf of Montanans. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE DURKI AND LIAM, BOZEMANM, MT 

Senator Burns: Greetings from Bozeman, Montana. Just a short note following 

your recent Oversight Hearing in Missoula concerning U.S. Forest Service policies 

particularly wilderness designation and travel plans!!!!!! 

I am the Gallatin County Road Engineer and have been for the last four years. 

I cannot tell you the number of subdivisions I have personally reviewed, both five 

lot minor and up to 300 lot major subdivisions. 

This place is bursting at the seams, and a large percentage of these new residents 

recreate in the Forest. We need as much of the forest kept pristine and actually designated WILDERNESS to keep MONTANA a great place to live for our kids and 

grandkids. 

I get into the mountains and high alpine meadows to escape the growth and hectic lifestyle that is coming to our major cities due to increased development. Please 

LISTEN, we need QUITE trails were people can get away from the noise and machines that are quickly taking over our beautiful valleys. I have personally seen motorcycles and ATV’s off-trail and ripping up high alpine meadows for the hell-of-it!!!! 

These off road machines belong on the vast network of Forest Service and logging 

roads, NOT ON TRAILS!!!! The Forest Service does not have the staff to police the 

bad apples that go off-trail, therefore creating new routes for the machines to follow. 

The hunting/fishing/backpacking/horse-packing traditions are much to valuable 

and cherished by all Montanans to only be ruined by rampent ATV and motorcycle 

riders. Keep them at lower elevations and out of the fragile alpine areas before it 

is too late. 

Thank you for your time. Do the right thing, save and create more WILDERNESS, that is what people want and keeps them coming back to MONTANA!!!!! 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIP DROBISH, KILA, MT 

As the last truck loads of the last low elevation unlogged stands of Ponderosa pine 

and Larch on the mountain behind my house are hauled away today, I am struck 

by how short our lives are and how narrow our vision can be. The children and their 

children will never know 300 year old forests. In fact the residents of the Flathead 

already forget the entire valley was once covered by mature Ponderosa, Larch and 

Douglas Fir. So to will future citizenry forget there were once large old trees in the 

mountains west of Kalispell. Your great grandchildren will think saplings are old 

trees and harvest then for fiber laminated beams for construction, that is until the 

weakened forest soil will not support trees much like a mule that refuses to pull 

a plow after being deprived food. This is not nonsense, just as wilderness is not 

wasted land that should be open to motorized recreation. Wilderness is the one 

place held back so your great grandchildren can show their kids what it was once 

like back before their great great grandfather sightlessly encouraged industrial forest practices on the public trust lands. 

Please, if you can’t get a glimpse of where we are going with an economy that 

is only healthy when it is expanding and consuming more, then please take a vacation and visit some wilderness, where the economy has been stable since the last 

Ice age and it remains robust. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER MARKALUNAS, GREAT FALLS, MT 

Senator Burns: I have to voice my strong disagreement that non motorized use 

is in conflict with the multiple use mandate of the forest service. 

Wilderness designation prohibits motorized use but enhances all activities that 

favor quiet trails: hiking, fishing, horseback riding, photography, hunting, cross 

country skiing. 

Instead of thinking about how wilderness designation prohibits motorized use we 

should be thinking about how motorized use prohibits all the activities that require 

quiet trails. 
55 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE DAUM, STEVENSVILLE, MT 

Senator Burns: You’ve recently made a comment that wilderness limits the ability 

of folks to enjoy public lands by keeping certain areas free of off road vehicles. 

I disagree with you. It saddens me that so many cannot enjoy the outdoors without an internal combustion engine. 

As for myself, and many of my friends—we would prefer the silence and peace 

that the wild has to offer. We enjoy canoeing, skiing, hiking and fishing without the 

drone of snowmobiles or ATVs. The recreation we enjoy is traditional and too valuable to spoil. I hope you will support measures to keep it that way. 

Thanks for listening. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. CECIL, KALISPELL, MT 

Senator Burns: At a Dec. 2 Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula, you questioned 

whether wilderness and motor-free areas are ‘‘consistent with the multiple use mandate’’ of the Forest Service. 

My response to your question is: 

1. Wilderness IS multiple use, and belongs in our rugged mountains along with 

suitable areas for logging and vehicular traffic. 

2. Wilderness designation is for the future. It safeguards Montana’s opportunities 

to hunt, fish, camp under the stars and hike quiet mountain trails. It’s a commitment we must pass on to our children. 

3. We need to do more for the wild landscape, NOT less. Recent forest plans recommend less wilderness than the most recent MT wilderness bill passed by the Senate—and co-sponsored by you. 

4. Less than 4 percent of Montana is actually protected as wilderness. All of MT’s 

neighboring western states enjoy higher percentages of wilderness. Montanans want 

our open space heritage continued, not downgraded. 

5. ATVs and other motorized vehicles belong on roads, of which there are thousands of miles available, NOT on quiet mountain trails. 

6. It is your responsibility to ALL Montanans to forego polarizing politics and provide new leadership to solve our problems, not add to them. 

Thank your for considering my comments. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE BANKS, BOZEMAN, MT 

Senator Burns: The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act states that national forests 

shall be managed for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed and wildlife and 

fish purposes and that ‘‘areas of wilderness are consistent with the purposes and 

provisions of this Act.’’ Wilderness is one of the allowed multiple uses. 

Furthermore, the Act does not require that all uses occur simultaneously in one 

place; instead it requires ‘‘harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources, each with each other without impairment of the productivity of the 

land . . .’’ 

I am most familiar with the Gallatin Forest Travel Plan, which has clearly addressed these issues. Its primary focus is on the resource itself, and recreational activities are considered in their relation to their effect on the forest and on each 

other. There was ample opportunity for public input. Although I do not agree with 

every provision in the plan, I firmly believe that its development and content adhere 

to the requirements of the Multiple Use Act. There is a balance between motorized 

and non-motorized uses. This is the first time motorized use has been regulated at 

all, and the reason for any ‘‘losses’’ is to protect the productivity of the forest, as 

the Act requires. FS Chief Bosworth recognizes unregulated off-road motorized use 

as one of the four greatest threats to our forests. 

I hope you will let the plan stand without further pressure from Congress. It was 

developed locally, on the ground, by the people most involved, and we will be the 

ones most affected by it. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WOODY NEDOM, BIGFORK, MT 

Senator Burns: Thank you for your interest in the classification of Forest Service 

lands. Most citizens in our state, and countless others elsewhere, recognize that it 

is the stunning topography, rare flora and fauna, and unique beauty of the wilderness we have preserved that has made Montana ‘‘The Last Best Place’’. I know you 
56 

agree because not one of the magnificent scenes that banner your website has a 

road or vehicle in sight. 

Adding wilderness preserves, enhancing safeguards for their protection, and formulating Forest Service policy to these ends ought to be your number one priority 

and will be the greatest and most cherished legacy of your senatorial tenure. 

No one is fooled by the unadulterated sophistry which argues that wilderness protection limits the ability of people to enjoy public lands. Montana has over 30,000 

miles of roads in its national forests; less than 4 percent of the state is protected 

as wilderness. If 96 percent were wilderness and there were no roads in the national 

forests, the multiple use enthusiasts would have a point. 

I know you will bring honesty and common sense to the table. The multiple use 

advocates have far more than a reasonable share of our resources. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNN KELLY, POLSON, MT 

Senator Burns: You asked for input regarding the importance of wilderness and 

I would like to share my thoughts. Wilderness is probably the most ‘‘multiple use’’ 

of all the land uses out there. Here are some things wilderness does for us: 

(1) Wilderness protects and maintains water quality. Other states would kill to 

have their water sources protected as the Swan, South Fork and Middle Forks of 

the Flathead are protected by wilderness areas. This is worth billions of dollars. 

(2) Wilderness provides a clean ‘‘airshed’’. Again, worth billions of dollars. 

(3) Wilderness provides jobs as outfitters and others use these lands in their traditional ways. 

(4) Wilderness provides habitat for multitudes of wildlife species. 

(5) Wilderness provides ‘‘natural science laboratories’’ so that comparisons can be 

made between disturbed and undisturbed habitats, watersheds, airsheds, etc. 

(6) Wilderness gives our children and grandchildren a chance to see ‘‘how it was’’ 

back then. 

(7) Wilderness provides places for spiritual renewals and retreats. There are at 

least 5 other major ‘‘uses’’ of wilderness but my memory fails me. Needless to say 

wilderness is not just another cornfield! ‘‘Man always kills the thing he loves, and 

so we the pioneers have killed our wilderness. Some say we had to. Be that as it 

may, I am glad I shall never be young without wild country to be young in. Of what 

avail are 40 freedoms without a blank spot on the map?’’ Aldo Leopold. 

We need more wilderness—not less! 

Thanks for asking for my thoughts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE GRANGER, BOZEMAN, MT 

Dear Senator Burns: As a long-time Montana resident, I strongly support the 

preservation of the wild areas in this state. It makes no sense to allow additional 

degradation of these areas by ORV use. Quiet trails, abundant wildlife and natural 

flora will be there for us and future generations only if they are not destroyed by 

increased road building and ORV use. I strongly support more wilderness rather 

than less, to perpetuate what’s really special about this region. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS KAPPES, LOLO, MT 

Dear Senator Burns: I attended the Oversight Hearing in Missoula. There were 

comments made by the Wilderness Association President that gave me hope that 

Wilderness is important and will not be squandered on exploitation of any kind. 

I am a 7th generation Montanan and want the Wilderness kept for the next seven 

generations. Wilderness safeguards opportunities to hunt, fish, hike, camp, and ride 

horseback on the quiet mountain trails. There are few opportunities left as our valleys become populated. 

ATV’s belong on roads and goodness knows there are plenty (of both). Wherever 

I go, and there has been ATV use, I am disheartened by the incredible damage that 

they cause on and off trails. Please keep the pristine areas pristine! 

Please, Senator Burns, find a way to keep Montana’s quiet mountain trails and 

Wilderness. The generations to come will honor your name! 

In hope and peace. 
57 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID AMNOTTE, BIGFORK, MT 

Senator Burns: I am writing to express my views on U.S. Forest Service Policy. 

We need to pass on to our children our great State wilderness legacy, we need 

to keep this land safe from road building. In this state we have a heritage of hunting and great wildlife habitat let’s preserve it. Montana already has over 90,000 

miles of roads 30,000 in the forest that’s plenty. Our State has less than 4 percent 

of it’s total as Wilderness, all of our neighbors have more. Motorized travel needs 

to remain on roads, trails need to be reserved for traditional uses, hiking, horseback 

riding, and foot travel during winter months to preserve wildlife habitat. Wilderness 

is Multiple Use, rugged mountains along with low elevation areas for vehicles and 

logging. We need to have leadership, not Polarization, we need to bring people together to solve problems not push them apart. Please keep these thought in mind 

when considering Forest Policy. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL PACINI, HELENA, MT 

Senator Burns: As a native born Montanan, I am writing to express my disagreement with your assessment of the importance of wilderness in Montana and for that 

matter, through out the world. The human environment is rapidly becoming a scene 

of endless and hurried technology for the purposes of business, health care, shopping, education, even recreation, and more. More and more we are living in an artificial electronic environment and pressured to accomplish more than before. The 

human species, like any other species of animal on the Earth evolved from a natural 

environment. Our bodies and minds relate to the natural world which tends to rejuvenate our technology wearied selves. 

All of this may sound naive or just too warm and fuzzy to some, but the fact is 

that we need wild areas for our collective sanity. By ‘‘paving over’’ our planet, we 

are paving over our humanity! Don’t allow federal lands to be sold. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIKE AND STEPHANIE BECKER, HARRISON, MT 

We want you to know that wilderness does NOT limit the ability of folks to enjoy 

public lands! With the crush of modern life with its traffic, development, noise, and 

population pressures, the American public is seeking solace and quiet recreation in 

our preserved lands. Montana can still offer some beautiful, undisturbed areas and 

we need to PROTECT and PRESERVE these precious—and diminishing—wild resources for future generations. Montanans deserve more than a mere 3 percent of 

protected wilderness! 30,000 miles of roads in our national forests is more than 

enough. And we urge you to support the National Assocation of Counties’ call for 

the Forest Service to expedite forest travel plans that will establish responsible limits on ORV use—ORVs do NOT belong on quiet mountain trails. Their abuse is 

spreading noxious weeds in our counties. Please work to keep Montana’s beautiful 

wild lands special: Montana’s growing tourist economy as well as the economic support of its new residents really depend on selling the UNIQUENESS OF MONTANA’S WILDERNESS AREAS. People are not coming here to see ‘‘more of the 

same’’ that they left in other states that have spoiled environments. Montana’s future can be bright and prosperous with leadership that understands the enormous 

value of growth with conservation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETH WEISSMAN, LIVINGSTON, MT 

I strongly feel that we must preserve the Wilderness. Montana is developing and 

sprawling and only the wilderness spaces will be left of the greatness of Montana’s 

open spaces. They must be saved for the future. Roads, motorized vehicles, ATV’s: 

these represent the opposite of what we should be protecting. We need quiet places 

to hike, fish, hunt, camp, where animals can live without noise. We have enough 

roads in this state for motorized vehicles; let’s save the wilderness. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM FIDDLER, BIGFORK, MT 

Senator Burns: I have traveled to all 50 states and many foreign countries and 

lived in some of the largest cities in the United States From my perspective, there 

is no shortage of roads on which to drive motorized vehicles. Even in Montana, a 

state with a higher percentage of wild lands than most, there is only a very small 
58 

portion where one can go to enjoy a peaceful experience without the possible disruption from some form of motorized vehicle. 

Of all the places I have lived, I have never had more friends or relatives visit me 

than I have since living in Montana. They don’t come here because they have heard 

that we have incredible roads or places in the forest where they can drive an ATV. 

They come to enjoy the quiet, unspoiled beauty of nature. When a person hikes 

through the woods, very little disturbance occurs. When someone rides any motorized vehicle through the woods, a great deal of disturbance occurs. The sound can 

literally intrude on people miles away. The impact to the ground itself from just one 

set of tires is greater than 100 people walking that same trail. The pollution from 

small vehicles is usually even worse than our cars which are bad enough. Vehicles 

belong on roads, not in the forest, and there is no shortage of roads. There is a very 

real shortage of places left that have not yet been forever altered by a road. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROCKY HECKMAN, CHOTEAU, MT 

Senator Burns: Have you fell on your head? Don’t even think about opening up 

wilderness areas to motorized travel, oil or mineral exploration, or any thing like 

that. C’mon get a reality check, these precious wilderness areas are only a speck 

on the map, there is plenty of land in Montana that nobody gives a rip about. Go 

ruin that, if it makes you feel good, not an area so many of us care about, just to 

appease the greedy. Please do not respond to this message with a sales pitch type 

‘‘bla, bla, bla’’ response that tries to convince me that you know what you’re talking 

about. I don’t, cause it’s crap, and proves only that you’re out of touch with Montanans such as me. 

Happy holidays. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DOROTHY STARSHINE, GREAT FALLS, MT 

Conrad Burns, Senator: In 1955, our family moved to Montana so we could hunt, 

fish and hike in these glorious wilderness areas. However, if quiet areas continue 

to shrink, our 18 grandchildren will not have the experiences that our family experienced only 50 years ago. 

Please use your power to protect the wild areas with Wilderness designation to 

prevent roads and subdivisions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK WALLER, WHITEFISH, MT 

Senator Burns: We are writing to help answer your questions regarding why the 

Forest Service recommends tracts of Montana wilderness and motor-free areas— 

from just two ordinary Montana residents—we’re not a big business, not lobbyists, 

and don’t belong to an Indian reservation. We just enjoy the state’s national forests 

as they are—except for the encroachment of machines and more roads. 

Our wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas are even more important to 

preserve and protect as our valleys fill with more people, development, roads—preserving these areas will be so much more valuable as we see our public lands being 

sold off, drilled into, mined, etc. 30,000 miles of roads in our national forests yet 

only 4 percent of Montana is actually protected. This is shameful. 

Our national forests are already multiple-abused—motorized vehicles i.e. ATVs 

just take the joy out of a fair—big game hunt with your children, a hike with your 

friends, a solitary day of fishing—this to us is what Montana has always been 

about—wild areas—it’s what makes Montana stand out from the rest of the country. 

We need to bring people together to solve our problems—creativity and foresight. 

We need to provide new leadership to keep Montana’s quiet mountain trails and wilderness. 

You, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Rehberg should shed your Washington, DC skins and 

start spending some time in our national forests—we suggest areas where machines 

are already allowed, and just try and enjoy the surroundings. Then, you should go 

to a wilderness, roadless area and compare. If you haven’t done this in a while, you 

should. Then you’ll know why the majority of Montanans don’t want motorized use 

in our national forests. 

Happy holidays. 
59 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURIE GAISER, WHITEFISH, MT 

Senator Burns: We are writing to help answer your questions regarding why the 

Forest Service recommends tracts of Montana wilderness and motor-free areas— 

from just two ordinary Montana residents—we’re not a big business, not lobbyists, 

and don’t belong to an Indian reservation. We just enjoy the state’s national forests 

as they are—except for the encroachment of machines and more roads. 

Our wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas are even more important to 

preserve and protect as our valleys fill with more people, development, roads—preserving these areas will be so much more valuable as we see our public lands being 

sold off, drilled into, mined , etc. 30,000 miles of roads in our national forests yet 

only 4 percent of Montana is actually protected. This is shameful. 

Our national forests are already multiple-abused—motorized vehicles i.e. ATVs 

just take the joy out of a fair—big game hunt with your children, a hike with your 

friends, a solitary day of fishing—this to us is what Montana has always been 

about—wild areas—it’s what makes Montana stand out from the rest of the country. 

We need to bring people together to solve our problems—creativity and foresight. 

We need to provide new leadership to keep Montana’s quiet mountain trails and wilderness. 

You, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Rehberg should shed your Washington, DC skins and 

start spending some time in our national forests—we suggest areas where machines 

are already allowed, and just try and enjoy the surroundings. Then, you should go 

to a wilderness, roadless area and compare. If you haven’t done this in a while, you 

should. Then you’ll know why the majority of Montanans don’t want motorized use 

in our national forests. 

Happy holidays. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. STEVE SENINGER, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator Burns: I participated in all of the Missoula Ranger District, Lolo National 

Forest plan revision meetings this summer. A wide range of forest users were 

present at the tables including folks who were interested in ATV/OHV use, snowmobiles, logging, hunting, hiking, and other interests. The meetings produced useful 

dialogue and the results were summarized by us participants and provided to Forest 

Service as public input. I feel that the Lolo National Forest staff were very efficient 

and fair and used the input provided by all groups and kinds of users of our national forests. I personally want to see more protection of our public lands and our 

road less areas which now comprise a very small portion of our overall public lands 

here in Montana. 

I am a resident of Missoula, a taxpayer, and a registered voter and I will continue 

to support political candidates who work to keep Montana lands open to all with 

adequate protection for hunters, fishermen, trail riders, hikers, skiers and other 

non-motorized uses. I appreciate you holding the December 2 hearings in Missoula 

which I attended and urge you to work for protection of one of Montana’s greatest 

treasures, our mountains and public lands. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EILEEN SCHWANEMANN, MISSOULA, MT 

Dear Senator Burns: It was interesting going to my first Senate Committee Hearing. I was sorry that not even fifteen minutes was allotted to comment/questions 

from any of the many attendees. 

The issue of logging in national forests certainly needs to be addressed and procedures changed some. Who would be the responsible persons to facilitate this process? Certainly the public who own’ this public land should be involved. I agree that 

certain groups are tying the whole process of any type of logging up in expensive 

lawsuits only the lawyers win. What can end or limit this? 

The other subject discussed at the meeting was motorized use in the forests. At 

several of the Forest Planning Meetings in Missoula this summer, it was suggested 

that motorized vehicles belong on roads. There are certainly many roads in many 

of the forests. I realize that many people have these vehicles. But I do not think 

ATV’s, Four Wheelers, and the like should be on trails where people walk, hike, or 

bike. There are obvious safety factors involved here. Not to suggest banning them, 

but snowmobiles are both extremely noisy and polluting. One last comment on this 

issue. 

There is a quiet in the woods, a silence that the soul alone can hear, as if all of 

nature knew and understood, what a precious resource this is. (Some credit for this 

goes to Leanin, Tree Cards.) 
60 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID ROCKWELL, DIXON, MT 

Senator Conrad Burns: You questioned the need for wilderness when you were in 

Missoula on Dec. 2. Please remember that Montana has over 90,000 miles of roads. 

Less than 4 percent of Montana is protected as wilderness. We need wilderness as 

a people; it is part of who we are as Montanans! It is part of our heritage and 

should be part of the legacy we leave future generations. There are lots of places 

to go to drive off-road vehicles, few places where you can enjoy the peace and tranquility of a roadless environment. 

ATVs and ORVs belong on designated roads because they when used inappropriately they cause erosion, disrupt wildlife and harm fish (with the silt they produce). 

They can damage resources that belong to all of us. 

Wilderness is multiple use. It provides for clean water for our communities, outdoor recreation, range (through leases), and fish and wildlife. The language of the 

Wilderness act even states that the purposes of the Wilderness Act are within and 

supplemental to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA). The only use mentioned in the MUSYA that wilderness does not include is timber. But if every acre 

of every forest had to provide all of the multiple uses identified in the MUSYA, we 

would have an impossible task before us. 

Please support wilderness designation for our remaining roadless areas. Thank 

you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHY LLOYD, CLANCY, MT 

Senator Conrad Burns: We were not able to attend the Senate Oversight Hearing 

in Missoula on December 2 and were shocked and upset to hear about the comments 

you made concerning roadless areas in Montana. We are, frankly, very concerned 

to be represented by someone who has to have these things explained. You, of all 

people, should realize the value placed on our natural heritage, quiet places, excellent hunting and fishing opportunities, and unspoiled beauty, not only by the people 

of Montana, but by people throughout the country and the world. The American 

public showed overwhelming support for the Roadless Conservation Initiative because we knew how precious these areas are now, and how much more precious and 

unique they will be in the future. 

Montana is cris-crossed by over 90,000 miles of roads, while only 4 percent of the 

state is protected as Wilderness. As more of the natural landscape in Montana is 

turned into subdivisions, roads, and noise, Wilderness will become even more important. We want our kids and their kids to be able to enjoy the natural landscape of 

Montana, a landscape that is bragged about and advertised as special. Our economy 

is, to a large extent, fueled by our image of unspoiled beauty, and that will be even 

more the case in the future if unthinking people don’t degrade the reality. 

We want you to support the National Association of Counties and tell the Forest 

Service to establish limits on motorized use in the backcountry. Motorized vehicles 

belong on roads, not on quiet, family hiking trails. The damage, erosion, spread of 

weeds, and conflicts generated by ORV traffic is undeniable and must be managed. 

As to your question about multiple-use, the principle is applied to the forest as a 

whole; it does not mean that every inch of ground is open for every use. 

Now is no time to play politics. There is too much at stake. If we don’t act now 

what we all love about Montana will be overrun with roads, noise, pollution, weeds, 

and concrete. 

Thanks. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CATHERINE HAUG, BIGFORK, MT 

Senator Burns: I’m writing to urge you to keep Montana’s wild areas free of roads, 

ATVs and snowmobiles, by working with the U.S. Government to preserve more 

areas as wilderness. You have stated that you believe ‘‘wilderness limits the ability 

of folks to enjoy’’ public lands by prohibiting access via roads and off-road vehicle 

traffic. But you are missing a critical point with this argument. That is, opening 

access to wild areas via automobiles and off road vehicles, removes the ‘‘wild’’ from 

the areas. Far better to enjoy these remarkable areas by horseback or by hiking the 

trails. Vehicular traffic is polluting, noisy, and visually obtrusive. 

Please help preserve Montana’s glorious back country for our children and generations that follow. Preserve this wilderness as a safeguard for hunting, fishing, hik-
61 

ing and cross-country skiing the quiet mountain trails, and camping under the 

stars. 

I live near Montana’s spectacular Jewel Basin, one of the most popular hiking 

areas in the west, and have spent many wonderful summer days and nights hiking 

and backpacking in the Basin and to the top of Mt. Anaeas. I would be devastated 

to see this area ruined by roads and ATVs. 

Recent forest plans recommend even less wilderness than the most recent Montana wilderness bill passed by the U.S. Senate (S. 1696), which was cosponsored by 

you. People across the country think of Montana as the ‘‘Last Great Place,’’ one of 

the last wilderness states (along with Alaska), and yet Montana has lower percentage of wilderness (at 4 percent) than our neighboring western states! 

ATVs and other motorized vehicles belong on roads, not on quiet, pristine mountain trails. We need to establish responsible limits on off-road vehicle (ORV) use, 

to prevent the spread of weeds and other damage from ORV traffic. 

Wilderness is needed to promote the growth and breeding of beloved yet often endangered wildlife. Connected corridors of wilderness are especially needed to ensure 

genetic integrity and prevention of inbreeding. 

I urge you to provide new leadership on this issue of wilderness. Please forego 

polarizing politics. Bring people together to solve our problems, and to keep our wild 

areas—the best of the Old West—alongside the new. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DUDLEY IMPROTA, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator Burns: I received a card announcing the Senate Hearing in Missoula Dec. 

2, 2005. I attended. With all due respect I believe our forests and wildlands should 

be managed differently than a cornfield in Iowa. 

My comment on the Region 1 plans would be to save all roadless areas that are 

now designated that way. Governor Schweitzer recently met with all county commissioners in Montana. Their opinion was that no new roads were needed at this time. 

They did say that it may be necessary for new roads in a time of emergency such 

as fighting wildfire. 

I would agree that it is time to take a close look at NEPA and perhaps update 

those laws to reflect the current state of land management. 

Please don’t vote to sell public land or promote development of lands that are now 

protected. Many Montanans put up with lower wages in order to enjoy wild public 

lands. 

One such area is Forest Service land near Missoula and Lolo Peak. We have 

13,000 acres of primitive and roadless lands that buffer the development of Missoula 

and the BitterRoot Valley from the majestic Selway-BitterRoot wilderness. We all 

know what is eventually going to happen to private land in this area. Some would 

develop this public land given the chance. If we care about outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing and the Montana lifestyle; we will work to protect these areas. 

Thanks for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE LUEPKE, POLSON, MT 

Senator Burns: Little by little roadless areas are being encroached on and our 

wild lands are being decreased. We already have at least 30,000 miles of roads in 

Montana’s National Forests. We need responsible leadership that recognizes the 

value of wilderness, not only for individuals but also for the good of our 

communalities in terms of CLEAN AIR and CLEAN WATER. 

I hope that you will think about the future and do what is right. 

Also, I want to thank you for taking the time to investigate this issue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIETTE CRUMP AND BILL BEVIS, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator Burns: I was appalled at your comparing our forests to a corn field. A 

corn field is privately owned and farmed for profit. Our national forests are publicly 

owned and managed for multiple uses. 

We need more wilderness rather than less for our future Montana citizens. I have 

noticed over the past few years in the Beaverhead National Forest and the Lolo National Forest that more and more motorized vehicles are going off roads and this 

means habitat is destroyed and weeds are spread by these vehicles. That’s why we 

need the Forest Service to recommend tracts of Montana wilderness, for protection 

of pristine areas that my grandchildren can enjoy. 
62 

The Forest Service has provided ample areas where snow mobiles and ATVs can 

go, such as Lolo Pass where my friends and I cross country ski (with snow mobiles 

on some trails) every Wednesday during winter. We need you to support the National Association of Counties call to place responsible limits on ORV use. Wilderness protection will help do this. 

I urge you to do everything you can to preserve Montana’s heritage of open 

spaces. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHAUB, HAVRE, MT 

I do not favor increasing motorized use of National Forests. Less than 4 percent 

of Montana is actually protected as wilderness. Our roadless, non motorized wilderness areas are the womb of Montana’s quality environment that is attracting well 

paying, environmentally friendly business to our state. I have health issues that 

likely will prevent me from hiking into some areas that I once traveled. I reject the 

idea of driving a 4 wheeler into those wild, roadless, quiet areas. I want them left 

as is for my children and grandchildren. Not only do we need to keep the few non 

motorized wilderness areas that we have, we need to achieve some equalization and 

increase the wilderness areas. There are plenty of other areas that I can access by 

pick up or 4 wheeler. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VANELLE NURSE, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator: You mentioned at the 12/2 Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula that 

you believe ‘‘wilderness limits the ability of folks to enjoy’’ public lands. I strongly 

disagree. I love to hike in our wilderness areas. As a senior citizen I realize there 

will come a time in the near future when I may not personally be able to access 

the areas I have enjoyed for decades, but I would like to believe they will be kept 

safe and pristine for our children and grandchildren. All motorized vehicles belong 

on roads, including ATV’s. Mountain trails are not a place for the noise and damage 

these vehicles create. Please support the National Association of Counties’ call for 

the Forest Service to expedite forest travel plans to establish responsible limits on 

off-road vehicle use, to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and other damage from 

ORV traffic. Please continue our heritage of open space for the future of all Montanan’s. Please save our wild public lands. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY O’BRIEN, POLSON, MT 

Senator Burns: I am writing to state my opinion that wilderness is consistent 

with the multiple use mandate of the U.S. Forest Service. Wild places deserve an 

equal place among those areas set aside for logging, vehicle traffic, etc. 

Montana has more than 90,000 miles of roads, but less than 4 percent of our 

unique state is preserved as wilderness. All of Montana’s neighboring western states 

have seen fit to set aside greater percentages than that. We Montanans want to 

pass a heritage of open spaces on to our children, but to do so we must be foresighted enough to set them aside now. 

Thank you for your attention to my comments. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLLEEN MERCER, GREAT FALLS, MT 

Until I started hiking in the local mountains, I didn’t understand the complaints 

about motorized vehicles. 

Now because I’ve actually used our public lands, I realize the threat. 

On July 4, my husband and I took an early morning hike in the Little Belts along 

Jefferson Creek. Then, the vehicles joined us. We quit, and returned to our car because of the smell of the constant traffic, and stopping to allow them to pass. It was 

a real surprise how many are on the trail—too many to allow hikers to walk along. 

In the fall, I joined a group of women on the trails out of Utica. We found it impossible to follow the detailed Forest Service map because there were so many off 

road tracks running EVERYWHERE, despite signs indicating no motorized traffic. 

We need to regulate this activity, and enforce the regulations! Our undisturbed 

lands are a resource, key to our state’s prestige. Thank you. 
63 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET TATZ, HELENA, MT 

Dear Senator Burns: I was shocked and disappointed to learn that you had recently questioned the value of wilderness. In a December 2 Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula, you stated that ‘‘wilderness limits the ability of folks to enjoy’’ public lands. You also questioned whether wilderness and motor free areas were ‘‘consistent with the multiple use’’ mandate of the U.S. Forest Service. 

As a long time resident of Montana, and a staunch advocate for the preservation 

of Montana’s wilderness, I am writing today to tell you that Wilderness designations 

for many of Montana’s wild lands, is the only way to preserve the many wonderful 

places that Montana offers for hunting, fishing, solitude and open space. Wilderness 

represents Montana’s future, as well as its past. 

Currently, Montana has less than 4 percent of its land protected as wilderness. 

All of our neighboring western states enjoy a higher percentage of wilderness designation. We already have 30,000 miles of roads in our national forests. We need 

to do more, now, to protect our remaining open spaces from excessive ORV use. Irresponsible ORV use leads to the spread of noxious weeds, habitat loss and the opportunity to hike on a quiet mountain trail. 

Montanans need you to provide the leadership to maintain and preserve our wilderness heritage. Please do so. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEN AND NANCY LABUFF, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator Burns: I am very disappointed concerning your comments on wilderness 

on Dec. 2 at a Senate Oversight Hearing in Missoula. Our wilderness areas in Montana are one of our greatest treasures we have. To allow road building, motorized 

vehicles, or logging in the areas would be an inestimable loss for all Montanans and 

U.S. citizens. Please work to protect these last wild areas we have in Montana. They 

are for everyone to enjoy and protect now and for future generations. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICH AND JEANNIE PRODGERS, DILLON, MT 

Dear Senator: I strongly disagree with your statement that formal wilderness designation limits the ability of folks to enjoy public lands. Those are the lands my wife 

and I most enjoy. It’s that simple. 

I recall recently reading your statement that logging forests is like cropping corn 

in Iowa. You’re right: it takes federal subsidies and is unsustainable in the long run. 

Here is southwest Montana we had USFS roads out the wazoo, but Congress 

won’t appropriate enough funds to maintain them. Despite near-record elk numbers, 

the harvest was once again poor because they vacate the roaded areas in favor of 

more secure ones. More roads will mean less secure habitat and fewer elk, but not 

better hunting. 

Chief in our desires when we go hiking is getting away from vehicles. We hike, 

fish, and hunt in wilderness areas and urge your support for additional wilderness 

designation. The future of Montana, as Bozeman as shown, lies in the beauty of our 

public lands, and only wilderness designation maintains their integrity. 

Thanks for considering our views. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EMILY LUNDBERG, BOZEMAN, MT 

Senator Burns: In regard to U.S. Forest Service planning, wilderness and motor 

free areas ARE definitely consistent with the multiple use mandate. Polls show that 

the majority of Montanans want motor free areas to be preserved for quiet recreation and wildlife protection. In regions that are roaded, quiet use is eliminated 

from possibility. Although motorized access is reasonable in selected areas, there 

must also be large motor free areas preserved for the future. The children of Montanans must have the opportunity to hunt, fish, hike, etc. in Montana wilderness. 

Montana needs to preserve more wilderness, not less. This also supports the significant tourism industry in Montana. 

Please view these issues with a long-term vision and step up to speak for the majority of individual Montanans. Future generations could build more roads if they 

wish, but they could never re-create wilderness. 
64 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON HARRIS, CLANCY, MT 

Senator Burns: This is just a quick note to advise you that I am fully in support 

of protecting Montana wilderness for current use and for future generations. In my 

experience, wilderness is multiple use that excludes very few. In reality, we have 

very little wilderness in Montana and there is no way ‘‘to make more.’’ Please protect or work to expand our current wilderness in Montana. This is the best decision 

in regard to long term planning and is also most supported by public opinion. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REBECCA DURHAM, WHITEFISH, MT 

Senator Burns: I am troubled by your quote, ‘‘wilderness limits the ability of folks 

to enjoy’’ public lands by keeping out off-road vehicle traffic. 

As a Montana resident, I feel that wilderness and a healthy environment are extremely important. As our valleys fill with roads and traffic, wilderness, solitude, 

quiet, and the splendor of nature are extremely important. We owe it to ourselves 

and to future Montana generations to safeguard wild places. Please do not underestimate the importance of wilderness. 

There are many places that people who wish to use off road vehicles may—in fact 

there are over 30,000 miles of roads in Montana national forests. Designating wilderness hardly limits the opportunities for this sort of recreation. Off road vehicle 

use is extremely destructive to the land when not properly managed, bringing in 

noxious weeds, pollution, and harming plants and animals. I urge you to support 

the National Association of Counties’ call for the Forest Service to expedite forest 

travel plans that will establish responsible limits on ORV use. 

Wilderness IS multiple use, and belongs in our forests along with suitable areas 

for logging and vehicle traffic. Senator Burns, consider that many of your constituents value wilderness, and please support wilderness designations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN PECK, COLUMBIA FALLS, MT 

Senator Burns: What are you folks smokin’ back in D.C. these days?! Of course 

Wilderness is one of the intended ‘‘multiple uses.’’ I’ve lived in the Rockies and Montana for 35 years, and Wilderness is where I find the cleanest air and water, the 

biggest trout and elk, and some of the last of the Quiet on God’s green earth. We’ve 

got something like 30,000 miles of roads on public land already and only about 4 

percent of the state’s in Wilderness. The guys who have forgotten the Montana traditions of hiking, horse packing, and floating, and can’t go anywhere without their 

motors need to stop whining—they’ve got plenty of roads. 

You need to get outta Washington Conrad, and back to the REAL Montana—it’s 

Wild—not a bunch more roads filled with sissys who forgot how to pull on boots and 

walk, or ride a horse. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELON GILBERT, ARLEE, MT 

Dear Senator Burns: As a resident of Arlee on the Flathead Reservation I have 

long been enjoying the wild areas that surround me as a hiker and skier. I have 

also been a participant in the forest planning (FP) activities in the last several 

months both here in MT as well as in ID. Two comments: 

1. Despite lots of disagreement, FP is bringing folks together that thought they 

had nothing in common—this is healthy and the process should be respected, not 

usurped by political or bureaucratic behind the scenes dealings. The discussions on 

the roadless areas are the same ones that have featured in the FP process and this 

continues to cause confusion. I hope that you will see how the results of these two 

processes can converge. 

2. I strongly favor keeping existing roadless areas as they are and support wilderness designation for special areas, including the Great Burn/Malard Larkin the 

LoLo and Clearwater NFs. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANELLE KUECHLE, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator Conrad Burns: I attended the hearing you held on December 2, at the 

University on Montana, College of Technology in Missoula. After testimony from the 

six people on the panel, I heard you say to almost 500 people that you didn’t ‘‘think 

it’s any different than a field of Iowa corn or a grass field in eastern Montana.’’ Re-
65 

spectfully, Senator Burns, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Having grown up in 

a farming community in Minnesota, a forest isn’t anything like a corn field except 

that it is outside and grows. I realize that you probably made this comment off-thecuff, but it seemed to show a lack of knowledge in regards to the reforestation 

projects that have run amuck. Because of clear-cut slopes which cannot support new 

seedlings due to slides and run off, not to mention a multitude of other reasons, socalled sustainable harvest has not hit the mark. 

But, there’s more to this issue. When we talk about multiple uses, it sounds like 

we all can use the forest together in harmony. In reality, uses don’t always mix. 

For example, the Lolo Pass on the Idaho border has combined uses with separate 

trails for cross-country skiing and for snowmobiling. When I go up there to ski, I 

know that it won’t be entirely peaceful, but I can live with that because I love the 

area. I have, however, yet to be up there when there hasn’t been a snowmobile on 

the cross-country trail, or at least the results of one cutting across trails making 

it nearly impossible to ski safely. 

There was testimony by Russ Ehnes, President of the Montana Trail Riders Association, regarding limiting public access. Conspicuous by its absence was that he 

didn’t mention illegally made trails all over the State of Montana. Ehnes also stated 

that ‘‘the people who promote more wilderness are changing the nomenclature of the 

debate.’’ Senator Burns, the words ‘‘wilderness light’’ are not coming from people 

who want wilderness designations. We want no such ‘‘wilderness light.’’ We want 

some places designated as wilderness forever, so that they are free of machines forever. I do not believe that the wilderness designation undercuts local economies. In 

fact, we had 10 million visitors last year, many of whom were wilderness seekers. 

Besides, there are already 90,000 miles of roads in our State. That is more than 

the lion’s share of Montana to be used by thousands of trail-vehicle riders. 

Regarding the cutting of timber spoiled by the draught and subsequent beetle infestation, I believe that some logging should be allowed. However, not every piece 

of wood in the forest should be removed just because nature takes the course of fire 

and beetle kill. The trees that survive are the stronger strains which should be allowed to reforest the area. In addition, the remaining habitat provides cover for 

wildlife that is more conducive to the health of many species than a clear cut could 

ever be. 

Senator Burns, please bring people together to plan ahead for multiple use that 

designates wilderness forever, areas for logging, and roads for vehicle use. And 

please don’t let people just talk about the market economy. Let’s talk about the 

‘‘economy’’ of the spirit, which ultimately has great value for stressed human beings 

who are over-taxed by a world that is almost completely industrialized. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM D. PETERSON, MISSOULA, MT 

Senator Conrad Burns: I am writing to provide testimony on behalf of Wildlands 

CPR regarding the recent Congressional field hearing on Forest Planning held in 

Missoula. Wildlands CPR is a national conservation group that specifically targets 

off-road vehicle abuse on public lands and actively promotes wildland restoration, 

road removal, the prevention of new road construction, and limits on motorized 

recreation. Please include these comments in the formal hearing record. 

Wildlands CPR would like to express concerns with the testimony delivered during the panel. Chief among our concerns are issues related to NFMA and NEPA, 

impacts related to dispersed motorized recreation, adequate funding to implement 

the new off road vehicle rule, wilderness recommendations in forest planning, issues 

related to forest health including beetle kill and logging, and concerns related to 

Forest Plan revision. 

There seemed to be a presupposition by members of the panel that there is a lack 

of motorized recreation opportunities on our National Forests. This is not the case. 

According to Forest Service data, 36 percent of the national system, or 69,004,231 

acres, is currently open to off-road cross-country travel. In addition, more than 

273,529 miles of roads and trails are open to use by off road vehicles. These data 

do not demonstrate a lack of motorized access to America’s National Forests. This 

abundant access the lack of balance on the ground, in fact, because only approximately 10 percent of national forest recreational visitors participate in winter or 

summer off-road vehicle recreation while at least one-third of the land is opened to 

cross-country travel, not counting the additional routes that are specifically designated for off-road vehicle use. 

Dispersal of motorized recreation is also a concern for us at Wildlands CPR. Impacts from motorized users should be concentrated to reduce negative impacts to 

soil, water, and habitat, not spread over large and unmanageable areas. Russ Ehnes 
66 

of the Montana Trail Riders Association remarked at the hearing, in reference to 

off road vehicle use, that: ‘‘the solution to pollution is dilution.’’ This familiar axiom 

was formulated in the late-twentieth century in relation to air and water pollution. 

The phrase implies that the same emission rate from a tall stack will have far less 

impact on nearby residents than a low stack. Unfortunately, this approach to lowering human exposure ignored the potential impacts of those emissions on areas further downwind. Hence the quick and easy solution, while effective, produced unforeseen environmental impacts. The same model is true in relation to impacts of motorized recreation. If more areas and trails are provided for motorized use, more negative environmental impacts will occur. This is especially true with regard to noxious 

and invasive weed seeds, which hitch a ride on motorized equipment. Forest Service 

Chief Bosworth named noxious and invasive weeds as one of the four key threats 

to the National Forest System. The more dispersed off road vehicles and motor vehicles become, the more dispersed noxious and invasive weeds become. A larger network of motorized routes also leads to greater habitat fragmentation and disturbance of wildlife and natural quiet. Instead of increasing impacts by permitting an 

ever-expanding network of motorized routes, negative environmental impacts should 

be avoided by restricting motorized use to areas and zones where it can be more 

effectively managed. It is also important to consider the multiple use mandate when 

planning for off road vehicle use. Multiple use does not mean every use in every 

area, but a balanced spectrum of conservation, recreation and extractive activities. 

Multiple uses of the forest include quiet recreation such as hiking, bird and wildlife 

watching and skiing. As off road vehicle use becomes more and more pervasive, 

many other multiple uses of forest land are displaced as quiet users abandon areas 

dominated by off road vehicles and their attendant noise, dust and pollution. Quiet 

places are becoming harder and harder to find on forest lands as off road vehicle 

technology improves and allows these vehicles to travel farther and farther into the 

backcountry, impacting more and more resources along the way. Effective application of the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate must include room for the natural 

quiet and solitude nonmotorized areas provide. 

Effective implementation of the new Forest Service rule ‘‘Travel Management; 

Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use’’ depends on adequate funding 

from Congress. When directly asked about funding needs, Chief Bosworth explained 

that the agency would find funding for route designations by being creative with 

line items rather than requesting additional appropriations. Here in Montana, we’ve 

already had one forest, the Helena, drop their travel planning entirely due to lack 

of funding. It is critical that Congress dedicate funding for route designation processes if the agencies are to deal effectively with off road vehicles. Adequate funding 

is crucial to correcting what the Chief named as another of the four key threats to 

the National Forest system, ‘‘unmanaged recreation.’’ If not adequately funded, the 

new rule could flounder, leading to a continuation of the serious problems caused 

by unmanaged motorized recreation. We respectfully request that you take the initiative to fully fund the implementation of the Travel Management; Designated 

Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use Rule. 

The state of Montana currently contains 3,372,503 acres of designated Forest 

Service wilderness. Montana’s total acreage is 93,153,280. Only about 3.7 percent 

of Montana is Forest Service Wilderness. Montana has a lower percentage of land 

area in designated wilderness than Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, 

Hawaii, Florida, Arizona, Alaska and California. No new Forest Service wilderness 

has been designated in Montana since 1983. Interest in quiet recreation has increased exponentially since that time, (at an even faster rate than interest in motorized recreation), and Montanans want more wilderness. In Forest Plan revision, 

planners are charged with the duty to make a recommendation to the regional forester for lands suitable, available and capable for wilderness designation. While this 

technical process is not a mandatory precursor to an actual designation by Congress, 

it is important to recommend that land be managed for non-impairment of wilderness values in the forest planning process. At the hearing, panelists argued that too 

much land is being recommended for wilderness designation in the forest planning 

process. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge was cited as a specific example. At 3.32 million 

acres, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest currently contains 225,147 acres 

of designated wilderness. This represents 6 percent of the forest. The recommendation under the preferred alternative for 246,500 acres, if actually congressionally 

designated, would bring the total to only 14 percent of the forest. This was highlighted as unreasonably large amount. We believe it is an unreasonably small 

amount. While wilderness recommendations such as these will be made for some 

forests, the Kootenai National Forest Plan revision contains no wilderness recommendation at all. This does not represent the Forest Service’s multiple use mandate, as wilderness is a valid multiple use of federal lands. In addition, a common 
67 

complaint is that wilderness eliminates access. This is untrue, as there are many 

more ways to access the forest than sitting astride an off road vehicle. Wilderness 

does not disallow access; it only places restrictions on modes and methods of access. 

Two of our nation’s bedrock environmental laws, the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) were both referenced in the hearing. A need to reform these laws was expressed with the implication that these laws are outdated, written for a time when resource extraction was 

the management emphasis on public lands. Panelists argued that we have entered 

an era of restoration, and those laws (NFMA and NEPA) that once hindered resource extraction are hindering restoration. Unfortunately, we believe this is a misrepresentation of the actual on-the-ground situation. In recent years, land management planners have simply substituted the words ‘‘restoration project’’ for the words 

‘‘timber sale’’ in project documents. Given this mostly semantic change, many 

projects are challenged by conservation interests and citizens on the basis that they 

are not, in fact, true restoration. If these projects were indeed true restoration, they 

would meet far fewer challenges from the conservation community. Another common 

semantic smokescreen packages logging related to fuels reduction and reduction of 

fire risk as restoration. These projects may benefit local communities in terms of 

reducing fire risk, but they are seldom truly restoration. Land managers must consider the mandate of the NFMA—its requirements have improved management, 

monitoring and accountability. Public involvement, adequate consideration of environmental impacts, and the open processes guaranteed by NEPA are critical to the 

function of a public land agency. This success is not an indication that these bedrock 

laws need reform. If restoration is the true goal, forest projects should be defensible 

and thus move quickly through the NEPA process. These key laws hold land managers accountable to the American public, conservation and industry interests alike. 

The panelists’ discussion surrounding beetle killed trees demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of natural processes of forest health, as well as the 

scope and scale of forested federal land. It is simply not practical or advisable to 

remove every single beetle-killed tree from federal land. Leaving dead and down 

trees in the landscape is not ‘‘a waste of timber,’’ it allows completion of the nutrient 

cycle. Some species, such as lodgepole pine, evolved with beetle kill and the fire that 

often follows for healthy regeneration. It is not possible to mimic natural processes 

by simply building roads and cutting trees. To do so would remove a substantial 

portion of the nutrient cycle, as well as further disturb other terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats. While factors such as global climate change, drought, and the effects of a 

century of fire suppression are leading to increased beetle kill in some areas, ‘‘outbreaks’’ on a landscape scale before Anglo settlement have been recorded all across 

the west, including the Flat Tops of the White River and Routt National Forests 

in Colorado and the high plateaus of the Manti-LaSal, Fishlake and Dixie National 

Forests of central and southern Utah. It is simply not possible to keep ahead of beetle kill by cutting trees. Contrary to Chief Bosworth’s assertions, there is simply no 

sound science indicating that such a scenario would be plausible or beneficial to forest health. Chief Bosworth explained that land use designations will occur at the 

forest planning level. The agency must be clear about its multiple use mandate in 

forest planning, taking great care to be sure to include lands suitable for wilderness 

and lands suitable for other nonmotorized recreation, as well as supplying forage, 

wood and water. 

Finally, you remarked near the end of the hearing: ‘‘I don’t think [national forests 

are] any different than a field of Iowa corn or a grass field in eastern Montana.’’ 

There is a vast difference between a piece of private ground managed for a single 

use and America’s public lands. National Forests are not tree plantations, and more 

than just commodity harvest must be considered in their management. National forests are managed for multiple use, not single-use commodity production. The philosophy of National Forest as national woodlot is not one shared by the majority of 

American citizens, who see National Forests as a prime source of recreation, clean 

water, wildlife habitat, solitude and stunning natural beauty. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHARON DILL, FLORENCE, MT 

I was out of town when your hearing was held in Missoula on Dec. 2. I would 

like my comments added to those of others. 

I attended several of the FS planning meetings and felt that they were bending 

over backwards to give the public a chance to be heard. If anything, there were so 

many meetings that it was hard to pick and choose which were most important to 

attend. 
68 

You seem to have a concern about the multiple use mandate to the FS. To me, 

multiple use means that all types of use are worked into the forest plan, but it does 

NOT mean all at the same place. For example, I was recently cross country skiing 

at Lolo Pass. I dreaded crossing the road which the snowmobilers are allowed to 

use. Why? Because it is dangerous! I have heard that they are supposed to have 

a speed limit of 15 mph in that area, but that simply doesn’t happen. It hasn’t been 

that long ago since a skier was hit and killed by a snowmobile in that same area 

so my concerns are legitimate. 

Please work to bring people with different interests together to figure out which 

areas work best for which activities and alleviate the polarization that tends to happen. 

I support wilderness areas and would like to see them increased. To me, that is 

the most important of the ‘‘multiple uses.’’ 

I realize today is the deadline for submitting comments and hope this is not too 

late. I was unable to get online earlier due to technical problems with the internet 

connection. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE TIMMERMAN, KALISPELL, MT 

Sir: I moved to Montana 16 years ago looking for wilderness, wild animals, open 

spaces, peace and quiet that I couldn’t find in the Midwest anymore. Now, northwest Montana is being ‘‘discovered’’ and open spaces here are dotted with 

ranchettes, strip malls. Even more, we need to preserve our wilderness (now only 

4 percent of our state) because people need it to get away, for that peace and quiet. 

I’m not that good with words or describing my feelings, but I know how important 

a move Montana was for me. Please don’t allow our wilderness to go to the highest 

bidder (big companies/corporations) who’ll impose more limits in access to our state 

treasures of open and wild lands. 

Thanks. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLORIA FLORA, HELENA, MT 

Greetings Sen. Burns: You invited comment essentially asking the question, 

‘‘What good is wilderness?’’. A good question: one that begs an answer that is both 

simple yet profound. 

Less than 5 percent of our state is wilderness, that means our great-grandchildren 

can expect that less than 5 percent of the state will be almost exactly as it was in 

our ancestor’s time. (Do you recall the extent to which your hometown and its surroundings have changed?) But instead of counting wilderness acres as a percentage 

of the state, we should count wilderness acres per capita... they’re going down 

every year as the population grows. And this isn’t just a Montana resource, these 

lands belong to all Americans, we’re just the temporary caretakers—and typically 

darn good ones. 

Wilderness is a living, interactive museum as well as our childrens’ legacy. Wilderness is an incredible source of clean water, trees that provide oxygen and absorb 

carbon dioxide, unaltered vistas, a laboratory for research, a multitude of recreation 

opportunities, especially hunting and fishing, a unique state identity drawing millions of tourists, a well-spring of biodiversity... the list could go on and on. 

Over 100 prominent scientists had this to say about undeveloped landscapes. ‘‘Undisturbed forests are less susceptible to tree diseases, insect attacks, and invasions 

from non-native species, and are less likely to have suffered the adverse effects of 

fire suppression. These healthier ecosystems are in turn more able to withstand the 

effects of global climate change and act as refugia for sensitive wildlife and plant 

species, many of which are vulnerable to extirpation in more developed areas. Thus, 

intact forests can serve as reservoirs as surrounding landscapes become genetically 

impoverished.’’ 

As I said when asked the same question on a PBS TV show, ‘‘Wilderness represents the land as it was, and as it can be, and will be into the future. And it provides us not only the understanding of an undisturbed eco-system, but it also provides a beautiful opportunity for people to reconnect with nature. And that is a fast 

disappearing commodity in the world.’’ 

The wealthiest country in the world surely can afford to treat its resources 

sustainably. The Creator didn’t just generate a marvelous, fecund landscape so 

every acre could be used up or destroyed. A prudent farmer keeps some of the seed 

stock. 
69 

There are volumes of books devoted to the subject, if you’d like some recommendations, let me know. You may also want to spend some time at the renowned Arther 

Carhart National Wilderness Training Center in Missoula, Montana. 

Thanks for asking. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBBIE MILBURN, HELENA, MT 

Why do Americans need more wilderness? Because it provides something that is 

in very short supply in our modern life: 

—Quiet 

—Slower pace of life 

—Pollution-free air, water and soil 

It’s as simple as that. Off-road vehicles (OHVs) threaten these precious attributes. 

People don’t need OHVs to recreate on public lands—they are not a traditional use. 

Our National Forests, along with Parks, Monuments and BLM lands are our last 

refuges from motor vehicles that are so prevalent in every other aspect of life. Wilderness and de facto wilderness is multiple use and a good choice for our land managers. Don’t complicate the issue by allowing OHVs. There will be less: 

—trail maintenance, 

—user conflicts, and 

—impact on natural resources 

Our last remaining natural places should not be spoiled by allowing OHV use. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROCKWOOD SCOTT BROWN, BILLINGS, MT 

Senator Burns: I am the owner of two outdoor stores—The Base Camp in Billings 

and Helena. I am writing to urge you to support Montana’s Wilderness. Our Wilderness areas are very important to me, my business and all of our staff. Wilderness 

promotes the use of the goods we sell. Thanks for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE AMMONS, ARLEE, MT 

I am very upset over the lack of protection for wilderness and wild areas within 

the purview of the Forest Service. 

I have lived in Montana my entire 50 years and started going to the Bob, Glacier, 

Yellowstone, and dozens of smaller parks when I was 4 years old with my father, 

carrying a tiny Kelty frame pack and enjoying the grandeur of the land and close 

contact with other animals. 

As a long-time citizen of the state, well-travelled over the United States and to 

other countries, I urge you to do the right thing for our children and create as much 

wilderness as is possible at this point—which actually can’t amount to much overall 

even at a maximum, due to encroachment. 

I have seen populations of animals dwindle, forest roads lead poachers and trespassers on noisy, damaging ATVs into my family’s land up Deep Creek, and 

snowmobilers trespass on all sorts of wild places they are not supposed to be so that 

they may ‘‘high mark’’. (Unfortunately, these idiots don’t kill themselves often 

enough to really effectively remove themselves from the gene pool . . .) I have nothing against ATVs—they are very helpful on my farm. 

We owe it to common sense, decency, our children and theirs, other critters, and 

to peace-and-quiet, nature loving humans from all over to create wilderness, limit 

roads, create eco-corridors, ban ATVs from wild lands, and to not simply follow the 

nods of the lobbyists with money and power. Don’t the ads on TV with Hondas and 

Kawasaki’s tearing trails through wild desert and mountains bother you? The Japanese corporate bosses encouraging Americans to destroy their own heritage while 

lining Japanese pockets? They certainly bother me. Chevy ads where the desert 

dunes and wild areas are trashed in some display of macho are equally 

bothersome . . . These ads appeal to people who have never taken the time to learn 

how to be ‘‘with’’ the land and truly enjoy it. One doesn’t ‘‘conquer’’ nature. 

If you want to see what happens in a state that really loves its ATVs and does 

little to control them, go look at southern Utah—huge, washed gullies from trails 

all over previously pristine wild areas. I have been bucked off horses frightened by 

snowmobiles and ATVs. let them use the 90,000 miles of roads that are already 

present in Montana and keep them off our wild trails. 

Recent plans for our national forests are appalling. They seem to have only one 

thing in mind: more areas to shred and make money from, votes to be had from 

the motorized folks, all at the expense of those on foot who do no damage to this 
70 

1http:www.fs.fed.us/rl/gallatin/projects/travellplanning/pdf/timeline01l04.pdf 2http:www.fs.fed.us/rl/gallatin/projects/travellplanning/pdf/TravellBriefinglPaperlMarchl2005.pdf 

beautiful heritage. Do not allow development that tears up the land and THEN asks 

for forgiveness, such as the BS development of a bogus ski area on Lolo Peak south 

of Missoula. This is not good land stewardship, not smart business thinking, and 

not what the majority of Missoulians want. The fellow who is behind it has a track 

record of dumb business deals and ego-maniacal thinking. I knew the previous generation of the Maclay family and I think they’d have given him a spanking for his 

rotten behavior. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION

Senator Burns and Committee Members: Please accept these comments from 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC). GYC is a non-profit, conservation organization 

with offices in Bozeman, Montana; Cody and Jackson, Wyoming; and Idaho Falls, 

Idaho. Our membership of approximately 12,600 individuals, 100 local, regional, and 

national conservation organizations and 120 business sponsors, is committed to protecting and preserving the lands, water, and wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, now and for future generations. 

GYC works on public land management issues throughout Montana, Wyoming 

and Idaho. Our work in Region 1 of the Forest Service focuses on the Custer, Gallatin and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests. Our comments reflect our experiences working with local citizens and local land managers on Custer, Gallatin and 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest issues. 

FOREST PLAN REVISIONS

Forest plans and other land management projects are created in the broader public interest through a robust process of public participation. As Region 1 National 

Forests have undertaken the task of revising their forest and travel plans, the Forest Service has met with local citizens, held open house meetings in communities 

and listened to citizens who are most effected by land management decisions. Many 

Montanans have participated in these processes, working together and with the Forest Service to develop workable plans that reflect balance and multiple use management. Montanans are looking to Senator Burns for leadership in supporting these 

local efforts and the workable solutions developed through extensive public involvement. We offer two examples, from our own recent experience. 

The Gallatin National Forest is in the process of revising its travel management 

plan that will determine where and how people use the forest’s roads and trails for 

the next 15 to 20 years. In September 2005, the Forest Service concluded its public 

comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the travel plan. 

The Gallatin National Forest has done an excellent job of involving local communities and recreational users of the forest throughout its travel planning process. 

GYC disagrees with some of the specifics in the Gallatin National Forest’s management proposal. We believe the preferred alternative does not do enough to protect 

the forest’s wildlife habitat, water quality and quiet recreation opportunities. Nevertheless, we support the process used by the Forest Service during travel planning. 

Our members, along with many others, actively participated in the development of 

a travel plan for the Gallatin National Forest. 

Thus far, the Gallatin National Forest has spent over 3 years revising its travel 

plan.1 The initial scoping process began in August 2002, with open houses in local 

communities and a 90-day public comment period on the scoping document or the 

‘‘benchmark.’’ 2

The Forest Service then released a description of alternatives for public review 

in August 2003, with another round of open house meetings in local communities 

and gave the public 90 days to comment on its proposal. On February 14, 2005 the 

Forest Service released its DEIS. The Forest Service held open house meetings in 

local communities near the Gallatin National Forest including: Bozeman, Big Sky, 

West Yellowstone, Big Timber, Billings, Cooke City, Gardiner and Livingston. These 

open houses gave local people an opportunity to meet with the Forest Service and 

provide the Forest Service with comments and ideas. 

Initially, the Forest Service gave the public a 90-day comment period to comment 

on the DEIS. During this comment period it became obvious that the public needed 

more time, and the Forest Service extended the comment period for an additional 

45 days. When a computer glitch impacted peoples’ ability to comment, the Forest 
71 

3http:www.fs.fed.us/rl/b-d/forest-plan/revision/overview-status.htm 

Service granted yet another comment deadline extension. The comment period on 

the DEIS closed on September 2, 2005, lasting over 200 days. No one can rightfully 

claim that the Forest Service did not give the public ample opportunity to be involved in the travel planning process. 

Thus far the Forest Service has received over 16,000 comments on the Gallatin 

travel plan: 

—1,600 comments on the benchmark; 

—3,200 comments on the draft alternatives; and 

—12,000 comments on the draft environmental impact statement. 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is also in the process of revising its 

forest plan.3 Since January 2002 when the Forest Service released its scoping document, the Forest Service has attended over 100 meetings with interest groups and 

public officials to discuss the forest plan. These meetings resulted in a draft forest 

plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), released in June 2005. 

Again, GYC supports the process the Forest Service used to engage the public in 

developing this revised forest plan. Like the Gallatin, an initial 90 day comment period was extended to ensure the public and all interested parties had adequate time 

to comment on the draft Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan. The Forest Service gave 

the public over 120 days to comment, and when the deadline closed on October 31, 

2005 the Forest Service had received over 9,600 comments. 

MULTIPLE USE AND WILDERNESS

The Forest Service is mandated to conduct forest plan and travel management 

plan revisions following a number of federal laws and regulations, including the 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (Act). The Act states, ‘‘that the national 

forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.’’ 

The Forest Service recognizes a number of activities classified as outdoor recreation including: hiking, hunting, bird and wildlife watching, wilderness, motorcycle 

and OHV use, skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, etc. Under the Act, the Forest 

Service is mandated to provide a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities to the 

American people. However, this does not mean the Forest Service has to provide all 

types of activity on all areas of national forest lands. 

Under the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act wilderness, wilderness study areas 

and recommended wilderness are recognized and considered part of the multiple use 

spectrum. The Act specifically recognizes wilderness as multiple use: Section 2 [16 

U.S.C. 529] states, ‘‘The establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are 

consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act.’’ 

The Act recognizes that multiple use of public lands does not mean all uses can 

occur in all places: Section 4 [16 U.S.C. 531] defines multiple use as: 

(a) ‘‘Multiple use’’ means: The management of all the various renewable surface 

resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that 

will best meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of 

the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large 

enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to 

changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the 

resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, 

each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily 

the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit 

output,’’ (emphasis added). 

The Forest Service continues to manage Region 1 forests under the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act by providing the public with a full range of opportunities and 

by managing forest lands for wildlife, recreation, timber production, mining, watersheds and grazing. 

Designated wilderness is a vital resource to Montanans and an appropriate use 

of national forest lands. Wilderness areas provide recreational opportunities unavailable anywhere else in the world. They also protect important fish and wildlife 

habitat and water quality. 

Only about 18 percent of all national forest lands are designated wilderness. In 

Region 1, which includes Montana, Northern Idaho, North and South Dakota, there 

are 25 million acres of national forest lands, of which 5 million, or 20 percent, are 

designated wilderness. On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge there are two wilderness 
72 

4http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/b-d/forest-plan/drafts/deis-voll/ch-3hlinv-roadless-areas.pdf 5http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/gallatin/projects/travellplanning/pdf/DeislChl3/ 

Ch3lWilderness.pdf 6http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/custer/aboutus/index.shtml 

7http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/b-d/forest-plan/drafts/deis-voll/ch-3hlinv-roadless-areas.pdf 8http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/gallatin/projects/travellplanning/pdf/economiclsociallReport.pdf 

areas, the Anaconda-Pintler (117,435 acres) and the Lee Metcalf (107,694 acres), totaling 225,147, or 7 percent of the 3.3 million acre forest.4

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge’s preferred alternative for the forest plan proposes to 

designate additional wilderness. If all lands recommended for wilderness under the 

preferred alternative were managed as wilderness, only 14 percent of the forest 

would be wilderness. 

The Gallatin National Forest encompasses 1.8 million acres of land and contains 

two wilderness areas—the Absaroka-Beartooth (575,771 acres) and the Lee Metcalf 

(140,594 acres).5 Approximately 39 percent of the forest is designated wilderness, 

leaving over 60 percent of the forest to be managed for other types of use. 

The Custer National Forest encompasses about 1.3 million acres and contains approximately 345,599 acres of designated wilderness 6 including the AbsarokaBeartooth. Designated wilderness comprises approximately 26 percent of the forest, 

leaving over 74 percent of the forest to be managed for other types of use. 

In 2003 the Forest Service conducted a Wilderness Needs Assessment for Region 

1 and found a need for additional wilderness 7 for the following reasons: to provide 

for an expanding population, secure habitat for species that are dependent upon 

large undisturbed landscapes, and add underrepresented ecological cover types to 

the Wilderness system. Demand for wilderness recreation and experience is increasing. By managing areas as wilderness the Forest Service will provide wild places 

for people to visit and wildlife to thrive. 

PROTECTING WILD LANDSCAPES MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE

Numerous economic analyses have shown that Montana’s protected public lands 

provide us with a competitive advantage over other parts of the country. Montana’s 

public lands help attract new businesses, helping our local economies grow and diversify, creating opportunity for young people in Montana. Our public lands contribute to the lifestyle that so many Montanans enjoy. 

During the Gallatin National Forest travel plan revision the Forest Service conducted an expanded social economic analysis. Monitoring data showed that there 

were approximately 1.9 million visitors to the Gallatin in 2003. Using visitor expenditure information, it is estimated that these expenditures contributed about 

1,100 jobs or 2 percent of the local economy.8

The analysis looked specifically at how different types of recreation contribute to 

our local economy and found non-motorized use produces $5,605,337 in direct labor 

income effects and $1,733,549 in indirect and induced labor income effects. 

Montana’s protected federal public lands provide us with a competitive advantage 

compared to other states or regions of the country. These national forest lands provide us with a longer hunting season, clean drinking water, opportunities for fishing 

and serve as an economic driver for our local economies. Managing these lands for 

their natural integrity allows Montana to keep our economic edge. 

Natural resource issues have long been controversial in Montana. That controversy reflects the public’s passion and love for the bountiful wildlife, clean water, 

abundant fisheries, and wild lands that are part of our heritage. GYC asks that you 

safeguard that heritage. Please ensure that the natural resources we cherish are 

managed thoughtfully, with a sustainable, long-term vision. We ask you to provide 

support and leadership to efforts in Region 1 where Montanans are reaching across 

diverse interests to find workable solutions, rather than continue to foster polarization. 

We also ask you to let the Forest Service do its job. By working with local citizens 

to balance diverse and sometimes competing needs the Forest Service can meet public demand and ensure our national forests continue to provide high quality wildlife 

habitat, clean water and a variety of recreational opportunities. 

Thank you for considering Greater Yellowstone Coalition’s comments. Please feel 

free to contact me with any questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FAMILIES FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

Honorable Senators: Chairman Conrad Burns, Thad Cochran, Robert Byrd, Pete 

Domenici, Robert Bennett, Patrick Leahy, Ted Stevens, Herb Kohl, Byron Dorgan, 
73 

Dianne Feinstein, Judd Gregg, Larry Craig, Harry Reid, Barbara Mikulski, and 

Wayne Allard. 

Senators: Families For Outdoor Recreation (FFOR) represents thousands of families and groups across Montana, Northern Wyoming, the Dakotas and Southern 

Idaho. For decades generations of families have accessed our United States Forest 

Service (USFS) public lands to recreate, hunt, attain their livelihoods, and utilize 

public lands under the ‘‘sustained multiple-use’’ designations these public lands 

were set aside for. We are very supportive and want to express our appreciation for 

your time, attention, and interest in holding this special hearing by the Senate Interior Subcommittee. Our comments contained within this testimony, while very direct and pointed, are submitted with the utmost respect for the people and authority 

of the USFS. We believe that this Senate Interior Subcommittee Special Hearing 

can be the start of a process where the membership of the Senate Interior Committee, USFS Chief Bosworth, and the USFS Northern Region Forester Gail 

Kimbell can together come to the realization of how far the USFS has moved in 

their policies and actions away from managing public lands for sustained multiple 

use toward single ‘‘quiet’’ wilderness-like use. Furthermore we hope that this special 

hearing fosters a realization of the significant erosion of trust, confidence, and observed competencies the public has in the USFS of Region 1. Finally, we hope this 

special hearing kicks off a process for the USFS to reverse decisions and policies 

in order to return the USFS to the role of stewarding and managing our public 

lands in a manner that meets the mandate of sustained multiple use where we are 

all able to enjoy our public lands in the appropriate manner as we traditionally have 

been able to while protecting our great treasures for future generations to enjoy. 

Through the last five years the policies of the USFS in Region 1 have been undergoing continual land use management and planning transformations. There has 

been the ‘‘3-State OHV Rule’’, several forest plan revisions, the Clinton Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule, the Travel Planning Process which is currently underway 

and the Bush Roadless Petition Process to name a few. During the next five years 

we will likely see the completion of the Travel Planning Process, some level of implementation of the Bush Roadless Petition Process, and implementation of the recently released ‘‘Final OHV Rule’’. One of the fundamental rules of management is 

‘‘make a good plan, implement the plan, monitor the outcome, and tweak things to 

perfect the product’’. The USFS seems to be constantly changing their mind, switching and mixing Plans, Planning Methods, Policies, and mandates up. They have yet 

to implement a plan fully and thoroughly that meets the mandate it was originally 

set out for before grabbing for another Planning process. With all of these rules, 

changes, and the constant state of flux within the policies and planning it should 

not come as any surprise to hear that the public is confused about the process or 

what is actually being done, disgusted with the outcome, and generally frustrated 

with as well as distrustful of the USFS. We certainly hope this is not the desired 

outcome but it appears that confusing the public may be part of the overall strategy 

of the USFS. 

The 3-State OHV Rule is a mandate for the USFS to use in managing motorized 

use on public lands. If properly implemented this rule is a powerful tool for the 

USFS to use in managing motorized use and to address the claimed and perceived 

problems. Beyond applying the 3-State OHV Rule to inform the motorized users to 

‘‘Stay on the Trail’’, the USFS has done a very poor job of adequately completing 

their responsible actions related their role in implementing this rule. Some trails 

were identified and some critical analysis was completed but not consistently across 

the Region. The public was minimally informed and educated but the rule has not 

been enforced in a consistent nor adequate manner by the USFS. Basically, the 

USFS applied the 3-State OHV Rule to bar the creation of new trails and freeze 

motorized use of public lands to the established trails and roads. It appears by their 

partial and incomplete implementation of the 3-State OHV Rule that the USFS may 

not really be interested in managing motorized use of public lands. Could it be that 

the USFS has a goal for motorized and mechanized activities on public land which 

is broader and more limiting than the 3-State OHV Rule will achieve? Could that 

goal be one of ultimately eliminating motorized and mechanized use from a majority 

and eventually all of Region 1 Forest Service public lands? 

The forest plan revisions have been on-going over the years with continual dwindling of sustained-multiple-use to a single use by hiking or horseback only. We continue to see less and less management of timber, management to prevent insect infestation, management of fuel load for fire prevention, road management, and trail 

management by the USFS. Our forest plans are becoming more and more oriented 

toward ‘‘hands off’’ and ‘‘people out’’ also known as ‘‘managing toward de facto Wilderness’’. In addition, many of the Wilderness Study Areas that were designated 

many years ago to evaluate for the potential for Congress to designate them as Wil-
74 

derness have been managed as de facto Wilderness ever since the studies started 

and well beyond the promised completion date with no timely resolution of the plan 

to return the areas to sustained multiple use or have Congress designate them as 

Wilderness. Motorized use has been banned, timber harvesting is off-limits, removal 

of undergrowth and dead timber for fuel control is not being proactively employed 

on most of these Wilderness Study Areas. Perhaps this ‘‘hands off’’ and ‘‘people out’’ 

forest planning approach should be interpreted by Congress as a signal that there 

is a diminished need for the USFS department at its current staffing levels within 

the United States Department of Agriculture and USFS budget cuts should be imminent. 

Having seen the travel plans and the preferred alternatives for major reductions 

in motorized use across Region 1 it is obvious that the Travel Planning Process we 

are in the midst of now became a ‘‘golden opportunity’’ for the USFS to eliminate 

motorized and mechanized use from the current roadless areas, turn areas with 

trails and roads into roadless areas at their discretion, and further squeeze motorized and mechanized use off of the public lands. In eliminating motorized access 

from our public lands the USFS is preventing healthy individuals as well as the 

handicapped, elderly, and disabled people from being able to experience the beauty 

any distance from the main road across Region 1. While the final decisions are not 

yet made it appears to be unlikely that the travel planning on any forest in Region 

1 will be completed without at least forty percent reductions in user access and possibly as high as eighty percent reductions in use and access for some forests. Where 

in the mandate for Travel Planning does it designate that ANY trails or areas must 

be closed or need to be considered for closure? Why not propose an increase of forty 

percent in trails and roads that would fit with the increased popularity of motorized 

recreation? 

Public involvement in commenting on the plans is a process the USFS is going 

through to ‘‘touch base’’ in the run to implement the preferred closure alternatives. 

In more that one instance during the past year there were two or three of these 

travel plans issued for public comment at once. At the same time there has been 

BLM planning requiring public involvement and comment underway simultaneously. These same people that need to review and comment on the plans also 

have full time jobs providing a living for their family, keeping our economy productive, and paying their taxes. This all has made it impossible to achieve adequate 

public involvement in the travel planning process. Was making public comment difficult a part of the strategy of the USFS? We hope not but it appears to be the case. 

This travel planning process should have been completed over a period of years, 

should have been staged for effective public involvement and comment, and most 

importantly should have been issued first on an ‘‘as-is’’ basis period, with no closures of areas to motorized access in this initial phase of the travel planning process! 

Trail identification and mapping is the foundation to the travel planning process. 

The trail inventories used for the travel planning should have been the same inventories used for the development of the 3-State OHV Rule. Unfortunately, the trail 

mapping, route inventory, and condition analysis from the 3-State OHV Rule was 

never completed adequately. 

A vast majority of the Region 1 travel planning is invalid because of incomplete 

and ineffective trail identification, mapping, condition analysis, and marking. Finally, the maps presented in the travel plans lack enough clarity, resolution, and 

legend reference to distinguish what the plans really are for the trails. 

The analysis shown in the travel plans rendered thousands and thousands of 

pages of documentation laden with opinions, selective science, and very little statistical or factual data relevant to Region 1. This is another significant indicator that 

the travel plans were completed in a hurry-up manner with a predisposed outcome 

to close areas and trails for motorized and mechanized. The economic analysis in 

the travel plans is general, high level and opinion-biased. It lacks professionalism, 

statistics, and surveys of affected people in the Region. The impact of motorized use 

on wildlife provided within the travel plan analyses was based upon opinion-bias not 

complete science. Wildlife studies that were cited were not taken in whole, entire 

sections were taken out of context to support decisions to close trails, roads, and 

large areas to snowmobiles based on motorized impact on wildlife. The scientific 

studies reveal that motorized use has a lower impact on wildlife than hiking and 

hunting. If it is truly the intent to not disturb wildlife then the areas need to be 

closed to all human use, not just motorized! 

Instead of performing travel planning for existing trails and roads and identifying 

roadless areas the USFS has adopted a policy in their travel planning which has 

a clear intent to discriminately eliminate selected families and individuals from 

being able to utilize a vast majority of public lands based upon their chosen form 
75 

of sustained multiple use. The Wilderness Initiatives and Anti-Motorized Initiatives 

that can be seen on the web pages of the Wilderness advocate groups look strikingly 

similar to the content of the travel plans produced by the USFS. The management 

of the USFS is running rough-shod over the public and Congress in their quest to 

create de facto wilderness areas and to manage existing Wilderness Study Areas as 

de facto Wilderness. They are leveraging the travel planning mandate as the ‘‘golden opportunity’’ to aggressively achieve this agenda. Some at the USFS will cry foul 

to this accusation but the facts and the travel plans presented plainly display the 

de facto wilderness creation and management agenda. The plans and preferred alternatives presented by the USFS; ARE discriminating against motorized and 

mechanized use across large areas by locking gates and stripping roads and trails 

away from the public, eliminating snowmobile use from large tracts of public land, 

designating areas as ‘‘roadless’’ which actually have established roads and trails, 

NOT undertaking selective timber harvests to maintain a healthy forest, managing 

Wilderness Study Areas as de facto Wilderness, and the list goes on. As you investigate and analyze this situation you will come to the conclusion that the USFS is 

not adhering to their mandates of ‘‘public service’’ and ‘‘sustained multiple use’’. 

Furthermore, I believe you will agree that the creation of de facto Wilderness Areas 

and management of Wilderness Study Areas as de facto Wilderness is a slap in the 

face of our Congress. 

In June of 2005 the USDA released the most recent OHV Final Report. One key 

learning from the report is that twenty-five percent of the people prefer to participate in motorized recreation on public land. In Montana the number is slightly higher, nearing thirty percent of the population that desire motorized recreation on public land. The number of people recreating on public land using motorized has increased by eighty-six percent between 1994 and 2004. The USFS has seen the numbers of families and individuals choosing motorized travel on public land as a preferred form of recreation trending upward for many years yet they have not directed 

their resources to management of this use of public lands. If there is a problem with 

OHV use on public land then the USFS is a part of the problem by not actively 

being involved in monitoring the use, educating the public, and enforcing the rules. 

Following the trend of this report one with common sense and logic would expect 

the travel planning preferred alternatives to be those that present a larger number 

of motorized use, access and recreation opportunities. Instead the USFS management approach taken consistently across Region 1 is that of proposing severe restrictions and banning families from motorized use of our public lands. This approach 

reflects that the attitude of the USFS has become one of—motorized and mechanized use is bad for the land and wildlife and therefore must be banished from the 

lands managed by the USFS. 

Families For Outdoor Recreation appreciates the time, energy, and interest of this 

Subcommittee and we feel through your oversight you will recognize and force the 

USFS to address their unfair, discriminatory and questionable practices, policies, 

and initiatives in public land management. Furthermore your actions are timely and 

necessary to intervene on behalf of the public to put a halt to the planned management actions of the USFS which will result in closures of significant portions of our 

public lands, barring future public use. The closures proposed for our public lands 

will forever reduce the ability for families, the handicapped, the disabled, and individuals’ freedom to access significant areas of our public lands for recreation and 

to enjoy the awesome beauty. There is no reason to hastily rush through this travel 

planning process and do a sloppy job we will all regret and the USFS will face litigation over for a generations to come. Families For Outdoor Recreation requests the 

Subcommittee take the following items forward to the Committee for action: 

—Place an immediate moratorium on all Region 1 travel restrictions and closures. 

—Require the Forest Service complete the trail inventory and condition analysis 

of current travel routes as was required by the 3-State OHV Rule AND properly 

implement and enforce the Rule. 

—Require the Forest Service utilize NEPA if they choose to permanently close 

trails on a trail-by-trail basis. 

—Require the Forest Service complete an economic impact analysis with surveys 

of statistical relevance for the areas where they are planning trail or area closures to motorized use. 

—Require the Forest Service to be held to the same high standard which the government holds private citizens and companies to for the use of statistical and 

scientific data in the analyses performed for NEPA or otherwise in the forest 

planning activities. 

—Require the Forest Service to stop discriminating against American citizens 

with physical handicaps, elderly, and disabled veterans and their families 

through their closures to motorized access and use on public lands. 
76 

—Require the Forest Service implement proactive timber harvesting and fuel load 

reduction management practices. 

—Require the Forest Service to stop managing the public lands toward turning 

them into de facto Wilderness and to stop managing current Wilderness Study 

Areas as de facto Wilderness. 

Families For Outdoor Recreation and our membership would like to express our 

sincere appreciation and support to you for conducting this Senate Subcommittee 

field hearing here in Missoula Montana. Our mutual desire is to keep our beautiful 

public land and wildlife treasures healthy, flourishing, well cared for and available 

for all to see and enjoy. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BLUERIBBON COALITION

The BlueRibbon Coalition is a nationwide organization representing 600,000 motorized recreationists, equestrians, and resource users. We work with land managers 

to provide recreation opportunities, preserve resources, and promote cooperation 

with other public land users. Following are our comments on the Draft BeaverheadDeerlodge Forest Plan Revision (Revised Plan). 

We have many members in Montana and Idaho who recreate on the BeaverheadDeerlodge. They are gravely concerned about preferred alternative 5 and the Revised Plan’s direction. The Revised Plan would create six new recommended wilderness areas and add to two existing areas for an increase of 70 percent. Furthermore, 

it intends to manage these areas as if they had already been designated by Congress. It would close 158 miles of road and 234 miles of motorized trail, most of 

those in the most scenic areas of the forest. Summer motorized recreation opportunities would be reduced from 71 percent of the forest to 54 percent and snowmobiling 

would be reduced from 84 percent of the forest to 63 percent. 

Detailed comments on these issues in the entire Revised Plan have been submitted by our members and member organizations in Montana. We would like to 

specifically acknowledge and incorporate by reference the comments of Capital Trail 

Vehicle Association, Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, and Montanans for 

Multiple Use. We also wish to incorporate by reference the comments of the Idaho 

State Snowmobile Association. We are limiting our comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Revised Plan’s direction for the Centennial 

Recommended Wilderness Management Area (Mt. Jefferson area). 

We find the DEIS’ analysis of the Mt. Jefferson area significantly flawed, and are 

opposed to the selection of Alternative 5 which would eliminate snowmobiling in the 

area. Throughout the analysis, the DEIS fails to acknowledge that Mt. Jefferson 

area snowmobiling is nationally famous for outstanding scenery, challenge, and diverse appeal and where this enjoyment has no lasting impact on the resource. The 

Revised Plan usurps Congress’ power to designate Wilderness by imposing Wilderness management administratively. 

FLAWS IN DEIS ANALYSIS

Demand for Wilderness. The DEIS carries forward in its analysis the assumptions 

taken from FSH 1901.12 that the demand for wilderness increases with both an increasing population and awareness of wilderness. Yet specific National Visitor Use 

Monitoring (NVUM) data shows that wilderness visits in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

are only 1.2 percent of the total visits. Clearly, there is no demonstrated need if the 

use data is factored in, as it should be. Conversely, the DEIS acknowledges the demand for lands available for diverse recreation not allowed in wilderness. By recommending more wilderness and managing it as if it were already designated, these 

high quality lands are removed from the diverse recreation base where demand is 

increasing. By doing so, the Revised Plan ventures beyond resource protection and 

makes the political decision to ‘‘protect’’ high quality roadless areas from diverse 

use, even though few may actually visit. 

The DEIS incorrectly includes the subjective value, ‘‘solitude’’ in its Wilderness 

Suitability Evaluation. Solitude is one of the attributes of wilderness guaranteed in 

the Wilderness Act, and is not necessarily a condition present in lands suitable for 

eventual designation by Congress. It therefore does not need to be present, nor 

guaranteed in the present, only if designation occurs in the future. For example, 

lands now under consideration by Congress for wilderness have significant human 

incursions and less solitude, specifically acreages identified in the Wild Sky Wilderness bill in Washington State. The DEIS confuses managing the present condition 

with managing future designated wilderness. 

The DEIS addresses manageability in its Wilderness Suitability Evaluation, two 

components of which are presence or absence of non-conforming uses, and size and 
77 

shape for effective management. Clearly these two components have not been correctly applied to Mt. Jefferson. Non-conforming use, snowmobiling, has long been 

present, so much so that it is considered the ‘‘crown jewel of western snowmobiling’’. 

Snowmobiling is not only present, it is famous for it, and defines snowmobiling in 

the Island Park area. The size and shape do not allow for effective management, 

since snowmobiling access to the area is in multiple ill-defined places along the long 

border of Targhee National Forest in Idaho. Management in the Targhee, as has 

been pointed out multiple times, allows and even facilitates snowmobiling. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge, nor its policies, does not control access to the area. Management 

and enforcement. that would prohibit snowmobiling in this famous area would be 

difficult, if not impossible. 

Instead of acknowledging the long border between the Targhee and Beaverhead 

with multiple access points, the DEIS instead emphasizes Mt. Jefferson’s brief proximity to BLM Wilderness Study Lands, now managed with no motorized use. There 

is only a short border, and no access from these lands. By ignoring the long Targhee 

border, the DEIS amazingly states, ‘‘This alternative provides for protection of high 

quality wilderness character,... and consistent management across jurisdictions 

while generally minimizing disruptions to established non-conforming uses and providing a balance between competing recreational values.’’ The DEIS biases its presentation of the facts in order to support the Revised Plan. 

The DEIS incorrectly changes the definition of wilderness characteristics to include subjective values, values which should be applied only when Congress acts. 

Lands only need be managed for eventual designation, concentrating on protecting 

physical resources, not subjective values. This incorrect application of values is especially blatant in Chapter 3, page 340 where the DEIS attempts to refute the benign 

effect snowmobiles have on the resource. It drags in a discussion on sound and 

tracks, both temporal in nature. This is a subjective and value laden ‘‘impact’’ which 

has no permanent impact on the resource. 

The DEIS ventures beyond the scope of the agency’s mandate to manage the resources when, also on page 340, it states, ‘‘The presence of non-conforming uses, in 

the interim, may lead to non-conforming uses opposed to wilderness designation.’’ 

The DEIS thereby takes a political position to advocate additional wilderness designation, in violation of the agency’s policy to manage the resource for all uses. It 

deliberately chooses wilderness type recreation at the expense of all others, especially in the case of Mt. Jefferson where snowmobiling is established and famous. 

OMISSIONS IN THE DEIS ANALYSIS

As previously mentioned, the DEIS has failed to consider Targhee’s management, 

which was established in a recently revised Forest Plan. This management allows 

winter use, and subsequent actions have even encouraged it. A snowmobile parking 

lot, authorized by Targhee and paid with Idaho State snowmobile funds, is located 

at the Blue Creek-Yale Kilgore Road junction. This lot facilitates access to the Mt. 

Jefferson area. Targhee has consistently worked with snowmobilers to facilitate access, although the routes are not groomed. When snowmobilers protested new tank 

trap closures in the Blue Creek road, the closures were modified to accommodate 

snowmobile use. In spite of numerous comments and requests to coordinate management with Targhee, Beaverhead-Deerlodge management has denied and ignored 

them. 

Also ignoring past comment, the DEIS failed to acknowledge snowmobilers’ cooperation with the agency in managing the area. With agency cooperation, they organized and conducted two clean-ups of the area during the summer. Yet subsequent project files make no reference to these volunteer efforts. The actual volume 

of litter was small, but the snowmobilers were happy to remove all that they found, 

stating that any litter in such a spectacular and pristine area is too much. 

Snowmobilers also agreed to a partial, temporary closure to study potential impacts 

on wolverine, and in subsequent years agreed to a partial closure, demonstrating 

their willingness to share the area with an extreme ski outfitter and his clients. 

This outfitter was not so willing to share; he demanded a total closure to 

snowmobilers. 

The DEIS’ economic modeling stopped at the Montana-Idaho border. It did not 

consider the multi-million dollar economic impact that a Jefferson closure would 

have on Island Park and Fremont County, Idaho. For example, 

—Kevin Phillips, Island Park Polaris owner and Chamber of Commerce President 

has stated that 90 percent of his sled rentals go to Jefferson. Other business 

owners have similarly stated. They state that snowmobilers who stay in the Island Park area spend $300 per day per person; $400 per day if they rent a sled. 
78 

—Mt. Jefferson is the focal point of nationally known snowmobile businesses, for 

example Sno-West Magazine and other publications, and Starting Line Products. 

—It has long been famous as a site for snowmobile publicity photo shoots, videos, 

and performance testing. Since the mid-1980’s Arctic Cat has had a test facility 

based in the area. 

—The Island Park real estate market is booming, partly because of the draw of 

Mt. Jefferson snowmobiling. 

The economic impact to Fremont County Idaho is so great that the DEIS and Revised Plan should describe how it intends to mitigate the impact of the Revised Plan 

as directed by Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA). 

SBREFA AND THE MT. JEFFERSON AREA

In 1996, SBREFA was passed. This act expanded the authority of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) passed in 1980 to minimize the burden of federal regulations 

on small businesses. Under SBREFA, the agency proposing the regulation must describe the steps it has taken to minimize the impact of its regulation on small business. Agency compliance is subject to judicial review, and the Small Business Administration can file amicus briefs in support of small businesses. 

SBREFA also provides for congressional review. Before any rule goes into effect, 

agencies are required to forward the rule to Congress. Major rules that have $100 

million impact on an economy can’t go into effect until congressional review is complete. Congress may take up to 60 session days to review. 

Although the economic impact of the Revised Plan’s Mt. Jefferson closure on winter tourism and snowmobiling is significant, it may not rise to the $100 million 

level. However, if rising real estate values in Island Park are considered, it easily 

meets and exceeds that threshold. Real estate values in a market like Island Park 

are dependent on the surroundings, and the subjective mystique of Mt. Jefferson 

and expansive winter recreation are a tremendous draw that can be quantified in 

rising real estate prices. 

We therefore request that the DEIS and Revised Plan describe how it intends to 

mitigate the economic impact on Fremont County, Idaho, and forward that mitigation plan to Congress for review per SBREFA. 

CONCLUSION

We request that the Mt. Jefferson area not be recommended for wilderness. As 

we have demonstrated, the DEIS’ findings are flawed and skewed toward wilderness 

advocacy absent Congress’ action. Instead, it should be assigned a management prescription that continues to allow snowmobiling seasonally while protecting the rugged, scenic resource for future generations. The snowmobile community and the 

BlueRibbon Coalition have already demonstrated willingness to protect this unique, 

wild, rugged area for current enjoyment and future generations. We hope to work 

with the Beaverhead-Deerlodge to continue this partnership in the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MONTANA MULTIPLE USE ASSOCIATION

Senator Conrad Burns: Montana Multiple Use Association is a non-profit organization here in Montana that is working to protect the rights of Montanans. We are 

engaged in many resource issues across Montana, and would like to thank you for 

this grand opportunity to participate in this hearing. 

Like you, we are frustrated with the process that we have to work with regarding 

management of our public land resources. We have seen the management of our resources neglected for the past 30 years, and it is time to make some changes to insure that our resources are managed for the benefit of the people rather than managed from the people. 

In 1872, Congress enacted the ‘‘Mining Law.’’ ‘‘Congress requires for the availability of minerals for the benefit of the United States of America.’’ The United 

States Forest Service has used policy to go around this law. Forest plan revisions, 

travel planning and other projects currently underway, mention mineral resources 

in passing only. Access to our mineral resources must be protected, and current policy systematically eliminates this right guaranteed under the act. 

In 1897, Congress enacted the ‘‘Organic Act.’’ ‘‘National Forests are reserved for 

two purposes; (a) To maintain favorable conditions for water, and (b) To insure a 

continuous supply of timber.’’ The United States Forest Service has forgot the forest 

in the forest reserves. Rather than standing on the laws that protect the renewable 
79 

resources, the forest service has ignored these resources in fear of litigation. The 

passing of the ‘‘Healthy Forest Initiative,’’ is a step in the right direction, but falls 

short in providing for local management of these resources. 

In 1934, Congress enacted the ‘‘Taylor Grazing Act.’’ ‘‘Congress intended for the 

utilization of resources that are available on federal lands, therefore making these 

resources available not only to facilitate the success of area ranchers, but more importantly, this tool is used to manage the resources.’’ Land management planning 

on federal lands, has given these surface resources to wildlife and have systematically left area ranchers unable to manage the resources. An example of this abuse 

can be found in Hage v. United States. Water rights and grazing rights of Montana 

ranchers are systematically being taken away. Constitutional rights that protect our 

citizens are also being dramatically impeded. 

In 1960, Congress enacted the ‘‘Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act.’’ (a) ‘‘Congress requires the forest service to manage the renewable surface resources of the 

national forest for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and services obtained there from.’’ Of the many resource laws on the books, ‘‘MUSA,’’ is one 

of the most abused neglected laws by the forest service. Multiple use of resources 

that are provided to benefit the people of the United States under the act must be 

upheld. 

In 1964, Congress enacted the ‘‘Wilderness Act.’’ ‘‘While the wilderness act set 

aside areas to be left un-managed, we must insure in future planning, that the 

other federal lands do not become defacto wilderness areas.’’ In May 2005, President 

Bush revoked the ‘‘Clinton Roadless Rule.’’ These defacto wilderness areas, have 

been neglected since their inclusion in the inventory process of ‘‘RARE I and RARE 

II.’’ None of these areas have qualified as wilderness, nor has congress brought closure to this debacle of public land management. No public lands reserved under the 

organic act or the wilderness act can be included in the wilderness preservation system without an act of congress. The forest service has administratively included 

these and other public lands in this management scenario, and is a direct contravention of the Act. 

In 1969, Congress enacted the ‘‘National Environmental Policy Act.’’ ‘‘(a) While 

recognizing the further need to facilitate participation in the management of public 

land, this act requires for agencies to facilitate this participation through several 

different means. Beginning is scoping, through environmental analysis documents, 

the people of the United States are afforded the opportunity to participate in the 

decision making process.’’ The ‘‘NEPA Act’’ is the one tool that protects the people 

from being eliminated from the process. The United States Forest Service has seen 

this law hamper the ability to efficiently manage our resources. On the other hand, 

the forest service regularly does not bring projects forward for public participation 

until after the predetermined alternative is chosen regarding a specific project. 

Many times we see these predetermined alternatives are developed behind closed 

doors resulting in sweetheart deals. 

In 1970, Congress enacted the ‘‘Mining and Mineral Policy Act.’’ ‘‘(a) The act further defines the need for mineral exploration for the benefit of the United States 

of America. Furthermore, while recognizing the environmental concerns, the benefit 

of mining to this country and its people must remain paramount.’’ Forest Service 

planning, has continued to promote analysis paralysis in the availability of minerals 

here in this country. If our public lands do not provide for access, the resources contained therein, are rendered unavailable to benefit the people of the United States. 

Locatable minerals on public lands must be included in all management planning. 

In 1974, Congress enacted the ‘‘Renewable Resource Planning Act.’’ ‘‘While recognizing the need to manage our renewable resources congress made it clear that the 

forest service implements long term planning that would facilitate the health of our 

forests, while insuring we maintain a sustainable yield.’’ The act further recognized 

that the transportation system of the national forest system lands is an integral 

part of the management programs. The forest service in the last several decades has 

not adhered to the act and have neglected the management of our public lands to 

the point of loss of value to the people of the United States. 

In 1976, Congress enacted the ‘‘National Forest Management Act.’’ (a) While the 

NFMA was adopted to further the definition of the management of national forest 

system lands, assurance was made not to repeal the mandates set forth in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act.’’ The management laws that are in effect to protect the resources for the benefit of the people of the United States of America. (b) 

NFMA, intended to further define the intention of the forest reserves, while not elevating ecological factors above any other multiple use, nor was there any intention 

for this law to require national forest planning to be contingent upon such considerations.’’ The organic Act set aside forests to benefit all the people of the United 
80 

States, and the act further defines this intent. The trend of the forest service to 

allow ecological factors to supersede the law, must be stopped. 

Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. section 6506c) (a) ‘‘Analysis Paralysis, has in large been a result of management decisions being made at national levels, resulting in the local management personnel being left to defend the decisions.’’ 

We are all too familiar with this problem in the management of our public lands. 

Montana professional resource managers must be allowed to participate in the management planning. The citizens of Montana are protected under the Constitution of 

the United States, and the State of Montana to the right to participate. Local governments that depend on our natural resources must be involved in the process 

more than just by minimum notification requirements. 

Endangered Species Act/Clean Water Act/Clean Air Act. ‘‘These and other environmental laws that have been enacted over the past 30∂ years, play an important 

part in resource management. While maintaining concern for the environment, we 

must take care to insure that the cumulative effects of these laws do not prohibit 

the management of our resources for the future generations.’’ We must remember 

that no ecological factor can be elevated over other multiple use of our public land 

resources. 36 CFR 294.12, The law affords the people of Montana an opportunity 

to move in a positive direction in resolving some of the management concerns we 

have. With that said, the law has created much confusion on how to proceed. Governor Schweitzer has publicly rejected this opportunity on behalf of Montana. He 

contends that the process is no more than a mandate on the state that ultimately 

will be decided in Washington. Please clarify this with Governor Schweitzer on behalf of the citizens of Montana. Roadless Areas are not wilderness, and the forest 

service must stop managing these lands under policy. 

36 CFR 212.2, Resources many times are only thought of in the extraction of renewable and depletable resources. ‘‘Recreation’’ is also a resource, and is very important to Montana. The law for the first time since the ‘‘MUSYA,’’ gives recreation a 

seat at the table in resource management of our public lands. The forest service system and non system roads and trails must be recorded in the roads and trails atlas 

as required by law. Forest planning has moved forward without including inventory 

of these roads and trails. The public has been submitted proposed actions in region 

1 without any reference of existing roads and trails in the mapping or documentation that is required to be part of the proposal. 

The management of public lands in region 1 is not being carried out under the 

intent of MUSYA. Many of our public lands are now being managed under a single 

use designation, by officials charged with managing our public lands. 

From actions and communication provided by the Region 1 land managers, they 

genuinely feel they are in full control of the land, and the decisions are theirs to 

make without any accountability. 

Wholesale changes in designation for areas and trails in order to reduce motorized 

use, instead of travel planning consisting of a logical approach to trail identification, 

mapping, marking and designation based on current use, and law must be addressed. 

Region 1 is currently looking at hundreds of thousands of acres of public land in 

large block areas that are planned for closure to multiple use, rendering these lands 

to be managed for single use for less than 2 percent of the public. 

Region 1 is currently under 2 forest plan revisions and numerous travel plans. 

It is apparent when one looks into these proposals that planning direction is resulting in 40 percent to 80 percent reduction in motorized use of the lands in the project 

areas. 

Region 1 is under an aggressive planning schedule, and the public has found it 

near impossible to afford participation in the process. In addition, BLM planning requiring public involvement and comments simultaneously further prohibits site specific input from the citizens that work in Montana. Essentially, the forest service 

in region 1 is using this aggressive approach to complete a change in the management of our public lands in a few short months. The NEPA process is being 

stretched to its limits. 

The forest atlas of roads and trails in region 1 is not worth the paper it is recorded on, as the bulk of districts in region 1 have not done required upkeep of 

these records, resulting in inaccurate transportation system management. 

Analysis Paralysis continues with 1,500∂ page Environmental Impact Statements 

filled with opinions, selective science, and very little statistical or factual data. Lack 

of critical analysis and no consistency has lead us to believe that there is no chance 

for a conclusion based on solid fact based analysis. Furthermore, data obtained in 

the Smoky Mountains, no more applies to the Rocky Mountains than data from here 

applies to the Smokies. 
81 

The trend in region 1 to ignore multiple use mandates by using an adaptive public 

land management program has resulted in our resources being devastated. 

Montana Multiple Use Association is proud to be among the group of United 

States Citizens that believe in managing our resources to benefit all the people into 

the future. We look forward to working with you to achieve this goal. 

On behalf of the citizens of Montana, I would be happy to testify at the hearing 

in Missoula, and will look forward to meeting with you at that time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MONTANA LOGGING ASSOCIATION

The Montana Logging Association (MLA) offers the following written comments 

on the above referenced congressional field hearing. The MLA represents approximately 600 independent logging contractors—each of which operates a family-owned 

enterprise that harvests and/or transports timber from forest to mill. In Montana, 

the vast majority of timberland is owned by government agencies—most notably the 

U.S. Forest Service—therefore, the economic welfare of MLA members is directly dependent upon the policies and actions of federal land managers. 

It is with keen interest that we have not only reviewed the release of the new 

2005 Planning Rule, but also participated in over 150 hours of forest plan meetings 

on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Flathead, Kootenai, Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests’ over the course of the past few months. 

As you are aware, instead of revising their forest plan with benefit of new provisions in the 2005 Rule, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest chose to revise 

their forest plan using the old 1982 Planning Rule. Whereas the new rule is a revolutionary change in the way the U.S. Forest Service approaches management planning and long-term ecosystem sustainability, we are very disappointed that the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF declined to adopt the new planning rule in developing their 

long-term resource strategies. 

Since 1897, the U.S. Forest Service has been charged with ‘‘Caring for the land 

and serving people.’’ In addition to their dedication to this creed, public land managers must also balance a diverse set of goals and objectives with an understanding 

of the ecological processes at work on the landscape. Unfortunately, prolonged 

drought conditions, a declining timber-sale program, the removal/suppression of fire 

from the ecosystem and escalating appeals and litigation are all contributing factors 

to an unnatural and unhealthy distribution of several species across wide landscapes within Montana’s national forest system. 

At no other point in public land management history is the range of natural variability so out of balance; thus, we are at a critical land use planning juncture. Resource managers must have an inspirational vision and a science-based approach to 

maintaining a disturbance-dependent ecosystem by designing timber prescriptions 

and vegetative treatments that will ensure a desired future condition, while also enhancing and protecting resource values within both roaded and unroaded 

timberlands. 

Because social, economic and ecological systems are complex and fluid, sustainability cannot be defined as a specific condition at a particular place and time. Rather, current conditions and trends over time are used to gauge progress in achieving 

the long-term social, economic, and ecological goals that define sustainability. A 

‘‘sustainable’’ system is not just a catch phrase to indicate goods that are harvested 

and traded in the local economy. Inclusive within a sustainable system is the beneficial ecological attributes of clean water and air, resilience to disturbances, a diverse ecosystem and a desirable landscape for recreation and esthetics. 

First—and most importantly—we support a recommitment to, and the reinstatement of, multiple-use mandates for all forest plan revisions regardless of which 

planning rule guides the revision process. The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 

1960 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 mandate that the National 

Forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. 

The preamble of the new 2005 Rule highlights that desired conditions are not the 

primary purpose of a plan. Instead, the ‘‘overall goal of managing the National Forest System lands . . . is to sustain the multiple-uses of its renewable resources in 

perpetuity while maintaining long-term productivity of the land. Resources are to 

be managed so they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs 

of the American people.’’ Section 219.1(b) of the new rule clarifies that a forest plan 

can contribute to ‘‘three interrelated and interdependent elements’’ of sustainability—‘‘social, economic and ecological.’’ Also, Section 219.10 of the rule gives specifically credence to the fact that a plan’s contribution to sustaining social and economic systems within the plan area is just as significant as ecological sustainability. 
82 

Maintaining or restoring the health of the land enables the National Forest System 

to be good neighbors—by providing a sustainable flow of uses, values, benefits, products, services and recreational opportunities that are important to the economic sustainability of surrounding and adjacent communities. 

Second, there are several aspects of the new planning rule that we support and 

strongly believe proposed planning on the BDNF would have benefited from. In brief 

we support: (a) forest plans as strategic documents; (b) an approach to plant and 

animal diversity that focuses on ecosystem diversity with additional protection for 

species not covered by the ecosystem coarse or fine filters; (c) the development of 

the Environmental Management System (EMS) as a third-party monitoring and auditing system to gauge sustainability success; (d) the evaluation, condition and 

trends reports; (e) species diversity; (f) species of concern; and (g) suitability of 

areas. 

With this in mind, we would like to focus the remainder of our comments on the 

two plan components before you today—timber suitability and public access. The 

2005 Planning Rules continue their emphasis on simplicity in at least five timberrelated areas. 

—NFMA requires the adoption of ‘‘regulations... specifying guidelines for land 

management plans’’ which ‘‘insure that timber will be harvested from National 

Forest System lands’’ and ‘‘insure that clear-cutting, seed-tree cutting, 

shelterwood cutting and other silvicultural procedures designed to regenerate 

an even-aged stand of timber shall be used.’’ Section 219.12(b)(2) of the 2005 

Planning Rule states that the Forest Service Chief ‘‘must include in the Forest 

Service Directive System procedures to ensure that plans include the resource 

management guideline required by 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3).’’ 

—NFMA further requires that the Forest Service calculate the long-term sustained yield capacity of a national forest and generally limit timber sales to a 

level equal to or less than that figure. Section 219.12(b)(1) of the new rule 

states that the Forest Service Chief ‘‘must include in the Forest Service Directive System procedures for estimating the quantity of timber than can be removed annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis in accordance with 16 

U.S.C. 1611.’’ The 1982 Rules refer to the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) as a 

ceiling and as the timber sale level the plan intended to provide. 

—NFMA also requires the establishment of ‘‘standards to insure that, prior to 

harvest, stands of trees... shall generally have reached the culmination of 

mean annual increment of growth.’’ The preamble in the 2005 Rule states that 

CMAI direction will be provided in the Agency Directives and asserts this is 

permissible ‘‘because NFMA does not require this guidance to be in the rule 

itself.’’ 

—The 1982 Rule specifically states that timber production and harvest is an ‘‘objective’’ in forest planning. Under the 2005 Rule—unless lands are removed by 

congress—timber production and harvest is either a primary or secondary management objective. 

—NFMA further requires that, during preparation and revision of a forest plan, 

the Forest Service must identify ‘‘lands which are not suited for timber production, considering physical, economic, and other pertinent factors.’’ On such suitable lands... ‘‘except for salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other 

multiple-use values, no timber harvesting shall occur on such lands for a period 

of 10 years.’’ 

—The 2005 Rule includes concise language on identifying lands ‘‘not suitable for 

timber production’’ in Section 219.12(a)(2). As under the 1982 rule: (1) identification occurs during preparation or revision of a forest plan; and (2) lands can 

be found not suitable where commercial ‘‘timber production would not be compatible with the achievement of desired conditions and objectives established by 

the plan for such lands.’’ However, Section 219(a)(2) eliminates most standards 

and detailed procedures for identifying unsuitable timberlands. Also, as prescribed by NFMA, this same section provides that ‘‘salvage sales or other harvest necessary for multiple-use objectives other than timber production may 

take place on areas that are not suitable for timber harvesting.’’ 

—Section 219.12(a)(2)(ii) asserts that the unsuitability ‘‘identification is not a final 

decision compelling, approving, or prohibiting projects and activities.’’ 

The issue of determining ‘‘timberland suitability’’ has been one of the most intensely debated issues at many of Montana’s forest plan revision meetings and, to 

date, is still being debated amongst planning staff. For those who would prefer to 

see more ‘‘suitable timberlands’’ designated ‘‘unsuitable,’’ the fight is on over Montana’s current 5,218,549 acres of ‘‘suitable timberlands;’’ therefore, it is imperative 

for the integrity of Montana’s remaining forest products and timber harvesting in-
83 

frastructure that our ‘‘suitable timberlands’’ remain available for timber production, 

harvest and other multiple-use objectives. 

The vegetative analysis on all forest plan revisions should model the allowable 

sale quantity. Modeling should not simply be based upon current budget constraints. 

Forest plans are zoning plans, not budget-based documents. Models based on current budgets cannot take into account future changes in budget conditions—such as 

recent changes to the K–V authority—future appropriation levels and shifts in national priorities. The ASQ or Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) must be based 

on actual resource allocation and capacity. The actual capability and long-term sustained yield calculations should be the basis for which Congress should approach appropriation requests and budget adjustments. Not only is a budget driven Forest 

Plan in direct violation of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), but 

the trajectory of such a Plan cannot run parallel to capacity and resource need. 

Another important consideration in determining ‘‘suitable timberlands’’ is the critical need to address millions of acres of dead and dying timber region-wide. All forests must identify salvage acres on non-congressionally-designated roaded and 

unroaded lands and prepare a mitigation plan as part of the forest plan revision 

process. Community Wildfire Protection Plans, Wildland Urban Interface acres, municipal watersheds and any forest system lands that are out of their historic range 

of variability must remain open to active resource management. 

In addition to the importance of correctly identifying ‘‘suitable timberlands,’’ is the 

issue of classifying Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). Discussions so far have indicated that most ‘‘suitable timberlands’’ are likely to remain classified as ‘‘suitable’’ 

as long as there is a road system present; however, there are thousands of acres 

of ‘‘suitable timberlands’’ in the current suitable base that do not have a road system, but meet all the criteria under NFMA as ‘‘suitable’’ for timber production or 

harvest. Yet, Region 1, in an effort to take the contentious road issue off the table, 

has proposed reclassifying current ‘‘suitable timberlands’’—without roads—as part of 

the IRAs. This is totally unacceptable!!! 

NFMA specifically directs classification criteria in identifying roadless characteristics—and ‘‘suitable timberlands’’ without roads is not within that direction. The recommendation on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF draft environmental impact statement, for example, proposes reclassifying approximately 500,000 acres of ‘‘suitable 

timberlands’’ as IRA based solely on the road issue. 

It is too soon to determine if all forest plan revisions in Region One intend to reclassify unroaded ‘‘suitable timberlands’’ as IRAs; however all Forest Service starting options reveal this reclassification to be the proposed action. If each forest plan 

revision team follows this trend, Montana’s ‘‘suitable timberlands’’ could potentially 

diminish by an estimated 4 million acres! We reiterate, this capitulation of responsibility is totally unacceptable!!! 

Prior to any such changes in land-use allocations, we strongly believe that there 

are several critical components pertaining to forest health and long-term industry 

sustainability that need to be completed and incorporated into Plan revisions: 

1. All County/Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) must be completed 

to assess local resource concerns. 

2. All Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) lands must be open to active management. 

3. Access to in-holdings, such as airstrips, mining claims, FAA radar and tower 

sites, reservoirs and State and private lands must be recognized. 

4. Buffers around utility corridors must be established. 

5. All current IRA boundaries must be reviewed for accuracy because the 

5,050,710 acres identified in the in RARE I and RARE II process have been modified 

over time. 

6. Lastly, the UM Bureau of Business and Economic Research report—that was 

requested by Montana’s congressional—must be incorporated into the discussion 

and decision process. Among that report’s conclusions are: 

—‘‘With no change in current harvest levels, Montana will likely see the closure 

of more than one of its largest timber processors, along with the shut-down of 

several smaller mills.’’ 

—‘‘A 15 percent increase in Montana’s annual timber harvest... would meet 

virtually all of the current milling capacity needs in Montana. . . .’’ 

To be perfectly clear, the only entity that can provide the additional 15 percent 

of timber necessary to sustain Montana’s forest products industry is the U.S. Forest 

Service. 

Senator Burns, as you know, active resource management on Forest Service System lands is complex. In order to meet forest plan objectives well into the future, 

resource managers must have the authority—and a professional timber-harvesting 

workforce—in order to achieve healthy forest sustainability. The Montana Logging 

Association stands ready to help with this important mission... and sincerely ap-
84 

preciates this opportunity to comment and the committee’s interest in Montana’s 

forest planning. 

LETTERS FROM STANLEY KEMPA, ET. AL. 

SPIKE THOMPSON, 

Forest Supervisor, Lewis and Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, Great Falls, MT. 

DEAR SUPERVISOR THOMPSON: I strongly disagree with the trail closures for OHVs 

in the Proposed Action for Summer and Fall Recreation in the Jefferson Division 

of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The Jefferson Division, in particular the 

Little Belt and Castle Mountain ranges, provide the last and best high-quality trail 

experiences for thousands of OHV riders from the surrounding communities and beyond. These areas have been used by Montana’s OHV community for over 50 years. 

OHV use is and should be considered a traditional use of these areas. 

There are currently many large blocks of National Forest lands which are off-limits to OHVs and provide high quality non-motorized opportunity in the Highwood 

Mountains, Snowy Mountains, Crazy Mountains, and on the Rocky Mountain Front. 

These areas are more than sufficient to accommodate people from the surrounding 

communities and beyond who wish to enjoy non-motorized recreational pursuits. 

In addition, pending and imminent trail closures in the Helena, Gallatin, and 

Rocky Mountain Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest will further concentrate OHV use to the Little Belt and Castle Mountains. These two areas are critical to providing high quality OHV recreation opportunities in Montana and should 

be managed to provide access for the entire public along with resource protection. 

In addition, I strongly oppose the proposed large blocks of non-motorized winter 

recreation area the proposal would create. Snowmobiling does occur in many of 

these areas and many riders who use these areas were not represented in the negotiations that created the proposal. The proposal excluded several local snowmobile 

clubs, non-affiliated snowmobilers, cabin owners, and other stakeholders that should 

have been represented in order for the proposal to be considered legitimate. 

Sincerely, 

Stanley Kempa; James L. Smereck; Virginia E. Radovich; Aucille J. 

Blamey; Joyce E. Kempa; R.K. Kjelsrud; Phyllis Kjelsrud; Kaylin 

Fleming; Gene A. Meek; Dorthie Fullerton; Roger Bridgeford; Shawn 

L. Holm; Anne Hopper; Martin Storfa; Henry Woloszyn; James W. 

Krause; Erik P. Dubbe; Darnell A. Stucken; Alan S. Cape; Sharon 

Cape; Ken Bender; Ray Franz; Jon Dullum; Richard S. Johnson; 

Brad McMann; Dave McCane; Mike Pistelak; Steve Kaste; E.E. Sawyer; Blake A. Luse; Joan Gondeiro; Jess Reed; Todd I. Malin; Richard 

Gondeiro; Fred W. Maeder; Tim Toss; Carl J. Garner; Dustin 

Eddleman; Paul Bertoli; Robert Holt; John Seaman; Bob Watson; 

Daniel P. Watson; John A. Seitz; Gary Snyder; Robert A. Carroll; 

Connie Listoe; Wayne Listoe; Marty Hiatt; Judy Reed; Sheldon Clair 

Schearer; Gene Heller; Brian S. Franklin; Rob Beall; Casey Riggin; 

Shelly Riggin; Bill Price; Heather O’Brien; Kit Hom; Shaune O’Brien; 

Forrest Halge, Jr.; Scott McGary; Gary Hagfors; Anthony J. Sarica; 

John L. Richtea; Eric Picken; Furman Scott McCurley; Levi C. Eberl; 

Everett D. Lame, Jr.; Roger Talbott; David H. McVeda; Tom 

Mitcham; John W. Virgin; Melanie Ann Picken; J. Drew Hogan; Marc 

Sears; Pennie Vihinen; Ronald Vihinen; Katie Heiteman; Aaron 

Heiteman; Joey Zahara; Kay Witham; Jeff Allain; Douglas J. Magers; 

Michael Anderson; Kenneth R. Lay; Adolph Bertoli; Dianne Bertoli; 

Michele L. Mans; Jan F. Bicsak; Keith A. Bicsak; William L. Braun; 

David A. Davison; Tara Rosipal; Timothy D. Haas; Marlan Tipps; 

Bryan Marquart; Lorraine G. Richards; Kim Lorang; Russell J. 

Latka; Elmer B. Richards; Jon A. Legan; Sandra Latka; Rhett M. 

Stephenson; John Thomas; Sharid Lee; James R. Sangray, Jr.; Dave 

Parantea; Michael M. Myers; Scott C. Anderson; James B. Brown; 

Greg E. Spangelo; Brian R. Christianson; James R. Sangray, Sr.; Michael L. Stephenson; Tim Rohlf; Kim D. Anderson; Vance Canody; 

Adam Tranmer; Whitney Such; Linda Sangray; Rod Hagestad; Julie 

Zarr; Charlotte Kantorowicz; J.C. Kantorowicz; Greg Letz; Michael 

Joe Knox; Casey J. Kuhn; Joseph M. Eckeusley; Erik S. Farris; Richard A. Gallehow; Mitch Kellogg; Bryan Andersen; Ron Zarr; Leroy A. 

Weikum; Roxanne Weikum; Wayne Luksha; Bonnie Luksha; Bill 

Tamietti, Jr.; Bob Barber; Randall Rappe; Bonita Rappe; Claudia 

Barker; Deon Moldenhauer; Pamela J. Howard; Tony Rupnow; John 
85 

J. Zuris; Derek Gunenberg; James R. Thomson; Thomas G. Winjum; 

Eric Gysler; Bert Beattie; Edward L. Widell; Ryan Solyst; Thomas A. 

Warr; Michael L. McMann; Jim Hoxner; Jeff Widner; Velvajean Merritt; Jay Warehime; Justin Augustine; Gary L. Collins; Clinton M. 

Oppelt; Dan Richards; Adam Davis; Chad Mans; Todd Mans; Dan 

McGurran; Fred Mital; Diane Guckeen; Vaughn Guckeen; James L. 

Hutchins; Donald F. Cotton; Jack Miller; Joe Ohgaim, Jr.; Glen 

Boettcher; and David Buck. 

LETTERS FROM TAMMY BABER, ET. AL. 

LESLIE W. THOMPSON. 

Forest Supervisor, Lewis & Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, Great Falls, MT. 

DEAR SUPERVISOR THOMPSON: I would like to go on the public record as being opposed to the OHV trail closures in the Proposed Jefferson Division Travel Management Plan. I believe the Little Belt Mountains serve all recreational users well and 

that shared use has been remarkably successful. There are very few conflicts on the 

trail system because there are few encounters because the area offers a large trail 

system that disperses users. 

There are already ample non-motorized opportunities on the Rocky Mountain 

Front, Highwood Mountains, the Snowy Mountains, and in the Crazy Mountains. 

The Little Belt Mountains should remain an area where all trail users are welcome 

and can continue to share the trails. 

The Deep Creek/Tenderfoot area has been successfully shared by motorized and 

non-motorized trail users for decades. In the most recent Wilderness Proposal, Montana’s congressional delegation favored managing the area as a National Recreation 

Area, a designation that would allow the current mix of recreation but would protect 

the area by restricting resource extraction. I support this approach. 

I also oppose closing trails in the Hoover Creek and Lost Fork of The Judith. 

These trails are important loop trail opportunities for motorized trail users. The 

September 1 trail closures in the Middle Fork are also an unreasonable approach 

to managing wildlife concerns. If hunting pressure is moving animals in the area, 

regulate the source rather than attempting to solve the issue by restricting recreational trail bike riding and ATV use. 

I support efforts in the proposal to improve the loop trail system for OHVs. Sincerely. 

Sincerely, 

Tammy Baber; Jason Lander; Linda Ouiatt; Denise Maki; Lois A. Tester; 

Garth Benett; James L. Smereck; Kelly Sponheim; Rod Backer; Kevin 

Dyke; Brian Miller; Bob Nommensen; Virginia E. Radovich; Larry B. 

Coomis; Matthew S. Fleming; Sarah N. Fleming; Aucille J. Blamey; 

Stanley Kempa; Joyce E. Kempa; R.K. Kjelsrud; Dorthie Fullerton; 

Phyllis Kjelsrud; Gene A. Meek; Crissy Lopez; Rob Lopez; Robert 

Wagner; Clint Vertin; Lauren M. Fleming; Stephen C. Carpenter; 

David Fleming; Chris Fleming; Noel J. McClothlin; Sara McClothlin; 

Nathan Kenneth Fleming; Ed Mendenhall; Bradley Schwertz; Marc 

Correra; Jeff Haskell, Dennis Humphrey; Teresa Soncarty; Joseph F. 

Watson; Olaf M. Stimac; Olaf M. Stimac, Sr.; Kathleen Longewecker; 

James J. Reed; Chris Fulbright; Shelley Kuiper; D. Traber; 

Marcylouise O’Ward; Mary Ellen Vischer; William Vischer; TanDee 

Doran; Carlos San Miguel; Dave Vance; Greg Ulmer; Forrest Deaton; 

Gary C. Ulmer; Wesley M. Seldmiat; Bret Manus; Jamie C. Popham; 

Danielle Cooper; Mark Severson; and Kaylin Fleming. 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
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 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator BURNS. We appreciate everybody coming today, and we 

hope it’s been somewhat informative. We understand what the 

challenges are, and we aim to take a look at them. Thank you very 

much. 

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Friday, December 2, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair]. 

Æ