U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–275 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS: THE EFFECTS OF 

FOREST SERVICE ROAD CLOSURES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 26, 2018 

Serial No. 115–89 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

BECCA BROWN, Counsel 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

GREG GIANFORTE, MONTANA Chairman 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair 

Dennis Ross, Florida 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, California 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 26, 2018 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Bill Harvey, Commission Chair, Baker County, Oregon 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Ms. Amy Granat, Managing Director, California Off-Road Vehicle Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Mr. Jim Furnish, Consulting Forester, Former Deputy Chief for National 

Forest Systems, U.S. Forest Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

The Honorable Kerry White, Representative, Montana House of Representatives 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS: THE EFFECTS OF 

FOREST SERVICE ROAD CLOSURES 

Tuesday, June 26, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Gianforte [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gianforte, Gosar, Palmer, and Plaskett. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. The Subcommittee for Interior, Energy, and Environment will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. Oh, and I see our last witness has arrived. Welcome. 

So I’ll begin with my opening statement. Welcome and thank you 

for all for joining us this afternoon. The subcommittee on Interior, 

Energy, and Environment is meeting today to discuss the importance of access to our public lands managed by the Forest Service. 

The Forest Service manages about 200 million acres of land, 

more than 370,000 miles of roads and more than 158,000 miles of 

recreational trails across the United States, land that should be 

open and accessible for use and enjoyment of all Americans. 

Unfortunately, the Forest Service seems to be moving away from 

its original multiple-use mission. Although Congress has directed 

the Forest Service to manage land for grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat, among other things, the Forest Service has locked up 

our public lands instead. 

My home State of Montana is a perfect example. According to a 

report by the Montana State Legislature’s Environmental Quality 

Council, the Forest Service has closed more than 21,000 miles of 

roads in Montana since the mid-1990s. That’s nearly one-third of 

all the Forest Service roads in the State. Kerry White, the Montana 

State Representative who introduced the resolution to commission 

the report, is here today to discuss this important topic. 

Access to public lands is not a problem just in Montana. We 

know the Forest Service is closing and decommissioning roads in 

other States as well. That’s why we will also hear from witnesses 

from California and Oregon who can share the challenges of access 

to Forest Service land in their communities. Keeping Forest Service 

land open to the public is important for a number of reasons. First, 

we need to preserve access for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

and other outdoor recreation, the benefits of which speak for themselves. 

When the Forest Service blocks off roads and places excessive restrictions on public lands, it prevents people from participating in 

America’s outdoor heritage. Outdoor recreation is also big business. 

Each year, people spend $887 billion on outdoor recreation, and the 

industry creates 7.6 million American jobs. Some of these jobs are 

with small business that depend on visitors to our public lands, 

such as guides, outfitters, ski areas, off-road vehicles and snowmobile dealers, even restaurants and gas stations. 

Additionally, access to forestlands can help prevent the spread of 

wildfires. If firefighters cannot quickly reach fires on the ground, 

more acres burn and more firefighting resources become necessary. 

Despite the measurable benefits of access to public lands, the Forest Service is under pressure to close and decommission thousands 

of miles of Forest Service-managed trails and roads. Burdensome 

regulations, inconsistent policies, lack of proper maintenance, and 

the constant threat of litigation all contribute to the trend towards 

road closures. 

The witnesses here today can discuss the importance of access to 

the Forest Service land, why the agency has trended toward road 

closures in recent years, and what we can do to restore public access to our public lands. 

The Forest Service certainly has room for improvement. However, this administration has made it clear that it’s absolutely imperative for Federal agencies to work with States and local communities instead of dictating land management decisions from Washington. That’s why I hope to see strong accountable leadership at 

the Forest Service soon. 

Finally, I want to say thank you to all the witnesses, some of 

whom traveled across the country to be here, and I look forward 

to hearing your testimony. 

I now recognize my friend, the ranking member, for her comments. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much. And good afternoon to everyone. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. And 

welcome to the committee. This is going to be wonderful working 

together. 

We can all agree that our national forests, administered by the 

U.S. Forest Service, are among our Nation’s treasures and that 

they should be enjoyed by all. That is why it has been a longstanding policy for decades by both Republican and Democratic administrations to regulate the use of off-highway vehicles on Forest 

Service lands and roads. This policy stretches back to President 

Nixon, who, in 1972, issued an executive order defining off-highway 

vehicles and directing agencies to manage their use on public lands 

so as to protect the resources of those lands, promote safety, and 

minimize conflicts among the various users of those lands. 

Still, the use of off-highway vehicles on Forest Service land 

soared since the 1970s, so much so that Dale Bosworth, President 

George W. Bush’s Chief of U.S. Forest Service, listed unmanaged 

outdoor recreation as one of the four major threats to the health 

of the Nation’s forests. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Mr. Bosworth specifically mentioned off-highway vehicle users as 

part of the threat. He said, quote: ‘‘Ninety-nine percent of the users 

are careful to protect the land. But with all of those millions of 

users, even a tiny percentage of problem use becomes relatively 

huge. Each year, the national forests and grasslands get hundreds 

of miles of unauthorized roads and trails due to repeated crosscountry use. We’re seeing more erosion, water degradation, and 

habitat destruction. We’re seeing more conflicts between users. We 

have got to improve our management so we get responsible recreational use based on sound outdoor ethics.’’ 

Mr. Bosworth made it clear that to enable our national forests 

to accommodate a variety of uses, we cannot forget that there are 

costs to certain types of uses, not just benefits. And I’m hopeful 

that, in this hearing, we’ll hear other issues on how we can work 

together to ensure that those different users and the different constituencies are managed properly. 

To address the problem of environmental degradation created by 

some off-highway vehicle users, the Bush era Forest Service issued 

the Travel Management Rule. The rule is designed to guide Forest 

Service managers’ decisions by looking to those goals contained in 

President Nixon’s executive order: sustained resource values, provide economic benefits to rural communities, promote safety, and 

minimize conflict among various users. The rule also explicitly requires public involvement and has a responsive process that is 

aimed at long-term solutions for the transportation system through 

a given forest. 

While I do not have a national forest in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, we do have lands managed by the National Park Service, a tremendous amount of lands and percentages, particularly on 

the island of St. John. I’m familiar with the issue of public access 

to our natural resources. I hear far too often and frequently from 

our constituents who are involved in disputes with the National 

Park Service concerning what they believe is deliberately blocked 

roadways and land easement disputes, which are just in some instances to many of those constituents generational. 

We have seen an alarming escalation in the amount of residents 

engaged in real estate boundary and property line challenges with 

the National Park Service as well. It has been my experience that 

public access to government-owned lands are best resolved through 

public engagement and finding a balance between environmental 

and the communities in which those environments resides’ interests. I hope that today’s hearing will provide this opportunity. 

Finally, as I close, let me say that I’m hopeful that the committee 

will convene to examine how the Forest Service is handling sexual 

harassment allegations within the agencies as well. 

In December 2016, the committee held a hearing to examine sexual harassment in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including 

the Forest Service. During that hearing, the committee heard from 

whistleblowers, who described not only how they had suffered prolonged harassment, but how they had also suffered retaliation 

when they reported the harassment. When the Forest Service had 

established a new process to handle sexual harassment allegations, 

it was clear that significant challenges remain and that many 

women are still scared to come forward. A recent PBS NewsHour 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

investigation of the Forest Service, which was entitled ‘‘They Reported Sexual Harassment. Then the Retaliation Began,’’ featured 

disturbing interviews with several Forest Service veterans who reported not only assaults but also harassment. So I’d love for us to 

get an update on the committee’s hearing from December 16. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you for that. 

I am now very pleased to introduce our witnesses today. Mr. Bill 

Harvey is commissioner and chair of Baker County, Oregon; Ms. 

Amy Granat, managing director of the California Off-Road Vehicle 

Association; Mr. Jim Furnish, consulting forester and former U.S. 

Forest Service Deputy Chief for the National Forest Systems; and 

the Honorable Kerry White, representative in the Montana House 

of Representatives. 

Welcome to all of you. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before we testify. Please remain seated and just raise your right 

hand, if you would. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony 

you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the 

affirmative. 

To allow time for discussion, we’re going to ask for each person 

to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Additional—your entire written testimony will be entered into the record. As a reminder, the 

clock in front of you shows your remaining time. The light will turn 

yellow when you have 30 seconds and red when your time is up. 

Please also remember to press the button. You have to turn your 

microphone on to speak. 

At this time, we’ll start with Mr. Harvey, if you would, for your 

5 minutes of testimony. 

WITNESS TESTIMONIES 

TESTIMONY OF BILL HARVEY 

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Ranking Member, committee members, thank you for today. I’m 

gratefully honored to be here today to speak to this issue in particular. 

I am a county commission chairman. That means I deal with the 

on-the-ground everyday issues with people, and land issues is the 

one thing I work on every single day of my career. This is a career 

that I’ve taken on because of the need from the citizens of my county, have emphasized they needed help to accomplish these things. 

In your statements, both of you mentioned things about Forest 

Service management, and I’d like to add to that mismanagement. 

Also, it’s not Forest Service land. They manage it for the public. 

That’s very important to our area especially, and our Forest Service 

address it that way. 

So I’d like to give you a little background on Baker County. 

That’s where I’m from. This is in eastern Oregon. It’s a drier climate than what the coast is. So we get about 12 inches of measurable moisture a year. That’s in the form of snow and rain. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

So road issues. There is little to no erosion in our area because 

the roads have been there for over 50 years. And the only time you 

have erosion issues is when the Forest Service comes in and rips 

them up with a Cat. They say that they have no money for restoration or maintenance or what have you, yet they spend a fortune in 

tearing roads out, good roads, roads that have been in place and 

used for vehicle traffic and off-road traffic and what have you. 

I’m not sure if Mr. Bush’s team ever visited eastern Oregon, but 

I would have gladly taken them out, either horseback riding, walking, hiking, or motorized travel as well. Motorized travel is very 

important in Baker County because we have 3,000 square miles in 

Baker County. That’s bigger than the States of Rhode Island and 

Delaware. 

We have 2 million acres of land in Baker County. Half of it, 51.5 

percent, is managed by the Federal Government, both by BLM and 

the Forest Service. Some of the things that we have left in the remaining 48 percent of our land is approximately 950,000 acres 

plus, is for roads, rivers, towns, and private property. 

The citizens of Baker County rely on both public and private 

land for natural resources, recreation, and the ability to continue 

our way of life, especially for agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, 

and timber harvests. Therefore, all of the decisions affecting public 

lands could potentially affect Baker County’s economy, customs, 

culture, and enjoyment of the land. 

When I moved to Baker County in 1972, the county had six timber mills, but we have none now. The forest keeps growing. The 

reason they did that was more of a philosophy change, not any 

sound science. No management principles or anything, just a 

change in philosophy. 

Well, our forests haven’t changed. They’re continuing to grow. 

They’re continuing to die. They’re continuing to be overcrowded. As 

an example, the Baker City watershed, 10,000 acres. In historical 

measures, in 1900, there actually was pictures of it. There was 50 

trees per acre. Today, we currently have 1,000 trees per acre. 

This watershed serves a town of 10,000 people. It is in drastic 

threat every single year. On average, we have four fires in the watershed a year. Miraculously, we throw everything we have at it instantly to take care of that issue, but we’re not going to be able 

to keep it up. 

When I took office in 2015, we had historical fires the level that 

we have never had in any of our county whatsoever or since yet, 

and I emphasize yet. We had four major forest fires going on at the 

same time. We had 500 to 600 personnel from the Forest Service 

and BLM and everybody else there in Baker City trying to manage 

this fire—emphasize manage fire. We no longer fight fires; we manage them. Unfortunately, we manage them so that it’s a big business. We bring a lot of people in clear across the country because 

they’re first on the list to come and fight fires. I have fought very 

hard to allow our local firefighters to fight these fires immediately 

so that there’s no threat to what the town is. 

I’d like to talk about coordination. Coordination is a principle and 

a way that we could actually make things happen. It is the law; 

Congress installed it. And I’d like to use that. If you want to have 

some of the things that work, that would be a great start to begin 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

with. But the threat to our county economy is also severe when you 

limit the access that we have to our forests, and we do need those 

forests to help do that. Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Harvey follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31275.001

Cnmmission Chair 

!)harvey@Jbakcremmty.mog 

June 26,2018 

Good afternoon, Mr. Ch11irman and Honorable Plaskett, Ranking Member and 

Committee Members. My name is Bill Harvey and I am the Chairman for the 

Baker County Board of Commissioners. 

I am honored and I thank you for asking me to testify today on behalf of Baker 

County and Eastern Oregon. 

Background 

Baker County spans over 3,000 square miles and close to two million acres 

making Baker County larger than the states of Rhode Island or Delaware. 

Federal agencies manage approximately 51.5% of our land in Baker county, 

comprising a total of I, 016,5 i l acres. The remaining 48% of land in the 

county, approximately 950,382 acres is for roads, rivers, towns and private 

property. 

The citizens of Baker County rely on both public and private !arid for natural 

resources, recreation and the ability to continue our way of life, especially 

agriculture and livestock grazing, mining and timber harvest; therefore, all 

decision fl[fecting public lands could potentially affect Baker County's 

economy, customs, culture and enjoyment of our land. 

When I moved to Baker County in 1972, the Couhty had six timber mills, out. 

now we do not have any and yet the forest keeps growing. Forest timber sales 

have been drastically reduced in the past 20-30 years and yet, our forests are 

growing at a rate estimated at 80 million board feet for every 400,000 acres. 

Baker County, from public lands, only produce about I 0-15 million board feet 

a year. It takes about 100 million board feet of timber to keep one mill in 

operation for a year, creating an average of 200 good family-wage jobs and 

another I 00 unrelated jobs in our area. 

Our forests are at great danger from wildfires every year because of overcrowding of the fuel loads from mismanagement of our public lands. This is 

caused by a change in thinking from timber production to a conservation 

mentality. This is not based on sound science and is not proper forest 

management, this is destru~tion by neglect. 

1995 Third Stt'<iel • Baker City, Oregon 97814 • PH, (541)523-8200 • gx, (541)523-8201 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31275.002

Of the 1,016,511 acres managed by the federal government by both the US 

Forest Service and BLM, approximately 200,000 acres (or 20%) of our public 

lands are already closed to motorized travel. The closed areas are comprised of 

(2) two wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, areas of critical concern, wild 

and scenic river areas and designated roadless areas. 

Now the Forest Service is proposing another 50,000 to 100,000 acres for 

closure to the public who use motorized travel within their Blue Mountain 

Forest Plan revision, which is not warranted or workable for Baker County. 

The public access roads within Baker county have been in place for over 50 

years and have little need for road maintenance, the Forest Service has said 

repeatedly that they have no funding for road maintenance but they do very 

litlle anyway. 

When our road accesses are closed, we arc hindered in our ability to fight 

wildfires, do thinning projects, logging sales and recreational activities. Our 

forests are by Congressional designation through the Multiple Use and 

Sustainable Yield Act of 1960 to be used for all of these activities. This is 

what has worked for Baker County for over sixty years. 

A major conflict we have with the Forest Service is in regards to our RS 24 77 

rights-of-ways to our historical accesses on our public lands. 

RS 2477 rights-of-ways are a granted right from Congress. First granted to the 

territories and then to the State at statehood and then to the counties by state 

law. 43 U.S.C. subsection 932, "The right-of-way for constmction of 

highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." 

The Jaws was also known as the Mining Act of 1866. 

As a point of record, "rights-of-ways" are not a claim, they are. a fully granted· 

right by Congress and they also include a number of things besides roads such 

as carriage-ways, bridle-ways~ pedestrian trails, livestock trails, wagon roads, 

mine-to-market, bridges and waterways. 

In 1994, Baker County accepted all historical RS 2477 rights-of-ways by 

Resolution No. 94-1003 over all public lands within Baker County. Again, by 

Resolution No. 2000-1026, Baker County established a policy regarding RS 

2477 rights-of-ways procedure for listing and mapping of these rights. 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31275.003

There have been many times that the Forest Service has agreed with Baker 

County that they County does have authority over RS 24 77 rights-ot:ways 

when we have presented historical documentation. · 

This could be resolved through the proper coordination process of governmentto-government communication. No access should be closed without the proper 

process by law. We just don't want our roads closed by mistake by the Forest 

Service. 

We now have an ongoing conflict with the Forest Service over a historical RS 

2477 rights-of-ways dating back to the 1880's on our East Eagle Creek within 

Baker County. The Forest Service is demanding that a steel bridge be removed 

fi·om crossing the East Eagle Creek. There have been many bridges that have 

crossed the creek at this location dating back to the 1880's and this is a 

replacement for an old bridge. 

Improvement to a County right-of-way or road becomes the property of the 

County no matter who makes the improvements and a bridge is an 

improvement. This bridge serves many people who can safely cross this creek 

(river) at any time of the year and is badly needed for the health, safety and 

well-being of our citizens and law enforcement with search and rescue. 

W c have written many letters in regards to this issue and we are not making 

any progress. The Jack of respect for Baker County's historical rights-of-ways 

and ignoring the coordination process has brought us to this conflict. As we 

have stated many times before, that no federal agency has the authority to close 

a RS 2477 right-of:way. period! 

We arc receiving letters from other County Commissioners from around our 

state and from other states that the Forest Service is doing the same activities 

with all the Western States. This seems to be a systematic pian for removing 

the public from our public lands. The words we hear most from the Forest 

Service is restrict, close and remove. This is not how you properly manage for 

multiple use of·"our" public lands. 

Historically, we have had "open" forests, meaning that we. as the public, are 

able to travel anywhere in our forests, not including restricted areas: for 

hunting, fishing, woodcutting, picking berries and mushrooms, camping and 

off-road motorized travel. Many of our older citizens who have lived and 

traveled the forests all their lives can now only travel by motorized travel being 

handicapped. 

The Forest Service is now proposing a "closed forest" designation, which will 

restrict everyone to designated routes only. By violating this rule, a citizen 

who has traveled most of their lives through these forests will now face a fine 

of up to $5,000 and one year in jail; so much for multiple use as the law says. 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31275.004

Coordination 

The American Heritage Dictionary defines '"coordinatt!''' as, "'one that is equal 

in importance, rank or degree."' 

The goal envisioned by Congress and the Secretaries of Interior and 

Agriculture, was that the coordination process would resolve conflicts between 

federal and local government. The ultimate goal that Congress has set for the 

'·coordination'' process is consistency between federal and local plans, policies 

and action, 

Congress also recognized that local government must have a position 'in 

planning and policy making that is superior to that of the general public. It is 

important that local elected officials have meaningful input into management. 

Meaningful participation in management is critical to deterrence of adverse 

impact on the use of private land and on the economy of the government 

In 16 U.S.C. section 1604, the Forest Service is directed by Congress to 

coordination the development of, the maintenance of. and the revision of land 

and resource management plans with local govcmment. 

The Secretary of Agriculture mandated in the 1982 Forest Service Planning 

Rules that in 32 CFR Section 219 I (b)(9): Coordination with land and 

resource planning efforts of other federal agencies, state and local and Indian 

tribes: and Section 219 1 (b)(l 0): Use of systematic inter-disciplinary approach 

to ensure coordination and integration of planning activities for multiple-use 

management. 

The Secretary of Agriculture issued travel management rules that required 

"coordination" with local governments in "designation" of roads, trails and 

areas for motor vehicle use." 

36 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 212.53 of the specifically issued rules 

for governing the development of the Travel Management Plans states that 

you, "shall coordinate with-appropriate federal, state and county (local) 

governments." 

This is why coordination is so vital for County governments: to protect the 

rights of the citizens of Baker County. We stand ready and willing to follow 

through with the coordination process and to develop a good working 

relationship with our federal goverrunent partners. 

Baker County has tried many times and through many meetings to work with 

the Forest Service through the coordination process to alleviate conflicts. 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31275.005

The Challenges that we face with attempting to work with the Forest Service 

through the coordination process is that many of their staff either do not 

believe that they need to do coordination or do not understand coordination or 

its processes. Coordination is not against the law; it is the law! 

The willingness or level of involvement can be drastically different from one 

supervisor or regional forester to another. There is no consistency within the 

agency. I believe that formal and consistent standards and guidelines for the 

process of coordination would bring clarity and consistency to the process and 

help the counties and federal govemment to work together as Congress 

intended with the laws of coordination. 

At the present time there is, as it seems from the County's stance, a great 

resistance to work through coordination with counties and little to no resistance 

to working directly with environmental groups. This is contrary to the law of 

coordination where it is directed by Congress that the federal govemment shall 

work government-to-government with the counties directly. 

42 U.S. C. 4331 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and (NFMA) 16 

U.S.C. 1602 et seq requires both the secretaries of the Department of 

Agriculture and the Department of Interior to cooperate with local government 

to see that coordination is accomplished. 

Congress makes it clear that federal projects must be studied in coordination 

with local government in order to assure that the social and economic needs of 

the local citizens are met and that the police power functions relating to 

provisions for safety, health and welfare are considered. 

Coordination is a Congressional mandate for govcmment agencies to work 

with County (local) governments and Baker County is willing and able to do so 

at any time. Coordination is required during the development and 

implementation of management actions and policies regardless of whether a 

NEPA process is involved. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. [am 

encouraged by Congress stepping up with this committee to reach out to our 

counties (local) government to correct what has been a non-functional process. 
12 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. 

And we’ll recognize Ms. Granat for her comments for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF AMY GRANAT 

Ms. GRANAT. Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving me 

the opportunity to testify. We work in partnership, California OffRoad Vehicle Association, with Sierra Access Coalition, both organizations working to protect forest access for a range of public uses. 

In 2004, former Chief Bosworth defined four major threats to our 

forests, including invasive species, wildfire, and loss of open space. 

However, the fourth thread, off-road recreation, directly targeted 

motorized-dependent activities and, by doing so, declared it an unacceptable use of forested land. The Travel Management Rule, or 

TMR, caused thousands of miles of road and trail closures through 

massive NEPA analyses that harm businesses, communities, disabled individuals, and every form of overland and over-snow travel. 

The public lost significant access to areas they loved. 

Although former Chief Bosworth also stated in 2004 that other 

forms of recreation can cause damage, horseback riding, bike 

riding, even hiking or camping, none of those uses have ever been 

subject to closure, curtailment, or regulatory action. The TMR requires people to limit travels to routes on a map called a Motor Vehicle Use Map. It is a poor map with no landmarks, but somehow 

people are supposed to follow only those routes shown. It’s printed 

on a flimsy sheet of newsprint. The agency states that the MVUM, 

or Motorized Vehicle Use Map, is not intended to be a navigational 

tool, but it is the legally binding enforcement tool. Without knowing where they are, people can face fines of $5,000 and/or 6 months’ 

imprisonment if found on the wrong road. 

Environmental organizations played a key role in the TMR decisionmaking process. The Wilderness Society wrote a travel management wish list to the agency, stating: We intend to provide as 

much data as we can to the region. 

Biologists from the Wilderness Society also provided transportation-related data for the travel management planning process. 

They provide the data. Then they get their way. 

To support closure decisions, the Forest Service used unverified 

and incomplete information and National Visitor User Monitoring, 

or NVUM, surveys to downplay the importance of motorized access. 

For the Inyo National Forest, for example, the NVUM indicated almost zero percent OHV activity, but information submitted on 

grant applications to the State of California showed 22 percent 

OHV primary activity visits. Both sets of data cannot be true at the 

same time. Information submitted to the Statewas subject to review and audit; therefore, it represents the true numbers. 

The Forest Service failed to coordinate with local governments, 

although regulations state agencies shall cooperate to the fullest 

extent possible to better integrate environmental impact statements into State and local planning processes. This strongly implies a working relationship with local governments and coordination/compliance with local planning. This issue is a high priority 

and deserves clarification and consequences in law. Coordination or 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

compliance lacks teeth, requiring agencies to work in a meaningful 

manner with local governments. 

The Travel Management Rule has also been devastating to fire 

suppression efforts. Previously, fires were accessible to initial attack. With roads closed, fires burn out of control and make it difficult to get a dozer to cut a road near a fire. Catastrophic wildfire 

has increased exponentially on Forest Service land in California. 

Environmental groups may claim that road closures are beneficial to watershed, but sedimentation from a road can be mitigated 

and pales in comparison to sedimentation from a watershed devastated by wildfire. 

Travel management decisions have had a disproportionate impact on disabled visitors. The analysis for the Eldorado National 

Forest stated: Restrictions on public wheeled motor vehicle use will 

impact persons with disabilities to a greater extent, particularly for 

those routes which provide access to recreation opportunities, such 

as dispersed camping, stream site access, et cetera. 

But the agency dismissed all disabled concerns. 

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 says that no person can be denied 

participation in a Federal program or facility solely because of their 

disability. National Forests are owned by the American people and 

funded by American citizens. The Forest Service is actively denying 

participation to disabled Americans and granting greater access to 

able-bodied Americans, making the disabled second-class citizens. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Granat follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31275.006

www.corva.org 

UNITED STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and Environment 

Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on Access to Public lands, The Effects of 

Forest Service Road Closures. 

The California Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORY A) has been advocating for responsible 

recreation on public land for close to 50 years. CORVA encourages community involvement in 

the land use planning process and maintains an educational program teaching responsible 

recreation practices for both motorized and non-motorized enthusiasts. 

Sierra Access Coalition (SAC) is an organization made up of local businesses, user groups, and 

individuals located in Northern California that work to protect forest access and preserve 

environmentally-sound routes for a range of public uses. 

CORVA and SAC believe that federal land can and should be managed for continued access by 

all members of the public. We request the Forest Service stay true to its byline as the "land of 

Many Uses". Additionally, we believe the Forest Service should adhere to Congressional intent 

contained in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 that mandated forests be used as 

working landscapes, and: " ... shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes"' 

1 https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/musya60.pdf 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31275.007

www.corva.org 

Since the inception of Travel Management the Forest Service has violated the Multiple Use 

Sustained Yield Act of 1960 by engaging in planned and systematic closures of public land to 

motorized access. The intent to close roads and trails was laid bare in a speech given by Former 

Chief of the Forest Service Dale Bosworth in 2004 entitled; "Four Threats to the Nation's Forests 

and Grasslands"2• This speech delineated the major issues facing forest management; the 

spread of invasive species, wildfire, the loss of open space and unmanaged off-road recreation. 

Invasive species could be addressed through changes in forest management practices while 

fighting wildfire is constantly addressed through new and changing technologies. To combat the 

loss of open space the agency has the Forest Legacy Program assisting landowners to obtain 

conservation easements. 

In speaking of unmanaged off-road recreation, Chief Bosworth went right to the heart of the 

issues by stating; "Off-highway vehicles, or OHVs, are a great way to experience the outdoors. 

But the number of OHV users has just gotten huge .... We're seeing more conflicts between 

users". This formal condemnation of one form of recreation by the Chief of the Forest Service, 

and by extension those who participate in this form of recreation, set the stage for forests 

throughout the country to classify motorized recreation, and motorized enthusiasts as an 

inappropriate and undesirable component in our national forests. With the encouragement 

from the Chief of the Forest Service in his speech, closure of public land to motorized travel 

became not only acceptable, but required Forest Service practice. 

Chief Bosworth further explained the rationale behind the Travel Management Rule in another 

speech given in 2004; "OHV Use: Rising to the Management Challenge" in which he stated; 

" ... other forms of recreation can cause similar damage-horseback riding, bike riding, even 

hiking or camping in sensitive places ... User impacts and conflicts have grown by the same order 

of magnitude-maybe more. That's why we've got to change the way we manage 

recreation" .

3 However none of the other recreational uses stated above by Chief Bosworth have 

ever been subject to as a closure mechanism as comprehensive as the Travel Management rule. 

The cause of user impacts and conflict have been placed squarely on the backs of OHV 

' https:/ /www. fs. fed.us/speeches/four -threats-nations-forests-and-grasslands 

3 https:/ /www. fs.fed. us/speeches/ohv-use-risi ng-ma nagement-challenge 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31275.008

www.corva.org 

enthusiasts, as no other uses or users have been subject to closure, curtailment, management 

or regulatory action. 

Never before has a federal agency condemned an entire group of Americans based solely on 

the manner in which they enjoy national forest land. Virtually every Forest Service NEPA 

analysis in California since the time of Chief Bosworth's speeches have caused massive closure 

of roads and trails to motorized access, including over-land or over-snow travel. 

The agency has never acknowledged the error of their planning or enactment of the Travel 

Management Rule. Travel Management mandated a 180-degree turn in management direction. 

Previously, forests were open for all Americans to enjoy and cross country travel was allowed. 

However Travel Management closed all routes to travel unless they were designated open on a 

map called a Motor Vehicle Use Map, (MVUM) a flimsy sheet of newsprint with no identifying 

characteristics, GPS coordinates, landmarks or latitude/longitude. (See Appendix A- Plumas 

National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map). 

Dispersed camping is one of the most popular activities engaged by visitors to the forest and 

their families. Because of these changes in policy, families experienced finding an appropriate 

camping space difficult and confusing. Visitors were warned they would be cited and subject to 

a fine of $5000 and/or 6 months imprisonment if they were found on an undesignated route, 

even though they often had no idea where they were in any given forest because of the failure 

of this inadequate map and accompanying lack of signage. In an explanation about how the 

Travel Management decisions will be enforced, the Lassen National Forest Travel Management 

page states:• "The MVUM is not intended to be a navigational tool. It also does not display all 

the features shown on a visitor map or topographic map ... The MVUM will be the legally binding 

enforcement tool for the Travel Management Decision." 5 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/cs/detail/!ut/p/z0/04_Sj9CPykssyOxPLMnMzOvMAfljo8zijQwgwNH 

CwN_DI8zPyBcqYKBfk02oCABZcx5g/?position=Feature.Html&pname=Forest%20Service%20-

%20Resource%20Management&ss=110506&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&pnavid=130000000000000&navid=130 

120000000000&ttype=detail&cid=stelprdb5162025#Why_is_my_right_to_enjoy_public_Nationai_Forest_lands_b 

eing_restricted_ 

5 Violations of 36 CFR 261.13 are subject of a fine up to $5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment (18 U.S.C. 3571(e)). 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31275.009

www .corva .org 

In short, the Forest Service created a map, not intended to be used for navigation but the 

members of the public would be cited if they traveled off the routes on that non-navigational 

map. Aside from causing intense confusion, the deficiencies of the MVUM created criminals 

from average working Americans trying to enjoy public land. 

During Travel Management the public was given the burden to identify the routes they chose to 

keep in any given forest. For many, this was an overwhelming task. The agency shifted their 

responsibility onto an unsuspecting and unprepared public. Not only did the agency abdicate 

their jobs, they ignored all the intended and unintended consequences of their proposed 

actions. The agency: 

./ Failed to understand or care about the unintended consequences of the rule . 

./ Failed to allow enough time for an average American to understand thousands of pages 

of complicated NEPA documents . 

./ Failed to provide maps of proposed road closures . 

./ Failed to reach out and engage small rural communities without internet access. 

Suddenly the public were forced to become NEPA experts if they wanted to save access to their 

favorite areas. The Forest Service, with years of land planning experience, knew that average 

members of the public would be unable to cope with the complexity of a massive NEPA 

analysis. However they also knew that environmental organizations with scores of attorneys 

schooled in NEPA possessed the mastery needed to achieve their closures goals. Travel 

Management was clearly designed to benefit these organizations, because there was simply no 

way for the public to succeed in their goals to save their roads and trails. In short, the rule was 

designed so everyone who valued access would lose. 

Environmental organizations played a key role in influencing Travel Management decision in 

our national forests. The Wilderness Society, a key influencer for the Forest Service wrote in 

2009: "The majority of individuals that visit our national forests participate in quiet, nature 

based forms of recreation such as hiking, camping, bird watching, and fishing. These same quiet 

recreationists provide a significant source af revenue for local businesses when they spend 

money during their visit. It's important that land managers consider the economic consequences 

of decisions that they make - such as approving a timber harvest or constructing a dirt bike 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31275.010

www.corva.org 

trail- may result in the displacement of quiet recreationists. " 6 The Wilderness Society actually 

coined the phrase 'quiet recreation' that has become the excuse for closure of motorized 

opportunities in many forests. But the Wilderness Society uses false information to determine 

that the majority of visitors to national forests engage in non-motorized activity. Bias in the 

Forest Service is so widespread, that the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) surveys used 

to determine visitation to national forests we have found to engage erroneous information. The 

chart in Appendix B illustrates a discrepancy between the information presented by the Forest 

Service on the NVUM versus the information given on grant funding applications submitted to 

the State of California. Using the lnyo National Forest as an example, the NVUM showed almost 

zero percent OHV activity in the forest, but the grant application submitted to the state showed 

22% OHV Primary Activity Visits. Both sets of data cannot possibly be true, but the information 

submitted to the state was subject to close review and audit and therefore represents the true 

figures. {See Appendix B- NVUM Underrepresentation) 

The Forest Service NVUM also underestimates motorized use by dividing it into multiple 

categories. Reality is that no one walks into a forest, and trailheads to non-motorized activities 

deserve access just as much as trailheads to motorized activities. By refusing to acknowledge 

that fact on the NVUM, the agency misleads the public in order to justify road and trail closures. 

{See Appendix C- Motorized Categories) 

The following uses are all dependent on vehicular travel but are not a traditional component of 

off-road recreation. Access to these activities all suffer because of deceptive Forest Service 

policy that staunchly refuses to accept that closures of roads and trails cause great difficulties 

for many others engaging in activities including the following: 

>- Hiking >- Bicycling 

>- Camping >- Kayaking 

>- Hunting >- Fishing 

>- Hounding >- Equestrian 

>- Mushroom Gathering >- Foraging 

>- Christmas Tree Cutting >- Firewood Cutting 

>- Driving for Pleasure >- Picnicking 

6 https:/ /wilderness.org/ resource/recreation -economic-impact -tool-reit 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31275.011

www.corva.org 

~ Bird Watching ~ Wildlife Viewing 

The role environmental organizations have played in determining Forest Service policy cannot 

be understated. Appendix Dis a letter written by the Wilderness Society for a coalition of 10 

environmental organizations in California in support of the analysis Subpart A of Travel 

Management, determining the minimum road system. (See Appendix D- Wilderness Letter) In 

that letter are references to assisting the Forest Service by providing pertinent science and 

data, and offering recommendations how to pull the wool over the eyes of an unsuspecting 

public during the analysis of more roads closures. 

We intend to share this work with your biologists, engineers, and landscape ecologists, 

and provide as much data as we can to the region. Biologists from The Wilderness 

Society also provided transportation-related data to the Forest Service during the Trave 

Management Planning Process. We encourage the Forest Service to use these models 

and data as you move forward with the roads analysis process. 

We also strongly recommend that vou ensure that roads identified for decommisslonim 

are put into closed status as quickly as possible after final phase two reports are 

published. and until the formal decision-makjng process is completed to take those 

roads off the system (regardless of how long it takes for physical treatment to occur). 

The Wilderness Society recommends closing roads after an initial determination but before 

NEPA is completed and the public has a chance to engage, circumventing the entire purpose of 

the NEPA process. 

The Forest Service failed to comply with NEPA requirements in regards to working with local 

government agencies to coordinate their planning efforts. Council for Environmental Quality 

regulations require federal agencies to during analysis and implementation of NEPA decisions; 

"Agencies shall cooperate with state and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce 

duplication between NEPA and comparable State and local requirements . ... to better integrate 

environmental impact statements into state or local planning processes, statements shall 

discuss any inconsistency of a proposed action with any approved state or local plan and laws. 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31275.012

www.corva.org 

Where an inconsistency exists, the statement should describe the extent to which the agency 

would reconcile its proposed action with the plan or /aw." 7 (40 CFR 1506.2 (d)) 

This explanation of coordination in NEPA strongly implies that a productive working relationship 

must exist between the agency and local and elected government officials. It also indicates that 

the agency must respect and comply with local planning direction and change its proposed 

action, if needed, to mirror already existing local decisions. 

CORVA and SAC, together with Butte and Plumas Counties filed a lawsuit against the Plumas 

National Forest largely because of their abject failure to coordinate, collaborate or cooperate 

with these local counties. These issues remain a high priority that deserve clarification and 

consequences to the agency delineated in law. Coordination lacks teeth to require federal 

agencies to work in a meaningful manner with local governments. Congressional direction is 

direly needed to protect fragile economies, public safety and rural residents, all issues currently 

ignored by the Forest Service. This big federal agency continues to bully small rural 

communities, leading to anger and frustration for elected representatives on Boards of 

Supervisors throughout California and the nation. 

Catastrophic wildfire might seem like an inevitable act of nature, but in recent years the effects 

of Travel Management decisions and resultant road closures have proved devastating to fire 

suppression efforts. In the past, fires were accessible to initial attack because of an adequate 

road system; now that so many roads have been closed, fires burn out of control as bulldozers 

struggle to reopen roads leading to the backcountry. Because of road closures in many areas 

even getting a bulldozer to a fire is simply not feasible. After the extensive road closures with 

Travel Management it is no coincidence that the incidence of catastrophic wildfire has 

increased exponentially. 8 

7 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=561&SID=lac7bbOcf3b9dbOae5dbd79ca8470b56&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&n=pt40.33.1506 

&r=PART#se40.37.1506_12 

• https://www. n ifc.gov /firelnfo/firelnfo _statistics.html 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31275.013

www.corva.org 

Year 

2012 

2013 

2014 399,713 

2015 537,446 

2016 356,951 

2017 644,640 

Environmental groups that strongly supported the road closures in Travel Management remain 

satisfied and are calling for even more road and trail closures. Environmental groups often 

claim road closures are beneficial to the watershed, however sedimentation from a road can be 

mitigated, and pales in comparison to sedimentation from an entire watershed devastated by 

wildfire. 

The Travel Management Plan has had a disproportionate impact on disabled visitors, a fact 

recognized by the Eldorado National Forest response to comments for their Travel 

Management Final Environmental Impact Statement: 9 

The effects analysis does recognize that those alternatives with greater restrictions on public 

wheeled motor vehicle use of roods and trails impact persons with disabilities to o greater 

extent than those alternatives with fewer restrictions, porticulorly for those routes which 

provide access to recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping, streamside access, etc. 

As a disabled off-road enthusiast, the effect of my physical restrictions became exacerbated by 

the disproportionate impact on disabled access by the Travel Management Rule. Disabled 

individuals are barred from entering Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas because 

wheelchairs are mechanical devices prohibited by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Therefore 

motorized access to national forests is critical for many disabled, elderly and even very young 

children to enjoy our national forests. 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=tpk2AQAAMAAJ&printsec•frontcover&output•reader&hl•en&pg=GBS. 

SL3-PA42 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31275.014

www .corva .org 

The Forest Service refused to consider the importance of disabled access as part of Travel 

Management analyses. The fact they were denying access to thousands of individuals was no 

cause of concern to the Forest Service; rather they dismissed the importance of disabled access 

in numerous public meetings, without consideration or compassion, in a very rude manner. 

Although the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 specifically prohibits the exclusion of the public 

(including the disabled, handicapped and elderly) from participating in the use of any Federal 

facility or program the government offers, the Forest Service claimed these restrictions did not 

apply to Travel Management. 

"The Rehabilitation Act of 1 973, which was amended by the Americans with 8 Disabilities Act of 

1990, set the direction that no person with a disability can be denied participation in a Federal 

program that is available ta all other people solely because of their disability. This Travel 

Management project is designed ta provide reasonable access for public wheeled motor vehicles 

and the decision to be made would apply to all Forest visitors. As stated in the preamble to the 

national Travel Management regulations, there is no requirement to allow people with 

disabilities to use motor vehicles on road or trails otherwise closed to motor vehicles since such 

an exemption could fundamentally change the travel management program (Fed Reg V. 70, No. 

216, p 68285)."10 

Loren Kingdon is an 83 year old gentleman with a prosthetic leg, living in the Plumas National 

Forest. Now retired, all loren wants to do is travel in the forest he loves, strapping his 

prosthetic leg onto his off-road vehicle. After Travel Management, trails around his house were 

closed and he was locked out of the areas he traditionally. loren's experience mirrors that of 

thousands of other Americans who were purposely ignored by the agency. Considering disabled 

access would have forced the Forest Service to modify their plans for extreme closure of roads 

and trails. To this day the Forest Service chooses to disregard the disabled, elderly and 

wounded warriors in their zeal to implement discriminatory, exclusionary and elitist policies. 

When did it become acceptable for a federal agency to treat disabled and elderly like secondclass citizens? 

10 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=tpk2AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS. 

Sl3-PA42 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31275.015

www .corva .org 

1 Prosthetic leg Holder Over Right Front Wheel 

CORVA and Sierra Access Coalition have developed common sense resolutions that could help 

correct many of the access issues caused by faulty Forest Service policy: 

(1) Dispersed Camping: In Region 5 in California, people are allowed to travel30' maximum 

off a trail for dispersed camping. In Region 2, that distance is 300'. That allowable 

distance to travel must be uniform and codified. 

(2) Allow access for disabled, handicapped, and elderly people. (See Appendix EMotorized Mobility) 

(3) Implement a system through the Woodcutting Program that will allow "one trip in, one 

trip out" to retrieve firewood regardless of distance. 

(4) Develop and implement a system for big game retrieval that will allow a "one trip in, 

one trip out" regardless of distance. 

(5) Develop a plan to coordinate and collaborate fully with counties including complying 

with local planning decisions and public safety concerns. Documentation on compliance 

by the Forest Service must be required. 

(6) Fire fighting planning and access to the forest must be coordinated between federal, 

state and local fire fighting agencies. 

(7) The FS should present the most accurate analysis possible in order to ensure the 

public's trust and ensure continued volunteer efforts in the forest. 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31275.016

www .corva .org 

Together CORVA and Sierra Access Coalition are developing an administrative petition to be 

filed with the US Department of Agriculture for reconsideration of the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule by the end of this year with the Texas Public Policy Institute. The deficiencies 

in the Travel Management Rule were so broad and far-reaching, that although specific relief is 

requested in this testimony, it also has to be acknowledged that there is an option to reverse 

some of damage through the filing of the above-mentioned petition. Thank you very much for 

the opportunity to provide testimony to the Subcommittee regarding the effect of Forest 

Service road closures on recreational access, and the difficulties of coordination with the 

agency. 

Amy Granat 

Managing Director 

California Off-Road Vehicle Association 
25 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you, Ms. Granat. 

And now we’ll recognize Mr. Furnish for your 5 minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM FURNISH 

Mr. FURNISH. Thank you, Chairman Gianforte and Ranking 

Member Plaskett. I am Jim Furnish, former USDA Forest Service 

Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems. I retired in 2002, following a 35-year career in the agency. 

This career included jobs as a district ranger, also a forest supervisor. I managed national forests and their complex issues at both 

the policy level and the practical field level. I’m well acquainted 

with these issues, and I bring a wealth of experience. 

As a Bighorn National Forest ranger from 1977 to 1984, I took 

aggressive steps to reduce four-wheel drives and trails. As Siuslaw 

National Forest supervisor from 1991 to 1999, I completed a travel 

plan for the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, a globally 

significant off-highway vehicle area. 

Now, today, I hope to speak to four main issues: One is the emergence of off-highway vehicles as a potent force in reshaping land 

management considerations; second, the consequence of inadequate 

funding of road and trail maintenance and access; third, the adequacy of agency coordination with affected interests and parties; 

and, fourth, the ideological battle over perceived public rights to 

recreate on public lands. 

I’d like to take you back when I first started working for the Forest Service in the mid-sixties. OHVs were virtually unheard of. I 

watched this machine and the users and the recreation activity 

blossom over the course of my career to become one of the most 

dominant effects on our land management issues and the public we 

serve. 

I left the agency just before the travel management regulation 

that’s been referenced, but this was an effort to address for the 

first time, really, in a comprehensive way the issue of off-highway 

vehicles and to strike a balance between appropriate use and access of the land and these machines with other necessary restrictions associated with the negative consequences. 

Historians will argue whether the Forest Service has done a good 

job because this effort continues, but the travel management regulation, in my view, as an extension of Nixon’s earlier executive 

order back in the seventies, is part of the same tapestry that the 

Forest Service is using to try to get their arms around this vexing 

issue. 

It’s been very much complicated by the funding. The Forest Service, for as long as I’ve been in the agency and since, has struggled 

with lack of road maintenance dollars as well as travel maintenance dollars. And this issue has been exacerbated in the recent 

decades relative to fire funding. And I would like to say that Congress has stepped up to try and deal with that fire funding issue. 

And so that is—that has helped, but nevertheless, the Forest Service continues to be chronically short of road maintenance and trail 

maintenance dollars. 

I would also say you can never get enough thoughtful cooperation, which brings me to coordination with groups and individuals 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

interested in OHV issues and, more broadly, access to public lands. 

The Forest Service, as required by law and policy, has, since its 

very inception in the late 1800s, sought to coordinate with interested parties in reaching decisions. Seeking out and considering the 

views of all sides of an issue are the essence of public service. 

The agency uses public notices, holds public meetings, and has 

created numerous resource advisory committees, all in a spirit of 

coordination. All these are commonly used in dealing with OHV 

and access issues. I routinely accepted requests to meet with OHV 

advocates and groups, and these meetings often involved field trips 

to look at issues firsthand, which leads me to say there is a difference between listening, understanding, and agreeing. 

I think some parties do not feel listened to—coordinated with— 

when they are not agreed with. Put another way, coordination is 

deemed ineffective or nonexistent if decisions and outcomes are 

seen as unsatisfactory. I do not believe coordination necessitates 

agreement, especially when considering multiple viewpoints on contentious issues. 

And by far, the thorniest issue is an ideological one. For example, 

what does ‘‘public land’’ mean? What rights does it confer on citizens? What reasonable authority is vested in agency officials discharging their responsibility to manage OHVs and access in the 

public interest? And I would say, in reference to your comment that 

national forests are locked up, I would say they are open for business. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Furnish follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31275.017

Testimony of former U.S. Forest Service Deputy Chief Jim Furnish 

before the U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and Environment 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Hearing on Public Land Access 

June 26, 2018 

I am Jim Furnish, former USDA Forest Service Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems. I'd like to thank 

Chairman Gianforte and Ranking Member Plaskett for the opportunity to testify today. I left the agency 

in 2002, following a 35-year career that also included jobs as district ranger and forest supervisor, and I 

served from coast to coast. I managed national forests and their complex issues at both the policy and 

practical field level. I am well acquainted with the issues, and I bring a wealth of experience- as a 

Bighorn National Forest district rangerfrom 1977-1984, I took aggressive steps reduce four-wheel drive 

(4WD) roads and trails; as Siuslaw National Forest Supervisor from 1991-1999, I completed a travel plan 

for the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, a globally significant OHV area. 

I will address these main issues: 1) the emergence of off-highway vehicles (OHV) as a potent force in 

reshaping land management considerations; 2) the consequences of inadequate funding for road and 

trail maintenance; 3) adequacy of agency coordination with affected interests and parties; and 4) the 

ideological battle over perceived public "rights" to recreate on public lands. 

When I began working for the Forest Service in 1965, OHVs were unknown, and enthusiasts relied on 

post-WWII4WD "jeeps" to access back country destinations. Many of the early roads were pioneered 

with no engineering design. OHVs (and snow machines) revolutionized backcountry recreation. They are 

smaller, cheaper, and much more capable of negotiating difficult trails than 4WD vehicles. It is no 

wonder they have proven immensely popular. As the use of ATVs skyrocketed, the Forest Service 

struggled to stay ahead of management challenges. Negative consequences reached a point that, in 

2004, Chief Dale Bosworth listed off-road vehicle use among the "four great threats" to national forests. 

This declaration prompted the Forest Service to undertake meticulous transportation planning on every 

national forest to address the OHV threat. Over a period of several years, hundreds of public meetings 

were held to develop "use maps" that identified which roads and trails were to be open to OHV use, and 

which were to be closed. OHVs were also required to confine travel to designated routes, unless 

specifically exempted. As expected, the process and the decisions proved controversial. 

My opinion, based on over thirty years' experience, is that unregulated OHV use poses significant risks 

to the natural and human environment. The Forest Service took far too long to respond effectively to 

such risks, in spite of a comprehensive Nixon-era executive order. Ill-advised and abusive OHV use 

patterns and practices became well-rooted and common-place. Many OHV users, far too many, felt free 

to travel wherever and whenever they wished, resulting in strong sense of entitlement. I put much 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31275.018

blame on Forest Service leaders and field managers alike that reacted too slowly, or not at all, to 

recreation conflicts and obvious water quality, wildlife habitat, and noise problems. 

However culpable the agency might be, ignoring problems or simply allowing OHV abuses to continue is 

not a solution. Thus, I fully supported the belated nation-wide effort (which followed my retirement) to 

take measured steps to solve known problems. And yes, this resulted in reducing and limiting historic 

OHV patterns of use that had developed for decades- regrettable, but necessary. 

Another important management dilemma facing the Forest Service is the chronic funding shortage for 

road and trail maintenance. A GAO study noted the agency has only one quarter the needed annual 

funds, and a $314 million backlog. I see no prospect that this situation will improve measurably in the 

foreseeable future. This reality bears heavily on any consideration to authorize OHV use on sensitive, 

pristine landscapes that afford high quality water and critical wildlife habitats. Unmaintained roads and 

trails pose serious threats, and any conscientious ranger will take steps to ensure a reasonable 

transportation network that is right-sized to fit resources, uses, and finances. 

I am happy to note the passage of P.l. 114-245 (NFS Trails Stewardship Act), which will hopefully enable 

better cooperation and bring more resources to the maintenance challenge. 

You can never get enough thoughtful cooperation, which brings me to coordination with groups and, 

individuals interested in OHV issues, and more broadly, access to public lands. The Forest Service, as 

required by law and policy, has since its inception sought to coordinate with interested parties in 

reaching decisions. Seeking out and considering the views of all sides of an issue are the essence of 

public service. The agency uses public notices, holds public meetings, and has created numerous 

resource advisory committees- all in a spirit of coordination. All these are commonly used in dealing 

with OHV and access issues. I routinely accepted requests to meet with OHV advocates and groups, and 

these meetings often involved field trips to look at issues first hand. 

I note that there is a difference between listening, understanding, and agreeing. I think some parties do 

not feel listened to- coordinated with- when they are not agreed with. Put another way, coordination 

is deemed ineffective or non-existent if decisions and outcomes are seen as unsatisfactory. I do not 

believe coordination necessitates agreement, especially when considering multiple viewpoints on 

contentious issues. 

By far the thorniest access issue is an ideological one- for example, what does public land mean, what 

"rights" does it confer on citizens, what reasonable authority is vested in agency officials discharging 

their responsibility to manage OHVs and access in the public interest? 

I note a core issue to be the competing ideologies of OHV and non-motorized recreationists. I've ridden 

OHVs and enjoyed it. They are powerful, can darn near go anywhere, and are FUN! As an older person, 

OHVs can help me continue to enjoy opportunities that are slipping away, fast. But OHVs also tempt me 

to do things I ought not do and to go places I ought not go. 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31275.019

And many people, also owners of public lands, just don't like these machines and what they do to our 

national forests. Theirs is a legitimate, competing constituency that deserves an equal say in OHV and 

access questions. We will not resolve ideological divides here. I point this out because "the ranger" lives 

between these competing interests. And agency officials can't do their business lopsided. Your oversight 

of the agencies who manage public lands must confront this truth: every agency official should seek to 

do right by the land, while balancing competing interests. Such fairness will necessarily result in 

disappointment at some opportunities lost, but hopefully a deeper gratitude for the retained 

opportunities to recreate on spectacular public lands. 
30 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you, Mr. Furnish. 

At this time, I’d like to recognize Representative White for your 

5 minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KERRY WHITE 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

A little background on myself. My family has been in the Gallatin Valley for 150 years. My great-grandfather came there when 

he was 13 years old. And I’ve seen quite a change in the Forest 

Service over those years. Our family is a leaseholder with a cabin 

in the Storm Castle drainage. We currently pay over $3,000 a year 

in lease, but we only have access to the cabin half of the year because of the travel management plan that was passed by the Forest 

Service in 2004. 

When they came out with that plan, myself and 11 other folks 

started Citizens for Balanced Use, to try to understand why the 

Forest Service was closing about 50 percent of the roads and trails 

in that forest to motorized use. There was closures proposed for bicycles and mechanized use, and there was also proposed closures 

to horse. 

They came out with a draft environmental impact statement over 

1,500 pages. And after that, they came out with a final environmental impact statement over 1,500 pages, and asked the public to 

consume and digest this document and provide substantive comments to the Forest Service. The general public is not the Forest 

Service with professionals to comprehend a document of that size. 

After that, the document was approved. The Record of Decision was 

signed. CBU sued that in Federal court in Missoula. We ultimately 

lost. We appealed that to Federal Court of the Ninth Circuit in 

California, and we ultimately lost. And that’s our last opportunity. 

The Supreme Court is not going to take a case on Travel Management Rule and locking people out of the forest. 

I’d like you to take a look at the written testimony that I submitted. There’s a photo there of the DEIS and the FEIS with a 

ruler showing the massive amount of document that’s prepared by 

the Forest Service that the public is asked to look at. There’s also 

a couple of pages of road closures. This is how the Forest Service 

closes the roads. They call them rip, slash, and seed, where they 

tear live trees out of the ground, stack them across the road. It 

blocks access for, not only motorized and mechanized use, but also 

hiking, horseback, cross-country skiing. 

There has been—and I would agree with Mr. Furnish—a significant increase in OHV use, but I would also refer to the recreation 

specialist’s report from the Gallatin that shows national trends indicate that aging populations may desire more accessible opportunities. Our population is aging. We need those recreational access. 

There is also a photo illustration of four major cities in Montana 

last summer where air quality was hazardous. And there’s also a 

report from the USDA 2013 Wildland Firefighter Smoke Exposure 

and the toxins that is in this smoke. There is also a chart from 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the State in which 

I’m from, that shows the effects from wildfire smoke. And in the 

top four categories of that chart, it will show you it causes preVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:44 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\31275.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

mature mortality. In other words, these fires are killing people because of the toxins that are released in the air. 

There’s also a picture that I’ve attached there of the erosion that 

happens, the sedimentation that goes into our streams. It shows 

the condition of our forests out there. Some of our forests out there 

are over 80 percent dead. And the Forest Service is not cutting the 

timber or not managing it actively. They’re actually proposing to do 

more prescribed burns, which if you look at that report from the 

Firefighter Smoke, those toxins are released whether they are wildfire or prescribed burns. 

I just would ask this committee to bring attention to what we’re 

faced in Montana. Almost 22,000 miles of roads closed. And I would 

just ask you to think a minute. The emotional impact that these 

closures have on a father or a grandfather that cannot take their 

kids or their grandkids to those places that they shared with their 

father or their grandfather before them, as there’s a closed gate or 

obliterated road. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. White follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31275.020

MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

REPRESENTATIVE KERRY WHITE HOUSE DISTRICT 64 

HELENA ADDRESS 

CAPITOL BUILDING 

PO BOX 200400 

HELENA, MONTANA 59620-0400 

PHONE: (406) 444-4800 

HOME ADDRESS: 

400 BLACKWOOD RD 

BOZEMAN, MT 59718 

PHONE: (406) 587-3653 

COMMITTEES: 

NATURAL RESOURCES- CHAIR 

TAXATION 

FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Sub-committee on Interior, Energy, and Environment 

Written Testimony of Montana House Representative Kerry White 

June 26, 2018 

As a fourth generation Montanan and member of the Montana House of Representatives I have grave 

concerns over the management of our federal lands. In 20041 joined a group of citizens to form Citizens for 

Balanced Use {CBU), a grass roots organization promoting shared use of our public lands for multiple use 

recreation, active forest management, and responsible resource development At that time the Gallatin 

National Forest was preparing their new Travel Management Plan and the DE IS showed significant closures 

of roads and trails to multiple use. These closures would adversely affect opportunities for recreation and 

more importantly the ability for the Forest Service to actively manage the land. 

The 2004 DEIS and ultimately the FEIS numbered more than 5000 pages as illustrated in Appendix A. This 

was a difficult task for the public to consume such a large amount of information in a short 60 day comment 

period on each document and provide substantive comments to the agency. The record of decision was 

signed in 2008 and resulted in the loss of nearly half of all motorized trail opportunities. This trend continues 

today as many forests in Montana have gone through, or are completing Travel Planning or Forest Planning 

actions. 

CBU continues to engage in many of these actions in Montana and other western states as we see the 

importance of trying to keep recreation and forest management opportunities available and open. To be 

honest, this is very time consuming and has resulted in little to no success in keeping access open. It seems 

the Forest Service has a preconceived agenda of closures and a predetermined decision of reducing access. 

Under both NEPA 40 CFR 1506.3 and The National Forest Management Planning Act 16 USC 1602-1604 the 

Forest Service is required to "coordinate" with state, local, and tribal government <~Resource Plans" when 

developing the federal plan. The Forest Service in Montana seemed to ignore local plans as many counties 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31275.021

did not have a formally adopted "Resource Plan" but aU the counties in Montana have an adopted "Growth 

Policy". Even though the County Growth Policy has much of the required information contained in a 

"Resource Plan)/ the federal agency was reluctant to accept a Growth Policy as a Resource Plan because of 

the title of this plan. "Resource Plan vs Growth Pol1cy" 

Realizing this problem I carried and got passed In my first session of legislature HB 169 which allowed the 

Growth Policy to be the legal document for local governments to use in coordinating with federal agencies 

on land planning actions. Even after the passage of HB 169, the Forest Serv1ce is failing to coordinate with 

local governments. 

The recent release of the Flathead Forest Plan Revision stated on page 46, "Flathead County has a natural 

resource plan that the Flathead National Forest has determined generally compatible with the proposed 

plan for the Forest, except for certain goals and objectives (listed under the sections of the Flathead County 

natural resource plan under forest management, fires and fuels management, recreation, and roads) that 

are incompatible with proposed plan components. 1he Forest is committed to working with a!llocai 

counties to better address the 1m pacts and benefits of management of the Forest." This statement reflects 

the lack of the required coordination with the local governments by the Flathead National Forest and rather 

only addresses what is contained in the Forest Service land Management Planning Handbook which does 

mention "Compatibility" specifically under FSH 1909.12 Chapter 40, Section 44, (b)(2)(ii) "The compatibility 

and interrelated 1m pacts of these plans and pohCJes" but the Forest Service failed to comply w1th NEPA 40 

CFR 1506.2 {4}{d) where it states "To better mtegrate environmental impact statements into State and local 

planning processes. statements shall discuss anv inconsistency of a proposed action with any State or !oca! 

plan and laws {whether or not federally .:;anct1oned). Where an inconsistency exists, the statement should 

describe the extent to which tile agencv would reconcile its proposed action with the plan or law.'' 

The Forest Serv1ce has failed to effectively coordinate w·ith !oca! governments as ·Illustrated in the Flathead 

Forest Plan revision document and I have Witnessed this in many other cases where the Forest Service has 

ignored local plans. Because of this concern l wrote a letter 1n December 2017 to then Forest Service Ch1ef 

Tony Tooke expressing my concern over the lack of coordination between the Forest Service and local 

governments. Here is the specific language in my letter to Chief Tooke. 

"!would request the employees of your agency to receive training and direction on "coordination" 

Coordination is a reauirement under NEPA and FLPMA when an agency is completing a significant action but 

being involved in many of these agency actions over the past many years it is clear there ts no consistency or 

national direction to the specific regions or districts 111 the process of coordination. ! believe proper training 

on coordinatiOn and a policy wh1ch provides cons1stency across the agency would benefit local governments 

and the public. In Montana we have 56 counties witt' a responsibility to provide for the Health, Safety, and 

Welfare of their county residents. Much of our land within these counties is federally managed and plavs a 

significant part in the economic sustainabihty of these communities. The federal !and managers must 

recognize the importance of their decisions on these communities a'ld take senous consideration of the 

comments and concerns these local governments have in regards to proper !and management. The best way 

to accomplish thh is through coordination and making the federal decision "'as conslstent as possible" with 

any local resource planO!" Growth Poiicy Please consider a review of vour coordination policy throughout 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31275.022

the agency and provide trainmg to those specific districts and regions where confusion or insufficient 

training on coordination exists.'' 

Senator Jed Hinkle of the Montana Senate hand delivered the letter to Ch1efTooke and discussed the 

contents. Chief Tooke expressed a sincere interest in my concerns over the lack of coordination and sent me 

a letter stating he was asking Region 1 Supervisor Leanne Marten to meet with me to discuss this issue. I 

subsequently met with Ms. Marten in Missoula at her office. ! raised the issue of lack in her agency 

coordinating with local governments and showed her the Flathead NatiOnal Forest revision document as an 

example where only a single paragraph was devoted to local government participation and only 

compatibility was mentioned. l explained to her that under coordination the federal agency is required to be 

as consistent as possible w1th the local plan and if they are not, the federal agency must provide a statement 

describing the extent of the inconsistency and more •mportantly describe the extent to whiCh the agency 

would reconcile its proposed action with the local plan or law. 

I believe Ms. Marten understood my concern and agreed ln the deficiency of the Flathead National Forest in 

coordinating, She stated that the Forest Service needed to do a better job going forward in the area of 

coordination. I am skeptical that anything wil! changE! anytime soon until meaningful training of Forest 

Service personnel is completed or at least ha;; begun 

1 say this because the Custer Gallatin National Forest is in the process of revising their Forest Plan and I am a 

member of the Custer Gallatin Working Group (CGWG) which has engaged with the Forest Service in 

completing this plan. This collaborative was initiated by the County Commissioners of 9 counties where 

parts of the Custer Gallatin Nat1onal Forest is located. During a meeting of the CGWG, when the 10 Team 

leader was present, I requested the CGWG faci/ltator to provide the Forest Service with the Growth Policies 

of the 9 counties affected by the Forest Plan. At a subsequent meeting of the CGWG ! asked the Forest 

Service 10 Team leader what she was doing in regards to reviewing the Growth Policies. She stated, "We are 

in the process of doing a consistency review of the Growth Policies." But at a subsequent meeting she said 

the Forest Service did not have time to look at a!l the Growth Pollc1es for consistency but were reviewing 

them for "compatibility'' l recelved the following message from the ID Team Leader 011 February gtfJ of 

2018. 

"Kerry, Thank you for your email and question about the proposed action (Custer Gallatin Forest Plan 

Revision) and review of the County Growth Polley. As mentioned in our email on this subject to you on 

December 8, 2017, the actual results of the review of "compatibility" of the revised Forest Plan with county 

and other government plans is part of the Environmental impact Statement ( Draft E!S anticipated fall 2018). 

We are in an open comment period until March 5 on the proposed action. Feel free to comment and let us 

know the areas of the proposed action that you do not think are ''compatible" or "contrary to the Growth 

Policy". 

It would seem the Forest Service initially accepted the Growth Policies with the intension of completing the 

required consistency rev1ew but changed course and decided to review them for compatibility. I believe if 

the agency had dear direction from leadership and training on what is required in law with regards to 

coordination w1th local governments in developing a plan that is consistent with the local resource plan or 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 31275.023

Growth Policy, the result would be a better plan that benefits the counties and small communities directly 

affected by these land management decisions. 

The result of the Forest Plan revisions and Travel Plan decisions m Montana has resulted m a loss of access 

to and on our federally managed pubflc lands. Concerned with this loss of access prompted me to introduce 

and ultimately get passed, HJ 13 in the 2015 session. HJ 13 was a study bill to look at the loss of access to 

our public lands that has occurred since 1995, the la~t 20 years. The study was assigned to the 

Environmental Quality Council (EQC) interim committee wh1ch l have been a member of during my 3 terms 

in the legislature. The EQC prepared a final report whrch can be found at the following link: 

http:f/leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/lnterim/2015-2016/EQC/Committee-Topics/hj-13/hjBfinalreport.pdf 

In the Executive Summary on page 1 of the report you will see the Forest Service has closed an astounding 

21,951 miles of roads on !and they manage in Montana since 1995. Each and every one of these roads was 

important for recreation and management of thls land. Many types of technlques were used to close these 

roads. Some were gated, some had tank traps or pits dug to block access, and many more were put out to 

bid as "Rip, Slash, and Seed" projects where the road was completely destroyed, trees were cut and placed 

across the destroved road bed, and the road bed was reseeded. (Appendix B). 

In Montana our population demographics show an aging population. With this increase in age comes a 

greater need and desire for some type of mechanized and motorized transport in order to recreate on our 

public lands. On page 41 (Appendix C) of the Program Evaluation of the Montana State Parks Division 

presented to the May 2018 EQC meeting the following statement was made: 

/{Motorized recreation grew signiftcant!y with a 300% increase in OHV registration and a nearly 200% 

increase in snowmobile registration since 2000;'' 

The complete report can be found at the fo!io\1\!lng !ink: 

https: //leg.mt.gov I content/Committees/lnterim/20 17-2018/EQC/Meetings/May-2018/pa rks-program-eva lmay-2018.pdf 

The Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana completed a study in 2013 on 

OHV use in Montana. The complete study can be found at the followmg link: 

http:l/stateparks. mt.gov /fwpDoc html?id-67359 

On page 6 of the study it shows that 58% of the survey respondents indicate the lack of access as the 

number one threat to their enjoyment of this recreation activity. {Appendix D) 

For the first time in history the U.S. Department of Commerce looked specifically at the economic impact of 

outdoor recreation and recently released their fmdings in 2016. Accordmg to the report found at the 

following link: 

https:l/www.bea.gov/newsreleases/industry/orsa/orsanewsrelease.htm 

4 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 31275.024

On page 2 of this study, motorized use accounted for 59.4 billion of gross output putting it as the number 1 

outdoor recreation activity m a 373.7 billion dollar mdustry. {Appendix E) 

The growth of motorized and mechanized recreation contributes greatly to local economles but the Forest 

Service is not responding to this growth. Rather than 'ncrease road and trail opportunities for recreation 

needs they are dosing access. An aging population with a desire to access their public lands are being shut 

out by gates, biockades1 and road obliterations, Many outdoor organizations contribute countless hours of 

volunteer wor~ in dearing and maintaining these trails. The motorized community ls the workhorse of the 

Forest Service in cleaning up trash, clearing the trails of down timber, installing water bars, spraying weeds, 

search and rescue, and maintaining these roads and (rails for the enJoyment of everyone. Closing access to 

the fastest growing sector and largest economic contributor in the outdoor recreation industry is not what 

we should expect from our public land managers. These agencies should be increasing motorized recreation 

opportunities and partnering with groups and organizations to deve!op new roads and trails or at the verv 

least stop dosing and obliterating this infrastructure. More closures result in more people being 

concentrated into smaller areas causmg more impact to the resource and can increase user conflict. 

The Forest Service many times has a desire to separate users in an effort to reduce user conflict. But most 

often the users removed are motorized and mechanized while other users are allowed everywhere. The 

do sure of these areas to motorized and mechan1zed use because of user conflict ls not a reason to dose 

areas of the forest to specific users. !t often times seems the Forest Service !s engaging in segregation and 

vlewed by some as discrimination against a certam segment of the population. With an aging population 

more users lack the ability to hike long distances. Handicapped, disabled, and the physically challenged 

users are often removed for their public lands because of road and trail closures to motorized transport 

In working for CBU over the past 14 years, our orgamzation has been contacted by many elderly, disabled, 

and physically challenged individuals concerned about the closures. These folks are no longer able to access 

the areas they historically once enjoyed. Families with young children and older grandparents are not able 

to share and enjoy those areas because of road closures. This has a social and emotional impact on this 

important segment of our population as public lands provide an opportunity to get away and enjoy nature 

Nothing more disturbing than finding a locked gate or destroyed road that once provided access to a 

favorite place or destination 

Not only are road closures preventing access to our public lands but also agency policy has changed over the 

years. Many forest Districts in Region 1 have adopted a policy of removing motorized and mechanized use in 

areas where they Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWA) during forest planning. The Custer Gallatin is one 

such forest where current Forest Planning 1s in progress and stated in the "Proposed Action- Revised Forest 

Plan, Custer Gallatin National Forest" on page 93 under "Suitability (FW-SUIT-RWA) 04'' it states, 

"Recommended Wilderness Areas are NOT suitable for motorized and mechanized recreation." The action 

by the Forest Service in removing historic motorized and mechanized use in areas they deem suitable for 

wilderness and designating them as recommended for wilderness simply and piainly circumvents the 

powers of Congress to designate wilderness. The Forest Service is creating wilderness without the consent 

of Congress. 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 31275.025

The Wilderness Study Areas are another area where a change in policy has reduced access. In the Region 1, 

Forest Service Manual, the management of Wilderness Study Areas is defined under FSM 2329. (Appendix J) 

FSM 2329 (2) states: "At time of designation of these areas, uses that existed in 1977 can be allowed to 

continue subject to 36 CFR 212.57." But over the last several years these historic uses have been restricted 

or completely removed. Areas once enjoyed by motonzed access are no longer available. Some uses have 

been removed through travel planning orforest p!annmg but in some cases such as the Hyalite Porcupine 

Buffalo Horn WS.A. both summer and winter motorized historic use was removed through an interim order 

signed by the Forest Supervisor and simply renewed annually. There are currently legislative proposals 

before the U.S. House and Senate to release these WSAs in Montana. After 40 years of study and WSA 

designation lt seems the time has come to release these areas that do NOT qualify for formal designation as 

wilderness. 

Another designation which has facilitated closures of our roads and trails is the Clinton Road less Rule signed 

by President Clinton during his last days in office in 2001. This Rule designated about 58 million acres in the 

Western U.S. as road less but in fact much of this land had roads but with this designation it opened the door 

for the agency to arbitrarily close existing roads within these areas. An example of the restrictions on lands 

in my back yard for the Gallatin National Forest (GNF) there are 714,000 acres of congressionally designated 

wilderness and 740,000 acres destgnated as roadless under the Clinton Rule out of the 1.8 million acres m 

the GNF, A mere 345,000 acres remains open 1n this forest to multiple use management and the new Forest 

Plan revision wdl probably restrict additional areas even further. 

Road closures have even more of an adverse effect on the ability of the agency to actively manage a growing 

resource. Our forests are a growing garden and as such should be managed as a garden rather than a hands 

off, no access, left to deteriorate and burn policy resulting in polluting our air and water, killing wildlife, and 

putting lives and property at risk. 

Over 1.2 million acres burned in Montana last year costing the federal government and the state millions of 

dollars. The air quality during much of last summer in most of Montana was recorded as very unhealthy or 

hazardous. Report!:. to the legislature Environmental Quality Council on the increase of ER visits during these 

fires are of great concern. Photos of Bi!!lngs, Butte, Missoula, and Uvingston during the 2017 fires are 

included. (Appendix F) The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has posted on their website a 

chart of air quality standards and the "effects of wildfire smoke'" (Appendix G). 

Please notice under the 4 categories of ''Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups, Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, and 

Hazardous" the health effect listed is "premature death'' In other words the smoke from these catastrophic 

fires is killing people. The USDA commissioned a study in 2013 on Wildland Firefighter Smoke Exposure. This 

can be found at the following iinlc 

https://www,firescope,org/specialist-groups/safety/hazards/wildfire-ff-smoke-exposure.pdf 

On pages 5 through 7 of this report the list of toxms and their effects on the human body are listed. 

(Appendix HI Maybe the most deadly of these chemiCals rs Crystalline Silica which has contributed to many 

individuals in the mtning industry contractmg lung d1sease. Crysta!lme Silica is ilsted as a human carcinogen 

by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Gases and liquids present in smoke adhere to the 

6 
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 31275.026

particles and thus can enter the airway, lungs, and bloodstream. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1989; 

Bytnerowicz 2009) This report indicates the same deadly carcinogens are released into the air whether from 

wildfires or controlled burns. 

The Montana Constitution states in Article !X, Section 1, "The state and each person shall maintain and 

improve a dean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." The smoke 

from both wildfires and prescribed burns on federally managed land is adversely affecting the air quality and 

also water quality during spring run off when erosion and sediment pollute our rivers and streams. 

{Appendix 1) Montana citizens no longer enjoy a clean and healthful environment during the summer when 

our air is filled with smoke and ash. 

The nearly 22,000 miles of road closures by the Forest Service in Montana has impaired the ability of this 

agency to reduce fuel loads and actively manage the land they are responsible to care for. This agency has 

moved toward a policy of introducing more and more fire into the landscape and away from harvesting a 

renewable resource that benefits srnal! communities throughout Montana, !n Mineral County more than 

80% of the land base is managed by the Forest Service leaving funding for publk services stressed and 

resulting in a lack of employment opportunities as the Forest Service has reduced timber sales and the 

supply of logs to ot1e of the last remaining mil!s ln Montana. 

The blame is not all on the Forest Service as litigation has halted most of the timber sales in Montana. Take 

for example the Stonewall Timber Sale near Lincoln, Montana where an Injunction issued by a federal judge 

in response to Htigat!on which halted the harvest. last year this same timber proposed to be cut was burned 

m the Stonewall fire, polluting our air, and putting lives and property at nsk. This was a total waste of a 

resource that could have provided jobs to many in the timber industry and improved the forest health. But 

these litigants are nat concerned with jobs and really not concerned about the environment as these 

lawsuits are mostly about the money they coilect through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and the 

destruction of an mdustry. An industry we dearly need in Montana to tend to our ever growing garden of 

timber 

There are some soiutions in my mind that would improve access and the condition of our forests and also 

greatly benefit small communities in rural Montana, Here is a list of some ideas that Congress and the 

Administration might consider. 

Litigation reform to stop the abuse of the EAJA by extreme environmental groups which litigate each 

and every project. 

Require environmental litigants to post a bond when they sue that is equal to the value of the 

timber to be harvested or the amount of lost value of the timber in a salvage sale. 

Mandatory arbitration by a select committee before court action can proceed. 

Direction from leadership to require trammg on Coordination throughout the agency. 

Clearly define coordination in Federal Statute. 

Clear direction from leadership on RWA management to allow exlstmg uses to continue in these 

areas until Congress considers a forma! designation of wilderness. 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 31275.027

Mandate pre~fire planning 1n cooperation and coordination with state and local governments. 

Jurisdiction and response decisions should be made prior to fires. 

Revise NEPA to allow NEPA Sufficiency and Hard Release to be applied to areas designated in Forest 

Planning as suitable for those activities. This would avoid costly preparation of multiple NEPA 

documents on individual projects already deemed suitable in those areas. 

The 2012 Forest Planning Rule requires collaboration but this term is not clearly defined as to how 

the agency is to treat the recommendations from collaborative groups. National agency direction 

should be given to speofic reg tons and distncts on how to address collaboration. 

Liability should be assumed by federal agencies for damages when wildfires or prescribed burns 

leave federally managed \and and burn on tc state or pnvate !and. 

Provide liability insurance or contribute to Workmen's Como Insurance premiums for volunteer 

services for trail and road maintenance. 

Thank you for the opportunity to come before your committee and provide testimony on the important 

issue of road and traH closures. 

Sincerely, 

Representative Kerry White 

Montana House District 64 
40 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you, Mr. White. 

And thank you for the panel for your testimony. 

We’ll now move to the period where the committee gets to ask 

questions, and I’ll start, if I could. 

Back to you, Representative White. Could you please explain to 

the committee what prompted the need to study road closures in 

Montana? You initiated that in the State legislature, and it was 

completed by Department of Environmental quality, but help us 

with the—why did you do that? 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

I first was elected to the legislature in 2013. I carried a bill that 

allowed the growth policy to be the legal document to coordinate 

because we were seeing road closures. 2004, as I mentioned, CBU 

was started. And through that organization, when I became a legislator, phone call after phone call. And U.S. legislators understand 

when there’s an issue out there that’s of importance, you get phone 

calls. And that’s really what prompted it, from one end of the State 

to the other, from other States. 

And so I brought a study, HJ 13. I just wanted to see how much 

access we had lost that Forest Service and BLM—that study covers 

both of them—how much access we had lost in the last 20 years. 

So what prompted it was a public outcry that we’re losing access. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And, again, just for the record, the study showed 

that one-third of all the roads in Montana had been closed by the 

Forest Service and BLM. Is that correct? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Again, for Mr. White, does the Forest 

Service have reliable data on road closures, and would you suggest 

that other States do some more studies? 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would 

suggest that other States initiate a study like this. When we did 

this under the Environmental Quality Council, of which I was a 

member of and I chaired that subcommittee that was working on 

it, we worked on it with a liaison with the BLM and a liaison with 

the Forest Service that helped go through that study. But it was 

a long and tedious process because each one of those forests had 

to try to go back and find that information. And, in fact, the BLM 

is very lacking on their records and their inventory of roads and 

trails. 

The Forest Service was able to garner that information from all 

those, I think it might be 13 different forests within the State of 

Montana. And then our staff with the Environmental Quality 

Council put together that report. I have a link to that report that 

I submitted. If you go to that link, it’s an interactive link. There’s 

lots of things you can do through that link as those links inside of 

the study are active links to be able to do that. 

I would suggest that other States do that, first of all, because it 

would produce an accurate inventory of what is out there on the 

ground and then look back at what we’ve lost for access. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Ms. Granat, could you describe the consequences of losing access to public land? 

Ms. GRANAT. The consequences are very broad, Mr. Chair. Every 

aspect of community life is affected. And for California, we have 19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

forests. There isn’t any other State that has as many forests as we 

do. So we have rural communities up and down the spine of the 

Sierra Nevada up until northern California that are not, by far, not 

wealthy communities. You take a little bit of recreation/tourism 

away from them and they start suffering. There’s high poverty 

rates. There are higher jobless rates. There’s a lack of services. 

One of the biggest problems is the lack of timber harvests because timber harvest, out of that, 25 percent used to go to schools 

and to road maintenance dollars of the proceeds of the harvest, of 

the timber sale. After now, there is no timber sales—there are no 

timber sales. There was a measure to secure rural school funding 

which tried to make up some of it, but where before there were a 

few million dollars that went to local economies, now it’s much, 

much lower. So, really, older people are suffering and schoolchildren are suffering. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Could you explain a little more about the economic impact on the local communities from lack of access? 

Ms. GRANAT. It’s a very interesting thing because we actually 

studied the difference between motorized and nonmotorized recreations. The majority of nonmotorized recreations don’t spend time 

in the local communities. They go out and go to their trailheads. 

They come back. Most of their equipment is purchased where they 

live in local stores. Motorized enthusiasts spend a lot of time. They 

go to hotel rooms. They go to restaurants. They do like to eat well, 

I would say. And they spend time in the local communities, and 

they go back off into those communities. Hunters, for example, will 

spend easily $1,300 to $2,000 a weekend. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Granat. 

At this time, I’d like to—well, I’d ask the same question of Mr. 

Harvey. What are the consequences of losing access to public 

lands? 

Mr. HARVEY. Well, first off, we had a vibrant timber industry at 

one time. And they said, well, because of that, we’ll open up the 

opportunities for having travel in the forest so that you can have 

a recreational economy. We did that. We expanded our efforts. We 

promoted, and we’ve done all that. That’s one of the—part of the 

recreation that we have now is the biggest economy in Baker County, next to agriculture. But without the access, we have none. We’re 

trying to expand it right now, use of off-road vehicles and also bike 

riding, mountain bike riding now. But if these same accesses are 

closed to one, they’re going to be closed to both. 

And if you put everybody in the same area and diminish the 

amount of roads, then you create a dust hazard for everybody. And 

you’re also putting multiuses on the same road. So you’ll have offroad vehicles. You have four-wheel truck driving. You’ll have potential log trucks on private land sales, and you’ll have people who are 

horseback riding and what have you. This is a danger that we can’t 

survive with. 

But if you close off the roads as they’re trying to do right now, 

which is about 4,000 more miles of roads in Baker County, we don’t 

have as much as Montana, but that’s the lifeblood that we have. 

I live out there. I have for 45 years. I utilize that. I do off-road vehicle travel. I do horseback riding. Many ranchers take supplies out 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

for their cattle on four-wheel drives and off-road vehicles, so they 

can get to the down areas that they need to get salt to their cattle. 

This whole area is a truly multiuse activity, and that’s what benefits Baker County. Without our access, people can’t do the 

thinning projects, and we can’t do logging. So this does affect the 

economy. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. 

At this time, I’d like to recognize the ranking member, Ms. 

Plaskett, for her questions. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much. And this is really very interesting, the testimony and your questioning, Mr. Chair. I’m appreciative of the information that’s been shared here. 

Mr. Furnish, thank you so much for giving us your insights and 

experiences at this hearing today. And you state in your testimony 

that, by law and policy, the Forest Service has always sought to coordinate with interested parties; and that, in such coordination, the 

Forest Service uses public notice, public meetings, numerous advisory committees to make decisions. Is that correct? 

Mr. FURNISH. Correct. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Can you give us an example of what that public 

notice would entail, how the public be would notified, and how that 

information would be disseminated? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, oftentimes these are legal notices in local 

newspapers as well as articles that show up in local newspapers. 

They put fliers and posters around local communities, libraries. If 

there are radio shows, they will often go on the radio, advertise upcoming meetings. 

And I would just say that, in my experience, the popularity of 

these open meetings to discuss contentious issues on national forests would provide the best testimony that people hear about this. 

They are not in the dark. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Well, I know in my own community, you get a certain group of people that are very interested in this, and they’re 

usually there to voice their concerns. 

Mr. FURNISH. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. When you talk about numerous advisory committees, what do you mean by that? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, there was a provision a number of years ago 

for—I think the term is resource advisory committees or RACs. 

This would be one example of a federally constituted committee. 

And they have open meetings with selected representatives from 

all different constituencies. 

There are also ad hoc committees that deal on an issue-oriented 

basis, that type of thing. So there are any number of groups and 

organizations that the Forest Service works with, both formally 

and informally. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So one of the things that I think is key, and we’ve 

heard it a number of times in different testimony, is this idea 

about coordination. 

Mr. FURNISH. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And the coordination that’s required under the 

law, and how does that actually take place on the ground. You 

talked from your own experience, being as a Forest Service manager, of having to coordinate different viewpoints. Can you explain 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

to us what those different viewpoints were and how do you weigh 

that? How does that occur, in your practical experience? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, it’s difficult. 

Ms. PLASKETT. It’s still giving you pause even after all these 

years? 

Mr. FURNISH. I mean, it is difficult just because it’s something 

of an art as well as a science. But, I mean, let me take you to the 

Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. This was a fantastic dune 

system on the Oregon coast. It’s one of the world’s best off-highway 

vehicle riding areas and enormously popular, and it’s a huge economic driver for the local communities. 

We had formal meetings. We did an EIS. We did all of that kind 

of stuff. And some of these meetings were attended by hundreds of 

people. But we also did field trips. And I had an associate there, 

Arnold Ryland, who worked with Oregon Off-Highway Vehicle Association, I’m sure much like the woman here from California. 

And Arnold and I met repeatedly in office as well as out in the 

field so that he could share his views, I could share my views. And 

I also met with conservation groups, who, frankly, didn’t like offhighway vehicles and wanted to know what I was going to do to 

restrict them. 

I would just say that we came up with in the long run what I 

think was a fairly balanced plan that gave all parties some of what 

they wanted and also denied all parties some of what they wanted. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So, for example, in the discussion that we’ve had, 

what—for instance, would you characterize the views of hunters 

and fishermen at the same time off-highway vehicle users? Do 

those—are there times when those viewpoints converge? Are they 

usually oppositional to one another? How do you manage that? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, you know, it’s interesting. The hunting and 

fishing community I think illustrates within itself a conflict and a 

contrast, because I happen to know some dear friends who are resolute about never using an off-highway vehicle in the pursuit of 

hunting. I also know fishermen who are determined to hike in. 

I also know those who would like to be able to drive an OHV up 

to their bagged game, throw it in back and drive back to camp. I 

know fishermen who would like to be able to drive right up to a 

platform that’s provided for people with disabilities. All these 

things I would argue are necessary, but it’s impossible to provide 

them everywhere all the time for all people. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So the Travel Management Rule requires that the 

Forest Service involve the public. So let me move on to that. I 

wanted to ask you about the funding. You talked about funding 

issues that you have. 

Mr. FURNISH. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Can you explain that a little bit more? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, bear in mind I left the Forest Service in 

2002, so I’m not as conversant as I was when I was the Deputy 

Chief. But I would just say, throughout my career, I would say this 

has been an area of chronic underfunding of both road maintenance 

as well as trail maintenance. 

And I would argue it’s a simple business proposition. If you don’t 

have the necessary funding to take care of your business, you need 

to whittle it down. And so this was largely driven by the creation 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

of many of these roads and trails through two things. The first was 

timber activity, which we saw many of the national forests logged 

from the fifties throughout the nineties that created thousands and 

thousands of miles of road; also, unrestrained off-highway vehicles 

that created numerous, hundreds of thousands of miles of trails 

that were not engineered. 

These two features I would argue, logging roads as well as offhighway vehicle-created trails, came to real loggerheads with the 

lack of funding and necessitated this travel management regulation 

and the necessary comprehensive planning to try to right-size the 

trail and road system. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

And thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. At this time, the chair recognizes 

Mr. Gosar for his questions. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, Mr. Furnish, isn’t a lot of the underfunding fire 

borrowing, because you’ve seen its advent since you’ve been in the 

Forest Service, these huge catastrophic fires? And so we strip all 

the rest of the funding for the Forest Service because we got to pay 

for these humongous catastrophic fires. Isn’t that true? The answer 

is yes. I don’t want you to get any crossways. I’m from Arizona, and 

I’m originally from Wyoming. 

So it’s been brought to my attention that a Forest Service gate 

was placed across Forest Road 219, Horseshoe Bend Road, blocking 

access to considerable public land acres behind the gate, as right 

here, with no appropriate level of analysis or document rationale 

to do so. 

Further, it’s my understanding this gate is locked and recreation 

staff who manage the float trips on your forest are one of the few 

who have a key. Now, this is a serious matter if access is impacted 

for State and local government administrations in addition to the 

fact that it prohibits public use of public land and legal obligations 

of permitted grazing allotment management. Just to let you know, 

what this basically says is it says wilderness, and it’s not even 

close to wilderness. 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, I can’t see the pictures. 

Mr. GOSAR. I’m explaining it to you. You’ll have to trust me on 

this one, okay? 

Mr. FURNISH. I’ll try. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, additionally to this gate, for some time, there was 

a sign that read national forest wilderness, misleading the public 

that directly behind the gate is a wilderness. This picture shows 

that that wilderness area isn’t there. This is and has never been 

designated a wilderness area and on quite the contrary. There are 

many acres of multiple use lands directly beyond this gate before 

the true wilderness begins. So this is not your just average gate, 

okay? This is severely constructed. 

Mr. FURNISH. I assume that’s a road, not a trail. 

Mr. GOSAR. It’s a road, yeah, and here it is. You can see where 

the road comes down the bottom right-hand corner to, yeah, your 

right-hand corner, and you can see private and then way over here 

is the wilderness. Here is the gate, gives you a little bit more application here. So, I mean, you know, once again, we constantly have 

these problems. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Now, is it common practice for the Forest Service to put up gates 

blocking access and signs designating wilderness in nonwilderness 

areas? 

Mr. FURNISH. I would hope no. 

Mr. GOSAR. I just showed you one. 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, you asked me if it’s common practice. We 

have 200 million—— 

Mr. GOSAR. There are a whole bunch of them in Arizona. I mean, 

I can tell you right now, Mr. Furnish. I mean, you came as an expert here. And so we had—my first term we had the Wallowa fire 

up in northeastern Arizona. 

Mr. FURNISH. I’m familiar with it. 

Mr. GOSAR. Okay? And what ended up happening is, is they actually closed the roads. They locked them up. And I went to the 

chief, and I said: Listen, you got a problem coming because what 

you’re doing is you’re locking people out of their livelihood. And 

what’s going to happen, we’re going to have a gunfight; someone’s 

going to get killed; and it’s your problem. I instantly had the sheriffs who had all the keys. 

So we got a problem here. This isn’t exactly what you have stated, is that we’ve had these catastrophic wildfires, and the reason 

we have those catastrophic fires is because you’ve mismanaged the 

forest. And what ends up happening is, before that time, we didn’t 

have these kind of catastrophic fires in Arizona, because they were 

limited 8,000 acres or less because we had access to those, because 

we had fundamental access to the livelihood called the forest. You 

either manage it or it manages you. 

So, Mr. White, the comment was made about recreation and 

trout fishermen and stuff. When you have these catastrophic fires, 

does it help trout? 

Mr. WHITE. No, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. It actually kills them off, doesn’t it? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. Because what ends up happening, these forest fires 

are so intensely hot that they actually sterilize the soil. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. I actually had pictures I was going to provide the committee on Elk that were burned up, domestic livestock, 

horses, cows, fish baked in the streams, squirrels. Everything in 

the forest is completely incinerated, but I just didn’t give that to 

the committee. 

Mr. GOSAR. I want you to bring those pictures. 

Mr. WHITE. I will. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Now, Mr. Furnish, I’m going to ask you another 

question. What’s worse? What is easier mitigated, a road or sterilized soil from a catastrophic fire? 

Mr. FURNISH. What is easier—— 

Mr. GOSAR. What’s easier mitigated ecologically, a road or a catastrophically incinerated soil? 

Mr. FURNISH. That depends on many things. It depends on how 

many acres of such sterilized soil you’re talking about. 

Mr. GOSAR. I tell you what, sterilized soil is by far—— 

Mr. FURNISH. Are you talking about a 50-mile road or a 1-mile 

road, 2,000 acres of sterilized soils, 100 acres? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

Mr. GOSAR. It takes 50 years just to get microbes in sterilized 

soil, 50 years. 

Mr. Harvey, is it easier to mitigate that road or that sterilized 

soil? 

Mr. HARVEY. The roads are far more—— 

Mr. GOSAR. That’s what I thought. That’s what I thought. 

Mr. Chairman, once again, when we have these discussions 

about locking up the access to the public, it would be nice to have 

specialists that actually can talk about this that are currently involved in the Forest Service so they can be held accountable. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. 

At this time, the chair would recognize Mr. Palmer for his questions. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And if I could, just 1 second. I think that, with 

the number of committee members here, we’ll probably do another 

round if people want to stay. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And I talked to the ranking member about that. 

So go ahead, Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Reclaiming my time, we have had some discussion just now 

about forest management. There was also the issue of managing 

forests, particularly old-growth forests, relative to spotted owl, and 

the Forest Service and the various Federal agencies came up with 

this idea that it had to be all old growth. It turns out that wasn’t 

the case. I mean, once they figured out that the spotted owl preferred cover and taller trees and not the extensive canopy cover of 

the smaller trees, they realized the biggest threat was the barred 

owl. I mean, they literally, Mr. Chairman, were making a decision 

to hire people to go out and kill barred owls. 

So we’ve been all over the roadmap, if not the forest floor roadmap, on how to manage forests. And a lot of what has been discussed is wrong in regard to—I’m a forest owner, by the way, private landowner. And I understand that the buildup of fuel on the 

forest floor is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous for your investment. It is dangerous to neighboring landowners. And it has certainly been catastrophically dangerous in a number of our Western 

States, with uncontrolled forest fires. And it’s largely because of 

poor forest management and lack of access. And it creates a greater 

danger for those fighting fires, because once you get into an area 

that doesn’t have access, you really do isolate firefighters and put 

them in grave danger at times. 

So my point is, Mr. Furnish, you testified in a hearing almost a 

year ago, a year and 2 weeks ago tomorrow, or today, actually, on 

resilient forests and a bill that I thought was a very sensible approach to managing our Federal forests. It allowed for management 

of the forests, much like I try to manage the forestland that I’m 

a part-owner in. 

But you had this position that it endangered the forest, to go in 

and remove trees that don’t have a benefit for wildlife, particularly—there are some that do—but that somehow you concluded 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

that it would disturb the forest. And what we’ve seen are hundreds 

of millions of acres that have been lost. 

I don’t understand that. You go look at some of the State-managed forests, not all of them but some of them, and it’s a decided 

advantage. And, again, looking at the privately managed forests. 

So I just wonder what your thinking is in regard to limiting access. Now, you know, I understand not wanting to have four-wheelers racing all over forestland. I get that. You can manage that. I 

managed it on my property. But why would we not want to get in 

and make sure that we have healthy forest? Because what we’re 

seeing right now is not working. 

Mr. Harvey? 

Mr. HARVEY. No, sir, it’s not. And I’d like to touch base on coordination, because that’s a key aspect of it. 

Mr. PALMER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. HARVEY. It’s not working on the ground. When I talked to 

the Forest Service supervisor in my area and the district ranger, 

I asked, do you even know what I’m talking about, and they said, 

no, we’ve never heard of it. So maybe in Washington, D.C. they 

talked about it, but they did not transfer that down to the ground 

level that I have to deal with on a daily basis. 

We, as four-wheelers, horseback riders, or what have you, we’re 

in the forest. When we see a danger, we call it in immediately. We 

diminish the threat to our forest. We manage our forests on private 

lands and State lands far greater than the Forest Service even remotely comes close to. So, yeah, proper management can happen, 

it does happen, but not at that level. 

And they also say, we don’t have enough money. The problem 

with not having enough money, it’s growing right in front of you. 

It’s called trees. 

Mr. PALMER. That’s exactly right. 

The only forester in Congress is Congressman Bruce Westerman, 

who’s a dear friend of mine, and we have forest management as a 

common interest. And the thing about properly managing forest is 

that you get the fuel off the forest floor, you are able to manage 

it to protect it from severe drought situations by thinning, and you 

also protect it from insect infestation. We’ve got this issue in Alabama with the pine beetles where you literally have to go in and 

remove the infected trees and the trees in the adjacent area. That’s 

how you preserve the forest. 

And, Representative White, you mentioned—I don’t know where 

you got the number, but you said 80 percent of the trees are dead. 

I’ve flown over some forests, and I, looking down in the summertime at the canopy, can see the dead trees and know that that is 

going to eventually spread to other areas if you don’t get in and 

cut those out. 

If I may allow the witness to comment, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Representative. 

We had a massive outbreak of beetle kill in Montana. We tried 

to get in and maybe harvest some of those trees. Litigation pretty 

much stopped that, from environmental groups that actually don’t 

want any kind of active forest management. They support burning 

it. Now those trees, after that amount of time, they’re just falling 

over. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

The fuel load on the floor of the forest is unreal in some of those 

areas. And the wildlife—this study, HJ13 study, will show a movement of wildlife from public lands to private property, an increase 

in wildlife, because of the habitat degradation on those public 

lands. There is no habitat for those animals. So we’re seeing an influx of animals on private land, which then causes an economic 

hardship on those private landowners. So it’s kind of a catch-22. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. 

So I think we’ll—they’ve called votes for, like. 20 minutes. We 

probably have enough time for another round of questions here. 

And if I could start with you, Mr. White, I wanted to go back to 

your example about this lease you have. Is that on forestland? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. My grandfather got that in 1934. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. So it’s been in the family a while. 

Mr. WHITE. My grandfather and grandmother built a cabin, 

hand-peeled the logs. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And you used to have year-round access to that 

cabin? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, we did. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And when did the access get restricted? 

Mr. WHITE. 2008, when the tribal plan was signed, they put a 

gate at the bridge. And when I say we used to have year-round access, that was by vehicle travel. Now we can access it in the wintertime if there’s enough snow cover on the road for snowmobiles. 

But where they put the gate, there’s about 2 or 3 miles that melts 

out real early, so there’s a month or 2 that we cannot access it at 

all. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. When this travel plan was changed, were 

your lease arrangements reduced to compensate you for not having 

access to the property? 

Mr. WHITE. No, sir. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. 

And we heard about all this public notice. You talked about the 

1,500-page document that you had to review. Were there public 

meetings related to this travel plan? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, there were, Mr. Chairman. 

And, you know, I think years ago in a public hearing the Forest 

Service would sit up there and answer questions from the public 

in a public setting. Now what you have is little stations and little 

tables where you go around, and there will be a hydrologist, and 

there will be a silviculturist, and there will be a recreation manager. And so, you know, they kind of tend to separate the people, 

and the people don’t really have the opportunity to ask those questions. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Do you feel, through that—you went through 

that process. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Do you feel that your concerns were incorporated 

into the travel management plan? 

Mr. WHITE. No, sir. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. 

We’ve heard a lot of discussion today about off-highway vehicles. 

But isn’t it the case that many of these road closures are not about 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

off-highway vehicles, they’re about pickup trucks just transporting 

people on developed roads? 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, the pictures that I showed of those 

road closures, rip, slash, and seed, they are completely obliterating 

that road or trail. It’s gone for everyone. No more maintenance on 

that trail, because that trail never existed. 

And I provided copies of maps from 1934 to the Forest Service 

and all the trails that were on that. And you look at a current Forest Service map, and you will see, once they obliterate that trail, 

they remove it from the map. It was like it was never there. 

So when they say that these were user-created routes and stuff, 

I challenge them to look at the old maps of the Forest Service and 

actually look at what was on the ground. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Harvey, we’ve heard about families being unable to access 

drainages where they’ve hunted generations ago and all of a sudden the decision by the Forest Service completely cuts the family 

off from access. We’ve heard about leases. 

I’m interested in your comments about how, in your area, road 

closures impact the public’s ability to get access to the land. 

Mr. HARVEY. Many of the people in Baker County have lived 

there for all their lives, their families for many years, like Mr. 

Kerry’s. The problem is, now that Forest Service wants to close the 

roads—and these are good roads. These are engineered roads, as 

the gentleman pointed out. The problem is we don’t need engineered roads for off-wheel vehicles. And the roads that we ride in 

personally are old logging trails. We’re not doing any damage to 

them. 

But the thing is we pleasure-ride; we don’t race. And we police 

ourselves. We pick up trash if there is any.We go after people who 

are disobeying the laws and things like that. 

But the coordination process could work on what roads should be 

or could be closed if necessary. The coordination is actually government-to-government. I don’t need them to put out a public notice 

that they’re having a public meeting, take everybody’s input, and 

treat the counties as the public. That’s what they do. That’s not the 

law of coordination. Coordination is actual sitting down, designing 

the plans from the beginning, not coming in at the end and commenting like anybody else. 

If we had the opportunity to sit down and help design these 

plans, we could alleviate 15 years of the planning process, because 

we would be a partner with them. And we would go to the public 

and say, this is what your input to us and ours to them has 

brought forth. And that’s what coordination truly is. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Granat, if you could comment on how these road closures 

have impacted your use of public lands. 

Ms. GRANAT. As a disabled person, a mother, and a grandmother, 

I got involved in this for a very personal reason. We went to go on 

a trail—and I am that fabled off-roader that takes my Jeep through 

the woods. I haven’t raced in a really long time, but I do like a good 

challenge. So, you know, when I go home, I’m just an average 

Jeeper. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

But we went to go on a trail and didn’t realize until we saw it 

that there was a gate across the road, and the road had been closed 

in the year interim. And I told my friends, my kids, you know, go 

ahead, go see the road, go see what happened, but I couldn’t walk 

any further, and so I had to stay by the road while they went inside. And I sat by my Jeep very sad. 

Getting areas closed off to you, knowing that you will never, ever 

see them again—every additional wilderness, every additional wilderness study area, every additional nonmotorized back-country, 

there are so many designations, and they limit access to people. 

And it’s so many people now that are—you know, I’m a baby 

boomer. We’re getting older. And the areas that people have had 

access to for years, as Representative White was saying—I work 

with hunters all the time who say: But I can’t get back there. I 

can’t take—you know, how can I hunt if I can’t take a game card 

into a wilderness? 

Wheelchairs are illegal in wilderness. They’re not allowed. So 

that’s the extent to where we have gotten in keeping people out. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

At this time, Ms. Plaskett, do you have additional question? 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. Thank you very much. 

We’ve talked quite a bit about the travel management rule. And 

one of the things that we’ve discussed is the road system and the 

part called the ‘‘Road System Management: Identification of 

Unneeded Roads.’’ ‘‘Forest officials should give priority to decommissioning those unneeded roads that pose the greatest risk to 

public safety or environmental degradation.’’ 

Mr. Furnish, during your time at the Forest Service, what were 

some of the reasons you encountered as to why a road maybe needed to be closed? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, one of the main reasons has to do with 

unmaintained roads and sedimentation that affects water quality. 

That’s one of the big ones. 

Sometimes it’s a single-purpose road, like for timber management. And so if you’re logging an area and then you don’t intend 

to go back there for 20 or 30 years—that was intended to log, and 

so, when the logging is over, close the road, wait 30 years. When 

you come back, you can open it up again. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And are times given—is something put in that 

says that this road will reopen in 20 years? Or is it that then you 

just have to—— 

Mr. FURNISH. Typically not, because I think that’s too far to foresee with any kind of precision. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So then how does a logger then be able to have 

that road reopened for them to be able to use it? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, generally, the road prism, the structure of 

the road, is still there, and you can just come in with a blade, a 

piece of equipment, and just reshape it and it’s ready for use. 

Ms. PLASKETT. But if it’s closed off for those purposes, would 

they have to—— 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, there’s a difference between whether a road 

has actually been decommissioned versus just closed. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

Mr. FURNISH. If a road has simply been closed, it can simply be 

reopened again by reopening a gate. But if it’s been decommissioned, then it’s really not intended to, for instance, log that area 

again. 

Ms. PLASKETT. How do you balance that against the reasons that 

people are given and, you know, some of the really compelling testimony that’s here today with others to keep a road open? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, I would first make the point that closures do 

not necessarily reduce use. I would say they tend to concentrate 

use. If you have fewer roads for people to operate on, it will tend 

to concentrate use. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that if you close 

20 percent of the roads in an area that 20 percent of the users will 

disappear. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Right. 

Mr. FURNISH. That is not a corollary. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So, when that happens, that puts more stress on 

those roads that are being used, right? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, but if you have limited maintenance dollars, 

you want to try and apply them on the best roads you have to try 

and serve the using public. 

And I think what’s been left out of much of the discussion we’ve 

had today is the people who don’t use motorized vehicles who are 

hikers, mountain bikers, that kind of thing. And the footprint of an 

off-highway vehicle is much larger than that of a pedestrian. They 

can cover so much more ground, and the associated noise and that 

type of thing. They just have a much bigger impact on—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. The off-highway vehicles. 

Mr. FURNISH. Yeah. Uh-huh. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And when you talk about those off-highway vehicles and the impact that they have, road damage, et cetera, there 

is a variety of problems that can occur. Based on your experience, 

what type of problems are created when Forest Service roads, either those in the official system or those that are unauthorized, 

cannot be adequately maintained? 

Mr. FURNISH. Can you rephrase that? 

Ms. PLASKETT. I’m sorry. So what problems that can be created 

on these roads by the off-highway vehicles, the roads that are unauthorized or even those that are authorized, if you don’t have the 

funding or the support to maintain them? 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, I mean, one of the biggest problems has to 

do, again, I would say, with sediment and clean water. You also 

have wildlife habitat issues. There are a lot of endangered species 

and that kind of thing that don’t relate well to motorized vehicle 

activity. 

And so trying to balance all of these things, as well as, like, with 

hunters and fishers, who would prefer to practice that form of 

recreation without the use of off-highway vehicles, and trying to 

balance that with those who do, having areas to hunt and fish 

where you don’t have off-highway vehicle trails open would be a 

valid consideration. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Sure. 

And you stated for your own example, as a Bighorn National Forest ranger, taking aggressive steps. Why was that needed in that 

instance? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Mr. FURNISH. Well, one was that we just had so many fourwheel-drive roads, and they were virtually unmaintained. 

I will say that I’ve been a frequent visitor to the Bighorn in the 

years since, as recently as 1 year ago, and I would like to offer testimony, with my own eyes, that it is true that most of the off-highway vehicle users and other users of the national forest are wonderful, law-abiding citizens. 

And it was a thrill to see that system in use there on the Bighorn, where they had gone through a travel planning process, had 

decided which roads and trails would be opened, which ones would 

be closed, and to see people out recreating openly on an accessible 

national forest, with some restrictions, and having a great time. 

And I was one of them. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. 

And the chair recognizes Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, Mr. Harvey and Ms. Granat, are you familiar 

with the Arizona Peace Trail? 

Mr. HARVEY. I’m sorry, I’m not. 

Ms. GRANAT. I am a bit. 

Mr. GOSAR. Okay. So this was kind of a very well-orchestrated 

plan, road plan, with the BLM over on the west side of Arizona. 

And what they did is they worked in coordination, Mr. Harvey, 

with the BLM to designate what roads they wanted to keep on and 

help manage themselves. Pretty successful. Very successful. 

So you come back to that coordination, Mr. Harvey. It’s not about 

just opening wanton. You made the comment that, you know, we 

police ourselves and we turn people in that are not abiding. Is that 

true? 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. Ms. Granat? 

Ms. GRANAT. Absolutely. I’m a tread trainer for Tread Lightly, 

and that’s one of the principles that Tread Lightly teaches. 

We have in almost every forest in California volunteer off-road 

groups that go around and patrol. Particularly successful: San 

Bernardino National Forest, Rubicon Trail. These are all patrolled 

by volunteers all weekend. And if they need assistance, they ask 

the local sheriffs for help. 

But we’re adamant that we need proper, responsible behavior on 

a trail. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, Mr. White, most of this management plan really 

wasn’t dictated by common citizens. It was done by sue and settle, 

wasn’t it? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. So let me get this straight. So what we did is we 

sued on behalf of a group—and they were named earlier on. I openly talk about Center for Biological Diversity. You know, because 

Mr. Furnish actually said it’s more of—it’s as much of an art as 

it is about science. I don’t know about that. 

But what ends up happening is these groups come in and they 

sue. And then what ends up happening, there’s a decision with the 

Justice Department. And, to be honest with you, we’re not entitled 

to see, or we haven’t been able to see those forecasts. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

But a lot of what’s happened, particularly in Arizona, is that— 

that shut down all our timber sales, by the way. You know, it was 

the three different lawsuits in 1979 and then in ’81 and then in ’82 

and ’84, and it just kept growing. And so that’s why we have this 

problem. 

So you brought up the individual. Well, how does that impact the 

lease, like, say, a grazing lease? 

Mr. WHITE. Representative, anytime you close access, it affects 

anybody that has anything up there, whether it’s grazing lease, 

whether it’s a timber sale for active management, whether it’s a 

cabin lease, whether it’s a mining claim, patented mining claim. 

CBU got calls all the time, ‘‘We can’t access our mining claim anymore.’’ 

Mr. GOSAR. Right. 

Mr. WHITE. And that’s a very popular activity, whether it’s a gold 

panning association, which is a supporter of ours in the State, or 

a person that actually owns a mining claim. 

And I will say, on the litigation side, two groups in the State of 

Montana, basically two individuals, Alliance for the Wild Rockies 

and Native Ecosystems, are responsible for 70 percent of the litigation shutting down our timber industry. We used to have 31 mills. 

I think we’re down to seven or nine or something like that within 

our State. And these were good-paying jobs. 

And being in legislature, those good-paying jobs being gone, we 

have reduced income tax collection, which reduces revenue to our 

State budget, which reduces the services that we can provide for 

the citizens of Montana. And I’m sure Mr. Harvey can tell you the 

problems in a county commission trying to provide services to those 

people in the county. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, Mr. Harvey, going back to you, with the loss of 

Secure Rural Schools, have you seen a huge impact after that? 

Mr. HARVEY. We will. We just received it this year. We have 1 

more year. But the problem is our road department, which takes 

care of snow removal in winter, which keeps access to everything, 

was reduced by half. We went from 34 employees to 17 because of 

the loss of revenue from timber industry. 

And, also, yet some of the sales that we do have, they tear up 

the roads, but we get no revenue from it anymore. We have no mill. 

That goes to Idaho or it goes to another county in Oregon. 

But this aspect I have to look at from a county’s perspective. Yes, 

the revenue diminishes, but the cost of services go up. And we either provide it as best we can or we cut services. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, and I want to get back to one more point, is 

management of the forest. A dynamic forest is a little new growth, 

a little medium growth, a little bit of old growth, because they all 

have special functions within the dynamics. And so it’s not about 

if; it’s how you have to continue to utilize and work the forest. And 

that’s been our problem, is that we haven’t been, and we’re reaping 

the disasters that are occurring. 

And part of this application is the roadless rule, is closing off— 

I’ll give you an example here. This is a nightmare for people back 

home. I mean, I’ll give you one more example, if I can have a little 

indulgence. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Yes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Mr. GOSAR. We have a place called Fossil Creek. Do you know 

about it, Mr. Furnish? 

Mr. FURNISH. I’ve heard of it. 

Mr. GOSAR. Yeah. So what ends up happening is, it’s one of these 

wonderful areas that there’s water in Arizona, for God’s sakes, 

water. And everybody is attracted to that. But what ends up happening is that we have these things called monsoons. Do you know 

that they refused to put a road in there—there actually is a road 

in there. They want to destroy the road. And so what ends up happening, for emergency services to get there, it takes over 8 hours 

and a helicopter ride. 

This is absurd. This is absolutely absurd. To be able to look at 

a natural wonder, take care of that, and be able to have safety and 

access. It’s just mind-boggling. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you. 

And we’ll recognize Mr. Palmer for the final round of questions. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the witnesses. 

I want to get back to the discussion that we were engaged in in 

my first round of questions. And one of things that I think you 

mentioned, Mr. Harvey, was the ability to pay for our forest management by utilizing—it may have been Representative White who 

said this, but one of you mentioned this—by sensible forest management. That is, thinning, select cutting. That’s how you pay for 

the forest management. 

One of the—I was thinking about this as we were sitting here. 

We talked about the excessive amount of fuel on the forest floor. 

Anyone who’s ever been to a bonfire or gone camping, it’s a fairly 

simple notion that if you want the fire warmer, you put more wood 

on the fire, right? 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. Representative White, have you ever had to do that 

to warm up? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, the more wood on the floor makes a hotter 

fire. And even mature trees can be killed because the fire burns too 

hot. That’s a fundamental principle of forest fires. And you also 

want to be able to use fire as a management tool. 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. That’s good for wildlife, all sorts of wildlife. A lot 

of people think burning the woods is bad for wildlife, but it’s good. 

And it’s good forest management. But if there’s too much fuel on 

the floor, you can’t do that, can you? 

Mr. HARVEY. No, sir. Much of our forests are impassable because 

of that same reason. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, and that goes back to what I said earlier 

about the dangers that creates for firefighters. Because a fire that 

burns with that intense level of heat is not only potentially deadly 

for the trees, it is potentially deadly for the forest firefighters that 

are in there. 

I also want to point out that there’s this false narrative that 

when you do select cutting or when you open up Federal 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

forestlands for logging, it creates this false narrative that it’s 

clearcutting. And that’s not the case, is it? 

Mr. HARVEY. No, sir, not in eastern Oregon especially. Like I 

mentioned, the limited moisture for a year, of 12 inches, we don’t 

use—we only do selective cutting. We cannot do clearcutting. We 

don’t want to do clearcutting. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, when you have limited moisture or particularly intense droughts, when you thin, it increases—is it correct to 

say it increases the survivability of the remaining forest? 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, sir, it does. That’s the design of management 

of forest, which they do not do anymore. 

Mr. PALMER. Right. 

Mr. WHITE. It will also raise the water table, too, in the ground. 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. That’s exactly right, because you don’t have as 

much competition for the water. 

One of the other things that I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, 

is that there are 1.1 million acres of forestland that we have lost 

to forest fire and to disease that now needs to be replanted. I don’t 

know if any of that’s in Oregon or Montana or California. 

Mr. HARVEY. All the time. 

Mr. PALMER. All the time. And that there’s 58 million acres that 

are on the ‘‘high’’ or ‘‘very high’’ risk right now. 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. So my question is, to the panel: Does it make sense 

to continue the practices that we employ now to manage our Federal forests when we’ve already lost millions of acres, some that 

will take—it’ll take years, maybe decades, to recover? When there 

are 58 million acres that are at risk or very high risk, does it make 

sense to continue to limit access to these forests or to continue the 

management practices that allow unbelievable amounts of fuel to 

collect on the forest floor? 

Mr. HARVEY. Sir, I believe that’s the definition of ‘‘insanity,’’ 

doing the same thing over and over and not getting any different 

results. 

Mr. PALMER. I will not disagree with that for the record. 

Any other comments, Mr. Harvey? 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, sir. We’re fighting for the potential of actually 

managing. When you lock it up, that’s neglect, and that’s destruction by neglect. We can’t continue to do that. I lost 130,000 acres 

in the fires that I described earlier. I can’t afford to do that every 

year. I’ve only got a 15-year supply at that rate. That’s the rest of 

my county. 

Mr. PALMER. And there are ranchers and homeowners and other 

people who’ve suffered losses as a result of fires that burned out 

of control. 

Ms. Granat, in regard to access for vehicles, I limit what you can 

drive on my forest, as we limit what can be driven on U.S. highways. 

And I don’t understand why we can’t have laws, Mr. Chairman, 

that allow people to operate vehicles on roads and maintain those 

roads, again, pay for it with the management of the forest, that 

have the same kind of traffic control in the forest that we do. You 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

know, you’ve got to catch people who abuse the law, but the same 

thing is true on our highways. 

So I just think we need a commonsense approach to this. You 

know, make the forest accessible to the people, all kinds of people, 

even people with impaired abilities, but also manage the forest in 

a way that makes sense and pay for it with the resources that we 

have. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing, 

I thank the witnesses, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Okay. Thank you. 

And I want to thank the witnesses as well. This is a very important discussion to make sure the public has access to the public’s 

land and we can get back to start managing our forests again. 

Again, I thank each of you for being here. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any member 

to submit a written opening statement or questions for the record. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And if there’s no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER