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

88-077PS 2003

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES ON 

MONTANA’S NATIONAL FORESTS

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 in Seeley Lake, Montana

Serial No. 108-36

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on July 2, 2003 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate to Congress from Guam ............... 2

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Montana ..................................................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Anderson, Hon. Sherm, State Senator, Montana ........................................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22

Bosworth, Dale, Chief, U.S. Forest Service .................................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Dahl, Anne, Executive Director, Swan Ecosystem Center ............................ 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41

Harrington, Bob, Montana State Forester ..................................................... 34

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Kelly, Steve, Board Member, Alliance for the Wild Rockies ......................... 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31

Liles, Kim, Special Projects Director, Rocky Mountain Region, Hellgate 

Local # 885, Pulp & Paperworkers Resource Council, Missoula, 

Montana ......................................................................................................... 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Mood, Hon. Doug, Speaker, Montana House of Representatives ................. 18

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

Sanders, Gordy, Resources Manager, Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Inc. ...... 46

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48

(1)

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES ON MONTANA’S 

NATIONAL FORESTS 

Wednesday, July 2, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Seeley Lake, Montana 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., at Seeley Lake 

Elementary, 200 School Lane, Seeley Lake, Montana, Hon. Richard 

W. Pombo (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Members Present: Pombo, Rehberg, and Bordallo. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

The CHAIRMAN. First, I’d like to thank Denny for hosting us here 

in Seeley Lake. Denny has proven himself to be integral member 

of not only the Resources Committee where he sits on the Forest 

and Forest Health Subcommittee, but also as a member of the Agriculture Committee where he is Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and 

Forestry. This displays Denny’s understanding of forestry issues 

and his commitment to an issue so important to the State of Montana. 

I’d also like to recognize Denny’s hard work on the Endangered 

Species Act task force, an issue of great importance to me as well. 

Furthermore, he has always been willing to travel to field hearings, 

even as far as Alaska, and doesn’t believe in making a determination about something until he has an opportunity to see it and 

learn from it. 

In addition, I’d also like to welcome Madeleine Bordallo, the Delegate from Guam, for making the trek out to Montana. Madeleine, 

your attendance and concern with resources issues is certainly appreciated. I’d also state that Congresswoman Bordallo went with us 

when we went to the north slope of Alaska where, at that time, it 

was 40 degrees below zero, and I don’t think she had ever seen 

anything quite like that, being from Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And I’m still thawing out. 

The CHAIRMAN. And she’s still thawing. But it was an extremely 

important trip in it was done at the time that we were passing the 

Energy Bill through the House, so I appreciate her willingness to 

learn and to participate in the field hearings. 

Ensuring forest health is a top priority for me and the Resource 

Committee members that are here today. It is vitally important for 

2

Members of Congress to get out of Washington, D.C. and visit the 

local areas that decisions in Washington impact. With Montana’s 

varied and diverse landscape, it poses several management challenges. Memories of the horrors of catastrophic wildfire are fresh 

in the minds of Montanans. Montana’s Bitterroot fire of 2000 

burned 357,000 acres in Western Montana. The fire destroyed 70 

homes, 95 vehicles and 170 other structures. 

We have a responsibility to protect our citizens, our property and 

our environment and public lands. When severe fire threatens, as 

they do throughout the West every summer, we need to ensure that 

we have a plan that will act as an instrument of assistance, not 

an instrument adding fuel to an already raging fire. 

Lastly, I’d like to note that this region, Region 1 of the Forest 

Service, received the most appeals on proposed projects than any 

other region in the nation. ‘‘Analysis Paralysis’’ is a huge problem 

plaguing Montana’s national forests. 

Again, I thank Mr. Rehberg for having us here and look forward 

to hearing from all of our witnesses here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

Statement of Hon. Richard Pombo, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California 

Good morning. First I’d like to thank Denny Rehberg for hosting us here in Seeley 

Lake. Denny has proved himself to be integral member of not only the Resources 

Committee, where he sits on the Forest and Forest Health Subcommittee, but also 

as a member of the Agriculture Committee where he is the Vice Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry. This 

displays Denny’s understanding of forestry issues and his commitment to an issue 

so important to the State of Montana. 

I’d also like to recognize Denny’s hard work on the ESA task force an issue of 

great importance to me as well. Furthermore, he has always been willing to travel 

to field hearings, even as far as Alaska, and doesn’t believe in making a determination about something until he sees it. 

In addition, I’d also like to thank Madeleine Bordallo, the Delegate from Guam, 

for making the trek out to Montana. Madeleine your attendance and concern with 

resource issues is certainly appreciated. 

Ensuring forest health is a top priority for me and the Resources Committee 

members here today. It is vitally important for Members of Congress to get out of 

Washington, D.C. and visit the local areas that decisions in Washington impact. 

With Montana’s varied and diverse landscape, it poses several management challenges. Memories of the horrors of catastrophic wildfire are fresh in the minds of 

Montanans. Montana’s Bitterroot Fire of 2000 burned 357,000 acres in Western 

Montana. The fire destroyed 70 homes, 95 vehicles, and 170 other structures. 

We have a responsibility to protect our citizens, our property and our environment 

and public lands. When severe fires threaten as they do throughout the West every 

summer we need to ensure that we have a plan that will act as an instrument of 

assistance, not an instrument adding fuel to an already raging fire. 

Again, I thank Mr. Rehberg for having us here. I look forward to a good hearing 

and to working with him on this issue in the future. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’d like at this time to recognize Ms. Bordallo, if 

she has any opening comments she’d like to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to 

thank you very much for holding this field hearing. There’s no better way to learn about the problems affecting the different states 

3

in our country and territories. And I’d also like to thank my colleague from Montana, Congressman Rehberg. 

I represent Guam in the U.S. Congress and am a proud member 

of the Resources Committee. Although a tropical island in the Pacific, we do have forests, believe it or not. We may not have the 

ponderosa pine, but we have the ifil tree, the ironwood and the 

banyan tree, amongst 100 other species. These trees have grown to 

be an important part of our culture and everyday life. They’re used 

in many ways, particularly medicines. While we may not have as 

many intense and frequent fires, our forests in Guam are nonetheless threatened by nonnative animals that upset nature’s equilibrium and by typhoons. I’m sure you’ve heard about our typhoons. 

So, I come here today with an appreciation for forests and understand the need for sound management. And again, I want to commend the Chairman, and I do want to say to the audience out there 

that you have a beautiful state. What little I’ve seen—I went 

through the mill just a few minutes ago and it was a very interesting tour. So, thank you, again, Chairman, for inviting me here 

today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Mr. Rehberg, do you have an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS R. REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Mr. REHBERG. I do. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, 

let me begin by saying thank you to the community of Seeley Lake 

and especially the administration within the elementary school for 

allowing us into your fine facility. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bigger gym in an elementary school, and this is a facility you should 

be proud of. 

You guys don’t realize how difficult it was for the two of them 

to get here. I think you arrived at 2:30 in the morning, so they 

haven’t seen much yet, but we hope to give them an opportunity 

to share some of our landscape with you so you can clearly see the 

Big Sky country. Yet, Mr. Pombo, he has been to Montana many 

times now over the course of the years with Congressman Hill. 

Madeleine has been here as well. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Twice. 

Mr. REHBERG. Twice now. And I just want you to know that 

while congressmen get in trouble sometimes for what are perceived 

to be junkets, I feel now compelled that I have to go down and look 

at Guam. So, just because she said it’s a tropical island, it will be 

work. I’m going down there to look at her trees to thank her for 

having come to Montana. 

Combating emerging health forest problems is something that 

has taken over much of the dialog in Washington, D.C. I worked 

on the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Staff 20 years ago, 

and you never heard conversation about healthy forests. The problem was, it existed. It was being created at the time but, unfortunately, it wasn’t a topic of discussion. Well, it is in Washington 

today. The Governor had a multi-state conference here a couple 

weeks ago that was attended by Governors from the northwest part 

of the United States. We’ve had continual hearings in Washington, 

4

D.C., the Healthy Forest Initiative brought forward by the President. And I can’t think of a better Chairman at a perfect time to 

be leading that effort. I have only been in Congress for 3 years, but 

what I realized early on is seniority matters in Washington, D.C. 

If you don’t have seniority, you don’t get a lot of stuff, you don’t 

get a lot voice. I was a little nervous when Chairman Hanson decided to retire, not knowing who was going to be the next Chairman. But the leadership of the House jumped many levels of seniority to pick Richard Pombo because of his experience, his desire 

and his knowledge of the issues that have such an important part 

of our future in the State of Montana. 

I often say that we’re loving our forests to death, that we’re killing it with kindness because we have a tendency to want to protect, but we protect so long that ultimately we end up with a dead 

or dying forest. And I think that’s what we’re seeing now. Forest 

fire is not the problem. Forest fire is a sign of the problem. It 

shows us, in glaring terms, the difficulty that we’re going to have. 

We’ll have the air pollution that exists, we’ll have the lost jobs that 

exist if we don’t get a handle on the health of our forests. We have 

to manage it better. And this hearing today will give us an opportunity to hear from all sides about the opportunities and our differing perspectives of how to manage a healthier forest. 

And again, Mr. Chairman and Madam Bordallo, thank you for 

coming to Seeley Lake, Montana and giving us the opportunity to 

highlight and showcase some of the knowledge necessary to better 

manage our forests. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. 

I’d like to, at this time, invite our first panel. On Panel 1, we 

have Chief Dale Bosworth with the U.S. Forest Service, accompanied by Tim Love, Seeley Lake District Ranger, Lolo National 

Forest, and Deputy Regional Forester Kathy McAllister. 

Before you guys get too comfortable, if I could have you stand. 

It’s customary on the Resources Committee that we swear in all of 

our witnesses. Would you raise your right hand? 

[Witnesses sworn in.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show they all answered in the affirmative. 

And I welcome you to our hearing today, although, Mr. Bosworth, 

we’ve had the opportunity in the past to work with you and to hear 

from you on a number of very important issues. I think you are one 

of our strongest supporters in terms of our effort to bring Congress 

back to the people and go out naturally, look at some of these forests for ourselves. So, I appreciate greatly you being here, the support that you’ve given the Committee in the past. 

So, as far as the oral testimony in the hearing, it is limited to 

5 minutes for the witnesses. Your entire prepared statement will 

be included in the record, but we will have plenty of time for questions and answers. So, Chief, if you’re ready, you can begin. 

STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the Committee. I really am happy to be here. 

5

For me, this is a great opportunity for a couple of reasons. One, 

it’s a great opportunity to be able to talk about some things that 

I believe are extremely important, but maybe more important is 

the great opportunity to be back in Montana. I’ve just got to tell 

you that I have a lot of years in my career in the State of Montana. 

I’ve spent about 37 years with the Forest Service, and about 24 of 

those are in the Northern Region, which is Montana and Northern 

Idaho. There are good people and there’s good land here. And, so, 

I am very happy to be back and to see what—to try to help find 

some solutions to some of the very, very difficult problems we have. 

Just to run through a few things about Montana and the national forests. There’s ten national forests in the state, and there’s 

about 17 million acres of some of the most rugged mountains that 

you’ll find anywhere in the country, and also rolling hills and prairies. The national forests here in Montana cover the multitudes. 

I’m proud of the fact that we have 3.4 million acres of wilderness 

in the State of Montana and that the Forest Service manages, the 

national forest system. That’s almost 10 percent of the total nationally. 

There’s some fantastic recreational opportunities here; fly fishing, there’s backpacking, there’s winter sports, there’s motorized 

vehicle kinds of uses, there’s cross-country skiing, all of the huge 

variety of kinds of recreation that you can find on the national forest. There’s great fish and wildlife habitat here. There’s clean 

water. And there’s also opportunities for commodity production, for 

the Forest Service to play a role in the economic vitality of the 

rural communities. In fact, it’s all these things, I think, the reason 

that I like Montana so much and the reason I plan on— 

The CHAIRMAN. Just pull it a little closer. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Is that better? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. OK. And I think it’s, for me, that the reason I 

plan to be back in Montana when I’m done with my job is partly 

because of the national forests in this state and because of the 

beauty of the national forest and the relationship between the forest and the people. 

It’s also, I want to point out, that Lewis and Clark spent a fair 

amount of time in the State of Montana, and we’re planning on 

celebrating that bicentennial. All the folks around here are, and it’s 

a real exciting opportunity. And I think that this is probably some 

of the country that is most like it was when Lewis and Clark traveled through on both their trip to and from the West Coast. And 

there’s an awful lot of the attention to the problems and the contentious issues in the Forest Service and on the national forests 

these days. But I think, also, it is worthwhile maybe to reflect a 

little bit on some of these tremendous positives that are associated 

with having national forests here in the state. 

Our goal in the Forest Service is to have healthy forests so that 

we can enjoy these national forests, as well as the next generation 

and the generations after that. In some cases, that means restoration of the conditions so that the forests are going to be healthy. 

For example, because we’ve been so successful in suppressing fires 

and because of some of our past activities, we’ve had some, in our 

inability to do some of the thinning that we need, we’ve had some 

6

huge wildfires here. The year 2000 was a terrible, a terrible season. 

I think ponderosa pine forests here in Montana are a good example 

of how we can buildup fuels that can result in catastrophic 

wildfires that are just unnatural. 

The central focus, the thing that we need to keep thinking about, 

when we’re thinking about managing national forests, is what we 

leave on the land and not be focusing so much and arguing so 

much about what we remove, because if we leave the right thing 

on the land, it will be healthy and it will provide the things that 

we need. 

My concern is that a lot of people are talking about the wrong 

things. A lot of people are worrying about logging, about road 

building and some of those kinds of things when there’s really some 

incredibly important threats that we should be talking about to the 

national forests across the country, and to the nation’s forests 

across the country, but here in Montana as well. And I want to talk 

about those briefly. 

The first one is the fire and fuels buildup in the dry parts of the 

national forests, the ponderosa pine type particularly, that results 

in catastrophic wildfires that we’re seeing time and time again on 

the news. That’s a first threat. 

Then, another threat that I think is just as bad that we’re not 

talking about and not paying attention to is invasive species. And 

for us here in Montana, that’s primarily weeds, noxious weeds that 

come from other continents, but it also could be insects and diseases. And we’ve seen some huge effects with things like western 

white pine that has virtually disappeared from the forests here because of white pine blister rust. 

Another one is unmanaged recreation. And people love their forests and they love them to death, as you said, Mr. Rehberg. And 

I think that the unmanaged recreation is a problem. You know, it 

was fine when we didn’t have a whole lot of people that wanted to 

recreate on the national forests, but as many people that want to 

come to the forests, we have to do a better job of managing it. 

Highway vehicles is a good example where it’s a good opportunity 

for people to go out on their national forests, a good way for them 

to enjoy it, but it has to be managed. It has to be on designated 

roads and trails so we can minimize the damage and still allow 

people to have a fantastic opportunity to have that form of recreation. 

And then, the last area that I really view as a potential threat 

to the national forests has to do with habitat fragmentation 

through land conversion. And I’m thinking primarily of ranches 

and large forested landscapes that become subdivided, partly because—maybe because of some of the things that we’re doing and 

the way we manage the national forests. And when they become 

subdivided into ranchettes and into smaller tracts and it puts more 

homes out in the wildland-urban interface, it creates more of an opportunity for invasive species and some of those kind of challenges 

that we have. 

So, those are the four things I believe, after having 37 years of 

wandering around the forests, that I think are the things that we 

should be talking about, worrying about, figuring out how we’re 

7

going to deal with those so we can have these beautiful forests in 

the future. 

We also have some issues with our process and the analysis paralysis, the process predicament and some of those problems we 

have. And we’ve been getting—we’ve had a lot of discussion hearings. I appreciate the support and the help of Congress and this 

Committee in trying to deal with those problems so that we can 

solve them in a way that will still allow us to do the right job on 

the land, but do it in a manner that doesn’t use up all the taxpayers’ dollars in planning and analysis, but rather being on the 

ground working with people to figure out how they want their forestry managed. 

I also want to last commend the Committee for the support on 

stewardship contracting. I really believe that stewardship contracting in the long run will be one of the solutions that will help 

us find a way to manage the national forests in a way that will be 

acceptable by a lot of people and be able to be more efficient in 

terms of dollars. We’ve made a lot of progress. And here in The 

Northern Region, there’s been far more pilot stewardship contracts 

than anyplace else in the country. I think there’s about 21 or 23 

here in Montana alone, and it’s a demonstration for the rest of the 

country. So, I think through stewardship contracting we have an 

opportunity to make a big difference as well. 

So, again, I appreciate the support of this Committee. I’m happy 

to answer any questions and look forward to the discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bosworth follows:]

Statement of Dale Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss forest management challenges in Montana, as well as the rest of the country. Before I begin let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support of the Forest Service and your focus on managing the nation’s 

natural resources. I think the 192 million acres of national forests and grasslands 

in America are truly a national treasure. Nearly 17 million of those acres are right 

here in Montana. The national forests are some of the most outstanding places in 

this country. They serve as America’s outdoor playground, and they contain a 

wealth of wildlife and other natural resources. 

We are living in a time of great issues and great debate. Some people and organizations still argue that timber harvest levels represent the greatest threat to the 

national forests. However loudly voiced or strongly held these views may be, they 

are not a full picture of the reality of management of the national forests now or 

over the next 100 years. National Forest annual timber cut has gone from a high 

of around 12 billion board feet in 1988 to around 2 billion board feet today. Today, 

the primary purpose for timber removal in most places is to improve wildlife habitat, restore watershed and ecosystems, and reduce hazardous fuels. 

I believe the key issues associated with America’s forests and grasslands include 

hazardous fuels and the protection of communities from catastrophic wildfire, and 

invasive species and pathogens, fragmentation and unmanaged recreation. 

The need for action to restore our Nation’s public forests and rangelands to longterm health has never been greater. Catastrophic fires are just one consequence of 

the deteriorating forest and rangeland health that now affects more than 190 million acres of public land, an area twice the size of California. Last year alone, 

wildfires burned over 7.2 million acres of public and private lands, leading to the 

destruction of thousands of structures and the evacuation of tens of thousands of 

people from hundreds of communities. Although nationally wildland fire activity so 

far this year had been less than the average of the last few years, on June 17, 2003, 

the Aspen Fire blew out of the Pusch Ridge Wilderness in southern Arizona and 

overwhelmed the community of Summerhaven, Arizona destroying an estimated 325 

homes, businesses and other structures. We are seeing critical situations in the 

southwest and these conditions are spreading northward. Although the National 

Interagency Coordination Center has stated that wildfires this year to date are far 

8

below average, large portions of Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, 

Washington, and Montana, as well as sections of Colorado and Wyoming, are predicted to have above average fire activity this summer. 

The underlying issue is that so many of our forests have become overgrown and 

unhealthy. I don’t want to oversimplify—many forests are healthy, and some forest 

types were always dense. But on the national forests alone, millions of acres adapted to frequent fire are at risk from wildland fires that could compromise human 

safety and ecosystem health. 

Ponderosa pine is a prime example. Historically, most ponderosa pine forests were 

relatively open, with a few dozen trees per acre. Today, they might have hundreds 

or even thousands of trees per acre. In a drought, all those trees can fuel a catastrophic fire with the potential loss of homes, communities, municipal water sources 

and wildlife habitat. Think of it as an environmental debt, like a toxic dump. It will 

take decades of action to clean up, provided we as a society are willing to focus on 

this issue and commit the needed resources. 

Americans must decide: We can remove some of the trees and lower the risk of 

catastrophic fire; or we can do nothing and watch them burn. I think the choice is 

obvious: In a good part of the West where forests are overgrown we must return 

forests to the way they were historically, then get fire back into the ecosystem when 

it’s safe. 

At the same time, we’ve got tens of millions of acres of healthy fire-adapted forest. 

We’ve got to keep them healthy. That means getting fire back into the ecosystem 

now in a prudent manner. 

Another great issue is the spread of invasive species. Federal forests and rangelands across the country face unusually high threats from the spread of invasive 

species and insect attacks. Nationwide, invasive weeds cover about 133 million acres 

and are expanding at the rate or about 1.7 million acres a year. Insects and pathogens have historically existed in our forests and rangelands. However, the frequency, extent and timing of recent outbreaks are out of the ordinary. Changes in 

tree stand density, species composition and structure caused by fire exclusion, the 

lack of active management and drought are factors that have significantly affected 

outbreak patterns. The result is the death of millions of trees across many thousands of acres in California, Utah, Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, the Mid–Atlantic States and the South. Often when these areas burn with uncharacteristic intensity, they become very susceptible to invasive species, further prolonging poor forest 

and rangeland health. 

The third great issue is fragmentation through land conversion. Between 1982 

and 1997 nearly 22 million acres of open land were converted to developed land; 

about 4,000 acres a day. How does that affect national forests and grasslands? Historically, the national forests were buffered by miles of rural landscape. Today, people want to live near or adjacent to public lands, creating the wildland/urban interface or WUI. Demands for services are growing, people want to use their forests 

more, and so are the challenges of property boundary management and fire protection. 

But maybe the biggest threat is to wildlife. Overall, we’re losing forest interior 

habitat as large privately owned working forests are sold and developed. America 

is losing valuable corridors needed to connect parts of the national forests with 

other large undisturbed tracts of land. Animals like marten, bear, or cougar need 

large, relatively undisturbed forests to survive. 

We’re also losing open areas of range which animals like elk need to survive. Most 

people don’t realize that the Forest Service manages so much rangeland about 40 

percent of national forest land is range. Elk depend on bottomland for winter range 

and move to the uplands in the spring. Without both types of habitat they won’t 

survive. When golf courses and condominiums replace rangeland we lose the ecological integrity of the land as a whole. 

Our population will continue to grow, but we can direct our efforts on how to buffer the national forests by protecting open land by keeping ranches and working forests in operation. Congress has given the Forest Service some good programs that 

can help landowner keep their lands forested. The Forest Legacy Program is a tool 

to protect environmentally important forests from conversion to non-forest uses. The 

program is incentive based, entirely voluntary and provides for easement acquisitions on a willing buyer—willing seller basis only. Montana has been a shining example of Forest Legacy accomplishment. Since entering the program in 2000, the 

State has completed 3 projects protecting almost 98,000 acres. We also have forage 

reserves that ranchers can use to give their allotments a rest. Through programs 

like these, we can work together across the landscape to keep the land whole, in 

the best tradition of conservation. 

9

The fourth great issue is unmanaged outdoor recreation. Last year, the national 

forests had 214 million visitors, which is just phenomenal. And it’s only going to 

keep on growing we expect it to more than double by the end of the century. 

I think that’s great. We want the American people to use their national forests 

and grasslands. It gives them a stake in the land. It gives them a sense of place. 

It helps them understand why we in the Forest Service are so passionate about the 

land why we think it’s so worth protecting. 

The issue is this: Back when we had light recreational use, we didn’t need to manage it; but now that it’s heavier, we do. At one time, we didn’t manage the use of 

off-highway vehicles, either. OHVs are a great way to experience the outdoors, and 

only a tiny fraction of the users leave lasting traces by going cross-country. But the 

number of people who own OHVs has just exploded in recent years. In 2000, it 

reached almost 36 million. Even a tiny percentage of impact from all those millions 

of users is still a lot of impact. Each year, we get hundreds of miles of what we 

euphemistically refer to as ‘‘unplanned roads and trails. 

For example, the Lewis and Clark National Forest here in Montana has more 

than a thousand unplanned roads and trails reaching for almost 650 miles. That’s 

pretty typical for a lot of national forests, and it’s only going to get worse. We’re 

seeing more and more erosion, water degradation, and habitat destruction. We’re 

seeing more conflicts between users. We’re seeing more damage to cultural sites and 

more violation of sites sacred to American Indians. And those are just some of the 

impacts. We’re going to have to manage that by restricting OHV use to designated 

roads, trails, and areas. 

As Federal, State and local land managers have attempted to address these 

threats and restore forest and rangeland health, their efforts have been severely 

hampered by unnecessary and costly procedural delays. Excessive analysis, ineffective public involvement, and management inefficiencies trap land managers in costly procedural delays, where, in some cases, a single project can take years to move 

forward. In the meantime, communities, wildlife habitat and forests and rangelands 

suffer. Fires and insect infestations that begin on public lands can spread to private 

lands as well, causing significant property damage and threats to public health and 

safety. 

Recognizing the impending crisis, especially the threats of catastrophic wildfire to 

communities and ecosystems, President Bush proposed the Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) in August 2002. The President directed Federal agencies to develop several administrative and legislative tools to restore deteriorated Federal lands to 

healthy, conditions and assist in executing core components of the National Fire 

Plan. Since the President’s announcement last August, Federal agencies have taken 

several regulatory steps to implement components of the HFI. 

We have established new categorical exclusions, as provided under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, for certain hazardous fuels reduction projects and for 

post-fire rehabilitation projects. These new CEs shorten the time between identification of hazardous fuels treatment and restoration projects and their actual accomplishment on the ground. 

CEQ Chairman Connaughton issued guidance addressing the preparation of environmental assessments for fuels treatment projects. The guidance addresses the 

purpose and content of an EA, specifically, that EAs should be focused and concise. 

These guidelines are now being applied on five national forest projects. 

We made rule changes to our appeals regulations designed to encourage early and 

meaningful public participation in project planning, while continuing to provide the 

public an opportunity to seek review or appeal project decisions. This allows more 

expedited application of hazardous fuels reduction projects. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for your support of the 

recently passed Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (PL 108–7) which contains stewardship contracting authority that gives agency land managers a critical 

tool to implement projects necessary to achieve land management goals. This provision allows the Forest Service to enter into long-term stewardship contracts with 

the private sector, non-profit organizations, local communities, and other entities. 

Guidance for long-term implementation is now out for public review. 

I want to point out that one of the great successes in demonstrating the effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting has taken place right here around the Seeley Lake 

community. The Clearwater Stewardship Pilot reduced hazardous fuels and improved grizzly bear habitat on 600 acres through commercial thinning. Revenues 

were used to improve recreation facilities and eliminate the threat of campground 

wastes to Seeley Lake. 

I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in passing H.R. 1904 

in the House of Representatives. This important legislation would provide additional 

10

tools to help land managers protect forests and communities from fire, insects and 

disease, as well as some of the other threats I have mentioned. 

Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service is committed to working with Congress, State, 

local and tribal officials and the public to advance common-sense solutions to protect 

communities and people, and to restore forest and rangeland health. 

Once again thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. I’d like to start with, 

Chief, one of the issues that you brought up in terms of the management of our national forests and the subdividing or breaking up 

of those areas. 

What could this Committee do, what could Congress do to help 

you in managing those tracts of lands so that we stop that from 

happening because, obviously, we’ve got the same problem in California, maybe to a larger degree, but it is the same problem. What 

kind of things can we do to help you in that respect? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, first, I should commend Congress for already having helped us in some ways along these lines. For example, we’ve got programs that would allow us some economic incentives for keeping some of these blocks of land undeveloped in things 

like the Farmland Protection Program and the Grassland Reserve 

Program. Also, the Administration has been proposing a fairly 

large increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program, which is 

another program that was authorized by the Agriculture Committee in the 1990 Farm Bill that would allow, on a willing buyerwilling seller basis, would allow—through the states, it allows the 

purchase of conservation easements that will still allow these lands 

to continue being managed for grazing or for timbering, but will remain—that will have to remain in those large open tracts. So, to 

stop the subdivision, the subdividing, but it will be incentive to 

continue being able to be an actively managed forest. So, some of 

those programs, I think, are the things that the Congress could 

continue to help us with, with those kinds of creative programs 

that will allow those large lands to stay intact. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you about what is more of a local 

issue here, and that’s recently Greenpeace released a report calling 

the Bitterroot National Forest one of the Nation’s most endangered 

forests. I also noted that the forest supervisor on the Bitterroot 

took issue with Greenpeace’s political spin on that. 

Where do you come down on that? Do you have any comment on 

that? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yeah, it’s nonsense. It’s just utter nonsense. 

What Greenpeace is trying to characterize there is—they’re back to 

the same old tired arguments of 15 or 20 years ago. What they’re 

trying to say is that if there’s any timber harvesting taking place, 

that’s a great threat to the national forest. I didn’t see in there 

where they’re talking about fragmentation of large ownerships. I 

didn’t see them talking about recreation, unmanaged recreation. I 

didn’t see them worrying about noxious weeds. We have some of 

the biggest noxious weed problems on the forests around the country. Those weren’t the things that they were even recognizing as 

the threats. So, when they came up with their ten most threatened 

forests, they’re talking about the wrong things, and they’re just 

completely missing the point. 

11

The CHAIRMAN. I’d like to get a little bit more into that because 

that’s one of the problems that we have and have had over the last 

several years with the Healthy Forest Bill was that we had moved 

forward. You know, we had the old debates of 20 years ago about 

whether or not to do timber sales and all of the old fights, and 

we’ve kind of moved beyond that. And now we’re talking about 

managing forests and trying to develop a more healthy natural forest because, you know, whether people like it or not, man has an 

impact on our forests one way or the other. And the effort that 

Congress has made, and thankfully with the support of the President, has been to try to move to a more healthy management of 

our forests. And a lot of times when we get into these debates and 

some of these groups come out with the old arguments and talking 

about things that aren’t even on the table right now, I don’t think 

anybody is proposing that we get back into the number of timber 

sales and the amount of board feet that we had in the mid ’80’s 

or early ’80’s. Nobody is even talking about that anymore, but they 

want to keep going back to that old argument. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, that’s my concern and that’s the way I felt 

like that when I looked at that report; and I didn’t read it thoroughly. But when I looked at that report, it appeared to me that 

it was going back to some of those old arguments. And we do, as 

I said in my testimony, I believe we do have some serious threats 

to the national forests. I think over our 100-year history that the 

national forests has been managed very well by my predecessors in 

the Forest Service. 

On the other hand, like anything, there’s been some—there are 

some unintended consequences, some of the things that people 

didn’t realize during the time. I think some of the type of timber 

harvest that we did in the ’60’s and ’70’s and ’80’s, I think in many 

cases we removed most of the big trees and left the smaller trees. 

And when you look at the ponderosa pine type again, I think it’s 

a good example of that if we had to do it over again, in the future 

we’re going to be looking at leaving the larger trees and removing 

some of the medium sizes and smaller trees in order to leave on 

the land the right number, type and species so that fire can play 

it’s more normal role. So, there’s some of those kinds of things that 

we need to be looking at in the future and learning from our past 

mistakes. But, you know, I think if we continue to try to argue the 

things that aren’t even taking place anymore, we’re not going to 

find solutions to the important challenges that we have facing us 

in the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Finally, in my experience, we seem to have much 

more luck in moving forward and getting beyond the rhetoric when 

we deal with local people and deal with—if you’re talking about the 

forest here, dealing with the conservationists who live here and the 

timber workers who live here and coming up with a plan as to how 

we move forward and doing it more on a local basis. 

In your experience, do you think that that is a worthwhile direction to go? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, I’m a strong supporter of collaboration at 

the community level. And I recognize and I believe strongly, and 

these being national forests, that all the people in the United 

States have a stake in. But my belief is that at the local level we 

12

can find solutions to some of these national issues. Now, it doesn’t 

mean that people in New York City don’t have a right and responsibility to care about what happens to their national forests everywhere. The place that we’re going to find the solutions is at the 

local level to these national issues. It’s different when you go out 

on the ground together and you look at a piece of land together and 

you’re seeing the same thing, everybody is seeing the same thing 

at the same time, because then you can start trying to find some 

of those solutions. And it’s difficult to do when you’re miles and 

miles and miles away. 

So, the question is, how do people who have a stake in and don’t 

live here, how do they exercise that stake. And I think one way is 

through national policy. And that sort of sets the sideboards in the 

direction for the management of the national forests that then local 

people can find solutions within those broad guidelines. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to take off 

a little bit on what the Chairman is talking about, working with 

the communities. 

Mr. Bosworth, Guam is about 33 percent owned by the Department of Defense. We have two very large military bases on the island. And I understand the Federal Government owns about 29 

percent of the land area of the State of Montana. 

Could you give me some example—Mr. Chairman spoke on it just 

briefly—how is your agency, as a large landlord, working to be user 

friendly to the Montana communities? Do you have any examples 

to share? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yeah, I could recite several examples, and I’m 

going to ask Tim Love, the local ranger here, to be thinking about 

this while I’m talking, Tim, and have him use an example of a 

project, stewardship projects right here. 

But the basis for what we do is always based upon public participation and trying to get people engaged upfront as much as we can 

so that we can have people working together on how their national 

forests ought to be managed. We do that with varied degrees of 

success. Some places we’re better at it than we are in other places. 

But we are going to continue, that’s going to continue to be the anchor point for how we manage the national forests. And, in fact, I 

want to get better at it. I want all of us in the Forest Service to 

get better at how we work with people. And that’s why I believe 

that the way that we work with people, you know, we want to 

spend less time doing, you know, behind computer screens and 

windowless rooms doing analysis when we should be out on the 

ground with people trying to work in a collaborative way to find 

the solutions. I’d like—if I may, could I—. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I like to have Tim, as a local example, talk about 

a stewardship project and how they’re engaging the public in a collaborative way. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Mr. LOVE. Thank you. It all starts with good leadership from the 

Administration and from Congress and from the Forest Service, 

where these ideas and authorities originate and, so that we have 

more flexibility to work locally and trying new things. And that’s 

13

one of the things we’ve done with the Clearwater Stewardship 

Project, which is just north of this community. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Could you explain that stewardship project? 

What is it? 

Mr. LOVE. It’s new authorization that Congress granted to the 

Forest Service, a new way of doing business, frankly revolutionary 

in how we do business in terms of contracting work; timber sale, 

high bid, service contract, low bidder. A stewardship contract is 

awarded to the best bid. It gives us the ability to make an evaluation and to consider local considerations in awarding work that can 

be accomplished. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And that project is ongoing? 

Mr. LOVE. It is. Actually, it’s nearly complete. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Is there anything else that you could speak of, 

any other projects? 

Mr. LOVE. You know, hazard fuel reduction activity in this community has worked effectively with older authorities, but it’s 

worked effectively. And, you know, again, it’s related to leadership, 

it’s related to community, to a good environment and to the employees and to Pyramid Mountain Lumber Company, who is here 

and a very responsible part of this community in helping us get our 

work done. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, I think this is an important aspect, you 

know. And certainly, you should, you know, engage in this at a 

much more active level, in my opinion, because we do a lot of that 

interacting in our communities on Guam with the military and it’s 

worked out successfully for many, many years. So, I just wondered 

if there was something that from your side that you’ve developed 

to work directly with the communities and enhance your public 

image. But that’s the only project you have going right now? Is that 

what you’re telling me? 

Mr. LOVE. Well, no, there are several others. And the State and 

private side of the Forest Service is also actively involved in this 

community working with our rural fire department, reducing hazard fuels on private or State lands, providing grants for planning 

purposes or enhancing our resource facilities in the community 

aside from the national forest. And that’s huge in this community. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I have one other question. This 

has to do with the appeals. 

In how many instances are hazardous fuels reduction projects of 

the Forest Service challenged in court? And can you give us some 

sense of the scope of the problem, and in how many instances has 

failure to move forward with a project because it was tied up in litigation resulted in the outbreak of a fire? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Across the Forest Service —what I’d like to do 

is, I’d like to answer the specific numbers for the record, to make 

sure I get those correct, if I might, in writing later. 

If you look at this area, this region, this part of Montana and 

Northern Idaho, we get more appeals than just about anywhere 

else. It’s probably somewhere in the vicinity of 50 percent of the 

projects that are appealable in terms of fuels treatment end up getting appealed. I would never say that there’s a—I can’t ever point 

to a situation where fire got away because of some appeal. That’s 

not the point to me. 

14

Ms. BORDALLO. It’s never been the case? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, there might be but, I mean, you know, 

there’s all sorts of reasons why fires get away and why projects 

aren’t done in as much of a timely manner. And I don’t think it 

helps much to try to point the finger, say, at environmental groups 

because they’re appealing projects or at, you know, at industry because they did something. We have some problems, and we have 

to come together to try to solve them. The problem with the appeal 

situation is that every project is affected by appeals. And what I 

mean by that is that our people spend a huge amount of the dollars 

and time making sure that if they get an appeal—doing analysis 

and paperwork to make sure that if they get an appeal, that they 

can sustain the decision, or if they get litigated they can win in 

court, trying to reach that higher and higher and higher bar to be 

able to do that. 

I was told just a couple weeks ago that here in the Lolo Forest, 

the local national forest here, that they spend 52 percent of their 

dollars, fuels dollars, on planning. You know, that is absolutely 

atrocious. And it’s not their fault, it’s our fault for them having to 

have that set of challenges that they have to deal with. We ought 

to be spending 15, maybe, or 20 percent of our dollars doing planning, not 52 percent. That’s crazy. But they do that because if 

they’re going to get appealed, they need to make sure that they’ve 

got all iBAR of analysis there that every—you know, you can’t 

make a mistake. If there’s one little mistake, you’ll lose. 

I can show you examples of projects where when we bring the appeal record in, there’s like ten large boxes of files that you have to 

go through under the appeal to check everything out. If there’s a 

mistake in one of those ten boxes, we lose and go back to the drawing board again. You know, that’s just not a way, that’s not an effective way to operate, in my view. So, that’s why I say that all 

projects are affected by appeals one way or another. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And in my business, the cattle business, as Richard knows, we 

have a saying, Sell them or smell them. I think the second half of 

your comment probably would be time is of the essence in the forest because when you have a diseased tree, if not treated, becomes 

a diseased forest. And, so, it’s beyond the problem of just the analysis paralysis, it’s what it causes and that is the death and destruction, ultimately, of the resource; isn’t that true? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yeah, that’s exactly right. In many cases there 

are projects that are time sensitive. I mean, I can give you an example of one in Utah where we couldn’t get out to deal with crickets, things like the Mormon crickets in Utah, where we wanted to 

do some spraying to stop the population. We couldn’t do it on the 

national forest. By the time they got off the national forest, they 

were built up to such a huge number that they took off, and they 

destroyed a lot of private land. Our process slowed us down to 

where we weren’t able to be effective. We were not good neighbors 

because we weren’t able to get out and do the job. There’s dozen 

of examples here in Montana—. 

15

Mr. REHBERG. But they respect fence lines, right? They don’t go 

off onto private property? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. And that’s the problem. The insects don’t—they 

don’t respect the private property lines, the fires don’t, the diseases 

don’t. And some of these cases after we’ve got—we have some disease operation, we need to move quickly; in our insect outbreaks. 

In some cases, just from a fire and fuels standpoint after a fire, you 

know, we get—. 

Mr. REHBERG. Well, let me refresh your memory of a conversation you and I had in the chambers back in Washington about the 

Bitterroot sale and the stoppage after the salvage. And my point 

to you was, why didn’t you, if you thought you were correct, appeal 

the Molloy decision further up. If you remember your statement to 

me was, we still think we’re right, we’d win it in court, but time 

is of the essence. Isn’t that essentially what you said? You ended 

up settling a case that you didn’t really want to. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yeah, that’s right. You know, if you think about 

salvage, for example, which is pretty controversial in a lot of cases, 

after a fire or after insects and diseases go through, you only have 

a certain amount of time in order to get any economic value out 

of it at all. And, so, if you don’t remove it when it’s got economic 

value, then you end up removing it later but you pay somebody to 

remove it. Or you don’t remove it at all and then you end up with 

some adverse consequences that we believe would take place 10 or 

15 or 20 years from now that we would like to prevent. 

So, for example, if we want to replant, reforest an area after a 

burn, but if you haven’t removed some of the dead trees and you 

do some reforestation, you know, what we’re doing is we’re paying 

a lot of money to plant trees knowing that they’re probably never 

going to grow up to be, you know, full grown because we’re going 

to have another fire come through that’s going to burn them up 

again. And that’s a cycle that we need to stop. 

Mr. REHBERG. If I could refer to an article on the front page of 

the Missoulian today talking about another court decision stopping 

a sale. You’re not a lawyer and I’m not a lawyer and maybe that 

makes us a little smarter in this whole issue because we don’t need 

to get hung up on the illegalities of the legalities. 

But do you think it’s in the best interest of the health of the forest to come up with a numerical formula for whether it’s 5 percent 

or 10 percent or 15 percent or even 100 percent of old growth? I 

mean, based up on your resource background, is that how we ought 

to be managing our forest, based upon percentages? Or is there a 

better way of sound science? I’m asking you as the manager of 

that. You know, we can argue about the court case and whether 

he ruled right or not, but is that the way we really want to manage 

our resources? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, I think that there is a certain amount of 

value to having—there’s a value, first, to having a certain amount 

of old growth on a national forest. What happens to it—and that’s 

where, you know, we have old growth dependent species we want 

to maintain, we should maintain those. Where we get all wrapped 

around the action, though, is we say, well, it’s got to be 10 percent 

or it’s got to be 9.2 percent. We only think we have 9.1 percent, 

16

we can’t really prove that. And, you know, we get—and pretty soon 

we lose the purpose, the focus on the purpose. 

And I don’t know a lot about the situation on the Kootenai, but 

it’s my understanding that some of the work that was going to be 

done through these timber sales there was to try to protect old 

growth, some of the old growth stands, you know, so that there 

would be some tree removal that would allow them to be, again, 

more sustainable if fire burns through there. It’s just sort of ironic 

that we would not be able to take the action because we want to 

save the old growth, when part of the action the purpose was to 

try to protect old growth. And again, I think we forget about what 

it is, the objectives, and what the land needs and how we can treat 

the land, and we get all focused in on all the specifics of whether 

the process was right or wrong. 

Mr. REHBERG. One final question, and that is, you know, I’m not 

a magician, but I understand the concept of slight of hand where 

you’re seeing something over here while you’re doing something 

over here. And I’ve noticed a trend in the media lately and in the 

testimony of those that oppose the healthy forest. They seem to be 

dwelling on—and it happened, if you remember, Mr. Chairman, in 

amendments by the Udall cousins, to try and refocus healthy forests to the urban interface. 

How does that fall into your theory of the holistic approach of—

now, I know you talked about fragmentation, but you also talked 

about weeds and you also talked about disease. And do you feel or 

do you sense there’s this sleight of hand going on, that they’re trying to go to the most emotional area and that is to protect homes 

that are built in the forest and redivert the dollars to the urban 

interface as opposed to what—you know, and I’ll tell you my prejudice is one of I would rather take care of the forest, the healthy 

forest. And if you do that, then you lessen the problem that is 

going to exist, and the homeowners will take care of themselves as 

well, given knowledge and information and training on how to protect themselves in their area. Do you sense the same thing or—. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, I think there’s a lot of arguments, debate, 

to try to prove a point and whether or not they’re realistic. You 

know, I do believe that there is a certain amount of sleight of hand 

that goes on all around some of these issues. 

To me, the important thing regarding the fuels problem in communities is that we do need to do treatment around some of these 

communities and work with the communities to—and probably as 

a high priority to be working around those communities on the national forests and, you know, with the private land together. What 

I’d worry about is I worry if we do treatments too far away from 

the community and then we want to get fire back into the ecosystem, but if we haven’t treated the land between there and town, 

you know, it’s like having a sea of gasoline when we’re striking a 

match, and I don’t want us to do that. 

So, the way I’d rather do it is work our way out from the community and do the treatments that we need and get these conditions 

back in a situation where fire can play a more natural role. And 

it’s never going to be a real natural role around communities, but 

at least if you have fire burning, you can—you know, we can learn 

17

a little bit better to live with some of those fires and be able to suppress them when we need to. 

I’d also like to point out that there’s an awful lot of value out 

there that are way away from the community that are at risk because of catastrophic wildfire potential. And just one example 

would be the giant sequoias. We had a fire called the McNally fire 

last year that threatened the sequoias groves. Those are national 

treasures. Well, one of the problems is you have these sequoia 

groves and you have white fir that’s growing up into the branches 

of some of these sequoias. And sequoias can resist fires until they 

get into the crown. Well, we may need to do some thinning underneath those trees if we want to protect them. They’re not anywhere 

near a community but they’re worth protecting and they’re worth 

making that investment. Same thing with municipal watershed. 

It’s the same thing with habitat for other threatened/endangered 

species. You know, there’s a number of things that we need to be 

doing work in order to get the condition on the land away from the 

communities that will help that be healthy. 

Mr. REHBERG. Just a final comment for Mr. Love. Thank you for 

what you do up here. 

Congresswoman Bordallo, one of the things that we kind of determine success or failure of our Federal resource managers that 

live in the community is whether there’s controversy or not. And 

I hear nothing but good things about you and the things you do up 

here. And it sounds like you’ve got a good community relationship, 

and for that, thank you. And he gets extra credits points, Chief 

Bosworth. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Good, that’s a good thing. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And I am glad that you asked that 

question about the urban interface because we’ve kind of gotten 

pushed back into talking about an arbitrary limit, you know, the 

quarter mile or a half mile from the urban interface is the only 

thing that can be treated. And we have fought in Congress very 

hard to allow the Forest Service the flexibility to do what the regional foresters and the local forest managers feel is the best thing 

for that forest. That in order to protect a town like this, it may 

make sense to go a mile on one side of town and a quarter mile 

on the other. I mean, you guys know that, I don’t. And for us to 

come up with some arbitrary number that limits you to a quarter 

mile around the town, I think is destroying the ability of the 

Healthy Forest Bill to work. So, I do appreciate that you brought 

that up because that has been an ongoing battle. 

But I want to thank you for your testimony, for answering the 

questions. If there are any additional questions that the Panel has 

for you, they will be submitted in writing to you. The hearing 

record will be held open in order for you to answer any of those 

questions. But I want to thank you for your testimony and thank 

you for being here today. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. And thank you for the opportunity, and we appreciate the help that this Committee has given us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I’d like to call up our second panel. On Panel 2, we have the 

Honorable Doug Mood, Speaker of the House, State of Montana; 

18

and the Honorable Sherm Anderson, Senator, State of Montana, 

representing Sun Mountain Logging. 

[Witnesses sworn in.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show that they both answered in 

the affirmative. 

Well, thank you very much for being here and participating in 

our hearing. 

Mr. Speaker, we are going to begin with you. I’d just remind you 

that if you could maintain your oral testimony to 5 minutes, your 

entire written testimony will be made part of the record. So, Mr. 

Speaker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG MOOD, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, 

STATE OF MONTANA 

Mr. MOOD. Chairman Pombo, I’ll do my best. 

Chairman Pombo, Congressman Rehberg and Congresswoman 

Bordallo, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to come here and 

present some testimony here this morning. 

My name is Doug Mood and I have lived here in Seeley Lake 

since 1967. My family, up until 2 years ago, had been involved as 

co-owners of Pyramid Mountain Lumber here in Seeley Lake since 

1948. Two years ago, my brother and I sold our interest in Pyramid 

to a third party. I’m also the State Representative from District 58, 

which is the district, of course, that we are currently in. And that 

district includes the eastern half of Missoula County, north half of 

Powell County, and Granite County in its entirety. I am in my 

fourth term as a state representative and I also currently serve as 

the Speaker of Montana’s House of Representatives. 

In the district that I represent, 65 percent of the land is owned 

by the Federal Government. That large a percentage of land ownership is very common, as you know, in a great deal of the western 

portion of the United States. It seems to me that for the most part 

of the twentieth century, there was an implicit understanding between the Federal Government and the local communities in the 

West that the Federal Government, as the major landowner in an 

area, would also be a major contributor to the local economy. Here 

in Seeley Lake, for instance, the local ranger district, up until a 

few years ago, provided virtually 100 percent of the raw materials 

that were needed to keep the local sawmill in operation. That was 

true throughout the West. Ranchers routinely depended on Federal 

grazing permit contracts as well. Without that kind of cooperation 

between the Federal Government and local private enterprise, it 

would have been virtually impossible for most people to establish 

themselves in the communities of the West. Indeed, I have come to 

the conclusion that any major landowner in an area has an absolute obligation to participate in and contribute to the local economy. Unfortunately in recent years, the proliferation of new legal 

restraints and the accompanying litigation have combined to 

change the economies and, indeed, to change the very culture of the 

West. 

The Flathead National Forest, which is just to the north of us 

here in Seeley Lake, is an excellent example. As recently as the 

1980’s, the Flathead could be depended upon to offer between 100 

and 120 million board feet of logs annually. That amount of timber 

19

was well within their annual growth rate and that was reflected 

in their forest plan documents. In recent years, however, that number has been reported as around 7 million board feet. And that 7 

million board feet now includes such things as firewood and post 

and pole material. 

If the argument could be made that 125 million board feet was 

too much activity, certainly the argument can now be made that 

7 million board feet is much too little. Recent forest fire problems 

in the Flathead and throughout the West are ample evidence that 

that is, in fact, the case. The grizzly bear, the lynx, the wolverine 

and sometimes the caribou have all been suggested as reasons why 

we should suspend activity on our local forests. I personally fail to 

comprehend, however, how those animals are better off living with 

the dangers of fire as opposed to the temporary intrusions of forestry. 

I recently added up the annual housing start numbers from 1945 

through the year 2000. In that 55-year timeframe, the people of 

this country built over 90 million new homes. Certainly, this has 

to have been the most successful effort in the history of the world 

to provide the citizens of a country with affordable and comfortable 

housing. I also added up the number of acres of the national forest 

land in Region 1 that had been contracted for timber harvesting. 

If you divide that number by the total number of acres in Region 

1, what you find is that in a 55-year period timber harvesting has 

taken place on a total of 8 percent of the land in the Region 1. 

In the rather bizarre attempt to portray loggers and foresters as 

uncaring, insensitive or perhaps even evil, we seem to have lost 

sight of two facts. Forestry is, in fact, the art of environmental 

management. Foresters are, in fact, trained to create healthy forests. Second, while we were in the process of creating healthy forests, we are also providing the citizens of this country with the materials that they need to provide themselves with affordable housing. 

It seems to me that asking Region 1 forests to contribute a percentage of the volume, 8 percent of the volume as their contribution 

to help build 90 million homes over a 55-year period is well within 

reason. Yet, for far too long now the suggestion that no amount of 

activity is acceptable has prevailed in the debate. The result of that 

has been an unnecessary disruption in the lives of rural America, 

the increase in foreign imports of lumber and the deterioration of 

the health of our own national forests. I cannot see why any of 

those three should be either acceptable or necessary. 

I believe there is also an absolute obligation on the part of the 

Federal Government to manage their lands in such a way that the 

safety of the local communities is provided for. There are demonstration projects in this very valley which provide ample proof, 

in my mind, that modern forestry and the forestry that has developed within the last 20 years can, in fact, do what it does and do 

it in a way that is healthy for the forest, safe for the local community and, in fact, aesthetically pleasing as the final result as well. 

I want to thank the Committee for coming to Seeley Lake. Welcome to my district. I’m fully aware of the fact that this is not a 

simple issue, nor is it easily resolved. But I know from my own exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
20

perience that the resolution is vitally important to the local communities. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mood follows:]

Statement of Hon. Doug Mood, Speaker, Montana House of Representatives 

My name is Doug Mood and I have lived here in Seeley Lake since 1967. My family had been involved as the co-owners of Pyramid Mountain Lumber since 1948. 

Two years ago my brother and I sold our interest in Pyramid to a third party. I 

am the State Representative from district 58 which includes the eastern half of Missoula County, the northern half of Powell County and Granite County in its entirety. I am in my fourth term as a state representative and I also currently serve 

as the Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives. 

In the district that I represent, sixty-five percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. That large a percentage of land ownership is very common in a 

great deal of the western portion of the U.S. It seems to me that for most of the 

twentieth century, there was an implicit understanding between the Federal Government and local communities in the West, that the Federal Government, as the 

major land owner in the area, would also be a major contributor to the local economy. Here in Seeley Lake, for instance, the local ranger district provided virtually 

one hundred percent of the raw materials that were needed to keep the local sawmill operating. That was true throughout the west. Ranchers routinely depended on 

federal grazing contracts as well. Without that kind of cooperation between the federal Government and local private enterprise, it would have been impossible for 

most people to establish themselves in those communities. Indeed, I have come to 

the conclusion that any major landowner in an area has an absolute obligation to 

participate in and contribute to the local economy. Unfortunately in recent years, 

the proliferation of new legal restraints and the accompanying litigation have combined to change the economies and the very culture of the West. 

The Flathead National Forest, which is just to the north of us here in Seeley Lake 

is an excellent example. As recently as the 1980’s, the Flathead could be depended 

upon to offer between 100 million to 120 million board feet of logs annually. That 

amount of timber was well within their annual growth rate and that was reflected 

in their forest plan documents. In recent years that number has been reported as 

around 7 million bd. ft. That 7 million bd. ft., by the way now includes firewood 

and post and pole material. 

If the argument could be made that 125 million bd. ft. was too much activity, certainly the argument can now be made that 7 million bd. ft. is too little. Recent forest 

fire problems on the Flathead and throughout the West are ample evidence that 

that is the case. The grizzly bear, the lynx and the wolverine have all been suggested as reasons why we should suspend activity in our local forests. I personally 

fail to comprehend, however, how those animals are better off living with the dangers of fire as opposed to the temporary intrusions of forestry. 

I recently added up the annual housing start numbers from 1945 through 2000. 

In that 55 year time frame the people of this country built over 90 million new 

homes. Certainly this has to have been the most successful effort (in the history of 

the world) to provide the citizens of a country with comfortable and affordable housing. I also added up the number of acres of National Forest land in Region 1 that 

had been contracted for timber harvesting in that same time frame. If you divide 

the total number of acres of Region 1 forest, land where timber harvesting has 

taken place between 1945 and 2000 by the total amount of Forest Service land in 

region one, you get .08, or 8%. 

In the rather bizarre attempt to portray loggers and foresters as uncaring, insensitive and perhaps even evil, we seem to have lost sight of two facts. Forestry is 

the art of environment management. Foresters are in fact trained to create healthy 

forests. And secondly while we are in the process of creating healthy forests, we are 

also providing the citizens of this country with the materials that they need to provide themselves with affordable homes. 

It seems to me that asking the Region 1 forests to contribute 8% of their volume 

as their contribution to help build 90 million homes over a 55 year period, is well 

within reason. Yet for far too long now, the suggestion that no amount of activity 

is acceptable has prevailed in this debate. The result of that has been an unnecessary disruption of the lives of rural America, the increase in foreign imports of lumber and the deterioration in the health of our own national forests. I can not see 

why any of those three should be either acceptable or necessary. 

21

I thank the committee for its work. I am fully aware of the fact that this is not 

a simple issue that is going to be resolved easily. But I know from my own experienced that resolution is vitally important. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Anderson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERM ANDERSON, SENATOR, STATE OF 

MONTANA 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, 

my name is Sherm Anderson. I’m currently serving as a State Senator here in Montana. In my other life, I own and operate Sun 

Mountain Logging in Deer Lodge, Montana, a family owned business. 

We are engaged in the professional timber harvesting services 

that we perform for many people, sawmills, paper mills, pole yards, 

private landowners, state and Federal lands. What we do on the 

ground has a multitude of benefits that are oftentimes overlooked. 

We enhance the wildlife habitat, we develop home sites, we deal 

with clearing for recreation, such as ski areas and others. Reduction for wildfire and suppression of wildfires are also part of our 

business. Commercial forest management is also a major part of 

our business which currently, unfortunately, oftentimes is the utilization of salvage material from natural occurrences such as wildfire, wind-throws, winter-kill and insects and disease. 

In the past 10 to 15 years, our business has changed considerably. Operations on the national forest land previously occupied 

about 80 to 90 percent of our business, and 10 to 20 percent was 

done on State and private lands. Currently, this situation has just 

reversed itself. 80 to 90 percent of our business is now done on 

State and primarily private lands, and 10 to 20 percent on Federal 

lands. 

With only one-third of Montana’s forests being private ownership, the consequences of this shift are monumental, ranging from 

economic instability for rural communities to unhealthy and mismanaged Federal forests. Is this shift too heavily burdened on private land? A primary concept of forest stewardship suggests that 

we should be removing less timber from more acres, not removing 

more timber from fewer acres. 

This change has not taken place because of a decreasing need to 

manage our national forests. It has come about because of National 

Forest policy changes that have handcuffed the very forest and 

land managers that we, the citizens of this country, hire as stewards of our national forests. 

We asked them to professionally manage the vast resources we 

have and, yet, we handicap them with restrictive laws and policies. 

If we wanted politicians and judges to micromanage our forests, 

why did we hire professional land managers in the first place? We 

simply need to return the management of Federal forests back to 

professional forest stewards. The judiciaries are currently and now 

the ultimate managers of our Federal forests in this country. 

On the other hand, positive changes that have come about in the 

past 10 to 15 years in the improvement of technology that enables 

us to do a much better job, the ability to walk lighter on the land. 

22

Satellite imagery and computers have enhanced our knowledge of 

how our forests actually function. Today, we can be more effectively 

utilizing the products we all demand and consume from our forests. 

My purpose in becoming involved in politics is probably not much 

differently than yours. I am compelled to try to make a difference 

here in Montana, to help shape the laws and rules and policies, especially those pertaining to our national resources—natural resources. Our forests are in terrible condition. I see that every day 

in our work. The need for the products that are growing in our forests continues to increase, yet some folks are more content to import wood products to satisfy our needs while letting our forests die 

and burn, costing the tax payers millions upon millions of dollars 

in fire suppression, with the unintended consequences of dirty air, 

dirty water, loss of wildlife habitat, loss of homes and, yes, even 

loss of life. 

There is something seriously wrong with this picture. We need 

to do something about changing it. I believe the President’s 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a step in the right direction. 

Programs like forest stewardship contracts that we’ve heard already this morning are working well. However, they need to be applied to a much larger landscape. 

Categorical exclusions are another tool that may help our resource managers to protect the public interest and to get something 

beneficial done on the ground. 

There are some of the many things—these are some of the many 

things that can and should be done and need to be done now. Montana and other states are vastly losing the infrastructure that is 

needed to manage our forests. Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona 

virtually have no manufacturing infrastructure remaining. 

Our own state has suffered severely with the fires of 2000 and 

2001. And our infrastructure continues to deteriorate. In the past 

10 years alone, Montana has lost nearly 20 primary manufacturing 

facilities. 

There is no exact science and very few guarantees when it comes 

to forest management, except that if we continue to do nothing we 

can be certain the results will be more fires and more devastation. 

I hope you will join those of us who are striving to make a difference to restore the health of our forests. 

Thank you for coming. I appreciate this opportunity to testify. 

And above all, we thank you for the hard work that you do on our 

behalf. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

Statement of Hon. Sherm Anderson, State Senator, Montana 

My Name is Sherm Anderson. I am currently serving as a State Senator for the 

great state of Montana. In my ‘‘other life,’’ I own and operate Sun Mountain Logging 

LLC in Deer Lodge, Montana, a family-owned business that employs approximately 

40 people. My father preceded me in the timber business and my two sons are continuing the tradition. 

We are in the business of supplying professional timber harvesting services to 

sawmills, paper mills, pole yards, private landowners and state and federal governments. 

As professional timber harvesters, what we do on the ground has a multitude of 

benefits, some of which are: creating enhanced wildlife habitat; creation of home 

sites; clearing for recreation, such as ski areas; creating productive land for grazing 

and mining; control of insects or disease; the suppression and risk reduction for 

wildfire; and commercial forest management, including the utilization of salvage 

23

material from natural occurrences such as wildfire, wind-throw, winter-kill or insect 

and disease epidemics. 

In the last 10 to 15 years our business has changed considerably. Operations on 

national forest land previously occupied about 80 to 90% of our business, while only 

10 to 20% was on State and private lands. The current situation is just the reverse: 

80 to 90% of our work is on State and private ground and 10 to 20% is on National 

Forests. 

Understanding that only one-third of Montana’s forests are privately owned, the 

consequences of this shift are monumental, ranging from economic instability for 

rural communities to unhealthy and mismanaged federal forests. One consequence 

is the fact that the footprint of commercial timber harvesting is too heavily burdening private lands. A primary concept of forest stewardship suggests that we 

should be removing less timber from more acreage, not removing more timber from 

fewer acres. 

This change has not taken place because of a lack of opportunity on our national 

forests or because of a decreasing need to manage our national forests. It has come 

about because of National Forest policy changes that have handcuffed the very forest and land managers that we, the citizens of this country hired as stewards of 

our national forests. 

We asked them to professionally manage the vast resources our National Forests 

contain,...and then we handicapped them with restrictive laws and policies. If we, 

the citizens of Montana and the United States, wanted politicians and judges to 

micro-manage our forests, why did we hire professional land managers in the first 

place? We simply need to return the management of federal forests back to professional forest stewards. Well-intended congressional laws have been transformed into 

perverse forest policies—and, as a result, the judiciary is now the ultimate manager 

of federal forests in this country. 

On the other hand, positive change that has come about in the past 10 to 15 years 

is the improvement in technology that enables us to do a much better job, such as 

the ability to walk lighter on the land. Space- age satellite imagery and computers 

have enhanced our knowledge of how forests function beyond any comprehension we 

had just a couple of decades back. Today, we can more effectively utilize the products we all demand—and consume—from our forests. 

My purpose in becoming involved in politics is probably not much different from 

yours. I am compelled to try to make a difference in Montana—to do what I can 

to help shape laws, rules and policies, especially those pertaining to our natural resources. Our forests are in a terrible condition due to lack of attention. I see it every 

day. The need for the product growing in our forests continues to increase yet some 

folks are more content to import wood products to satisfy our needs while letting 

our own forests die and burn, costing the tax payers millions upon millions of dollars in fire suppression, with the unintended consequence of dirty air, dirty water, 

loss of wildlife habitat, loss of homes and loss of life. 

There is something seriously wrong with this picture. We need to do something 

about changing it. I believe the President’s Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a step 

in the right direction and I appreciate your passionate support for this Act. 

Programs like Forest Stewardship Contracting are working well; however, they 

need to be applied to a larger landscape if they are to ever meet the ideals of forest 

stewardship. 

Categorical Exclusions are another tool that may help our resource managers protect the public’s interests and to get something beneficial done on the ground. 

These are some of the many things that can and should be done now! Montana 

and other states are losing the infrastructure that is needed to manage our forests. 

The truth and the consequences of that fact is evident in Colorado, New Mexico and 

Arizona. There is virtually no manufacturing infrastructure remaining in those 

states to do any needed forest management. The past two seasons of catastrophic 

fires have proven to be devastating to these states. 

Our own state has suffered severely with the fires of 2000 and 2001, and our infrastructure continues to deteriorate, hampering our ability to reduce the fuels-loading in our forests. In the past ten years alone Montana has lost nearly 20 primary 

manufacturing facilities. 

There is no exact science and very few guarantees when it comes to forest management except that if we continue to do nothing we can be certain the result will 

be more fires and more devastation. 

I hope you will join those of us who are striving to make a difference, to restore 

the health of our forests. 

Thank you for coming to visit our great state and for your concern. I appreciate 

this opportunity to testify and above all, thank you for the hard work you do on 

our behalf. 

24

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Let’s start with you, Mr. Anderson. You talked about the new 

technology and the new management practices and different ways 

of looking at things today. And obviously, you’ve been in this business for awhile. It’s a generational family owned business. 

Do you believe that the new management techniques and the 

new technology that’s available to you and your sons today would 

lead to a different way of implementing the Healthy Forest Initiative than what we would have done 30 years ago? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think Chief Bosworth 

touched on that briefly this morning. When folks tend to continue 

to reflect back on practices of 20 years ago, I don’t think anyone 

can look at our forests today in the way we manage them, the way 

we harvest them, and say that we haven’t made giant strides, and 

especially in this state. You know, in the early 1980’s, we took it 

upon our ourselves as an industry to develop best management 

practices for forest practices because we could see where—the direction that we were headed. And thus far, we’ve been able to do 

that voluntarily in this state, and I think have set a precedent for 

many states in the nation. In fact, I know we have. In working in 

my connections with the American Loggers Council over the entire 

nation, they oftentimes use the model that we developed here. And 

in the technology of the machinery that’s come forward that enables us to be a much softer footprint on the ground and to remove 

trees in a directional fashion that do the least amount of harm to 

the residual stands. I think the strides that have been made are 

astronomical. And there’s no question about that we can do a much 

better job today than we even could 10 years ago, let alone 30 years 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mood, we had an opportunity to go through 

the mill this morning. And unfortunately, it looked a lot like the 

mills that I’ve got back home in that everything that was running 

through there was salvage timber. And that’s, as you know, not a 

very reliable source of timber to keep a mill running. 

But I’ve had the opportunity over the last several years to fly 

over Montana in a small plane, to fly over most of the West in a 

small plane, and one of the striking things about it is, is that it’s 

all covered with forests. And there are trees just about everywhere 

you fly in this part of the world. 

About 2 years ago, I was in New Zealand and had the opportunity to look at their livestock industry. And as part of their growing livestock industry, they were clear-cutting forests and planting 

grazing—planting grass to go in there. But the interesting part 

about it was is that they were loading those trees onto to ships and 

those ships were coming to the United States, and they were coming to California to run through one of our sawmills that is surrounded by national forests. 

How could it possibly be economical to ship trees from New Zealand, a raw product from New Zealand, to run in a sawmill in California that is surrounded by national forests? 

Mr. MOOD. Well, that’s a fascinating question. And I guess the 

answer is that if you can get the raw material for nothing, you can 

ship it quite a long ways. Or virtually, I think you can ship it quite 

25

a long ways, particularly on over-the-sea transportation, and still 

make it economically feasible. 

It’s fascinating to me. You know, this country has wood products 

coming to it from four different directions. Canada, of course, is the 

major contributor. And I’ve forgotten, I’ve been away from those 

numbers for a long time, but I believe they’re probably in the 35, 

40 percent range of the wood products we use are coming from 

Canada. But interestingly enough, New Zealand, there is a lot of 

lumber coming to this country from New Zealand, a lot of from 

South America. And one of the most fascinating ones is the Russians are shipping timber from Russia to the Scandinavian countries where it’s made into dimension lumber and it ends up on the 

East Coast of the United States. 

One of the problems that we have in this country is the way that 

we have competitive bidding for timber and are attempting to compete with Canadians, for instance, who have dedicated timber at a 

fixed price, which has nothing to do with the market. And, you 

know, we have to compete with a much higher timber base cost to 

begin with, than what the Canadians do. And that’s why the Canadian imports always have a market, because they can sell it for 

quite a bit less and still come out. And I am familiar with the New 

Zealand timber that’s coming into the West Coast. And again, they 

are—I suppose if you can ship it and buy it at a price and get it 

cheaper than you can in this country, the economics work. 

It seems to me rather odd that we’re sitting on some of the most 

productive temperate forests in the world here in the Western 

United States and we were not able to tap into that resource, or 

haven’t been for a number of years now, in order to fill our own 

markets, but—. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you find it ironic that, you know, we’re 

watching our forests burn and we have sawmills that are shutting 

down all over the country, all over the Western United States and 

our forests are burning down and we’re importing logs from New 

Zealand? To me, there’s something wrong with this picture. 

Mr. MOOD. Well, I do find it ironic. And again, you know, the 

legal structure we have in this country as far as forest management and the hoops that the Forest Service has to jump through 

in order to put timber on the market, I think it led to a situation 

where, you know, there’s a demand. And if you cause a void in the 

supplying of that demand, something will flow into that void to fill 

it. And we’re seeing that happen in this country with imports from 

all four directions. 

The CHAIRMAN. But finally, I just want to ask you. I mean, we’ve 

talked about the forests and timber harvests and the sawmill, but 

the other end of that is the value added, the folks who actually 

take a piece of lumber and turn it into a product, whether it’s window casings or moldings or what have you. What’s happening with 

that end of the business? Are we seeing an increase in imports of 

those kind of products? 

Mr. MOOD. Well, absolutely. There’s a product that comes in from 

New Zealand called radiata pine, which is filling, again, the void 

that’s been created by the inability of the manufacturers in this 

country to get into the ponderosa pine forests and to make the winVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
26

dow moldings and that type of thing which comes from that raw 

material. 

Yeah, it is ironic that, you know, again, we have a demand in 

this country for a product. And I mentioned the number of homes 

that have been built in this country in the last 55 years for a very 

specific reason. You know, we are not out there in the forest and 

we’re not producing lumber because we hate trees. We’re doing it 

because there’s a market for the product that we made. 

And I would argue that, again, the 90 million homes that have 

been built since the end of the Second World War is the reason 

that there is a need for wood products in this country. It’s not anything perverse and it’s not anything evil, it’s just the fact of human 

life. You know, that 90 million homes represent probably the most 

comprehensive effort in the history of the world for a people of a 

country to house itself in a way that those people can afford to live 

in the house. And it would be nice if somehow or another we could 

figure out a way for that to continue. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I thank you. I thank both of you. 

Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a couple of questions, first to Senator Anderson. How do 

you personally feel about Montana taking advantage of the Federal 

stewardship contracting? Can you enlighten me on the way that 

this pilot program has been implemented in this state. And what 

changes would you recommend Congress make concerning this program or any other initiatives that you feel are important, including 

the categorical exclusions which you mentioned in your testimony? 

Do you have any suggestions to make in that area? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. I think the Forest Stewardship Program is 

a pilot program, and I believe that it is proving itself to be very 

valuable. Of course, at this point, this juncture in time, anything 

would be of value. But the Forest Stewardship Program does need 

to expand, as I said in my testimony. It needs to expand to cover 

larger tracts of land. They can do the same thing that they’re doing 

with the small programs, the pilot programs. And I just don’t want 

to see it become of a restrictive nature to where it is just these tiny 

little programs that work well but don’t accomplish the amount of 

tasks that we have before us to try to reduce fuel loads and protect 

communities and supply our industries. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Uh-huh. 

Mr. ANDERSON. And the categorical exclusion, I think, definitely 

has a lot of merit, because I think when there is a catastrophe and 

we are faced which a large burn or a blowdown or any of these others, I think it should be against the law not to utilize that material 

to the best of its potential. We have—as Doug has said, the demand is certainly out there. And we’re going, as a people, we still, 

our American dream is to own that home. And we’re demanding 

that we get the material, and we’ll get it from wherever we can get 

it, whether it’s this country or outside of this country. And for us 

to not utilize that material when it’s already been burned is just 

beyond comprehension. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So, you feel, then, the program should be expanded? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I do. 

27

Ms. BORDALLO. Thanks. Have you had ever made any recommendation through your state legislature, to the Congress, in a 

way of a resolution or any type of requests like that, as to your 

suggestions? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Not specifically dealing with categorical exclusions. We did have a couple of resolutions this session, I believe, 

of course, urging Congress to look further into the needs we have 

with our forests and our forest issues. 

Ms. BORDALLO. There’s one other question, too, I’d like to ask 

you, Senator Anderson. You’ve noted in your testimony that your 

logging business, your personal business once conducted about 80 

percent of its business with the national forest system land. And, 

however, you also noted that now little of your business is actually 

on forest system land. How long can 20 percent of Montana’s forest 

land base support 80 percent of Montana’s timber harvest? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, that’s the problem we’re getting into. And 

I noted in my testimony that our private lands are private timber 

lands. I think they’re probably unquestionably being hit pretty 

hard, simply because our national forests have basically become off 

limits. And I was being very generous when I said 80 percent because at one time we probably did 95 percent of our work on national forests, and they virtually have become off limits. And that’s 

just shifted the burden onto the private lands. And how long can 

that last? I guess I wouldn’t venture a guess as to how long. But 

I think we’re seeing that come to fruition by the number of mills 

and manufacturing plants in the state that are being forced to 

close. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Forced to close, uh-huh. So, you see that happening in the very near future, then? Or some action has to be 

taken? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Most definitely. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, as a speaker of the Montana House 

and representing this very beautiful rural community, is it difficult 

to explain the challenges facing timber-dependent communities to 

your urban colleagues, say, in Billings and Great Falls? Are they 

aware of the situation? 

Mr. MOOD. I think that the forest health issue, the plight of the 

sawmills in Montana—and, by the way, I think we’re down to 

eight. I was a little stunned to hear that, but I know at one time 

there must have been 45 sawmills in Montana and there are eight 

producers of any size at all being left in the state. 

But, anyway, the other people in the state are well aware of the 

plight of forestry and the sawmill workers in the state. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Are they sympathetic with the problems facing 

this community? 

Mr. MOOD. Well, you know, it’s a cross-section of the State of 

Montana or a cross-section of our society, just like it is intended 

to be in the House of Representatives. And I think that most people 

are becoming—are aware of what’s happening on our national forests. There’s a difference between those who think it’s the right 

thing to have happen and those, like myself, who think that what’s 

happened in the last 20 years is the wrong thing. 

And again, as Senator Anderson indicated, the national forest—

and I’m not privy to these numbers anymore, having sold our interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
28

est in the mill 2 years ago—but I do know that in Pyramid, we 

probably did 90 percent of the harvesting within a 50-mile radius 

of the sawmill 25 years ago. And I know that just in recent years, 

the mill has had to go out as much as 300 miles in order to get 

the raw material that it needs to fill the demand or keep the sawmill in production. And that the impact of that is also spread out 

from a 50-mile radius to a 300-mile radius, and there’s other ramifications of that. 

The local school, for instance—and I’m not sure of these numbers—but I think they’ve lost about 40 students in the last 5 years. 

Well, it’s a direct result of the fact that the economic impact of the 

major employer, the local employer is being spread out over a 300-

mile radius as opposed to a 50-mile radius. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So, in your opinion, your colleagues are sympathetic to the plight? 

Mr. MOOD. Yeah. The colleagues that I have in the House of Representatives are well aware of what’s happening in the forest products industry. There are some who think it’s the right thing to have 

happen, and there are others who say —who agree with me that 

it’s the wrong thing to be happening. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Being a former colleague of yours in the State Legislature, we 

both, or all know that budgets never go down at the State level, 

they either stay the same or creep up. 

I guess the follow-up question would be, do your colleagues recognize the fact that when timber production is not paying its share 

of the former budget that was built upon timber harvesting, that 

somebody else is going to have to make up the difference? 

Mr. MOOD. I would say that a certain percentage of them are 

aware of that. I’m not going to get these numbers exactly right, but 

it’s a good indication. At one time, the natural resource industries 

in the State of Montana paid, I believe, 42 percent of the taxes, the 

property taxes that came into the state. That number is down now 

in the 7 or 8 percent range. Well, somebody is making up that difference. You know, if property taxes are going up, there’s a reason 

for it because a major value to the State, both tax value and economic value, is being deteriorated because of a lack of activity in 

the forests. 

Mr. REHBERG. Speaker Mood, could I ask you the question, can 

eight sawmills—if the light suddenly turns on in Washington and 

our policymakers recognize the fact that we need a healthy forest 

program that’s going to necessitate additional thinning and harvesting throughout the West, but in Montana can eight mills handle the amount of timber necessary to adequately manage our forests for the Healthy Forest Initiative? 

Mr. MOOD. I would expect the answer to that question is no. And 

there are states, and I was reading about Arizona that has no sawmills left. In Montana, I’m not sure who would be willing to invest 

more money to build a sawmill in Montana, but I doubt there’s, you 

know, more than about three or four people in the whole world that 

think that’s a good idea. 

29

Mr. REHBERG. That was going to be my follow-up question. 

Knowing that you sold out within the last 2 years, would you, as 

a fairly sharp businessman, take the chance of investing your dollars to build a plant? 

Mr. MOOD. I would not. 

Mr. REHBERG. You would not. 

Mr. Anderson, at what point does it become less than economic 

for you to transport logs to eight mills? I mean, is it getting to that 

point where it’s so much more difficult because you’re having to go 

farther and farther away? Is there a number, or is it just happening? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, as Speaker Mood eluded to, it’s just a supply and demand situation. And the further out you get, then naturally the cheaper you have to obtain that product; otherwise, it 

definitely does become not economically feasible. 

We’re, you know, in the same situation or scenario he spoke of. 

We probably used to stay within a 50-, 60-mile radius of our mill 

that we were delivering to. And now, it’s not uncommon to get out 

100, 150 and at times 300 miles. Last year, for instance, one of our 

salvations for the mill there in Deer Lodge was unfortunately the 

burn up on the Blackfoot Reservation, and they chose to go in there 

and utilize that material. And that was a big boost for the sawmill 

there in Deer Lodge, and it was 300 miles one way. But we were 

able to utilize that product, they were able to recap the value of 

it, and it was a win-win for all of us. 

Mr. REHBERG. Speaker Mood, one final question. And that is, oftentimes, you hear the opponents talk about below cost sales. And 

I guess my question to you is, being the mill owner, what percentage, if you remember, was paperwork costs added on top of reviews 

and the various regulations at the Federal level? Were they below 

cost sales because you wanted to maximize your profits and you 

just have to be a smarter bidder? Or were they below cost sales because the costs of the Federal Government’s regulatory environment was added in and it became less than profitable for the Federal Government to want to harvest? 

Mr. MOOD. There’s enough competition for timber that timber is 

never bought cheap in this day and age. They’re below cost because 

the preparatory paperwork is expensive and that goes into the cost 

of the sale. And it’s ironic to me that the very people who are causing the expense of paperwork to the Forest Service, then argue that 

they shouldn’t be putting it up because it’s below costs. So, I mean, 

it’s kind of—you know, they’re causing it on one hand and then arguing that it’s the reason why they shouldn’t be putting timber up. 

But it’s a terrible irony and, frankly, you have to laugh or you want 

to cry. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. I want to thank both of you 

gentleman for your testimony. It was extremely interesting to hear 

your perspective on it, both as elected officials here in Montana as 

well as your experience in the real world. So, thank you very much 

for your testimony. 

Mr. MOOD. I want to thank you for coming to Seeley Lake. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. 

30

I’m going to invite up our third panel, but before you come up 

here, the Committee is going to take about a 5-minute break. I’m 

going to give our lady an opportunity to rest for a second here. But 

if you could start making your way up to the front, we’re going to 

take a break for about 5 minutes. 

[Whereupon, the hearing was in recess at 11:28 p.m., and subsequently reconvened at 11:35 a.m.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Now that I’ve got you sitting down, if I could 

have you stand up. 

[Witnesses sworn in.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let the record show that all answered in the affirmative. 

Our third panel is Steve Kelly, Bob Harrington, Ann Dahl, Kim 

Liles and Gordy Sanders. And we’re going to start with Mr. Kelly. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE KELLY, MEMBER OF BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, ALLIANCE FOR THE ROCKIES 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Pombo and Representative 

Rehberg and Representative Bordallo. And I’d really like to thank 

the staff. You know, we had to make quite a few calls to get this 

all together, and they really did a great job. And I’d like to welcome 

you all to Montana. You came at the very best part of the year, so 

I hope you enjoy yourselves if you get some time off. 

My name is Steve Kelly, I’m here representing today the Alliance 

for the Wild Rockies. We are a network of small groups and small 

businesses and individual members, and our focus is bioregional. 

We’re basically operating in the five-state Northern Rockies Regions. So, my comments today will address specifically the title or 

the topic of Montana’s problems, but I would hope that we could 

consider that those challenges and problems and solutions could be 

looked at over the Northern Rockies Region. It’s all mountainous. 

We’re pretty good at growing some things and not other things. 

California grows great artichokes, and we grow world-class trout 

fishing, grizzly bears, elk, caribou, things that people around the 

world just don’t have anymore. And it’s one of the things I’d like 

to try to focus on during my few minutes is that we take a broader, 

more holistic look at the forests. 

We have heard a tremendous amount of discussion and opinion 

about the trees. And there are some highly respected scientists that 

have, since I can’t remember when, have tried to refocus our attention to this holistic view of the forest, the forest being things from 

microrisual fungi to huckleberries to the grizzlies and to the trout. 

And, so, really beyond the trees. The trees are obviously what we 

think of and look at and it’s the metaphor, but it is not an adequate proxy for forests. So, I think the more we focus on trees and 

what are we going to do with the trees, we sort of lose site of this 

big picture. And again, the bigger picture of the forest as a bioregion, something that extends beyond state boundaries. This isn’t 

just a Montana problem, this isn’t just a Seeley Lake problem or 

a Swan Valley problem, but it does extend to these broader ecosystems. 

I think that we need to also look at the history. The greatest 

challenges facing our forests today are those same great debates 

that began before there was a Forest Service, with National Forest 

31

Reserves being formed in 1891. So, in a lot of ways, this debate is 

over how best to approach management really goes back to the 

great debates between Gifford Pinchot and John Muir who really 

started this whole idea of should we protect the forests for the future, should we view it and manage it as a farm or a commodity 

production landscape. And again, I think the testimony earlier 

today we have seen that there’s obviously disagreement about this 

fundamental argument that perpetuated itself through the Organic 

Act, through the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. 

And today, we are still governed by the laws of Congress that 

created the National Forest Management Act. And that act and the 

statutory requirements, again require us to look at the forest beyond the trees, look at the wildlife, look at all the values. And, so, 

when we take a small view and a short-term view, we lose site of 

where the money is spent, we lose sight of the impact of our priority to log the forest, to produce the commodity, and this, in turn, 

I think, creates a lot of the controversy. A lot of the appeals are 

generated out of this basic fundamental difference about how we 

all view the forest. 

I have attached a couple of GAO reports I hope you’ll take note 

of, just to really highlight some of the long-standing performance 

accountability problems. The Forest Service still does not have a financial accounting system that any of us can understand, and I 

think we need to get that. That’s something Congress can do for 

us, make the Forest Service accountable for where it spends its 

money in a way that we can all understand. 

The other thing is we need to find out if we’re going to produce 

commodities—and I’m suggesting that we’re going to continue to 

approach this for a long time to come—we need to know what the 

yield is. And, so, if we’re going to be an agricultural producer, can 

we please find out what the yield is. There are uneconomical parts 

of the world, this happens to be one of them. It is a short growing 

season. We just got out of the period where a frost-free growing 

season just started for us. It’s going to end Labor Day. So, competing with the rest of the world that has longer growing seasons, 

as an agricultural person in agriculture, you know, that’s important. 

And I’ll reserve my time for questions. I want to thank you all 

for giving me the opportunity. I have one criticism. If we can have 

public participation before the bill passes next time, it would be 

much more meaningful. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]

Statement of Steve Kelly, Member, Board of Directors Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies, Inc. 

Chairman Pombo, Representative Rehberg, and members of the Committee, my 

name is Steve Kelly for the record. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written 

testimony on behalf of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. The Alliance is a bioregional grassroots network based in Missoula, Montana comprised of hundreds of 

small businesses and conservation organizations and thousands of individual members working together to maximize support for environmental protection and restoration of the Northern Rockies bioregion. Our area of concern includes the mountainous regions of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Eastern Oregon and Washington. 

Our collective mission is to secure the ecological integrity of the bioregion through 

citizen empowerment and the application of conservation biology, sustainable economic models, and environmental law. 

32

These world-class forested landscapes are unique because they contain some of 

the largest intact forests in the earth’s temperate zones. These forest ecosystems are 

still home to all the native plant and animal species that were here at the time of 

the Lewis and Clark Expedition 200 years ago. Free-roaming populations of grizzly 

bears, gray wolves, bison, woodland caribou, wolverine, mountain goats, anadromous 

salmon, bull trout and cutthroat trout are found here in ‘‘America’s Serengeti.’’ Recreational opportunities abound in popular destinations like Glacier and Yellowstone 

National Parks and on the national forest system lands that provide critical biological linkages between these protected national treasures. Our public forests also provide us with clean water, wildlife, spectacular scenery, and unmatched opportunities 

for hunting, fishing hiking and recreation. These public values represent the foundation of our quality of life. It is this generation’s challenge, and our obligation I believe, to protect and restore our natural heritage for future generations. 

We must never lose sight of why national forest system lands were created in the 

first place, and why working Americans from all 50 states have willingly invested 

their hard-earned tax dollars in public forests for over a century. These are America’s public forests. 

The greatest challenges facing our National Forests can be traced back to the Creative Act, which established the system of National Forest Reserves in 1891. The 

disagreement over how to interpret the Act is memorialized in the philosophy and 

teachings of two historical conservation greats, John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Muir 

sided with Secretary of the Interior John Noble’s interpretation of the Act as primarily preservationist in nature, while Pinchot sided with the Forestry Division 

Chief, Bernard Fernow, who held that the government should prioritize timber management and productivity in the German tradition of forestry, which viewed the forest as a farm, producing commodities for human consumption. 

In 1897 Congress passed the ‘‘Organic Act,’’ enacting strict laws governing timber 

harvest on the Forest Preserves. With the blessing of President Theodore Roosevelt 

and Congress in 1905, Pinchot seized control of Forest Preserves, shifting jurisdiction out of Interior into Agriculture where they became known as National Forests. 

In his first two years as Chief, Pinchot passionately pursued his utilitarian/development agenda, which increased timber sales by 1000 percent. This great controversy 

is about values, and is fundamental to our understanding of today’s disagreement 

between those primarily concerned for the integrity and beauty of the biotic community, and those who rationalize the exploitation of nature for human consumption. 

In 1976, Congress passed the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the first 

legislation to enforce substantive statutory restrictions on the Forest Service. The 

Act was a response by Congress to restore public faith and trust in Forest Service 

management, a crisis in confidence caused by an insensitivity to the public’s growing concern over the expenditure of public funds and the environmental destruction 

caused by the excessive clear-cutting and road-building of our public forests. The debate rages on. 

The Bush Administration’s attitude and philosophy toward public forests represents a radical departure from the intent of NFMA to restore the ‘‘rule of reason’’ 

as envisioned by the Committee of Scientists. Apparently determined to deregulate 

and privatize our national forests, the White House appointed a former timber lobbyist assistant undersecretary of agriculture in charge of managing national forests. 

Today, any reasonable hope of striking a better balance between subsidized extractive uses and respect for public values like water, wildlife and solitude seems remote 

at best. 

Congress has been all too willing to support the Administration’s agenda, abandoning the long-standing practice of avoiding timber harvest where production costs 

exceed public benefits and where logging causes irreparable harm to fish and wildlife habitat, endangered species, clean water and healthy watersheds. 

According to two General Accounting Office (GAO) reports (GAO–03–538, GAO–

03–503, attached) issued in March, 2003, ‘‘the Forest Service has made little real 

progress in resolving its long-standing performance accountability problems and, 

based on the status of its current efforts, remains years away from implementing 

a credible performance accountability system.’’ In the meantime, all ten Montana 

national forests continue to lose money on their timber programs. 

Since the famous Yellowstone Fires of 1988, Western states have experienced big 

fire years in 1994, 1996, 2000 and in 2002. As the current drought persists, this 

string of impressive natural events will continue, with or without applying prescribed fire, thinning and other costly mechanical treatment methods. 

Big skies, big trucks, extreme weather conditions, and fire are all part of everyday 

life in the West. When conditions are right, fires will burn uncontrollably, even in 

logged areas, or subdivisions, with good road access. Despite our unflagging efforts 

to control nature, wildfire, like floods, tornadoes, and earthquakes, occur randomly. 

33

Even severe fire seasons do not constitute an emergency, but rather a normal fire 

sequence in a fire-prone ecosystem. Get used to it, wildfire B even the so-called ‘‘catastrophic’’ variety B is a natural, inevitable process. 

In reaction to nature’s recurring disregard for human efforts to suppress fire, firefighting costs are on the rise. In 2002, the U.S. Forest Service alone spent a record 

$1.2 billion, a big jump up from the $256 million spent by all federal agencies in 

1997. As Congress throws more money at the problem it helped create, there has 

been a corresponding rise in expectations of the constituency. But the intensity of 

the political controversy encircling government officials who must decide how best 

to manage our public lands appears to be doing more harm than good. Government 

is once again making promises it cannot possibly keep. 

To make matters worse, some politicians and special-interest groups have exploited public fear of wildfires to rush fire-related forest legislation through the U.S. 

House of Representatives to leverage expanded logging on public lands. 

For example, the ‘‘Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,’’ under the guise of 

protecting rural communities from fire, deregulates logging in roadless areas and 

threatened and endangered species habitat, and gives the Secretary ‘‘sole discretion’’ 

to log old growth areas. The bill also permits the Forest Service to conduct logging 

without considering any alternatives, and creates legal exemptions for an unlimited 

number of projects (up to 1,000 acres each) for lands that agencies claim are at risk 

of insect infestation. 

The bill eliminates the statutory right of citizens to appeal Forest Service logging 

projects, and directs federal courts to rule with the Forest Service and BLM, regardless of which laws are violated, whenever agencies claim their actions will restore 

fire-adapted ecosystems. For all those hoping that Congress and President Bush will 

deliver a panacea, prepare for disappointment. In reality, more logging will not lessen the impact of wildfire or make them more controllable. 

Alterations to the home and vegetation within 200 feet can effectively reduce 

home losses. We must focus our attention on preventative actions within this zone 

of 200 feet, commonly referred to as the wild land/urban interface. People who 

choose to reside in the wild land/urban interface must take responsibility for reducing the chance their house or cabin will burn down. It is equally important to accept 

the fact that when burning conditions are right, no home is totally safe. 

Using science as our guide, the only logging that makes sense is very selective, 

and located within the wild land/urban interface. There is little scientific evidence 

to show that thinning will prevent fires in drought years. Many scientists caution 

that improper thinning could damage ecosystems and actually make forests more 

vulnerable to fire. Cumulatively, our public forests have not recovered from prior 

abuses, which have dried out entire ecosystems. 

The decision to spend billions of tax dollars annually to log, thin and burn public 

wild lands should be based on solid science, not on pork-barrel politics. At an estimated average cost of more than $1,600 per acre B a cost that far exceeds the commercial value of most forests in the Northern Rockies B President Bush’s plan to 

expedite Forest Service thinning projects has already squandered more than $400 

million in the last two years. 

Roads and logging have increased the likelihood of wildfire by 2 times and the 

likelihood of human-caused fire by 4 times when compared to unroaded areas. Right 

here in the Swan Valley there are 20% more road miles than stream miles (1,729 

roads/1,437 streams), a major cause of sediment pollution. Thinning at a landscape 

level is an experiment with one surefire outcome: greater dependence on federal assistance and bigger federal agency budgets B that’s money over and above the $7 

billion Montana received in federal aid last year. 

The last thing we need is more widespread logging on public lands, bigger logging 

subsidies and a bigger federal bureaucracy. Instead, we need to expand our knowledge of forest function and wildfire, and fight against self-serving politicians and 

lobbyists who hype the fear of wildfire as a means to achieve political ends and obtain quick cash. 

We need a better forest plan, one that prioritizes on-the-ground actions in the 

wildland/urban interface, spending increasingly scarce tax dollars wisely. By moving 

proactively, homeowners can improve the odds of home survival. Restoring forests 

and watersheds will require removing roads, not the trees. Once this is accomplished, we can use science and education in a similar fashion to find the common 

ground necessary to successfully tackle more complex public forest problems in the 

future. 

In the backcountry, congressional protection of national forest system lands is the 

most cost-effective method of insuring that future generations have special public 

places to fish and hunt. And the wisest thing we could do to spur economic prosperity is to protect our forests, restore water quality and respect our quality of life. 

34

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[An attachment to Mr. Kelly’s statement, ‘‘Highlights of GAO-03-

503,’’ has been retained in the Committee’s official files. The report 

is available at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-503.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. And just to respond to your 

comment, I believe this is probably about the 30th, at least the 

30th hearing that we’ve had on that bill, the vast majority of those 

were before the bill passed, so—. 

Mr. Harrington. 

STATEMENT OF BOB HARRINGTON, FORESTER, STATE OF 

MONTANA 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Good morning, Chairman Pombo, Congressman Rehberg and Congresswoman Bordallo. 

Thank you for coming out here. I appreciate the opportunity to 

speak with you this morning. I’m Bob Harrington, I’m the Montana 

State Forester and I’m also Forestry Division Administrator for the 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 

Our department manages about, a little over five million acres 

of State trust land in the State of Montana. Of that, about 700,000 

acres of that is forested. We produce about 42 million board feet 

of logs for sale every year with the intent of generating revenue for 

the trust beneficiaries, primarily K-12 schools and the university 

system. As Forestry Division Administrator, I am also responsible 

for the fire protection on five million acres of State and private 

land in Western Montana, as well as, by extension through our 

partnerships with the counties, the remaining 45 million acres of 

State and private land throughout Montana. We also work fairly 

closely with the timber industry to monitor forest practices and 

several other things. 

I’d like to get right into some of what I believe are the critical 

points that are being debated right now and should be considered 

as you go forward with considering approval of legislation to address the forest health issue. 

First of all, I believe that thinning a few trees around forested 

subdivision communities will not guarantee the survival of our 

communities at risk. When combined with drought conditions, the 

current amount of fuel on our national forests contributes to fire 

intensities that can overwhelm firefighters than even the most extensive community fuel reduction projects. 

Restricting forest management projects to a buffer area around 

homes will not address the broader forest health problem on national forest lands and the threats from insects, disease and fire to 

forested watersheds and productive timber lands. The pending revision of forest plans on Montana’s ten national forests could cost up 

to $100 million. Streamlining this process would make valuable 

staff and financial resources available to implement more forest 

health projects on the ground. 

I believe a viable wood products and logging industry is important to the State of Montana and a critical component of implementing forest health improvement projects. As the states of Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico have learned, the ability to impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
35

ment projects is severely limited, if not eliminated altogether, if the 

infrastructure is not in place. We cannot complete the needed fuel 

treatments with noncommercial thinning alone. Commercial forest 

products can and should be harvested from our national forests and 

can help offset the high cost of forest health restoration work that 

is needed. 

Although most agree that forest fuels adjacent to our communities should be treated, the distance from structures that fuel 

treatment should occur is still debated. Some believe the Forest 

Service should continue identifying and treating high-risk areas 

away from our cities and towns, while others believe all commercial 

logging on Federal forests should end, and they file appeals and 

lawsuits toward that end. 

Consequently, science-based forest management proposals on national forests that have been developed in collaboration with resource specialists, affected stakeholders and the general public continue to be delayed and derailed. The internal appeals process and 

court challenges have been used to handcuff agency professionals 

and to prevent good projects from moving forward. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Bitterroot Valley south 

of Missoula, where approximately 350,000 acres burned in the 

summer of 2000. During those fires, more than 15,000 acres of the 

Sula State Forest burned. To date, our department has salvaged 

over 27 million board feet of dead timber on over 6,000 acres, generated $6 million for trust beneficiaries and forest improvement, 

and completed numerous fire rehabilitation projects on burned 

trust lands. The majority of this harvest occurred within 6 months 

of the fire, allowing us to capture maximum value from purchasers. 

The Bitterroot National Forest has had much more difficulty, 

thus far salvaging only approximately 20 million board feet of the 

estimated 1 billion board feet of Federal timber that burned in the 

summer of 2000. Delay in implementing harvest has seriously reduced the value received to about 10 percent of the value that our 

department received for our timber. The success of the DNRC salvage operation on trust lands certainly represents a tremendous effort by our staff and the State Board of Land Commissioners. However, I do not believe that the problems implementing salvage 

projects on adjacent national forest land represent a lack of commitment or competence on the part of national forest staff. Rather, 

it represents the difference in administrative frameworks each 

agency operates within and how cumbersome it is to implement 

projects on the national forest. 

Clearly, Congress should enact legislation that expedites the implementation of collaboratively planned projects, not only adjacent 

to communities at risk but wherever forest health problems and 

priorities exist. I applaud the passage of the Healthy Forest Protection Act by the House of Representatives and encourage the Senate 

to pass a bill with similar intent. The 10-year comprehensive strategy that’s been endorsed by the Western Governors Association and 

numerous other partners provides a good framework for negotiating the final version of the legislation. 

I am confident that efforts such as this field hearing will help us 

move forward in restoring the health of our forests, protection of 

our watersheds, and to maintain the economic health of Montana’s 

36

rural communities. I encourage you to continue your work toward 

passage of legislation that reinvigorates the mission and productivity of the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrington follows:]

Statement of Bob Harrington, Montana State Forester, Missoula, Montana 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Bob 

Harrington, Montana State Forester and Forestry Division Administrator of the 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you on this subject, and am pleased you have chosen Seeley 

Lake for this field hearing. 

Americans have had the great luxury to debate at length over management strategies to improve the health of our national forests. Opinions on how that should be 

accomplished are as diverse as the citizens of this country. One opinion is that accelerated timber harvesting alone would address the forest health problems on federal 

lands. Others advocate a policy that would prohibit proactive forest management 

and allow fire, insects, and disease to manage the forests instead. Somewhere in between these extremes, the embattled managers of Montana’s national forests are 

trying to implement policy, and get things done on the ground. 

There are many critical points you should consider as you explore legislative solutions for the forest health problem. I would like to focus on a few of them: 

• Thinning a few trees around forested subdivisions and communities will not 

guarantee the survival of our communities at risk. When combined with 

drought conditions, the current amount of fuel on our national forests contributes to fire intensities that can overwhelm firefighters and the even the most 

extensive community fuel reduction projects. 

• Restricting forest management projects to a buffer area around homes will not 

address the broader forest health problem on national forest lands, and the 

threats from insects, disease, and fire to forested watersheds and productive 

timberlands. 

• Timber harvest on national forests will not prevent fires, but will decrease the 

intensity of fires when they do occur—allowing safer and more efficient fire suppression tactics. It will also not eliminate insect and disease outbreaks, but it 

will lessen the impact when they occur. 

• Historic forest stand types and their relationship to fire were as diverse as the 

plants and animals found in them: some forest types experienced low-intensity 

fires every 10–20 years, others burned only once every 100–200 years, with 

many separate regimes in between. Forest management projects designed to reduce fuels, improve forest health, and mimic natural processes need to be designed accordingly. 

• The appeals process for project implementation leads to project planning costs 

2–3 times as much as usual, and consumes valuable staff time that could better 

be spent on project implementation. The US Forest Service is the only federal 

agency with the NEPA appeals process codified in statute. Legislation is needed 

to give the agency more flexibility in managing the appeals process, similar to 

the BLM and other federal agencies. 

• Public involvement in project planning is critical—- but such involvement must 

be collaborative by all parties, and conducted in good faith. Recent changes to 

the categorical exclusion (CE) rules will help streamline the appeals process 

that has been abused for too long. Congress should support changes such as 

these, and facilitate additional CE protection for all forest management projects 

developed in a collaborative manner with stakeholders and the general public. 

• The pending revision of forest plans on Montana’s nine national forests could 

cost up to $100 million. Streamlining this process would make valuable staff 

and financial resources available to implement more forest health projects on 

the ground. 

• A viable wood products and logging industry is important to the state of Montana, and a critical component of implementing forest health improvement 

projects. As the states of Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico have experienced, 

the ability to implement projects is severely limited - if not eliminated altogether - if the infrastructure is not in place. We cannot complete the needed fuel 

treatments with non-commercial thinning alone. Commercial forest products can 

and should be harvested from our national forests, and can help offset the high 

costs of the forest health restoration work that is needed. 

Although most agree that forest fuels adjacent to our communities should be 

treated, the distance from structures that fuel treatment should occur is still deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
37

bated. Some believe the Forest Service should continue identifying and treating 

high-risk areas away from our cities and towns, while others believe all commercial 

logging on federal forests should end - and file appeals and lawsuits toward that 

end. 

Consequently, science based forest management proposals on national forests that 

have been developed in collaboration with resource specialists, affected stakeholders, 

and the general public continue to be delayed and derailed. The internal appeals 

process and court challenges have been used to handcuff agency professionals, and 

to prevent good projects from moving forward. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, 

where approximately 350,000 acres burned in the summer of 2000. During those 

fires, more than 15,000 acres of the Sula State Forest burned. To date, DNRC had 

salvaged over 27 million board feet of dead timber on over 6,000 acres, generated 

$6 million for trust beneficiaries and forest improvement, and completed numerous 

fire rehabilitation projects on burned trust lands. The majority of this harvest occurred within six months of the fire, allowing us to capture maximum value from 

purchasers. 

Prior to the fires of 2000, the Sula State Forest had been managed for timber production, including several recently completed sales. In general, certain harvested 

areas on state and adjacent private land reduced fire behavior, and prevented additional mortality to standing trees. For various reasons, this pattern was not universal - some harvested areas burned intensely, and other unharvested areas 

burned with mixed severity. I have attached a summary of fire behavior on the Sula 

Forest by Dr. Peter Kolb, MSU Extension Forestry Specialist for further consideration by the committee. 

Timber salvage areas on the Sula Forest experienced significantly less erosion and 

debris flows than on adjacent lands where salvage logging had not occurred. Although variable weather patterns may have contributed to this result, we believe 

the logging activity and woody debris left behind prevented significant soil movement within the watershed. 

The Bitterroot National Forest has had much more difficulty, thus far salvaging 

only approximately 20 million board feet of the estimated one billion board feet of 

federal timber that burned in 2000. Delay in implementing harvest has seriously 

reduced the value received to about 10% of the value received by DNRC for its timber. The success of the DNRC salvage operation on trust lands represents a tremendous effort by our staff and the State Board of Land Commissioners. However, I do 

not believe the problems implementing salvage projects on adjacent national forest 

land represent a lack of commitment or competence of Forest Service staff. Rather, 

it represents the difference in administrative frameworks each agency operates 

within, and how cumbersome it is to implement projects on the national forests. 

DNRC was fortunate to have the general support of Bitterroot residents, the State 

Land Board, and experienced no lawsuits over our salvage timber sales. In contrast, 

even after an open and collaborative planning process for its salvage sales, Bitterroot Forest staff has been burdened by appeals, lawsuits, negotiated settlements, 

and continued scrutiny from entities opposed to all logging on federal lands. 

Whether it is the salvage of fire-killed timber on the Lolo National Forest, or fuel 

reduction projects such as the Clancy–Unionville project on the Helena National 

Forest, projects designed to improve the health of the forest and associated resources continue to be delayed or blocked altogether. While this gridlock continues, 

we continue to experience the following: 

• Our national forests continue to be subjected to extensive losses from fire, insects, and disease; 

• Timber-dependent workers and communities continue to lose jobs and economic 

sustainability; 

• Local, state, and federal firefighters continue to be exposed to extreme fire behavior, threatening lives and costing billions of dollars. 

We know that fire, insects, and disease are merely symptoms of a greater problem: the loss of the historical diversity in forest conditions that greeted Lewis and 

Clark as they passed through this region nearly 200 years ago. If our nation’s forests are to adapt to the predicted increase in the atmosphere’s temperature and associated weather extremes, we must continue to restore the mosaic of timber types 

once present on the landscape. 

Clearly, Congress should enact legislation that expedites the implementation of 

collaboratively planned projects, not only adjacent to communities at risk, but wherever forest health problems and priorities exist. I applaud the passage of the 

Healthy Forest Protection Act by the House of Representatives, and encourage the 

Senate to pass a bill with similar intent. The Western Governors Association’s 

38

(WGA) 10-year comprehensive strategy establishes a good framework for negotiating 

the final version of the legislation. 

I am confident that efforts such as this field hearing will help move us toward 

restoring the health of our forests, protection of our watersheds, and maintain the 

economic health of Montana’s rural communities. I encourage you to continue to 

work toward passage of legislation that reinvigorates the mission and productivity 

of the U.S. Forest Service.

[An attachment to Mr. Harrington’s statement follows:]

Forest Management and Wildfire Observations 

Peter Kolb (PhD) MSU Extension Forestry Specialist, School of Forestry Assistant 

Professor of Forest Ecology 

Sula State Forest 

The Sula state forest burned as part of the wildfires that burned across the Bitterroot Valley during 2000. Multiple ignitions coupled with drought, hot weather 

and extremely low fuel moistures led to uncontrollable wildfires across much of 

Montana and Idaho. This period was also marked with periodic high winds, most 

noted on what was called ‘‘Black Sunday’’ when wind gust well over 40 miles per 

hour caused erratic and dangerous wildfire spread. News footage of the fire camp 

in Ross Hole being overrun by fire made the national evening broadcasts. The fire 

camp was located in the broad bottom of Ross hole with mowed meadowlands and 

croplands surrounding the camp for at least ° mile in either direction, and lies in 

the middle of the Sula State Forest. 

Fire behavior—post fire review 

Per the request of the ranch manager of the Shiny Mountain Ranch, which is surrounded by the northern portion of the Sula State Forest, and with Chris Tootell, 

the then chief of DNRC Service Forestry, I visited the Sula forest in late August 

of 2000. I had been in contact with the Shiny Mountain Ranch the previous year 

regarding wildfire concerns in the surrounding forest. This prompted numerous additional site visits, tours, and subsequent research during the summer of 2001. 

We found that the Sula State Forest burned in a mosaic of fire intensities and 

severities. We were very interested in fire behavior, particularly around ‘‘islands’’ 

of green trees that survived across the landscape next to high intensity burn areas. 

To help analyze fire behavior I interviewed Mark Lewing, who was in charge of the 

fire suppression activities on the Sula and had kept a diary of events. I also brought 

Mick Harrington (PhD), lead fire behavior specialist from the Fire Sciences Lab 

USDA Forest Service out to the Sula State forest to examine and discuss theories 

that we had developed with regard to fire behavior. 

Findings 

Mosaic patterns were affected by landscape features, fuel conditions, time of day, 

wind patterns, and past forest management. Wind direction and speed, as well as 

topographic features such as canyons that funneled heat, and steep slopes that exacerbated wind effects had an overriding and predictable impacts on fire intensities 

and severities. Steep slopes and narrow canyons almost always led to stand replacing run-away fire conditions. Under these circumstances, the only forested areas 

that did not burn intensely and severely where those that were surrounded by 

clearcuts, patch-cuts, and widely spaced uneven aged management units. On average, any clearcut that had regeneration younger than 30 years showed some resistance to carrying an active crown-fire, and in some cases stopped surface fires as 

well. Standard thinnings that left fairly dense forested stands with average between 

tree spacings of 15 feet or less appeared to be ineffective in modifying active crown 

fire behavior. Those areas of adjoining property where thinnings of 30 feet between 

trees were in place did have noticeable effects, causing active crown fires to drop 

to the ground. 

The role of logging debris and coarse woody debris retention prior to fire 

The Sula State Forest was of interest because in the year preceding the fires of 

2000, the manager of the Shiny Mountain Ranch had called asking for help regarding woody debris disposal. Upon inquiry, it became evident that he was concerned 

about logging debris that had been placed back into forested conditions to satisfy 

Coarse Woody Debris retention policy. Approximately a decade a ago a general forestry practice was adopted that advocated the retention of significant amounts of 

logging debris for the purposes of nutrient cycling and wildlife habitat. This practice, sound in theory, did not take into full account the risks to wildfire hazard. 

Most wildfire hazard calculations are conducted using a standard bad day format 

39

( 87 F, 17% relative humidity, and winds of 12 mph 20 ft above the soil surface) 

and fuel loading using the BEHAVE model. Under these circumstances the logging 

debris left probably was well within standards for slash hazard reduction guidelines. 

It is my contention that these calculations gave a false sense of security since the 

wildfires of 2000 where under significantly worse conditions (90+ F , 5% relative humidity, and winds over 30 mph). Based upon observations on the Sula State Forest, 

prompted by the Shiny Mountain Ranch, management areas that had a coarse 

woody debris retention management prescription tended to support lethal surface 

fires and were more prone to developing into crown fires. Coarse Woody Debris 

guidelines, therefore, need to be refined to take into account the probability of 

wildfires under extreme conditions. 

Salvage logging 

Salvage logging on the Sula State Forest occurred within months of the wildfire 

occurrence. The ability to quickly respond to wildfire-affected areas had multiple 

benefits. Wildfires leave an area with little vegetation and covered with highly 

erodable ash. Fire adapted plants can rapidly recolonize burned areas one to two 

years after an event and help stabilize soils. Logging prior to plant colonization does 

not disturb this vital process and may actually help by breaking up ash covered hydrophobic soils. Placement of logging debris on contours to create erosion barriers 

further reduces soil displacement. This practice is identical to the costly but proven 

post-fire rehabilitation treatment of ‘‘contour felling’’. Finally, the rapid extraction 

of fire-killed trees maximizes the economic value and utilization of this resource. 

The wood in fire killed as well as insect and disease-killed trees rapidly becomes 

unsuitable for most wood product purposes. 

The landscape picture 

Critical landscape review of the Bitterroot fires, Nine-mile, Maudlow–Toston, 

Cave Gulch, Fridley, Moose Creek, and Cow Creek have shown similar patterns. 

Forested landscapes, that had previously well planned and implemented management practices that resulted in mosaic-patches of different forest age classes and 

tree species had a lower probability of carrying a landscape encompassing active 

crown fire, even under severe fire conditions. Wildfires that developed into active 

crown fires appeared to gain momentum in areas that had uniform forest crown 

canopies and burn into large, contiguous stand replacing fires of the highest severity. These types of wildfires cannot be actively suppressed until the weather significantly changes or landscape level fuel treatments are encountered. Wildfires that 

developed into active crown fires in forests with diverse tree spacing and patches 

of tree age classes were more probable to burn in a mosaic of small patches of crown 

fires and non-lethal surface fires, with significantly less severe residual fire effects. 

According to fire suppression experts, the later scenario represents a higher successful suppression scenario, which is the goal of using management to reduce wildfire 

hazards. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Dahl. 

STATEMENT OF ANN DAHL, DIRECTOR, SWAN ECOSYSTEM 

CENTER 

Ms. DAHL. Thank you. I’m grateful to be here and I’m grateful 

you came to see us because as Chief Bosworth said, or as has been 

said today—I can’t remember who said it now—it’s very important 

that you come out and take a look. In fact, it was you, Denny, who 

said it. I appreciate the working junkets. You need to know exactly 

what’s going on. 

I work for Swan Ecosystem Center in the Swan Valley, about 25 

miles north of here. Swan Ecosystem Center is an inclusive, nonprofit community group. We work in partnership with the Forest 

Service and many other partners on ecosystem management and 

education. 

Today, I want to tell you how our community is participating effectively in public and private land management, briefly describe 

our hopes for the Swan Valley for us, emphasize that all communities and ecosystems are different and that forests are in need of 

40

site specific management, and argue that both local experiencebased knowledge and scientific data are needed in considering forest health planning. 

The Swan Valley lies between the Mission Mountains and the 

Swan Range. And the valley ecosystem is a source of clean air and 

water. It’s a popular recreation area for many Montanans. The 

Swan Valley has the most significant system of wetlands and riparian areas in the region. This densely forested valley is home to 

grizzly bears, bull trout, many rare plants and about 900 people 

who care deeply about the land. The valley is one of a few in the 

West where humans live successfully within a rich and intact ecosystem. 

This thing is falling (indicating the mic.) . 

The Swan Ecosystem Center has an office and visitor center in 

the U.S. Forest Service Condon Work Center. We sell maps and 

firewood permits, and we answer questions about trails and grizzly 

bears. We raise half the money for the backcountry rangers in the 

Mission Mountains and on the Swan Range. We have two demonstration forests on national forest land that help people understand the role of fire in the ecosystem and learn how to protect 

their homes from wildfire. We offer numerous educational programs with the Forest Service and other partners. 

Community members have written a landscape assessment of the 

Upper Swan Valley that combines scientific data and experiencebased knowledge from local people. Public land managers bring 

technology that communities want and long-time residents retain 

knowledge of how the ecosystem has functioned and changed over 

time. Both are needed to assess forest conditions and develop appropriate management strategies. 

Our community-based landscape assessment is the foundation for 

a valley-wide conservation strategy that includes all ownerships. 

The valley is divided in a checkerboard pattern, with the Forest 

Service and Plum Creek Timberland managing most of the alternating squares. These checkerboard squares are visible from space. 

Recently harvested, Plum Creek lands are in young growth, while 

many of the Forest Service squares are now overcrowded and need 

management to reduce beetle infestations and unnatural fuel loading. With every other square mile recently logged, much of the national forest land is susceptible to wind throw, yet the Forest Service is unable to offer small timber sales to salvage excess blowdown 

before it loses economic value and exacerbates the insect and disease problem. Although such salvage sales would be small, they 

would be significant for local contractors and the Pyramid mill in 

Seeley Lake. If we’re going to reduce fuels in the Swan Valley, it’s 

essential to keep the local mills open to process the trees that are 

thinned. 

Plum Creek Timberlands owns about 80,000 acres in the Swan 

Valley, about half of the land that can be managed for timber production in the valley. Plum Creek has begun selling its 

timberlands, some for Forest Service acquisition and some for private residences. We have convened a stakeholders group made up 

of the Forest Service, other Federal and state agencies, county governments, land trust organizations, environmental groups and comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
41

munity members and Plum Creek, to develop a coordinated strategy for protecting Plum Creek lands. 

Working with the Trust for Public Land, about 5000 acres have 

been acquired for the Flathead National Forest since 1998 using 

Land and Water Conservation funds. About 1200 acres will be acquired in 2003. And the stakeholders group has identified and 

prioritized an additional 8000 acres for the Forest Service in 2004 

and beyond. We’re also seeking Forest Legacy funds and Habitat 

Conservation Plan funds to ensure that sufficient land remains in 

the timber base, key habitats are protected and lands are available 

for appropriate public access. 

Swan Valley residents have donated 3000 acres of conservation 

easements on 22 privately owned parcels through the Montana 

Land Reliance, demonstrating a remarkable personal commitment 

to retaining the valley’s rural and wild characteristics. The Nature 

Conservancy also holds some easements in the Swan Valley. 

A Swan Valley community Committee is meeting monthly to protect Plum Creek lands and develop a conservation strategy for 

managing local forests. Historically, the economy in the Swan Valley has been timber dependent. Managed responsibly, these forests 

could continue to supply products for the local mill and provide jobs 

for loggers, log truck drivers, mill workers, restoration foresters 

and outfitters long into the future. But if we’re going to maintain 

an intact ecosystem and a rural way of life, the Swan Valley cannot 

withstand much more residential development. Far-flung development is the greatest threat to ecosystem integrity and our rural 

culture. It undermines the viability of the timber industry and the 

cost of services stresses many—or stresses county government. 

As part of the Swan Valley conservation strategy, we want to acquire Plum Creek land for a community forest to be managed for 

these core values that were identified by residents as most critical: 

Appropriate public access, a sustainable timber base and wildlife 

habitat. If properly organized, a community forest would help resolve the burden of checkerboard ownership mandated by Congress 

a century ago as part of the railroad land grant. 

A Swan Valley community forest would test the potential for appropriate local land management while including a broad range of 

national interests. We are not asking for local control. We want 

meaningful local participation by people who have intimate knowledge of the place. A community forest would allow citizens to maintain the rural and wild characteristics of the valley and provide a 

sustainable local economy. Swan Valley forests could be managed 

according to the specific needs of the local ecosystem. Management 

would mesh the knowledge of long-time residents with scientific 

data. It would be responsive and specific to the people and the 

place. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dahl follows:]

Statement of Anne Dahl, Executive Director, Swan Ecosystem Center 

Purpose 

Welcome to our beautiful part of the world. I am Anne Dahl, and I work for Swan 

Ecosystem Center in the Swan Valley, about 25 miles north of here. Swan Ecosystem Center is an inclusive, nonprofit community group. We work in partnership 

with the Forest Service, and many other partners, on ecosystem management and 

education. I have four things I want to accomplish today. I want to: 

42

1. Tell you how our community is participating effectively in public and private 

land management. 

2. Briefly describe our hopes for Swan Valley forests. 

3. Emphasize that all communities and ecosystems are different and that forests 

are in need of site-specific management. 

4. Argue that both local experience-based knowledge and scientific data need to 

be considered in planning for forest health. 

Swan Valley 

The Swan Valley lies between the Mission Mountains Wilderness and the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness. The valley ecosystem is a source of clean air and water and 

a popular recreation area for many Montanans. The Swan Valley has the most significant system of wetlands and riparian areas in the region. This densely forested 

valley is home to grizzly bears, bull trout, many rare plants and about 900 people 

who care deeply about the land. The valley is one of a few in the West where humans live successfully within a rich and intact ecosystem. 

Swan Ecosystem Center and Flathead National Forest Partnership 

Through matching funds agreements with the Forest Service, Swan Ecosystem 

Center has an office and visitor center in the U.S. Forest Service Condon Work Center. We sell maps and firewood permits and we answer questions about trails and 

grizzly bears. We raise half the money for the backcountry rangers in the Mission 

Mountains Wilderness and the Swan Range, with its trails into the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness. We have two demonstration forests on national forest land that help 

people understand the role of fire in the ecosystem and learn how to protect their 

homes from wildfire. We offer numerous educational programs with the Forest Service and other partners. 

Community members have written a landscape assessment of the Upper Swan 

Valley that combines scientific data and experience-based knowledge from local people. Public land managers bring technology and scientific information communities 

want. Longtime residents retain knowledge of how the ecosystem has functioned 

and changed over time. Both are needed to assess forest conditions and develop appropriate management strategies. 

Legacy of Checkerboard Ownership 

Our community-based landscape assessment is the foundation for a valley-wide 

conservation strategy that includes all ownerships. The valley is divided in a checkerboard pattern, with the Forest Service and Plum Creek Timberlands managing 

most of the alternate square-mile sections. The state of Montana manages a smaller 

portion of the valley checkerboard. These checkerboard squares are visible from 

space. Recently harvested, Plum Creek lands are in young growth, while many Forest Service squares are now overcrowded and need management to reduce beetle infestations and unnatural fuel loading. With every other square mile recently logged, 

much of the national forest land is susceptible to wind throw. Yet the Forest Service 

is unable to offer small timber sales to salvage excessive blow down before it loses 

economic value and exacerbates the insect and disease problem. Although such salvage sales would be small, they would be significant for local contractors and the 

Pyramid mill in Seeley Lake. If we’re going to reduce fuels in the Swan Valley, it’s 

essential to keep the local mills open to process trees that are thinned. 

Divestment of Plum Creek Timberlands 

Plum Creek Timberlands owns about 80,000 acres in the Swan Valley, about half 

of the land that can be managed for timber production. Plum Creek has begun selling its timberlands, some for Forest Service acquisition and some for private residences. We have convened a stakeholders group made up of the Forest Service, 

other federal and state agencies, county governments, land trust organizations, environmental groups, community members, and Plum Creek to develop a coordinated 

strategy for protecting Plum Creek lands. 

Coordinated Conservation Strategy 

Working with Trust for Public Land, about 5000 acres have been acquired for the 

Flathead National Forest since 1998 using Land and Water Conservation funds allocated by Congress. About 1200 acres will be acquired in 2003. And the stakeholders 

group has identified and prioritized an additional 8000 acres for Forest Service acquisition in 2004 and beyond. We are also seeking Forest Legacy and Habitat Conservation Plan funds to ensure that sufficient land remains in the timber base, key 

habitats are protected, and lands are available for appropriate public access. 

Swan Valley residents have donated over 3000 acres of conservation easements 

on 22 privately owned parcels through the Montana Land Reliance, demonstrating 

43

a remarkable personal commitment to retaining the valley’s rural and wild characteristics. The Nature Conservancy also holds easements in the Swan Valley. 

Swan Valley Community Forest 

A Swan Valley community committee is meeting monthly to protect Plum Creek 

lands and develop a conservation strategy for managing local forests. Historically, 

the economy in the Swan Valley has been timber dependent. Managed responsibly, 

these forests could continue to supply products for the local mill and provide jobs 

for loggers, log truck drivers, mill workers, restoration foresters, and outfitters long 

into the future. But, if we are going to maintain an intact ecosystem and a rural 

way of life, the Swan Valley cannot withstand much more residential development. 

Far-flung development is the greatest threat to ecosystem integrity and our rural 

culture. It undermines the viability of the timber industry, and the cost of services 

stresses county governments. 

As part of the Swan Valley conservation strategy we want to acquire Plum Creek 

land for a community forest to be managed for these core values identified by residents as most critical: appropriate public access, a sustainable timber base, and 

wildlife habitat. If properly organized, a community forest could help resolve the 

burden of checkerboard ownership mandated by Congress a century ago as part of 

the railroad land grant. 

A Swan Valley community forest would test the potential for appropriate local 

land management, while including a broad range of national interests. We are not 

asking for local control. We want meaningful local participation by people who have 

intimate knowledge of the place. A community forest would allow citizens to maintain the rural and wild characteristics of the Swan Valley and provide a sustainable 

local economy. Swan Valley forests would be managed according to the specific 

needs of the local ecosystem. Management would mesh the knowledge of longtime 

residents with scientific data. It would be responsive, and specific, to the people and 

the place. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Liles. 

STATEMENT OF KIM LILES, SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR, 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION, PULP & PAPER RESOURCES 

COUNCIL 

Mr. LILES. Chairman Pombo, Representative Rehberg, Representative Bordallo, thank you for allowing me to be here today. 

For the record, my name is Kim Liles. I’m the Special Projects 

Director for the Rocky Mountain Region of the Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council. I am also a shop steward for Hellgate 

Local 885 in Missoula, Montana. And I have been employed at 

Smurfit-Stone Container mill for 24 years as a paper maker. And 

I am very grateful for the opportunity you have given me to address this gathering of folks dedicated to the future of our national 

forests here in Montana and throughout this great nation. As a native Montanan employed in the forest products industry, I, like 

many Americans, am very concerned with the direction and management that our public lands has taken for the last decade or 

more. For too long, we have allowed politics rather than common 

sense and scientific data determine the way we have managed, or 

should I say mismanaged, our national forests. 

I always thought of our public lands and national forests to be 

much like a garden, which require tending and care, along with 

thoughtful planning and sound practices. And just as a garden requires nurturing, so do our national forests. They have become 

ticking time bombs just waiting for a spark to ignite a firestorm. 

We are also witnessing some of the most devastating bug infestations we have seen in recent history, also adding to the fuel loading 

in our forests. 

44

After having toured the Bitterroot burn area of 2000 with some 

colleagues of mine last summer, I came away even more disgusted 

and with a greater concern over where we are headed. Having seen 

the destruction of so much old growth timber, habitat devastation 

and landslides contributing to the degradation of streambeds and 

water quality, I wonder how anyone could claim this to be a prudent management policy. I do not understand why, when we have 

the ability, the technology and wherewithal, we don’t get about the 

work of reclamation, replanting and utilize the destroyed timber to 

our benefit. 

I asked, since when did it become un-American and wrong to 

make a profit on lumber. If we are to believe the environmental extreme community—and I have to cite extreme, because obviously 

there are awesome environmental organizations out there, but if 

we are to believe the environmental extreme community, nobody 

should make a dime on our public lands on anything. Only they, 

it would appear, should benefit, through litigation and legal action, 

while at the same time good hard-working people are put out of 

work as a result of their actions. I, as well as many of my co-workers, hold them responsible and accountable for many of the jobs—

not all of them, many—we have lost in the timber industry here 

in Montana and the Western United States. They always talk 

about compromise, but as I have experienced and seen through the 

years, the only ones who must compromise are those of us who rely 

on our natural resources for a living and our survival. Many of 

these same folks who we are constantly battling with on these 

issues do not even reside in our area. They have no real liability 

in the matter. It is not their jobs that are at risk. Their only supposed liability that I can see is their claim of caring for the environment. And to that I would ask the question of these so-called 

environmentalists, if they are concerned about the health of our national forests and our environment, is the destruction of over seven 

and a half million acres of forest land, old growth timber and wildlife habitat, and the loss of 24 lives, as we saw happen in 2003, 

acceptable? Is this the way we should manage our forests? Is 

standing by and doing nothing the right thing to do? 

It is also, you know, disturbing to me, as we recently saw in 

Libby, Montana, over 345 people right in the heart of timber country lose their jobs in their sawmill because of the unavailability of 

timber brought about by appeals and legal maneuvering and philandering by others who believe they know what is best for us and 

the environment. And these are not just jobs I am speaking of but 

a way of life. Our families, our schools and whole communities pay 

the price as well. 

There is no doubt mistakes have been made in the past in managing our national forests, but we must leave the past behind us, 

as was said earlier, and look ahead. I am one of those who believe 

we can have both a healthy environment and vibrant economy and 

still utilize our most renewable national resource, which is timber. 

We must use common sense and be realistic in our expectations. 

And when we come to a consensus, we need to stick with our decisions and eliminate the last-minute appeals and legal challenges 

after we have agreed. This happens all the time and further erodes 

our ability to meet the challenges that we face today. Honesty, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
45

tegrity and common sense must be a part of the process just as 

much as science and the public review process. Ultimately, the 

health of all our public lands lies in the balance. How we address 

this issue will most assuredly determine our ability to deal with 

other issues that we face in the future. 

But we’ve already seen the devastating the results of allowing 

politics, emotional rhetoric and radical agendas to dominate the 

discussion. I can only hope we allow common sense and credible 

science to be our guide now. The tremendous level of frustration I 

have experienced in talking with some of our forest personnel here 

in Montana, our regional director Brad Powell, as well as Chief 

Bosworth and some of his folks in Washington, D.C., is disheartening. It is time we allowed our professional land managers to do 

their jobs. It is also time we did what is right for our forests, our 

economy and our community. All I would like to see is a balance 

in this issue to take us into the future, forgetting the mistakes of 

the past and moving on in diligence. We have no more time to 

waste. Our forests are dying and burning up before our very eyes. 

We all share the blame for what we are now witnessing. So, let’s 

get on with the business of properly managing what we do have so 

we will have it there for the future. And I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Liles follows:]

Statement of Kim Liles, Special Projects Director, Rocky Mountain Region 

of the Pulp and Paperworkers’ Resource Council 

Mister Chairman, Representative Rehberg members of the committee. For the 

record my name is Kim Liles, I am the Special Projects Director for the Rocky 

Mountain Region of the Pulp and Paperworkers’’ Resource Council. I am also a shop 

steward for Hellgate Local 885 in Missoula, Mt and I have been employed at the 

Smurfit–Stone Container mill in Frenchtown as a paper maker for 24 years. I am 

very grateful for the opportunity you have given me to address this gathering of 

people dedicated to the future of our National Forests here in Montana and throughout this great nation. As a native Montanan employed in the forest products industry, I like many Americans am very concerned with the direction the management 

of our public lands has taken in the last decade or more. For too long we have allowed politics rather than common sense and scientific data determine the way we 

have managed or should I say mismanaged our National Forests. 

I have always thought of our public lands and forests to be much like a garden, 

which require tending and care along with thoughtful planning and sound practices. 

Just as a garden requires nurturing so do our National Forests. They have become 

ticking time bombs just waiting for a spark to ignite a firestorm. We are also witnessing some of the most devastating bug infestations we have seen in recent history also adding to the fuel loading in our forests. 

After having toured the Bitterroot burn area of 2000, I came away even more disgusted and with a greater concern over where we are headed. Having seen the destruction of so much old growth timber, habitat devastation and landslides contributing to the degradation of streambeds and water quality I wonder how anyone can 

claim this to be a prudent management policy. I do not understand why, when we 

have the ability, technology and where with all, we don’t get about the work of reclamation, replanting and utilize the destroyed timber to our benefit. 

Since when did it become un–American and wrong to make a profit on lumber? 

If we are to believe the environmental extreme community no one should make a 

dime on public lands on anything. Only they it would appear should be allowed to 

benefit through litigation and legal action while at the same time good hard working 

people are put out of work as a result of their actions. I as well as many of my coworkers hold them responsible and accountable for many of the jobs we have lost 

in the timber industry here in Montana and the Western United States. They always talk about compromise, but as I have experienced and seen through the years, 

the only ones who must compromise are those of us who rely on our natural resources for our living and survival. Many of these same folks who we are constantly 

fighting on these issues are not even from our area. They have no real liability in 

the matter. It is not their jobs that are at risk. Their only supposed liability that 

46

I can see is their claim of caring for the environment. To that I would ask the question of these so-called environmentalists, if they are really concerned about the 

health of our National Forests and our environment, is the destruction of over 7.5 

million acres of forest lands, old growth timber and wildlife habitat and the loss of 

24 lives as we saw happen in 2003 acceptable? Is this the way to manage our forests? Is standing by and doing nothing the right thing to do? 

It is most disturbing to me to see over 345 people in the heart of timber country 

like Libby Montana, lose their jobs and sawmill because of the unavailability of timber brought about by appeals, legal maneuvering and philandering by others who 

believe they know what is best for us and the environment. These are not just jobs 

I am speaking of but a way of life. Our families, our schools and whole communities 

pay the price as well. 

There is no doubt mistakes have been made in the past in managing our National 

Forests, but we must leave the past behind us and look ahead. I am one of those 

who believe we can have both a healthy environment and vibrant economy and still 

utilize our most renewable natural resource, timber. We must use common sense 

and be realistic in our expectations. When we come to a consensus we need to stick 

with our decisions and eliminate the last minute appeals and legal challenges after 

we have agreed. This happens all the time and further erodes our ability to meet 

the challenges that we face today. Honesty, integrity and common sense must be 

a part of the process just as much as science and the public review process. Ultimately the health of all of our public lands lie in the balance. How we address this 

issue will most assuredly determine our ability to deal with other issues we will face 

in the future. 

We have already seen the devastating results of allowing politics, emotional rhetoric and radical agendas to dominate the discussion. I can only hope we allow common sense and credible science be our guide now. The tremendous level of frustration I have experienced in talking to some of our Forest Service personnel here in 

Montana our Regional Director Brad Powell as well as Chief Bosworth and his folks 

in Washington is disheartening. It is time we allowed our professional land managers to do their jobs. It is also time we did what is right for our forests our economy and our communities. All I would like to see is a balance in this issue to take 

us into the future, forgetting the mistakes of the past and moving on in diligence. 

We have no more time to waste. Our forests are dying and burning up before our 

very eyes. We all share the blame for what we are now witnessing so lets get on 

with the business of properly managing what we have so it will be there for the 

future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Sanders. 

STATEMENT OF GORDON SANDERS, RESOURCES MANAGER, 

PYRAMID MOUNTAIN LUMBER, INC. 

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my 

name is Gordon Sanders, Resource Manager for Pyramid Mountain 

Lumber here in Seeley Lake. Welcome to Seeley. 

Pyramid is a small independent sawmill, locally owned and in 

continuous operation since 1949. As the oldest surviving owner-operated mill in Montana, we produce everything from 1 by 4’s to 12 

by 12’s. All species and sizes of logs are utilized to produce finished 

lumber, sold primarily to nontraditional markets, adding value to 

unique products and staying away from commodity markets. 

Pyramid has evolved over a long history. As reflected in our mission statement, we’re a progressive, versatile organization providing long-term employment through the production of quality 

lumber products. This requires commitment to personnel development, ongoing marketing efforts, efficient utilization of all assets 

and good stewardship of natural resources. Pyramid is dedicated to 

helping landowners sustain their forests for present and future 

generations. We believe active forest management can create 

healthy forests and improve other resources. 

47

Currently, Pyramid employs 131 full-time dedicated and highly 

trained Montanans in our plant and 33 contractors with their employees. Combined, Pyramid contributes $147,000 per employee 

each year to Montana’s economic base. 

Small independent mills in rural communities provide the basis 

for economic stimulus and diversification as well as stability to the 

Rural West. Pyramid and Seeley Lake characterize the West and 

what makes Montana the last best place: timber-dependent communities with community-dependent timber. 

In the early years, there were 19 mills within a 60-mile radius 

competing for timber. Now, there is one. Statewide, Montana has 

nine small independent sawmills, one of which is currently shut 

down, and four large forest products companies, all 50 to 100 miles 

apart. The industry continues to change, reacting to conflicting interests on Federal lands. More than 30 mills have closed in Montana since the mid ’70’s and the percentage of Federal timber likewise has fallen. Until the ’90’s, Pyramid processed 80 percent Federal timber, and last year it was 10 percent. Community-dependent 

timber. Any forest management or forest restoration requires 

healthy rural communities with a strong, trained and motivated 

workforce of skilled labor, contract loggers, log haulers, road contractors and suppliers. 

As a non-fee land owning company, Pyramid’s survival has been 

a direct result of long-term relationships, implementing landowner 

objectives and performance. We have been instrumental in actively 

supporting and participating in the changing timber industry, 

which has modernized over the last 15 years. Our culture has 

changed, and you heard that from Senator Anderson. The development and adoption of voluntary forestry best management practices established guidelines of partnership between landowners and 

forest professionals to ensure proper forest management and protection of soil and water resources. 

Our professional loggers and foresters are carefully and thoughtfully harvesting trees on various ownerships and across landscapes, 

truly light on the land. Also, state-of-the-art mills, as you saw earlier today, with computerized machine centers are utilizing all that 

is possible out of every tree, getting more with less. 

The new paradigm, which just means model, for developing solutions for management challenges of Montana’s national forests will 

revolve around local collaboration, not consensus. It’s simply working with others, transparency and openness. Rural communities 

and their family owned sawmills will have significant influence 

over Federal actions and active management of our community-dependent forest resources. Healthy forests need communities with 

skilled labor and equipment to manage them. They also need entrepreneurs and investors, bonding companies with renewed confidence in the government’s ability to perform in order to provide 

suppliers, housing, clothing, places to shop, banks. And in places 

like Seeley Lake, we welcome the additions to the local economy 

which are convenience stores, speciality shops and golf course, 

cross-country ski and snowmobile trails, motels and restaurants. 

Stewardship is the vehicle which opens the doors for cooperation, 

community involvement, transparency and rebuilding trust in our 

public land management agencies. Vision, combined with goods for 

48

services provides for multiple benefits within rural communities. 

Stewardship contracting is not the only means, but it is a start. 

In conclusion, increasing support for stewardship contracting, 

which focuses on end results, not process, and capitalizing on its 

natural progression toward a public private partnership will 

achieve active forest management, ecological integrity and social 

and economic justice for workers in rural communities. Above all, 

building trust between the public and the hostile triangle, the Forest Service, environmentalists and the timber industry, all leads to 

confidence in our professional land managers and at the same time 

increases certainty for the few remaining mill owners. 

The supporters for such an approach are diverse and understand 

the interdependency between ecology, economy and community, 

and the common concern is forest health. It is this common ground 

that provides a basis for a new social contract between urban and 

rural America. 

The Forest Service and BLM role is to welcome the opportunity 

to participate in the dialog, maintain transparency and stay focused on getting good work done, actively, not passively, yet light 

on the land, protecting the soil and air and water resources and 

wildlife habitat. 

Rural stewardship is good for the communities and good for the 

land. It is the new beginning to care for the land and serve the people, and truly defines the greater good. 

Thank you, and I appreciate the good work of the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sanders follows:]

Statement of Gordon D. Sanders, Resource Manager, Pyramid Mountain 

Lumber, Inc. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: 

For the record, my name is Gordon Sanders, Resource Manager for Pyramid 

Mountain Lumber, Inc. here in Seeley Lake, Montana. 

Pyramid is a small independent sawmill, locally owned and in continuous operation since 1949. As the oldest surviving owner operated mill in Montana, we 

produce everything from 1x4’s to 12x12’s. All species and sizes of logs are utilized 

to produce finished lumber sold primarily to non-traditional markets, adding value 

to unique products and staying away from commodity markets. 

Pyramid has evolved over our long history. As reflected in our mission statement, 

‘‘We are a progressive, versatile organization providing long term employment 

through the production of quality lumber products. This requires commitment to 

personnel development, on going marketing efforts, efficient utilization of all assets 

and good stewardship of natural resources. Pyramid is dedicated to helping landowners sustain their forests for present and future generations. We believe active 

forest management can create healthy forests and improve other resources’’. WE 

ARE THE STEWARDSHIP COMPANY. 

Currently, Pyramid employs 131 full time dedicated and highly trained Montanans in our plant and 33 contractors and their employees. Combined, Pyramid 

contributes $147,000/employee to Montana’s economic base. 

Small independent mills in rural communities provide the basis for economic 

stimulus and diversification and stability in the rural west. Pyramid and Seeley 

Lake characterize the West and what makes Montana the ’Last Best Place’. Timber 

dependent communities with community dependent timber. 

In the early years there were nineteen mills within a sixty mile radius competing 

for timber. Now there is one. Statewide, Montana has 9 small independent sawmills 

(one of which is shutdown) and 4 large forest products companies, all 50 to 100 

miles apart. The industry continues to change, reacting to conflicting interests on 

federal lands. More than 30 mills have closed in Montana since the mid 70’s and 

the percentage of federal timber processed has likewise fallen. Until the 90’s, Pyramid processed 70 to 80% federal timber and last year it was 10%. Community dependent timber. Any forest management or forest restoration requires healthy rural 

49

communities with a strong, trained and motivated workforce of skilled labor, contract loggers, log haulers, road contractors, and suppliers. 

As a non-fee land owning company, Pyramid’s survival has been the direct result 

of long term relationships, implementing landowner objectives and performance. 

Working closely with private forest landowners has helped us realize the relationship between forest health and the timber industry. Pyramid Mountain Lumber has 

been instrumental in actively supporting and participating in the changing timber 

industry, which has been modernized over the last 15 years. A culture has changed. 

The development and adoption of voluntary forestry best management practices established guidelines of partnership between landowners and forest professionals to 

insure proper forest management and protection of soil and water resources. 

Our professional loggers and foresters are carefully and thoughtfully harvesting 

trees on various ownerships and across landscapes (truly light-on-the-land). Also, 

state of the art mills, with computerized machine centers are utilizing all that is 

possible out of every tree (getting more with less). 

The new paradigm for meeting the challenges for management on Montana’s National forests will revolve around collaboration, transparency and openness. Rural 

communities and their family owned sawmills will have significant influence over 

federal actions and the active management of our community dependent forest resources. Healthy forests need communities with skilled labor and equipment to help 

manage them. They also need entrepreneurs and investors with renewed confidence 

in the government’s ability to perform in order to provide suppliers, housing, clothing, places to shop, banks, etc. In places like Seeley Lake welcome additions to the 

local economy are convenience and specialty stores, a golf course, cross country ski 

and snowmobile trails, motels and restaurants. 

Stewardship is the vehicle which opens the doors for cooperation, community involvement, transparency and rebuilding trust in our public land management agencies. Vision, combined with goods for services provides for multiple benefits within 

rural communities. Stewardship contracting is not the only means but, it is a start. 

In conclusion, increasing support for stewardship contracting (which focuses on 

end results) and capitalizing on this natural progression toward a public/private 

partnership will achieve active forest management, ecological integrity and social 

and economic justice for workers and rural communities. Above all, building trust 

between the public and the hostile triangle - forest service/environmentalists/timber 

industry - leads to confidence in our professional land managers and at the same 

time increases certainty for the few remaining mill owners. 

The supporters for such an approach are diverse and understand the interdependency between ecology, economy and community and the common concern is forest 

health. It is this common ground that provides the basis for a new social contract 

between urban and rural American. 

The Forest Service and BLM role is to welcome the opportunity to participate in 

the dialogue, maintain transparency and stay focused on getting good work done, 

actively not passively, yet light-on-the-land. . .protecting soil, air and water resources, and wildlife habitat. 

‘‘Rural stewardship is good for communities and good for the land.’’ It is the new 

beginning to ‘‘care for the land and serve the people’’ and truly defines the greater 

good. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. 

I’d like to, I guess, just ask more of a broad question and I’ll 

start with Mr. Sanders. 

Do you believe that as part of the policy of the Federal Government that we should protect endangered species habitat in our forest watershed? You know, in the enforcement of the Clean Water 

Act, that we should have a policy that protects clean water, protects endangered species habitat as part of our national forest 

plan? 

Mr. SANDERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, in response, the original laws 

that were set up, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water 

Act, were designed for very good reasons. And what’s happened 

over the course of time is through litigation, they have continually 

evolved into something entirely different that I don’t believe the 

original drafters in Congress had any intention would lead to the 

50

obstruction that we see in day-to-day management on national forest lands. 

And I think it is—and I appreciate the good work of the House 

in moving legislation forward in supporting categorical exclusion as 

efforts to move—allow the Forest Service and those professionals to 

truly do their job on the landscape. And I think there probably will 

be additional needs that Congress is going to have to take hold of 

and make some changes in order to really accommodate the needs 

of the landscape. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Liles, to you I’d ask a very similar question. 

And, obviously, you have a long history in this area, or your family 

does. Do you see a need to protect our habitats, our forests for wildlife and endangered species? 

Mr. LILES. Without a doubt. I mean, that’s why I live here. I love 

this state, I love this area. There is a need. There is a need for our 

ability to protect wildlife. There’s a need for our ability to protect 

our forests. But as Gordy said, the ESA has morphed into something that it was not intended to be, and it has tied the hands of 

our land managers. It has turned all land management and species 

management into a litigatory process. And it’s upsetting to me to 

see that happen when we do have the intelligence, we do have the 

ability to do a better job. But, yeah, we do need to manage our resources. There’s no doubt in my mind. 

And I live here, I’m a native Montanan and I love it here. I, as 

a timber resource worker, most certainly don’t want to see the destruction of our environment. It just bothers me when I know we 

can do a better job than what we’ve been doing, and then I see the 

destruction that occurs not only in the loss of timber, but the habitat that we lose in these wildfires. I mean, we don’t talk enough 

about them. But when we have these crown fires and we have 

these high-intensity fires, the land becomes sterile for a period of 

time. We don’t get in there, we don’t do any kind of reclamation 

work. And that, certainly, is not prime wildlife habitat, nothing 

grows. So, I’m real concerned that we do a proper job of management. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kelly, in reviewing your testimony and your 

oral testimony and your written testimony that you’ve put in it, a 

lot of what you said I agree with because I think it’s time that we 

stopped, when we talk about management of our national forests 

and public lands, that we stop just looking at the trees. We’ve had 

decades of debate and arguments about trees, and the wildlife habitat has gotten lost in that debate, the impact on our watersheds 

has gotten lost in that debate. The impact on clean air in what forests, a healthy forest, is able to provide in terms of clean air gets 

lost in that whole debate. 

But I think where I begin to disagree with you is I believe that 

that ecosystem does need to be managed and that you can’t just 

completely withdraw from it, that there has to be—there has to be 

some kind of a management plan that’s in place that does involve 

thinning, that does involve some timber harvesting, that does involve grazing. I don’t think you can just pull out from that. And 

it appears that, from your testimony, that you don’t see—you don’t 

see that. In fact, at one point you say that alterations to the home 

and vegetation within 200 feet can effectively reduce home losses, 

51

and we must focus our attention on prevention of action within this 

200 feet and that that is the only area that you see us going in and 

doing anything. Is that an accurate representation of what’s in 

your testimony? 

Mr. KELLY. Chairman Pombo, that’s an accurate representation 

of if we’re going to focus and prioritize and use limited congressional dollars, which are tax dollars, to try to address the fire risk 

to structures, to the people most affected by fire, that’s what I’m 

saying, is that this is where we should put our money, this is 

where the smart money should go, and protecting communities 

next in line. And I don’t think anybody said it any better, conversely, our Senator, Conrad Burns says, we should log the back 

country. Well, I’m trying to make a distinction between logging the 

back country and focusing the money, which is limited, to protecting homes by helping people who own the homes. And a lot of 

that isn’t going to come through the Forest Service. It’s going to 

come in direct assistance to rural fire companies and to counties, 

and it isn’t going to come through USDA. And that’s just what I 

was trying to get at there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is your argument that we don’t have enough 

money to do more than the 200 feet or—. 

Mr. KELLY. I think it’s being misappropriated into areas of the 

forest that are going to make absolutely no difference for the homeowner. And my prioritization, when it comes to fire and fire protection, is centered around the home, which I think most people, if 

you ask them, that’s what their biggest concern is, you know, is my 

house going to survive a wildfire. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, there’s no question if you ask somebody who 

lives there, that is their priority. But we’re talking about on a bigger—on an ecosystem-wide approach that you brought up in your 

testimony. You know, I don’t know how this happened, but the environmental community used to talk about protecting the entire 

forest and that our focus needed to be on the entire forest. As soon 

as we got into this healthy forest debate, all they want to talk 

about is that urban interface. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, I don’t think that’s what my testimony necessarily does reflect. It’s just when I got into this area that I believe was the focus of our appropriations and the legislation that 

passed the House, that’s the way I interpret that legislation is that 

we’re trying to do something specifically about fire risk. And that 

was, in specific terms—. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is what the Healthy Forest Initiative was 

focused on, but—. 

Mr. KELLY. I mean, I’m hoping for a broader prospective than 

that, but I think that’s what we got. 

The CHAIRMAN. A much broader perspective than 200 feet 

around a house. I mean, a couple of months ago, we had a hearing 

in Arizona where in that particular fire, the fire was jumping a 

mile. And if you’re only protecting 200 feet, if that’s where you’re 

going to concentrate on, I think you’re not even doing what we’re 

trying to do in the bill, you’re just trying to limit how far into the 

forests we can go. And I think that—you know, if we’re ever going 

to solve this, we all have to agree that we need to protect endanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
52

gered species habitat. We all have to agree that we need to protect 

wildlife. 

Mr. KELLY. I agree with you there. There’s no question. 

The CHAIRMAN. We need to all agree on that. But we also all 

have to agree that we can’t just step out of the forest and say it’s 

OK now. 

Mr. KELLY. I just don’t want to overpromise. If we promise we’re 

going to protect people’s homes, I want to make sure that’s the first 

thing we do. And if we don’t run out of money doing that, then I 

think we should discuss communities. And then we should discuss 

beyond that. But it’s a physical limitation and a limitation of budget. Again, we don’t know where the money goes. The Forest Service 

still does not have an accounting system—that neither you nor I 

have a clue where the money goes because there is no system. So, 

until we get that, I don’t have the assurance that is going to be efficiently managed by the Agency. A lot of people think this is an 

agency that is completely out of control. And it’s just one of those 

things where you trust them, maybe, but a lot of people in Montana don’t have that kind of trust and confidence in the Agency to 

do what it says it’s going to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think there’s a broad agreement that 

when you get into large bureaucracies that they do have a tendency 

to get out of control. And I don’t think you’re going to have a lot 

of debate over that. 

Mr. KELLY. But help us deal with that. 

The CHAIRMAN. What Congress is trying to do is gain more control over what the Forest Service does to have a more exact language in the bills that we pass to dictate. 

I do have one final question for you and that’s, in your testimony 

you talk about that we —that the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

deregulated logging and roadless areas, threatened endangered 

species habitat, gave the Secretary sole discretion to log old growth 

trees. The bill also permits the Forest Service to conduct logging 

without considering any alternatives and creates legal exemptions 

for unlimited number of projects of up to 1000 acres each for lands 

that agencies claim are at risk of insect infestation. Did you read 

the bill? 

Mr. KELLY. I haven’t read the final passed version of the bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because none of this is in the bill. 

Mr. KELLY. Was that stricken from the bill? It was in the bill 

that was introduced under that—. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is a up to 1000 acres on insect infestation, 

but it is capped. I believe it was 250,000 acres nationwide. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, that good news. 

The CHAIRMAN. There’s nothing in the bill that repeals the 

roadless areas, there’s nothing in the bill that repeals the endangered species habitat, there’s nothing in the bill that gives the Secretary the sole discretion to log old growth trees. None of that was 

in this bill. 

Mr. KELLY. It was in the original draft that I read on the Internet. And if it’s stricken, I appreciate the accommodation there. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve never seen a draft—and I’ve been working 

on this bill for about 8 years, and I’ve never seen a draft that does 

any of those. If you do have that, I’d appreciate it if you would proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
53

vide it for the Committee because I’ve never seen a draft, ever, that 

repealed the Endangered Species Act—. 

Mr. KELLY. If you would agree to leave the record open—. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will leave the record open for you to do that, 

because I have never seen a draft that does that. I would not support a bill that repeals the Endangered Species Act, that repeals 

all of the roadless areas, that gives the Secretary sole discretion to 

log old growth forests. I mean, I would never support that, Mr. 

Rehberg would never support that. And we were intimately involved with this bill—I have been for the last 8 years, and I know 

Denny has been for 3 years with doing this. That never happened. 

Mr. KELLY. That’s reassuring that it did not happen. It is—one 

of the questions and I think we still haven’t addressed the question 

is the idea of suitability. If we’re going to log in areas that were 

determined not suitable in the forest plans under the (6)(k) provision of NFMA, what are we going to do in all this vast parts of the 

forests that were never considered part of the suitable timber base. 

We are now going to be logging in these areas. And a lot of that 

concern goes to these issues of endangered species habitat protection. 

The CHAIRMAN. But this bill is not about logging. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, there’s going to be logging, for sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. There may be some thinning as part of this bill, 

but there’s no—. 

Mr. KELLY. But there will be increased logging. I’m absolutely 

sure of that as a result of this bill. That’s a certainty. And that’s 

a promise I think that the Congress made to the mill owners. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve never promised that to anybody. 

Mr. KELLY. But I think that’s their understanding, that they like 

this bill because it’s going to open up more timber. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I’ll let him answer that. But this is about 

trying to restore a more natural, more healthy forest. That’s what 

this bill is about, to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. If that’s 

part of that, there is thinning in some areas, there is removal of 

underbrush in some areas. If there is an economic value to what 

is taken out of the forests, great. If there’s not, we have to pay for 

the whole thing. And that’s what the bill is about. It’s not about 

opening up roadless areas to logging. No one has ever proposed 

that. The only place I’ve ever heard that is on environmentalists’ 

web sites. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, the Bush Administration certainly is hoping for 

that and—. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if they are, they haven’t talked to me about 

it. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, the Roadless Rule has certainly been put in 

jeopardy from the previous administration. I mean, there’s just no 

question about the trend here, which is toward more commodity extraction and less public participation at the early end. This categorical exclusion, for instance, is one of the exceptions from the process. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m going to recognize Ms. Bordallo because we 

could go on for a long time. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

54

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Liles. You’re a union member, and today you’re representing unionized pulp and paperworks; 

is that correct? 

Mr. LILES. Not only unionized, but we have a lot of our members 

that are nonunion as well throughout the United States. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Would you say, then, do both union and 

nonunion lumber mill and papermill workers advocate similar public policies for managing Montana’s national forests? 

Mr. LILES. I would say most definitely they do. 

Ms. BORDALLO. 100 percent? 

Mr. LILES. Yeah. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I have also a question for Mr. Kelly. 

Do you believe the Federal courts should overlook Forest Service 

analysis when ruling on hazardous fuel reduction projects? And do 

you believe there is the opportunity for imbalance in judicial rulings on hazardous fuels reduction projects? And what do you recommend in terms of changes in law to address this imbalance? 

Mr. KELLY. Congresswoman Bordallo, I’m not sure we have the 

kind of problem that we are discussing as far as a catastrophic 

problem or imbalance. There are a lot of scientists, forest ecologists 

who think that everything that’s going on in the forest is actually 

well within the range of what’s called the natural variability. Obviously, people are impacted when the fire hits their local community 

or their local forests. But when you look at, again, the big picture, 

these fires even in drought cycles are fairly routine. It is part of 

living here in the West. It’s dry, it’s hot. When the wind blows, 

there’s a spark, you get out of the way. 

So, as far as the relationship with the courts, my understanding 

of the role of the courts is to interpret the laws that are passed by 

Congress. And in doing so, I think the Forest Service gains a better 

understanding of what it should and shouldn’t be doing. And if you 

look at the Forest Service’s record and not just on this issue of 

fuels reduction, but just over a long period of time, the Forest Service’s record is not very good in the courts. And recently, we have 

seen some criticism of the courts. I think that criticism should be 

directed back to the Agency itself for failing to follow the law. I 

mean, if the bureaucracy can’t follow the law, again this is an area 

where I think Congress, an oversight by Congress can encourage 

the Forest Service somehow through incentives or just more regulation or some mechanism to get them to follow the law. Then, you 

know, we wouldn’t be arguing over a lot of this stuff. So, I hate 

to—. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And it’s time for the courts--. 

Mr. KELLY. —be the scapegoat for something that really is a 

problem between Congress and the Agency and the public and the 

Agency. And that’s why we have already passed laws. The NFMA 

in 1976 was passed because the Forest Service got completely out 

of control. They had lost complete public confidence. And the Congress, to it’s credit, brought the Forest Service back into a process 

where the public could participate meaningfully. It regained and 

restored some of that confidence. And I see now we are going 

through another cycle of this where the Forest Service is forging 

ahead with a brand new experiment that nobody really knows what 

the heck it is and it’s going cost a ton of money. 

55

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, I do agree. 

Mr. KELLY. And, so, I think we should be more cautious and reserve our money and make them demonstrate that they can 

produce for us. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, I do agree that this is very—you know, it 

takes so much time. 

Mr. KELLY. Yeah. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And this is the big problem. 

Mr. KELLY. But the forest can’t be fixed or even known in a short 

amount of time. It’s just the way it is. And unfortunately, we can’t 

know everything about the forest in a snap second. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

I have one last—well, actually, it’s not a question, it’s just a comment to Mr. Gordy Sanders. I want to thank you for that very enlightening tour through the mill this morning. Chairman Pombo 

and I were talking on our way over here to the hearing that it was 

very, very interesting. And you were very kind—. 

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. —to take us personally on that tour. And I want 

to say that we don’t build on Guam with lumber, we build with 

concrete because of our super typhoons that we have on the island 

every now and then, but I don’t want to scare anyone from coming 

to Guam because we don’t have them that often. 

Mr. SANDERS. We could sell you some lumber. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m coming. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That’s right. Mr. Pombo has promised to come, 

and Dennis has also promised. But I will remember your lumber 

mill the next time I buy my wood chips because now I saw how it’s 

all done. 

And I also want to comment, Gordy said to me, he said, I was 

the first one to ever tour the mill with open shoes. So, thank you 

very much, Mr. Sanders. We really appreciate that gesture. 

Mr. SANDERS. You’re welcome. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to invite you 

to tour my feedlot. 

I will begin by the way I would normally end. I know we’re running out of time. And again, thank you, Mr. Chairman for this opportunity and thank you panel members for being here today. 

I want to ask a question of the five of you, and I think Ms. Dahl 

answered the question but I just want to, you know, for the record 

get an answer from the five of you. And starting with you, Mr. 

Sanders, do you support the Clearwater Stewardship Project? 

Mr. SANDERS. Congressman Rehberg, Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. 

The Clearwater Stewardship Project is an excellent example of how 

a public private partnership can work, and it is very open, very 

transparent, the monitoring Committee involved, as well as our 

participation as a purchaser, in working with the Forest Service in 

unknown territory. This type of goods-for services approach really 

had never been tried, particularly at the level. And it is a perfect 

example of how things could be done. And I think stewardship contracting, the bigger, the better; landscape level, long-term contracts 

will serve us all much more. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. I’ve got you down as a yes. 

56

Mr. Liles? 

Mr. LILES. Just to be brief, yes. 

Mr. REHBERG. Ms. Dahl? 

Ms. DAHL. Yes. But I would also like to add that there are—in 

all of the stewardship pilots around the country, every one is different and every one is a reflection of what’s going on at that place. 

We need to make sure we continue to keep all of the stewardship 

contracting authorities available so that we can experiment and 

truly find out if they’re good across the nation. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. Mr. Harrington? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes. And I’d like to tell you a story from a couple of weeks ago. As you recall, we had the Western Governors Association tour, and we were looking at the stewardship contracting, 

one of the sale units that Pyramid had done. And, of course, there 

was a broad diversity of people that were on that tour. And I happened to be walking back from that unit, walking along with some 

members of the environmental community, and I overhead a conversation where one of them asked, Well, what do you think of 

this? Well, this doesn’t look so bad. 

And I think it points out a couple of things. First of all, the success of stewardship contracting concept, and I certainly support expanding it. But also, the fact that if you get out on the ground and 

if you actually look at how the rubber meets the road with a lot 

of these things that industry folks have been talking about today, 

as well with—particularly with the stewardship contracting, you’ll 

find it doesn’t look bad. And I think that’s the key. I would certainly encourage you to go out and take a look at it yourself. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. I would certainly prefer to see those type of projects 

be implemented by the Forest Service. And for life of me, I can’t 

figure out why they can’t do this without everybody in the community helping them out. I think the jury is out on the—you know, 

if the monitoring is going to tell us whether this is a success or not, 

we have to wait until those—that data comes in and we can analyze it. Again, the process, I think, has some promise. 

And finally, I’m kind concerned about the trend toward privatization of public resources, public assets. I think in the demonstrationsize project, these are things that we can tinker with and not do 

a whole lot of damage. But if we get whole hog into this, as advocated by the other end of the panel, I think that we’re going to find 

out, from the monitoring, hopefully, if we continue to do it and 

fund it properly, that if we do have problems it’s going to be a big 

problem, so I hope we go cautiously. 

Mr. REHBERG. Just out of fairness, though, you kind of said yes. 

Is that a qualified yes or a yes or a no or—. 

Mr. KELLY. Put me down as a no and show me. 

Mr. REHBERG. OK. Mr. Harrington, if I could finish with some 

questions of you. You talked about some of the projects that you 

have done as a result of the fires and the salvage. Are there Federal properties bordering your property? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Certainly, throughout the state. 

Mr. REHBERG. And they have not been done, if I understood your 

testimony correctly, they have not been salvaged at this point? 

57

Mr. HARRINGTON. No, that’s incorrect. They have proceeded with 

salvage operations on the Bitterroot. I think that what you’re referring to is the Sula State Forest and then some of the salvage operations on the Bitterroot. And the numbers I got from the Bitterroot 

Forest a few days ago was they’re approaching about 20 million 

board feet of salvage on their property. 

Mr. REHBERG. Are there situations where you have property bordering Federal properties where they either through appeals or 

some other litigation, have stopped the forestation or the reforestation projects that are affecting your environment? 

And what I’m getting at is I’m looking at a piece up here, ‘‘Nothing is a greater threat to clean water than catastrophic forest fire.’’ 

and I’m aware of the clean water standards we have in this country. Do you think in any way, shape or form that the Federal Government is violating clean water standards by not completing some 

of the projects that have been litigated? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, it’s an interesting concept. I think that 

the aftermath that we have seen from a lot of the catastrophic 

wildfires that have occurred, the Biscuit fire and the Hayman and 

the fires in the Bitterroot, we have seen tremendous sedimentation 

in streams, debris flows. And by every measure, the water quality 

resulting from those debris flows is impaired. Whether that act in 

itself, by not acting to conduct harvesting operations and reducing 

fire behavior when fires do come, whether that’s in violation to the 

Clean Water Act, I’m going to leave to somebody else. 

Mr. REHBERG. Well, I guess maybe the next question, then, isn’t 

fair, but I had hoped that at least you’d carry it back to the Governor, and that is, if a lawsuit could be filed for potential clean 

water violation for a potential sale, why can’t, in turn, the Governor file suit against the Federal Government for not taking care 

of a problem that they’re creating for land that’s owned by the people of the State of Montana, that’s, through the education trust or 

the private landowners, being affected by an inaction by the Federal Government. I don’t know if you can answer that question, but 

I wish you can carry that message back. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I think the concept has merit and, in fact, part 

of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act was trying to provide some 

direction to consider the impacts of nonaction as well as the impacts of an action. And I think that concept is certainly legitimate 

and I’ll carry that back. 

You know, in terms of any impacts of the management of Federal 

lands on State trust lands, one of the places is the Roadless Rule. 

We have some concerns that if the Forest Service is not able to either build or allow construction of roads in certain areas of the national forests, that some of the school trust lands that we need to 

manage would be isolated, we would not be able to access them. 

The other thing is that with the buildup of insect and disease, 

or with the fires that we’ve seen, if those lands are not managed, 

and similar to the Moose fire from last summer, or the summer before, sorry, we’ve seen a lot of State trust lands in the Sula Forest 

in 2000 that have been burned, at least partially because of the 

fuel buildup on adjacent Federal lands. 

Mr. REHBERG. Did you want to make a quick comment on the 

urban interface? 

58

Mr. HARRINGTON. You know, on the strategy of thinning 200 feet 

around homes and communities to protect communities and not 

touching the areas away from it, I’m reminded of the strategy that 

a certain man named Saddam Hussein recently employed in the 

Gulf War, which was to take the Republican Guard and have them 

circle the city of Baghdad. And I think his strategy was that we 

will ring the city and they will protect us from the Coalition forces. 

Obviously, it didn’t work. 

And I think this strategy is very much the same type of strategy 

that he employed, it will not work. The 200 foot comes from some 

research, very good research that was done by a gentleman with 

the Fire Sciences Lab in Missoula, and I saw a presentation on 

that. And under very controlled circumstances, he demonstrated 

that, yeah, if you do thin around 200 feet around your homes that 

you can improve the ability of that house to survive wildfire. But 

again, we’re dealing with natural systems here. And we’re dealing 

with 40-miles-an-hour winds a lot of times, and we’re dealing with 

humidities in the single digits and things like that. It just will not 

work. 

And on behalf of all of the volunteer and paid firefighters across 

the country that have to try to defend those structures when these 

conflagrations are coming at them, I would implore you not to buy 

into this argument because it’s just not good science. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I think with this panel we could 

probably go on all day. It was some very compelling testimony, very 

interesting. But I think that to a large degree this represents, this 

panel represents the debate or the fights that we’ve gone through 

back in Washington in trying to develop a balance between competing interests and ideologies and ideas is what we’ve attempted 

to do. And as I said earlier, the Healthy Forest Initiative we’ve 

been working on for years. And we finally, I think, this time came 

up with a bill that is balanced, it represents a lot of different interests, compromises were made in an attempt to move forward, but 

that’s just one part of protecting the forest. You know, trying to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire is just one small part of having 

a healthy and natural forest and protecting endangered species 

habitat, protecting your clean water and your watersheds, all of 

that has to be considered in developing public policy in dealing 

with our public lands. The impact on the economy is obviously part 

of that. It does have to be a balance. And I think that if you look 

at the Healthy Forest Initiative that passed the House on a very 

large bipartisan vote, we would not have achieved that vote if we 

hadn’t have made some of the compromises that we did in an effort 

to try to address concerns that people have. But hopefully, that bill 

will be signed into law in the near future and we can begin to take 

care of that part of our national public lands. 

But we have a lot of work to do. There’s no question about it. 

And there are laws that are currently on the books that we need 

to review. There are regulations that are being implemented that 

may need to be changed. And through the Administration, they 

may have to make some adjustments to those in order to better reflect what we know today is a better way of taking care of our forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:09 Sep 16, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88077.TXT HRESOUR2 PsN: NNIXON
59

ests than what we knew 10 years or 30 years ago when a lot of 

these laws were developed. 

So, I want to thank this panel for your testimony. I will say that 

the Committee welcomes any further testimony that anyone may 

have that can be submitted to the Committee. The hearing record 

will be held open. If there’s think further questions that members 

of Committee have that they would like to submit to you in writing, we’ll give you time to answer those in writing as well, but we 

would like to have that done so they can be part of the official 

hearing record. 

For anyone in the audience that wishes to submit further testimony for the record, you can e-mail, mail or fax or it to the Resources Committee. And I’m told that there are handouts by the 

door that have the contact information. Rather than me read it off 

the paper here, there are handouts by the door that have the contact information on them. So, if anybody does wish to include further testimony for this hearing. 

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER. What’s the deadline on that? 

The CHAIRMAN. Two weeks. We will hold it open for 2 weeks to 

give you an opportunity to submit testimony. 

I want to conclude by thanking Congressman Rehberg for hosting 

us here. And, obviously, this is an extremely important topic here 

in Montana, but it’s an extremely important topic across the country. It benefits the Committee dramatically to have the opportunity 

to get out and see some of these areas and actually talk to people 

that live and work here. Most of you would never have the opportunity to testify before a Congressional Committee other than us 

coming out here. So, we take as much from this as I hope that you 

do. So, thank you all very much. Thank you, Congressman 

Rehberg. And thank you Congresswoman Bordallo for being here as 

well. 

This concludes today’s public hearing. I want to thank all the 

people of Seeley Lake and Montana for hosting us. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ