PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL 

FORFSTS LOCKOUT 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS Al~D PUBLIC LAXDS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL FORESTS LOCKOUT: OBSTACLES TO 

ADEQUATE PUBLIC ACCESS 

77-279 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

NOVEMBER 9, 1993 

Serial No. 103-61 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1994 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-044005-X 
COMMI'M'EE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, M88118chusetts RanllinB Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J . DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JOHN T. DOOLITl'LE, California 

PETER A DEFAZIO, OreiOn WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califo.,Ua 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, SW.ff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KIBH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMI'M'EE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, M88118chusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranllin8 Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J . DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawa.ji JOHN T. DOOLITl'LE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, SW.ff Director 

JAMES BRADLEY, Profeuion.al SW.ff Member 

CHARLENE SEAMENS, Clerk 

KURT CHRISTENSEN, Republican ConsulW.nt on Public Lands 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: November 9, 1993 ....... ................... ......... ...... ................................... 1 

Background information ................................. ..................... ............................ .... .... 2 

Member statements: Han. Bruce F. Vento ................. .................. ............. :........................................ 1 

Han. James V. Hansen ..................................................................................... 5 

Han. Craig Thomas .. ............ ..... .... .... ..... ............... ...... ..................... ....... ......... 6 

Han. Ken Calvert ..... ...... ..... ........ ... .... .... .. .... ..... .......... ..... .... .... ... .... .. .... .... ... ..... 7 

Han. Pat Williams ... ......... ...... .. . .. .. .... .. ... .... . . .. .... ...... ..... .... ... ..... . ..... ...... .... .... .. . 7 

Han. Robert F. (Bob) Smith ................................ ............................................. 8 

Witness statements: 

John H. Anderson, Jr. , Associate Director, Natural Resources Management Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office , accompanied by Jim 

Hunt, Assistant Director, Natural Resources Management Issues, and 

William Temmler, Senior Evaluator, Denver, CO ..................................... 9 

Panel consisting of: James Overbay, Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture................ ........ ............... .......................... ............. ........... .... .... .... 77 

Michael J. Penfold, Assistant Director, Land and Renewable Re- sources, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior . 87 

Panel consisting of: Dr. David B. Rockland, executive director, Times Mirror Magazines 

Conservation Council, Washington, DC .............. ................................. 110 

Lewis E. Hawkes, executive director, Public Land Access Association, Inc., Bozeman, MT ...................... ........................................................... 125 

Stan Frasier, vice president, Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, 

MT ............. .. .. ......... .......... .. ..... .. ..... ........ .. .. ........................ .... ................. 139 

Ann Kersten, Sparks, NV ...................................... ................................... 147 

Panel consisting of: 

Jack J~.;fetzger •. ch.airman, Federal Lands Committee, National Cattle- mens Association .. .. ..... .. ........... ............ ......... .... .. ... ............... .......... .... .. 159 

Bud Eppers, Roswell, NM ...... .... ...... .... .. ... .... ................... ... .......... .... ........ 173 

Material submitted for the hearing record from: Han. Bruce Vento: 1. "Gunfire and Lawsuits Greet City Slickers Who Block Old Trails," 

The Wall Street Journal, Friday, October 8, 1993 .... ....... ............... 25 

2. "Federal Lands, Reasons for and Effects of Inadequate Public 

Access," GAOIRCED-92-116BR, April 1992 ................................... 28 

3. "Locked Out," Times Mirror Magazines, Inc., publisher ................... 61 

4. Sec. 1323, Access, of Public Law 96--487, December 2, 1980 ............ 67 

Ann Kersten: 1. Map of Carson Range, 1960 ....................... .......................................... 149 

2. Map of Carson Range, 1993 .. ........... ........ ....... ...... ...................... ......... 150 

APPENDIX 

November 9, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: Genera l Accounting Office: Letter from John H. Anderson, Jr., Natural Re- sources Management Issues, to Han. James V. Hansen, enclosing responses to additional questions related to Mr. Anderson's November 9 testimony ... .. 187 

Public Lands Foundation, McLean, VA: Letter from Vince J. Hecker, member, board of directors, to Chairman Vento dated November 20, 1993 (without 

enclosure) ......................... .................................. ...... ............................ ................. 191 

John F. Tomlin and William S. Broadbent, owners Point of Rocks Ranch 

MT: Prepared statement .... .......... .............................. : ........ .... ............................ : 193 

(III) 

PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL FORESTS 

LOCKOUT: OBSTACLES TO ADEQUATE PUBLIC ACCESS 

TUESDAY,NOVEMBER9,1003 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands will come to order. Today we are here to hear testimony on how the American people are being restricted and locked 

out of their own lands, lands that have been put in trust for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans. 

At an alarming rate, private landowners are placing locked gates 

on the roads that lead to our national forests and public lands. 

Hunters, fishermen, hikers and campers are discovering that they 

can no longer visit their favorite spots for recreation. I might also 

say that those that have a legitimate claim in terms of mining, harvesting timber and grazing, also could face--and are facing in some 

instances-restrictions in terms of the access to these public lands. 

In some cases, even the Forest Service and the BLM's own managers are unable to reach the national lands to perform their legal 

duties as land managers, such as the inspection and transmission 

sites in Los Padres National Forest. Furthermore, some landowners have blocked access in order to turn portions of our national lands into private preserves for their exclusive use or for the 

use of their paying guests. We, as a people, of course, own these 

lands and have a right to use them. 

It is not a small problem. The U.S. General Accounting Office, 

at the request of the committee, identified 50.4 million acres that 

have inadequate access and both the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management agree with this figure. This is approximately 

the size of the entire State of Minnesota-50 million acres. It is important that the Forest Service and BLM make every effort to acquire the easements necessary to access these vast tracts. 

The purpose of this hearing, of course, is to explore the ideas, the 

problem, and how the two agencies can correct and deal with this 

dilemma and assure that the American people can use and enjoy 

the public lands and national forests that they own. 

(1) 
2 

[Background information on the subject of Federal lands lockout 

follows:] 

BACKGROUND 

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) together manage approximately 465 million acres of land. In an April 1992 report entitled "Federal 

Lands: Reasons for and Effects of Inadequate Public Access" (GAOIRCED-92-

116BR), the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) identified 50.4 million acres of 

these lands as having inadequate access for the public to use these lands and for 

managers to administer them. Of the 191 million acres managed by the Forest Service, 17.3 million acres or approximately 10% were found to have inadequate access. Of the 274 million acres managed by the BLM, 33.1 million or approximately 12% were found to have inadequate access. The Forest Service and the BLM have con- curred with these figures. The Forest Serviqr. estimates that it needs to acquire approximately 28,000 ease- ments to provide adequate access to all national forest lands. The BLM estimates 

that it needs to acquire 13,000 easements. Currently, the two agencies have approxi- mately 3,300 easement actions pending. The Forest Service annual budget for ac- quiring easements is approximately $4.5 million to $6.3 million. The BLM's is $1.4 

million. The GAO reported that the inadequate access problem has worsened over the past 

decade. In recent years, private landowners have become more reluctant to allow 

the public to cross their lands to reach the national forests and public lands. The 

activities most affected by inadequate access are hunting, off-road vehicle recre- ation, hiking and camping. The ability of Forest Service and BLM managers to man- age these lands also has been impaired. 
Flgww 2.1: - s.n.tce ActH, by 

Roglon, Wllh lnocloqUIIIo Public 

Ace••• 

3 

M.O NumbM' of Acrn (In mtlltone) 

.... 

, ... 

20.0 

, ... 

to.o 

... 

I /II)'IJl jll I 

It/ .t.tll ,OtMI S.rwtc• R_.ans 

CJ AcrtiS ......n ldeQUale acc:ul 

.. Aerts wilfl inldeQY&ae-=-s 

SOurce: Sasic data provided by the Forest Services 
4 

l'lgon2.2: IIUI Acru, bylt8te, _.......,._ -- ......,,MrM(In.....,.., 

.... 

.... 

... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

1.0 

1// I I I I I 

/ ~I I 

I 
5 

Mr. VENTO. So without objection, all Members' opening statements and the statements of all the witnesses today will be made 

part of the record in their entirety. 

Supposedly, we will have some summary in terms of the oral 

presentation at the committee. 

Mr. Hansen? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am concerned about public access to our public lands. I believe this should not be an issue that pits sportsmen against private landowners. This is an issue with legitimate concerns on both 

sides that will be difficult to resolve. As a sportsman from a public lands State, I know there are some 

landowners who have closed off access to public lands. However, a 

bigger problem in my State is where Federal land management 

agencies, particularly the Forest Service, have closed off numerous 

roads through our public lands. I receive many letters from Utahans complaining that many roads they have used for decades for 

hunting, camping and fishing, have been closed by the agencies 

without notice. Generally, the local managers blame budget constraints for restricting access. 

Mr. Chairman, I have got a hold of Craig Reynolds, who is the 

head district ranger in that area, and asked him in detail, would 

you tell me all the roads you closed. It took him six months to compile a list of all the roads that they closed. This was a great concern of mine. Perhaps we should first concentrate on keeping open 

existing access routes before we expend massive resources to open 

new routes. Hopefully, the subcommittee can someday hold a hearing on that. 

Before all private landowners get a bum rap today because of the 

unreasonable tactics of a small group of them, I hope Members will 

have an opportunity to listen to the witnesses from Arizona and 

New Mexico, who are private landowners. These gentlemen have 

legitimate concerns about potential liability, fire, vandalism, theft, 

and noxious weeds that increase as the public crosses their lands. 

These problems were witnessed by GAO which personally observed a ranch in Montana where signs had been shot and trespassers were cutting down standing trees for firewood. Clearly, enforcement groups and Federal agencies need to improve the behavior of recreationalists so private landowners can have a higher comfort level over allowing the public to cross their land. 

Finally, I would like to point out that much of the public land 

access to the West today has been acquired through administrative 

easements to access timber sales, mining claims, sand and gravel 

sites and grazing lots. As the Federal agency is phasing out the 

commodity use in favor of recreation, we are losing the cost-effective way of providing access to our public lands. 

Mr. Chairman, many times in the West, I have been stopped myself on public lands by landowners wanting to kick you off. And so 

before going on, I have gone to the county recorder; you almost 

have to be a surveyor to go in the West somewhere and find the 

answer because you don't know whether the guy is being truthful 

or not. At one time, I was doing some work with the LOS church 
6 

on looking at a ranch and somebody had taken the whole area off. 

But it was open, public land. 

It works both ways. We get that all over the place so the poor 

guy that walks in to do a little camping, hunting, or fishing, the 

next thing he knows, somebody is stopping him and he doesn't 

know if he is right or wrong. That goes to the thing that Governor 

Matheson used to talk about, the checkerboard of the West. 

If we put a map up here of Utah, Arizona, the whole dam thing, 

all you see is a little checkerboard. Here is private; here is an 

inholding; here is BLM; here is State; here is Federal; here is military; here is Indian. Who knows what you are looking at? 

I really thank and commend you for holding this hearing, because I really think if anything can be resolved as some way to 

start moving this out so the poor guy knows where he is goingaccess, in my humble opinion, is one of the things that counts to 

people when they go on public lands. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. · Mr. VENTO. I don't want to comment after every Member's statements, and don't normally, but just to agree or concur with the 

idea of access. This is an issue that cuts both ways, I think, in 

terms of the landowner, in terms of public access. And I won't add 

anything more to it. Through the hearing I will address some of the 

public access issues that you talked about. But, clearly, the focus 

here today is a little different, but I would be happy to try and resolve it. We have a lot of other issues with access, including R.S. 

2477, and what they call the "restoration of roads," which is an euphemism for "the closure of roads," and some of the timber roads 

in the West, restoration of roads. And there is a reason for that1 would just tell my colleagues-and that is, of course, the maintenance and the liability and other expenses that are associated with 

these roads that have been put in for a specific purpose such as 

timber harvest. So I need not elaborate, but recognize others that 

may have opening statements this morning. 

Mr. Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF BON. CRAIG THOMAS 

Mr. THoMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased that both of my colleagues have mentioned the fact 

that this is a difficult problem. It is a balancing problem. It is easy 

just to conclude that access is a problem and there must be bad 

guys out there that aren't allowing access. That is not necessarily 

the issue. Much of this, of course, is a matter of cooperation between the agencies and the private landowners. Much of it is a result of land patterns, particularly in the check~ 

erboard lands where this is just the nature of the development of 

these lands. I am afraid some actions of the agency have caused 

people to close their lands. And I presume some of the private actions have aggravated the agency as well. I have been disappointed, frankly, that in the agencies there 

hasn't been more of an effort to do something about the land patterns, that there hasn't been more of an effort to dispose of isolated 

tracts, for example. And frankly, I have talked a lot about it in my home State, with the Forest Service and with the BLM, and there 
7 

is great talk about it and there is great agreement, but nothing 

ever happens. 

Frankly, there has been damn little change in terms of doing 

something about isolated tracts, and one of the solutions, at least, 

to the problem, is to be able to put some of these ownerships together. Trades, trades don't take place. They talk about them; everybody cheers about it. And I have, frankly, taken the position of 

no net gain on public lands, and trying to force some changes in 

that we get rid of some of these lands that are isolated tracts that 

have no particular value to the government or, frankly, to the public, and put them together with some others where you can have 

access. 

I think this really highlights a basic problem of land patterns 

and landownership, among other things. There are a number of 

problems here. So I am pleased, too, and I hope we can go into it. 

Mr. VENTO. There is a temptation to add to my colleague's remarks, but he is right, he has been very concerned, repeatedly raising this issue. 

Congressman Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have no statement at this time. 

Mr. VENTO. Congressman Calvert. 

STATEMENT OF BON. KEN CALVERT 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for conducting this hearing. 

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Forest Service 

representatives for all their efforts in fighting the recent wildfires, 

not only in my district, but throughout southern California. 

Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly that we need to continue to 

allow for adequate public access to our public lands. In my district, 

many of my constituents utilize the many trails and campgrounds 

of the Cleveland National Forest. However, there are serious questions and issues that need to be addressed regarding the rights of 

private landowners versus public access. I hope this hearing will 

assist us in formulating a policy that not only expands public access so that outdoor enthusiasts can continue to use our national 

treasures, but to seek and protect the rights of private landowners. 

So again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, thank you, Congressman. 

I am pleased to recognize that Congressman Williams is here. I 

know he has time conflicts this morning, but he has been foremost 

in pushing this issue and I think it is because of the serious problems that they have run into in terms of his home State of Montana. So I want to thank him for his leadership in picking up on 

the GAO study and his attention to this particular matter. 

Congressman Williams? 

STATEMENT OF BON. PAT WILLIAMS 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I very much appreciate your willingness to accept my request, and those of my 

other colleagues, to hold this hearing. You have heard that song, 

"Don't Fence Me In." That was written by a Montanan a lot of 

years ago. If he was rewriting it today, he'd probably change the 

words to "Don't Fence Me Out." 
8 

It is hunting season out our way, throughout the West, in Montana as well. And for many of us, that means getting out the Forest 

Service and BLM travel plans and using every bit of memory and 

wit and insight we have about big game, where they will be and 

where all the hunters won't be. And then we make the best guess 

about where we want to be planted at 4 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

It is like baseball out our way: it is very important. 

You know, scholars of natural resource and public land issues 

have predicted that the contention and sheer difficulty of gaining 

appropriate public access to the public's own land may well be the 

number one issue that faces land managers after the tum of the 

century, in just a few years. And there is nothing easy about it. It 

is difficult, contentious, and technical work for the agencies, and it 

is also an issue where progress is sometimes hard to detect. 

In Montana, we have circumstances where people owning just 

several hundred acres can, with a little help from topography, gain 

literally exclusive access to tens of thousands of acres of the 

public's land. For these landowners, their favorable situation can 

be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in premium fees from 

hunters who will pay top dollar to hunt on the public's land. And 

that might be the issue that is before us. And that is whether or 

not the right to the public land is a fundamental right of American 

citizenship and should not carry with it advantage to the rich. 

Seems to me that is an important American issue. 

Doesn't the public have the right to go on land it owns, managed 

by the agencies the public pays for? But that is not to say this isn't 

an extraordinarily contentious, as well as difficult, issue. It is a 

conflict which all of us appreciate and none of us enjoy. On the one 

hand, we have that basic public right, the right to go on and use 

the public domain. 

On the other hand, we have the right of private ownership. 

There are private landowners who, I must say, have great respect 

for the land and the adjacent public land, and of course private 

owners are concerned about the public traversing their property 

where no tradition of access exists. So the conflict is fundamental. 

And I am hopeful that our witnesses today can help us to try to 

find a way and help our public land agencies to find a way through 

it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Pat. 

Congressman Smith, did you have any comments this morning? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Certainly, one story is that there are a few people, I suppose, 

that have private lands depriving the public of crossing them to 

open to public lands. Most of the situations I know about in the 

West are scattered land patterns, unfenced, with denial of access 

almost impossible over private lands. However, it seems to me with 

those scattered land patterns, there ought to be an aggressive effort to exchange lands. Many people in the West want to do that. 

Most that I know would love to block up private land and public 

land, thus reducing the problem to a great extent. 
9 

But the exchange program is so lengthy and so difficult and so 

expensive that it almost creates an impossible barrier for some 

kind of answer to this issue. Certainly, blocking lands would be the 

way to go. And the agencies I think should be more aggressive in 

asserting themselves with landowners to make this a simpler process. 

For instance, it can go on two to three years on a simple land 

exchange, and after two or three years, the appraisals are outdated. The government has an appraiser, the private landowner 

has an appraiser, and then the process starts over again. So one 

answer to this difficult land pattern problem is exchanges. And I 

would hope that we could aggressively go forward, because in the 

long run that will satisfy a lot of these problems. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank you. 

I have got more comments on that, but I think if we get to the 

agencies we would probably have more dialogue, if you are available. Hopefully, we will have a good discussion on it. 

We have quite a list of witnesses this morning. I want to just recognize the GAO for the outstanding report. I think the work of the 

GAO really put this access issue in a format that brought it, I 

think dramatically, to the attention of the committee members and 

to the general public. 

Their survey work and efforts in this behalf and the cooperation 

of the agenCies and departments in terms of responding has been 

helpful in terms of pointing out the magnitude of this problem. And 

so it is with real pride that I introduce John Anderson, Associate 

Director, Natural Resources of the GAO, and Jim Hunt, who appears before the committee on a variety of issues dealing with natural resources, and William Temmler, the senior evaluator. 

Your statement, Mr. Anderson, has been made part of the record. 

And you may proceed and yield to your colleagues as you wish. 

Thank you very much for being here and for your work. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. ANDERSON, JR., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY JIM HUNT, 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ISSUES, AND Wll..LIAM TEMMLER, SENIOR EV ALUATOR, DENVER, CO 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you for the kind words, Mr. Chairman. I 

am pleased to be here today to discuss our April 1992 report to you 

on the adequacy of public access to land managed by the Forest 

Service and Interior's Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. And 

I will summarize my statement. 

Mr. Chairman, you asked us to report on the extent of inadequate public access to Federal lands, the reasons for inadequate 

access, and the methods used by the agencies to resolve access 

problems. We defined "inadequate access" to mean the Federal 

Government has not acquired the permanent, legal right for the 

public to enter Federal land where needed. 

Permission from landowners to cross their land is not considered 

adequate access because such permission can be withdrawn or revoked at any time. Because neither agency centrally maintained 
10 

the infonnation you requested, we sent questionnaires to all of 

their field offices. Before discussing our findings in more detail, I 

will just provide some background infonnation. 

Of the nearly 700 million total acres of Federal land, about 465 

million are managed by the Forest Service and BLM. This land 

provides valuable resources, including timber, water, minerals, energy reserves, and livestock forage. And valuable uses, including 

wildlife habitats, wilderness experiences, and recreational opportunities. 

lntenningled with the Federal land, however, is land owned by 

State and local governments, corporations, Native-American tribes 

and private individuals. This checkerboard pattern of ownership, as 

several of you have referred to it this morning, particularly in the 

western States, can make it difficult for the public to get to Federal 

land without crossing non-Federal land. According to agency managers, private landowners' unwillingness to grant public access 

across their land has increased over the past decade as the public's 

use of Federal land has increased. 

We found that about 50.4 million acres or about 14 percent of the 

land managed by the Forest Service and BLM in the contiguous 48 

States, lack adequate public access. As Appendices 1 and 2 to our 

statement show, the Forest Service's Southwest, lntennountain, 

Northern, and Rocky Mountain Regions have the largest amount of 

acreage with inadequate access. BLM lands in Oregon, Wyoming, 

California, Nevada, and Idaho, had the most acres with access 

problems. 

Private landowners' major reasons for not granting the public access were concerns about vandalism and potential liability and desire for privacy or exclusive personal use. Other reasons included 

disagreements over the value of the conveyance for crossing their 

land and concerns about lost profits. 

Given such concerns, private landowners sometimes physically 

block access routes, erect warning signs, and threaten trespassers 

with guns or attack dogs. Inadequate access to Federal land reduces the public's recreational opportunities. However, we found 

that the extent of access problems is not the same nationwide and 

varies depending upon the recreational activities that are affected. 

The recreational opportunities most reduced by inadequate access are hunting, off-road vehicle use, hiking and camping. Inadequate access also interferes with the agency's management activities, such as construction, trail and road maintenance, and wildlife 

habitat. In some cases, this interference is extreme, in other cases, 

it is merely a nuisance. The Forest Service and BLM have two basic tools for acquiring 

public access. They can acquire all rights and interest associated 

with the lands, called "fee simple acquisition," or "perpetual easement," which are limited rights to enter and use the land for access 

which are binding on succeeding owners. 

Fee simple acquisitions and perpetual easements can be acquired 

through purchase, donation, exchange or condemnation. During fiscal years 1989 to 1991, the Forest Service and BLM successfully 

completed about 2,600 access actions, thereby obtaining public access to 4.5 million acres of land. 
11 

Perpetual easements were used by the Forest Service and BLM 

in 53 percent and 70 percent of the cases respectfully, and fee simple land acquisitions were used in 27 percent and 25 percent of the 

cases respectively. Condemnation was used in only about 3 percent 

of the Forest Service and in less than 1 percent of the BLM cases, 

because the process is time-consuming, expensive, and can be politically sensitive. As of October 1991, the Forest Service and BLM had about 3,300 

access actions pending. If successfully completed, these actions will 

result in another 9.3 million acres being opened to public access. Agency officials estimated that about 540 of the pending actions, 

involving 2.3 million acres, would require condemnation. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary statement. 

We will be happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] 
GAO 

For Release on Delivery 

Expecl<d 31 

10:00 Lm .. EST 

Tuesday 

November 9. 1993 

GAOfl' ·RCED-94-72 

12 

United States General Accounting OfYke 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 

and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources 

House of Representatives 

FEDERAL LANDS 

Public Land Access 

Statement of John H. Anderson, Jr., Associate Director, 

Natural Resources Management Issues, 

Resources, Community, and Economic 

Development Division 
13 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the concerns raised by you 

on the lack of public access to federal land. My testimony will 

focus on our April 1992 report 1 to you on the adequacy of public 

access to land managed by the Department of Agriculture's Forest 

Service and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). The report provides information on the extent, 

reasons for, and effects of inadequate access and the methods used 

by the two agencies to resolve access problems. 

Inadequate access, as we defined it through discussions with Forest 

Service and BLM officials, mean~ that the federal government has 

not acquired the permanent, legal right for the public to enter 

federal land at the point(s) needed to use the land as intended by 

the managing agency. Under this definition, permission from 

nonfederal landowners to cross their land is not considered 

adequate access because such permission can be revoked at any time. 

Because neither of the agencies maintained information centrally on 

access problems, we sent questionnaires to all of their field 

office managers and visited 16 field locations. At the completion 

of our review all questionnaire data was made available to the 

agencies for their use. 

In summary, the questionnaires indicated that access to about 50.4 

million acres, or about 14 percent, of Forest Service and BLM land 

in the contiguous United States was considered inadequate by agency 

managers. 2 According to the managers, private landowners• 

unwillingness to grant public access across their land has 

1

Federal Lands: Reasons (or and Effects of Inadequate Public 

A££i1a (GAO/RCED-92-116BR, Apr. 14, 1992). 

2Public access to federal land in Alaska is ensured under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The state of Hawaii 

does not have any Forest Service or BLM land. 

1 
14 

increased over the past decade as the public's use of federal land 

has increased. Private landowners ' concerns about vandalism and 

potential liability and their desire for privacy or exclusive 

personal use were the major reasons cited for inadequate access. 

Inadequate access to federal land can reduce the public's 

recreational opportunities and can also interfere with the 

agencies' land management activities. However, the extent of these 

effects varies by activity and geographic location. 

To resolve public access problems, the Forest Service and BLM can 

acquire either all rights and interests associated with the land 

(called fee simple acquisition) or perpetual easements (limited 

rights to enter and use the land for access which are binding on 

succeeding owners). Fee simple acquisitions and perpetual 

easements can be acquired through purchase, donation, exchange, or 

condemnation. In fiscal years 1989 through 1991 (the years covered 

by our questionnaire), the Forest Service and BLM acquired 

permanent, legal public access to about 4.5 million acres of 

federal land. As of October 1991, the two agencies had actions 

pending to open another 9.3 million acres of federal land to the 

public. 

BACKGROUND 

Of the nearly 700 million acres of federal land, about 465 million 

acres are managed by the Forest Service and BLM. This land 

provides valuable resources--including timber, water, minerals, 

energy reserves, and livestock forage--and valuable uses--including 

wildlife habitats, wilderness experiences, and recreational 

opportunities. Intermingled with the federal land is state and 

local government land, as well as land owned by corporations, 

Native American tribes, and private individuals. This checkerboard 

pattern of ownership, particularly in the western states, can make 

it difficult for the public to gain access to federal land without 

crossing nonfederal land . Unless the federal government obtains 

2 
15 

permanent, legal public access, nonfederal landowners can control 

or deny access to federal land. 

EXTENT OF AND REASONS 

FOR INADEQUATE ACCESS 

According to the questionnaire respondents, about 50.4 million 

acres, or about 14 percent, of the land managed by the Forest 

Service and BLM in the contiguous 48 states lack adequate public 

access. The Forest Service's Southwest, Intermountain, Northern, 

and Rocky Mountain Regions had the largest amounts of acreage with 

inadequate public access. BLM offices in California, Idaho, 

Nevada, Oregon, and Wyoming had the most acres with access 

problems. (See apps. I and II.) 

Private landowners' major reasons for not granting the public 

access to cross their land were concerns about vandalism and 

potential liability and desire for privacy or exclusive personal 

use. For example, a Montana landowner we talked with told us that 

allowing public access disrupts his cattle-ranching operation 

because the public disturbs grazing cattle, and the animals move to 

other areas. The rancher is then forced to spend time collecting 

the cattle and returning them to the pasture. While on this ranch, 

we also observed that some of the rancher's signs had been shot, 

and we actually saw some trespassers cutting down trees on his 

property for firewood. 

Another rancher in Montana we also talked with said he did not want 

hunting parties to cross his land because he feared that they would 

introduce noxious weeds. According to the rancher, seeds of weeds 

such as leafy spurge and spotted knapweed, which crowd out pasture 

grasses, can be carried onto the land in tire treads, horses' 

hooves, or hikers' clothing. 

3 
16 

Given such concerns, private landowners use various means of 

restricting the public's access to federal land. According to 

agency officials we talked with, some private landowners physically 

block access routes, others erect warning signs and still others 

have threatened trespassers with guns or attack dogs. 

EFFECTS OF INADEQUATE ACCESS 

Inadequate access to federal land reduces the public's recreational 

opportunities. The recreational opportunities most reduced by 

inadequate access are hunting, off-road vehicle use (e.g . , dune 

buggies and dirt bikes), hiking, and camping . However, according 

to the questionnaire respondents, the extent of access problems is 

not the same nationwide and the extent to which recreational 

opportunities are affected differs by type of activity and by 

geographic location. 

What is a problem in one part of the country is not necessarily a 

problem in another. For example, hunting was reported by BLM 

managers as being greatly or extremely reduced in California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming but not in 

Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, or the eastern states. According to 

Forest Service supervisors, hunting was greatly or extremely 

reduced everywhere but in the Eastern Region. Camping, according 

to BLM managers was reduced in Idaho but not in Oregon, whereas 

mountain biking was reduced in Oregon but not in Idaho . According 

to Forest Service supervisors, fishing was reduced in the Rocky 

Mountain Region but not in the Northern Region, whereas wilderness 

use was reduced in the Northern Region but not in the Rocky 

Mountain Region. 

Inadequate access also interferes with the agencies' land 

management activities. In some cases, this interference is 

extreme, in other cases, it is merely a nuisance. According to the 

questionnaire respondents, the management activities most 

4 
17 

interfered with by inadequate access are construction, trail and 

road maintenance, and wildlife habitat. Other management 

activities interfered with, but to a lesser extent, include law 

enforcement, fire protection, and search and rescue. 

Extreme interference in agency work was reported at a site in the 

Los Padres National Forest in southern California. At this site, 

the Forest Service does not have free access to a mountaintop 

containing communications equipment--some owned by the Forest 

Service and some by other federal agencies or private corporations 

holding Forest Service permits. Part of the road leading to the 

mountaintop crosses private land, and the private landowners charge 

the Forest Service and the permittees an access fee to cross their 

land for equipment maintenance purposes. The private landowners' 

refusal to allow free access interferes with both the Forest 

Service's and the permittees' work at this site. Because the 

Forest Service had not been able to obtain legal access to cross 

the private land, agency officials were considering building a road 

to reach the site from the other side of the mountain. 

In other cases, inadequate access is perceived as more of a 

nuisance than an interference in agency management activities, and 

its effect is slight. According to a BLM official we talked with 

in Oregon, BLM personnel occasionally encounter locked gates on 

private land they are crossing to reach fires on federal land. In 

such a situation, according to this official, BLM personnel simply 

cut the lock and proceed to the fire. While such an instance of 

blocked access is a nuisance, the effect on the agency's management 

ability is slight. 

AGENCY METHOQS OF 

ACQUIRING PUBLIC ACCESS 

The Forest Service and BLM can use fee simple acquisitions or 

perpetual easements to acquire public access. Either of these can 

5 
18 

be accomplished through purchase, donation, exchange, or 

c ondemnation. Condemnation , simply put, is the federal 

government's legal right to take private property for public use, 

without the owner's consent, upon payment of just compensati on. ' 

During fiscal years 1989 through 1991, according to the 

questionnaire respondents, the Forest Service and BLM successfully 

completed about 2,600 " access acti ons, " ' thereby obtaining public 

access to 4.5 million acres of federal land. Perpetual easements 

were used by the Forest Service and BLM in 53 percent and 70 

percent of the cases, respectively, and fee simple land acquisition 

was used in 27 percent and 25 percent of the cases, respectively . 

The Forest Service used condemnation actions in only about 3 

percent of the cases, and BLM used them in less than 1 percent of 

the cases. According to agenc y officials, they use condemnation 

rarely because the process is time - consuming, expensive, and can be 

politically sensitive . 

Our questionnaire asked the Forest Service and BLM managers to 

report their pending access actions as of October 1991 . The Forest 

Serv ice and BLM reported that they had about 3,300 access actions 

pending--some work had been done, but access had not yet been 

obtained. If all of these actions were suc cessfully completed , 

another 9 . 3 million acres would be open to public access--about 18 

percent of the 50 . 4 million acres reported by the agenci e s a s 

having inadequate access. Of the 3,300 access actions pending, 

however, the agencies had identified 540, involving 2.3 million 

acres, which they believed would require condemnation action. 

'condemnation is authorized under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 . 

'For purposes of our questionnaire, we asked the respondents to 

count the number of cases completed over the 3 fiscal years, 

counting each separate conveyance of land or easement as an 

individual case . These access cases are referred to as acc ess 

actions. 

6 
19 

Mr. Chair.an, this concludes my statement . We will be happy to 

answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee 

may have . 

(140786) 

7 
APPENDIX I 

35 NumMr of Acrn (In tnllllone) 

20 

FOREST SERVICE ACRES, BY REGION, 

WITH INADEQUATE PUBLIC ACCESS 

I /IIJ'Ifl jll I 

/1/ llll FOtnt StrW:e Aqlona 

S®rco: Basic data provided by 111t Forest Service. 

8 

APPENDIX I 
APPENDIX II 

21 

BLH AGRES. BY STATE. WITH 

INAQEOUATE PUBLIC ACCESS 

BLM Acrn, by Stille, wtth ln.aq11111e Acc8M 

-ol-(lnmlll-1 

10 

40 

" 

30 

21 

20 

11 

10 

1// 

ILIISiol• 

I I I~' I ~ Jl 

I 

Eullm SWuolllce NPOflld no~-· 

Soun:e: llulc dell prDWIId 11\1 aM. 

9 

APPENDIX II 
22 

Mr. VENTO. Appreciate your summary. I was just pointing out to my colleagues on pages 4 and 5, where 

you discuss inadequate access and interference with agencies land 

management activities not just for the hikers or the hunters, but 

for the managers for construction of trail, road maintenance, wildlife habitat maintenance, including law enforcement, fire protection, search and rescue--down in the next paragraph, for example. 

I don't know if all of you picked up on my comments on the mountain top problem in Los Padres, where we have a transmission site 

where they won't permit the Forest Service to use the road across 

private land to go up and look at the transmission site. I think that 

the examples here obviously depict the broad nature of the prob- lem. 

You know, Mr. Anderson, I don't know if you were able to pick 

this up from the survey work that you did, but is this a growing 

problem in the States and for the landowners that you surveyed? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. All indications are, Mr. Chairman, this is a 

growing problem. Everyone that we talked to indicated that it was 

a problem that has gotten worse over the years. In fact, there was 

some information that we got out of the agency's file, some memos 

and studies that were done back in 1988, that indicated that the 

problem was a little less severe then, and is more severe now. 

Mr. VENTO. I guess the real question that arises from that, if it 

is a growing problem, I mean, I probably have some anecdotal or 

some subjective guesses why, I don't know, Mr. Anderson, were you 

able to identify any reasons why or some possible reasons why? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. I have gotten some indications. In fact, I 

think the agencies have identified some of these themselves. One, of course, is the number of recreation users of the land is increasing. And I think that increasingly for legitimate reasons, some of 

the landowners are unwilling to let the users of the Federal land 

cross their land because of concerns about vandalism and that sort 

of thing. 

Another indication in the files that we saw at the agencies was 

that many of the large ranches are being subdivided into much 

smaller ranches, which makes the problem more complicated. You 

have got more parties to deal with. There is an indication that 

there are many more nonresident landowners, which complicates 

the situation because you have got people that aren't familiar with 

one another that typically might go and talk things out. I think other possible problems are strained county and State 

budgets where there are problems with maintaining roads that 

lead to Federal land. If the country or State abandons the road, the 

land reverts to the landowners. And I think a real big problem, which nearly all the Members 

up there this morning have mentioned, is the checkerboard pattern 

of the ownership of the land out there. Mr. VENTO. Yes, and I might comment on that just briefly, because I think that, if it were easy to resolve that, it would be re- solved. I think we tried to look for solutions in a number of in- stances. There have been some pretty significant efforts by some 

very talented policymakers that have not worked. So I don't think 

we quit trying, but I think we have to get pragmatic and this is 
23 

the way it is right now, and hopefully, if we could change it, that 

would be fine. 

We hear other comments from the demographers that some of 

the western States, are some of the areas where this problem 

would be most acute. Not that it doesn't occur in my own State, I 

guess, because it does, but that I guess we are right in between, 

we are considered an eastern State. I was born on the wrong side 

of the Mississippi River, you know; however, the point is that these 

areas are becoming urbanized and not as many people actually are 

living in some of the areas adjacent to and around public lands. Yet 

the problem is increasing because what we characterize "recreational use," hunting and other types of uses, exist, there. It is 

becoming urbanized, yet there is more conflict. I know members may not have had the time to read this testimony over completely, but didn't you make an estimate of how long 

would it be before the land management agencies resolved all of 

the inadequate or no access problem for the public lands, if they 

proceed at the rate they are going? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I think it is very difficult to estimate that. I 

think the 3,300 actions that they had in process were going to account for about 18 percent of the acreage that was in question at 

the time that we gathered our questionnaire data. These things can 

take several years to resolve, so I think it could be years. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, there is one estimate I saw here, it was 40 

years; 40 years to resolve the existing conflicts. And the question 

is, of course, we don't know, but are we producing more access or 

inadequate access problems faster than we are resolving them? 

Were you able to ascertain that, Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No, we couldn't, but I think that is an excellent 

point. I think that might point in a direction of where we need to 

go from here. One of the things I think that should be considered, 

quite frankly, is to get some updated information. The information 

in our report, you know, is as of October of 1991. 

I would be very curious to know whether or not the situation has 

gotten worse. And I think the agencies are in a position to get this 

information from their field offices. And then depending upon what 

they find, I think ultimately what you are going to have to do is 

do some sort of prioritization. I don't think there is any way you 

can tackle the entire problem all at once. And the priorities might 

differ depending upon the regions of the country, in terms of what 

you would place higher priority on. I think this needs to be done. 

Mr. VENTO. The point is in terms of this 50.4 million acres-and 

I agree with trying to update this information. Based on what the 

Forest Service and the BLM might comment today in terms of how 

to format those questions would also be important, so I think that 

is something we will request. But I was trying to look at the number of access points that we didn't have. 

The Forest Service estimates it needs to acquire approximately 

28,000 easements to provide adequate access to all national forest 

lands. The BLM estimates that it needs to acquire only 13,000 

easements; so that is 41,000 easements. 

Currently, the two agencies have approximately 3,300 easement 

actions fending. The Forest Service's annual budget for acquiring 

these, o course, is $4.5-6.3, million because some of these access 
24 

are related to timber roads and receipts, and the BLM budget is 

only $1.4 million. That, again, is a limitation in terms of what they 

can do. And · 41,000 easements outstanding they think is inadequate-and that information, I think, comes from the Forest Service, or the GAO study. Mter reading it all, I don't know which area 

I drew from. But, Mr. Anderson, that agrees with your October 

1991 information; is that right? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. That is where I got it from. Okay. In other words, it is possible, I suppose, that going down the road 

we could find more than 50.4 acres right now that have inadequate 

access? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I think it is possible. 

Mr. VENTO. I also want to put in the record this article, I had 

copies of it, I don't know if the Members wanted to see it or remember seeing it, out of the October 8 Wall Street Journal here, ''Trouble in Cowboy Heaven." And it isn't about the size of the boots or 

anything. So I put that in the record. 

[The information follows:] 
25 

THE WALL 8TlUI:ET JOURNAL FRJDAY, OCTOBBR 8, 1893 

Wild West 

Gunfire and Lawsuits 

Greet City Slickers 

Who Block Old Trails 

New Owners Seek Privacy, 

But Neighbors Say They 

Tread on Historic Righ:ts 

Trouble in Cowboy Heaven 

. • ByJUoiCAIII.'ION I&.U RaJiarc•r a/ TlfK WA~ '""'u"' JuuNIAL 

• • LANliS CRKBK,ldaho T\111 uaed to be God'II»UUII)'•How It btiOIIII to SaiY&Iore 

A. SCifflcle. •• Vour yean aco. Mr. bl!lde 111111 a pU1II8f bloc:hd a road leacllnr ~~eroe.t tbllr 

11ew1y bou(ht raneb and Into tb8 11101111-

li!nl. LDcala, Who ustld to reach the moun· talnl by drhiDJ hill an bour, now face a lhnt-bour ordeal on honcl>Wt Instead. ·· . Lin Wblt110111111 one ot tbe few 'l'bo llliU 

&rs•es the trip. CUniiiJ 11 he spun biS 

steed lhroulb dense undlr!JNih, hi ewn- ,uany readla a meadow with IIW!eplll( mtas or SIIOWtapped pab. Bxeept ror 

I'OIIJb ridan lliCh 11 Mr. Wbltworth, tile 

mlldsoa oC a homesteader, tllll spectacufat c!cdl!tr7 119WII o!l-llniltsto"'ll but Mr. Scallldl and hll cu1111. "Wb&t they're saying II," Mr. Whit· worth drswls, "lt'1 my IIWe kin~ 

iDd JVU. can't 10 111." · 

Tills LaDd Ia My I.auCI 

Ftll<.8d·ID· Oefl era popping up acron the A.meriCIII Wert U wide gpen IJl&C8I an~ cklled oa b)' rich and famous JlQn· 

boml.- ,... 1u spartad a modcm-da7 . ranac 1fV cmr acte~S to public lands that hll eruptld In courtroom lhorinms 

IIIII 1¥t11 Old Wlit .. t)'le Jllllplq. · · . UnW recent yean-, It wu rslatlvely 

euy to niach the remolelt comeri or tile 

West by trsventnr old roac11 and lrillll IICI'OII prtnte ranchel. Molt rsnchan l.lkld onlY that '1111101'1 dole pta 10 

llmloct· t CICIII8· Westenttn Cllllt. to repnl lhMe n>edl 11 ldltorlc 

rfPII-ol'fty ror all. · 

Bolt In lbe New Wilt. ell)' slld:OI'I are JIObbiiiiJ ap 111111 from New ·Mu· 

leo ·to Mootaa1 and padloeldDr pta 

that lead IIIIo 1l'lld IIDdl. 8etlnr -· Clllllllrl aet awaywltlllt, local raac:bm m blocklq roadl, too. . . ~q~·estlm&ted IU llllllloa -. or 14ft Of 1be taad lll&llqld ., the P'mll 

hn'lce a~~~~ a..r...u or t.and M....Pmelll Ia IIW CGIIIII\IOIII U.S.. - llu IJIIdeo 

quate accaa. fila! Ia a land I1IUI nM)IIIIY 

lflUIIIIIIIW ltale 01 ~ Alld IIIIW 

utlon'a population and appetite for out· door aport rrow. 1111 too does the Pl'lllurt 

o:~Jaad tbat l'tlliiiDI &etalllbl~ , 

'"l'h!re li 80 11111Cb pubUe llll!llld lllat 

you can't pt to," Jl'lpel MldiaJI Sprlnr· man, t Utall lndllllrlalotupp)1 111am111 

llld afld ~. "tllat tile llQUDd 

~ plio .. .l'llllllped wllh buralll. 

Poadaen IIIII UttertJap 

Pmacy f10111llldl ctowdlll the 1D11D . rauoo that ranclltfl bloct ro&da. Laud· llftlrl 1&1 that UDWIIIted vlliton dump ...-.. and 111oot cattle or wlldllfe. Rallctlln allo rlllt laWIIIIII It In~ Ut.!IIIURd OD lbllr ltlld. . 

. .' "U a m&ll OWIII ·a piece of prOperty and be wants 1.0 10 out lhere IIIII IIIII 

lllfe lliybody bolber 111m; that's hll 

rflbt," co~ndaBdmund W. Dumke, a LIS . 

Veps lnvalor 'l'bo 1111 blocbd - IICI'OII hlllllabo I'IIICh. . 

·. · MoreaYer. arrlronmen~ often ap- · ptaud tile nq clolures. Bays Mlebael 

Scott. Northem Roc:tlet "Jioftal director 

for tilt Wlidlfllell Society: "R 111101 bad ID 

ba1'1 · lOGie pubUc · Iandi that .an IIIOfl 

dlUicult to pt 10 than othen.4' · ·But road dolunl · bave . 'become so · 

IIPldemlc that Rep, Pal W1Wama, a Denlo- <nt from Montana, ~a~ nquated COD· 

peuloDaJ .llearlnp ou tha ueeu laue. 

Rai!Cban and ramblm meantime. m IIIIICinr It out 1111011( lbeiDMlves, Often ID I \'81')' IIIIIY fahlon. . 

Wilen Tracy Baxtar. a Wyanllnr tra.DI· 

plant, hollrht a ralldi In IOIIIheaatem 

Idallo tbree yean lfO, hi qui~ Cibltld orr a road usee~ by bunters and catlltmell.. . Sooa Iller, be found four of bll cows1hot 

dead and an 0101110111 note tacUd 10 the cable: 'Keep lldDf 1 bCII'Ie'sau lhoutlt 

and yau'U probably lose." 

. Mi. Baxter also !W found bullet boles 

In blsat.ock IanlEI and hll bad buUetl wbu · by bla ranch bOule. "We lhoUJht we would 

find our own Uttle pandlle when we aune han," M saya. ''WI just want to be Jell alone." l'he local county llaulng to reopen lhe road, Which Mr. Baxter saya be doled 

to pnvent vandalilm. 

nare Goes the Nellbborboo4 · SpaiJ over accea also have a culllnl dlmansloll, expoe!DJI the cull betweea 

COIUIIIy and dty notions about neiCbbOrfi· neu. Mr. Dlllllkc, lbe Las Vepslnvestor, sealed olt I'Oidl IICI'OIII hll Idaho ranch, forctnr ouldoorsmen to hike 10 houn to reach a ii'OUI·fillld lake lhat they Uled ID 

be able to drl•e to In an how'. Then Mr. Dumke boufht 1 1'leallt lot beside a MllllbOrilll cafe IIIII put up bouldtn to pnvct euatomm fi'OIII parklnr thin:. 

"I think It'• 1 slap 1n tbe race to the community 11 a whole, becaUR mtllt 

eYII')'body trta to pt alonr with every· body," 11)'1 Carol Weston, tile cafe's C~H~Wner. Someone hll slnee IPI'IY 

painted tbe bouldorl with D-U·M·B-K·B-B 

and In July & IJVIIP or townslolt held ~ Cllllp'®t on lhc Weston lpread 1D cele- I!Rte their dt&nee. tlelponds the Las Veras Investor· 

"Tiley bale people like nie, because rm .0 

Pl-l'l<n!IO l'llllf AID, Q,flliiiJI I 
26 

Wild West: Gunfire, Lawsuits Greet City Slickers 

Who Seek Privacy by Blocking Wilderness Trails 0111~ hoiii.F1rrt 1'llqfl l"llleb alollf the Salmon Rlnr &Del. aeeklnr · avoid ~petrance of lfttbiC llltdal usls- •ldtr •. • llld ospedally If they lblllk leduslon. elaud of! an 11-mlle ~ road lance.' Responds Gov. Andrus: "I bul· 

!t~l~ ou::,an~. tlndJ.Y to new· ::. ':"~ ::.= =~e .:.,~:r:. :r:~=~·i ':::::=:~-~~: ~en who reeort to rumllla tactles. San dais sued td l'IOpCII the roed. ldabo's state people eomlnf In and attemptlnr to :Qiero developer Rlehanl Tuthill laid a Supteme Court UJ)btld the eloolnr- tllke over our mourees." ,Pltecl board 1er011 a roed on hill Idaho Anotber bJc-IWIIt c:ourt battle broke aut out-ol·ltete aettlen a.ron't the only .-neh. bloctlnr a bunlln( route. His wile, . out In ldabo's Caribou Rance a11.tr South Cli!J>rtll. Longtime landowners have ag- · )l:irte,sayolraspuoerewvetaldnfwalllr cerollll&sbopplnr-«•r.t~~W~qt~"Jolllltt. muted lilt.-JROblem by mlrilkk- ~~~~~ 1 H'Nrt clrvu(h~ · P'loyd &Del eome partners blOCked a bundnr 1111 urt>an """comen. Ill the Lenet Creek ·:·But one of the Tuthllll' ... lrhborl, roed. Mr. P'loyd ColllJIIalned of trespanen ma oiiOUiheUtem ldabo, for Instance, l!"' Mayna.rd, who twt !lied tbt road and pw.chen on hiS ranch. ranchers locked p.tes up and down e :i~ decades, wun't plelsacl when be Local county olflelals, eontendlnr the 15-mUe-tonr Valley alter Mr. ScaiOde llld 

=~ ~~~onr the spikes and :d.:.:;': r!;:~ ~ =ta~~":! ~· &.utn~~J~ ~~~~-=~~ ~ ~·; That's 1 hell or a thtnr. ~ettlnr a the county abanclooocl the IUd years 110 rldtDI recently. ·;ttap lor your loiiDw man," rrowts the and 11 ..,., ll'Yilll to take It baet. '1Just "AU I want to do Is have a b<euuJi!-;Ye&r-oltl Mr. Mayll&rd, who now b&l to don't believe in thlseountry'you OIJibl to lUI pl&co to ret out of thl• cement Junrte llr\Ve 35 miles on back roada ID reub till take somethlnr because you want tt," Mr. I"m In rtaht now," Mr. SCifllde, a labtllnr . ilkfne P'- he lllocl to nach by CI'CAIDr a · Floyd SQS. · . exeeutm. ..Y, by ear phone u he tra-..Js ;iV~e and a hall of the Tuthllla' raneh. . AddlnJPOIIUeal e1nut to blllqat)um. near bll olltee ID lncluatry, Ca!U. Mr. 

!J:IIe Last Frobtler . Mr. Floyd rot bls st!I!Urother. South Can> Scallldlltter 10"_~bl~ toke~ 01the 8 11P_ te open unW • s Una GoY. Carroll A. Comp~ell Jr., to ·- ... " i•: uch eonnlcta are O&rlftl all ......,.. Intervene. In a IJII Je~r to Idaho Gov. .Jn a valley steeped In Weatem lore- a 49&ho and Montana, two states that hew ~-11 0 • d th t ~ "De c " · to. 11 1 th 0 T II by d l>l:llome a sort o!lu!lronlltr lor rleh· and .,... - All rus a ~ren a.r ee, eu o e reron ra runuea.r • an ~lmous homesteaders. In tile Bl( a;y GoT. Compboll pleaded his kin's case, thei'ea.rerulnsolal9th·centuryeabiDW!th 

lt&te. retired romt supervisor Lewis =~ _\!'&1 "the proper poop!e look Into rtne atlta T:e t!"= d~ =~~r:rost 

:~ne"'Hawkeobeelmesoledupwtthcto- GoT. Campbell idanUOed lolr. Floyd In :~-Scalllde hea.rd~l threats oo ~ ~reo that he helped orrantze a lfllup lhe letter only IS "a dtlten or my state." me. ·..,.ned Public Lands Access AIIOdatlon to ~ a spokesman, the cvvernor seld Now, he sayo: "We eany a run with 115 li4t on the newwmers. . · h tlld 'I ·•te the relationshi " •• to when we a.re on lhe ranch." ~;~p -:'!. ~~"f.ocltll:t "l:!! ~~~ ,_• __ n_~ _____ .:..P_'"----'---,-----------.....;JL 

:xport·lmport tyaion Rnbert M. Lee bad i!bSted IS dosed when"be bourbt a raileh In ;191!6 atllle ba .. olthe Medllon Ranre. Mr. !J)e, an avid hunttr,lfllled that he wanted 

Jg prot~ local elk herds. 

+l :The Clostnr would baYe-btoeked a key 

~ms trali"lnto a scenic domain called .CO\!'boY Heann. 818' p.me II so abundant liiere tllatelt and moose are dearly flllblo 'rom a smaU plane Dylnr overhead. ; ! :cowboy !leaven, tlke other wllderness ill'eaa In !he West, Is 10 remote that one :i>Billock ctn vlrtuauy oeal it orr rrom view. ::tl you eontrol tile tralla and roads. · you ~ntrol this ccuntry," MY1 BUI hlrhurs~ 

lin: access·rrouP JMmber ·and former 1f(hter pilot. 11 his plane -.-s above steep qnyons and dense lomll of fir and ptne. 

~.De Man's Pan4be · · 

r ::Neartiy Is media mqnate Ted Turner's }iyinr D ranch, which contains a road that Palr!l>!:tt !I)'! he once used lor huntjiig around Cowboy Heaven. AllbourJt that I _rpad was etosed-at runpolnt-by previous ' .bwnen 21 ~em ap, the access lfOIIIl · ·threatenstosueunleoaMr. Turnerreopens .' It· ~ 
27 

Mr. VENTO. Plus, I also have a few other things. I want put in 

the record. First, a pamphlet called, "Locked Out," that was done 

by the Times Mirror, we will put a copy of that in the record. 

Second, the GAO report, which I am sure most Members have 

had copies of. 

And finally, section 1323 of Public Law 96-487. 

[The documents and information follow:). 
GAO 

Apri11992 

GAOIRCED-92-116BR 

28 

United States General Accounting OMce 

Briefing Report to the Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks and 

Public Lands, Committee on Interior and 

Insular Mfairs, House of Representatives 

FEDERAL LANDS 

Reasons for and 

Effects of Inadequate 

Public Access 
GAO 

77-279 0 - 94 - 2 

29 

Ualte<l Stateo 

Geaeral Aec:o.,li:IJIII Oftke 

W118111J111toa, D.C. 201148 

llMOUI'ft8, Comm11Dit7, and 

Economic Development Division 

B-247341 

April 14, 1992 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chalnnan, SubcOmmlliee on Nallonal 

Parks and Public Lands 

Commltiee on Interior and Insular Atl'alrs 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chalnnan: 

This report responds to your request that we review the adequacy of 

public access to land managed by the Department of Agriculture's Foreot 

Service and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of land Management 

(BUot). Specillcally, you asked us to provide lnfonnatlon on the extent and 

effects o( as weD as the reasons for, Inadequate public access and 011 the 

methods used by the Forest Service and BUot to resolve access problems. 

On January 7, 1992, we briefed your staa 011 the results of our work. Aa 

requested, this briefing report presents our llndlnp and obaemlllons. 

lnsdequate access, as we have dellned it through discussions with Forest 

Service and 111M otDclals, means that the federal government has not 

acquired the pemwteJII, legal right for the public to enter federal land at 

the polnt(s) needed to use the federal land as Intended by the l1l8l\llllnl agency. Because neither agency maintains lnfonnallon at a central 

locallon on access problema, our llndlngs and obselvallons ue based 

primarily on responses to questionnaires we sent tO Forest Service and 

BUotlleld oftlces. (Sec. 1 conts1ns the detslla of our audit scope and 

methodology.) 

In IIUJIUII8Iy, the questionnaires Indicated that access to about li0.4 miDlon 

aaea, or about 14 pen:ent. of Forest Service and 111M land In the 

contiguous United Slates Is conoldered Inadequate by agency managers.' 

According to quallonnalre respondents. private landowners' 

unwllllnsness to grant public access acroea their land has Increased over 

the put decade u the j>ubUc's .-of federal land has~ Facton 

contributing to Inadequate access were private landowners' concerns 

about Y8l\dallsm and potential Uabillty, and landowners' desire for privacy 

or exclusive personal use. 

1

PIIbllc .ccat to fedlnl lud ill Al..a .. _. ........... AJ.kaNIIItft a.m. Sealemen&Ad ol urn. Tbe~t.~teotHa..u doeenothlrve., ~s.vtc.ar BJM ..._ 

..... 
Background 

Extent Of, Effects Of, 

and Reasons for 

Inadequate Access 

30 

To reaolve public 11C>Ce. problema, tbe Fonlt Servlee Uld BL11 CUI acquire 

ellh« 1111 rl8hla Uld ~ ..octated with tbe IUid {called tee liiDqJie 

~)or perpeCual -a (limited controls overtbe IUid Chat 

..-e blndlna on~ ownem). Fee liiDqJie IICQdablone Uld perpeCual 

-a CUI be acquired lhrou&h pun:NM, doNiion, euhu18e, or 

COIIdemnallon.ln lllcal ,_. 1.989-19111, tbe Fonlt 8erYiee Uld BUll 

acqulled permanent, lepl public acce111 to llbout 4.6 miDion acres of 

federal land AtJ of October 19111, tbe two -aencieelwlllbout 3,300 ldiona 

pendlnc to open another 9.3 miDion acres of Fonlt Servlee Uld IIUilUid to 

tbepubllc. 

Of the-'¥ 700 miDion total acres of federal land. about 4615 miDion ..-e 

nwwaed by tbe Fonlt 8erYiee Uld 8UL This IUid pnMdee Vllu.ble 

~Umber. Willer, mlnenls,enerG'~ Uld 

11ve1toc1t 

~~ 

rona--~ Vllu.ble ~udlna wlldllte babltm, 

Uld recreadona1 opportunltla lloCh Fons 

8erYiee Uld 111.11luld Is nwwaed under tbe pdnclples ofmuldple uae Uld 

sustained yield. That II, the lUid II to be J11UW11eC1 to adlleve In~ 

an output of renewable,_,_ such Chat 1111 tbe dlvene l'fliOUl'Cl!ll ..-e 

u.ed In a oomblnallon lila& beetmeeta the,_.. of the American people. 

A«orccin8 to lhe questionnaire reapondenla, about 110.4 miDion acres, or 

about 14 percent, of tbe lUid nwwaect by the Forest Service Uld BUlin tbe 

COIIIIguoua 48-Jack lldequUe public lleCellll. Aawed In this report, 

~ 

Inadequate ~~C>Ce. doee not 1-.rtlJ mean that the public Ia phyllcally 

flom entertna federal land. but only that tbe federal~ 

11M not acqulled tbe permanent, Jepl rllht for the public to eriW federal 

IUid at the polnl(a) .-led to,_ the land aalntended by the manac1n1 

agency. Under thll ddlnltlon, permilelon from nonfederallandownen to 

croeelhelr land Ia not COilllldered lldequUe ~~C>Ce. bec:auae such 

perml8olon CUI be nMiked at u\y time. 

Accordlnll to the ..,...uon.wre .-.J1a, pltvafe Jandownera haft many 

,_.,.tor not P81J11n1 the public ~~C>Ce. to croeelhelr land In llddltlon 

to c:cncema about vandalism Uld potenll81 u.biJIC;y, Uld dMire forprmcy 

or excl118M! per--.~.-, dJu&reemenl8 owrlhe Vllue of the land Uld 

concema about Joat prollta wereldenlllled u ..Jdltlonal.--w tor not 

P8IJIInllleCellll. (See aec. 2 for further detalla on lhe extent of ancllUIIOIIII 

for Inadequate IICCeSS.) 
How the Agencies 

Resolve Access 

Problems 

31 

While Inadequate a.cceoa can reduce the public's recreational 

opportunities, It can also create management problems relating to the 

land's multiple uses. The questionnaire respondents believed that hunting, 

oft'-road vehicle use, hiking, and camping are the recreational 

opportunities most aflected. Management activities most aflected Include 

construction, trail and road maintenance, wildlife habitat management, 

and law enforcement The severity of the public access problem, 

according to the questionnaire respondents, Is not the same nationwide; 

rather, It varies by activity and geographic location. (Sec. 3 provides 

additional details on the eft'ects of inadequate access.) 

The Forest Service and BUol have several ways of acquiring public acceoa. 

The primary way, according to the questionnaire respondents, Is by 

acquiring perpetual easements. In some cases, non!ederallandowners are 

wU1ing to donate perpetual easements to the government; In other cases, 

the government purchases the easements. Also, the Forest Service and BLM 

can acquire public acceoa by outright fee simple purchases of non!ederal 

land, by getting non!ederallandowners to donate their land to the agency, 

or by exchsnglng federal land for non!ederalland. For both the Forest 

Service and BLM, the method of last resort Is condemnation. 

Condemnation, however, Is infrequently used because of the time, 

expense, and sensltivicy Involved. 

The Forest Service and BLM issued guidance to their field offices In 1991 

and 1987, respectively, to hnprove access planning eft'orts. This guidance 

required that each forest and resource area plan Include a transportation 

plan that would identiJY the access rights needed to support the resource 

objectives of the respective forest or resource area plan. Each forest Is 

required by law to prepare a plan and update It every 16 years. BLM policy 

states that resource area plans should be updated every 20 years. As the 

plans are updated, access needs are to be highlighted In the transportation 

plans and used to monitor access problems. (Sec. 4 addresses methods for 

acquiring public access.) 

We conducted our work between Apri11991 and January 1992 In 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We 

discussed the facts contained In this briefmg report with Forest Service 

and BLM headquarters officials. These officials agreed with the facts as 

presented. As you requested, we did not obtain written agency comments 

on a draft of this report. 

p .... GAOiaCED-BZ·l18BK hwlequate Publie Aft:eM to Federal Luada 
32 

B-14'1Ml 

Aa agreed with your oftlce, unless you publicly announce Its contents 

earlier, we plan no funher dlatrlbutlon or lhls brleftng report unlll 2 days 

from the dale or lhls letter. At that time, we will send copies to the 

Secretaries or the Interior and Agriculture and make copies avallable to 

others upon request. 

Please contact me at (202) 271>-77661C you or your sta1f have any questions. 

~or conttibutors to lhls brleftng report are listed In appendix m. 

Sincerely yours, 

James DuiJus Ill 

Director, NalUnll Resources 

Management lasues 
Contents 

Letter 

Section 1 

Introduction 

Section2 

Extent of and Reasons 

for Inadequate Access 

Section3 

Effects of Inadequate 

Access 

Section4 

Agency Methods of 

Acquiring Public 

Access 

Appendixes 

Tables 

33 

Forest Service and BLM Management Responsibilities 

Evolution of the Access Juue 

De!lnltion of Inadequate Access 

Access Acqulsltion Methods and Funding 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Extent of Inadequate Access 

Reasons for Inadequate Access 

Reduced Publlc Recreal:lonal Opportunities 

Interference in Asency Management Activities 

Appendix 1: Percent of Forest Service SuperWors and BLM 

Managers Indicating Reduction in Recreal:lonal and Other 

Opportunities Due to Inadequate Access 

Appendix ll: Pereent of Forest Service Supervisors and 

BLM Managers Indicating Management Activities Having 

Interference Due to Inadequate Access 

Appendix ID: MaJor Contributors to 'Ibis Brieftng Report 

Table 1.1: Forest Service and BLM Field Ofllces VIsited 

Table 2.1: Respondents Indicating Factors Contributing, to 

a Great or Extnlme Extent, to Private Landowners' 

Unwilllngnesa to Grant Public Access 

Table 3.1: Respondenbl Indicating Great or Extnlme 

Reduction in Public Recreal:lonal Opportunities Due to 

Inadequate Accesa 

..... 

8 

g 

g 

10 

12 

12 

16 

16 

18 

22 

22 

23 

26 

30 

32 

14 

19 

22 
Figures 

34 

c-..... 

Table 3.2: Respondent& Indicating Great or Extreme 

lntedereliee to Management Acllvlties Due to Inadequate 

Access 

F1gure 1.1: Private Land mocking Public Access to Rosebud 

Lake, Custer National Forest, Montana 

F1gure 1.2: Private Land mocking Public Access to Custer 

National Forest, Montana 

F1gure 1.3: Inadequate Access at Agency-Preferred Point of 

EntJy 

F1gure 1.4: Inadequate Access Posed by Summndlng 

Nonfederal Land 

F1gure 2.1: Forest Service Acres, by Region, With 

Inadequate Public Access 

F1gure 2.2: BLM Acres, by State, With Inadequate Publlc 

Access 

F1gure 2.3: Warnlng Sign Erected by Private Landowner to 

Restrict Public Access In the Eldorado National Forest, 

California 

Figure 2.4: Gate on Privately Owned Land Blocking Public 

Ace .... to a Trail in the Angeles National Forest, California 

F1gure 4.1: Methods Used by the Forest Service, Over the 

Past 3 Fiscal Yeam, to Obtain Public Access 

F1gure 4.2: Methods Used by BLM, Over the Past 3 Fiscal 

Yeam, to Obtain Public Access 

Abbre..t&Uou 

BUt Bureau of Land Management 

8 

9 

11 

12 

17 

18 

20 

21 

27 

28 
Section 1 

Introduction 

Flgure1.1: Prlvotel.8nd Blocldng 

Public A._. to -ud !AU, Cuotor Nallonol l'olal, Montana 

35 

The total land area of the United States Is 2.3 billion acres. Approlllmalely 

one-third or this total, or about 700 million acres, Is owned by the federal 

government. The Deparlment or Agriculture's Forest Service and the 

Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manage 

about 466 million acres;Thls land contains many resources, Including 

minerals, timber, rangeland, !Ish and wlldllfe habitats, recreation areas, 

and cultural and historic sites. 

Intermingled with the federal land, however, Is stste and locsl government 

land as well as land owned by corporations, Native American tribes, and 

private Individuals. This checkerboanl pattern or ownerahlp, parUcular)y 

in the western ststes, can make It difficult for the publlc to get to federsl 

land without traversing nonfederslland Unless the federsl government 

obtains permanent, legal publlc access, nonfedersllandowners can control 

or deny the publlc'a ability to reach federsl land 

F1gures 1.1 and 1.2 show private land blocking access to federslland. 

...... 
Flg.,.1.2: Prlvate Lllnclllocldng 

Publlo -lo CU..Nollon8l 

·'---

Forest Service and 

BLM Management 

Responsibilities 

Evolution of the 

Access Issue 

lloedoal 

-

36 

Both the Forest Service and BLM manage federal land and reaources in a 

comblnallon of W113'B to best oerve the needs of the public. That is, the 

agencies must balance the competing and sometimes conflicting demands 

of resource development and protection. 

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Reaourcea Planning Act of 1974, as 

amended, requires the Fors Service to prepare a land and reeource 

management plan for each of Ita forest unlta. Similarly, the Federal Land 

Polley and Management Act of 1976 requires BLM to prepare Jand.uoe plana 

tor Ita public land areas. In both agencies. these plans eet forth 

management obJectives and strat.eSies in various categories such as 

recrealion, wildlife, grazing. and 1imber. 

Only over the past few decades baa the Issue of public &ecellll to federal 

land ariaen. Up until the 19401, the land management agencies 

concenllated on building the road& needed to accea federal land for 

commercial purpoees, such as 1imber harvests and mineral dewlopment, 

as well as adminlstrllllve purpoees, auch as lire lighting and 1nlll 

maintenance. Uae of these road& for public recrealional PlllJIOIIe'l was 

..... 
Definition of 

Inadequate Access 

37 

secondaly. After the end of World War ll, however, the public demand for 

recreational opportunities on federal land Increased, and people began to 

seek more remote areas In which to hunt and fish. Because public access 

routes to such areas had not been built, the public had to cross nonfederal 

land to reach many federally owned areas. But many nonfederal . 

landowners. did not want the public crossing their land. Accordingly, some 

nonfederallandowners blocked passage, while others began charging fees 

for the privilege of cro<IBing their land. 

Inadequate access does not necessarily mean that the public Is physically 

prevented Crom entering federal land. inadequate access, as we have 

defined It through discussions with Forest Service and BLM omclals, means 

that the federal government does not have the permanent, legal right for 

the public to enter federal land at the point( a) needed to use the land as 

Intended by the managing agency. For uarnple, assume that the public 

can legally enter a parcel of federal land at point A, but that the managing 

agency has detennlned, for land-use pwposes, that point B Is a 11\0I'e 

appropriate point of entry. (Such a determination could be based on 

various factors; point A could be a wlldilfe habitat or an envlronmentall,y 

sensitive area, for example.) If the managing agency did not have the 

permanent, legal right for the public to enter that federal parcel at point B, 

then access to that pan:el would be considered Inadequate. Flgure 1.3 

illustrates such a case . 

._.o 
t•.! F.oeraJLMII 

c-.-

... 

o-- ._-

38 

--· 

GAO-Dor1WC1Frcm~lnlonnallon 

In other cues, IICCe8ll to federal land ill blocked at all points. For example, 

I! a parcel of federal land were totally swroundecl by nonfederalland, and 

the govemment did not have the lepl right for the pubUc to aOM any 

portion of the nonfederalland, then aceea to the federal land would be 

Inadequate, .. illlllllnted In figure 1.4 . 

.... u 
t'".; F•deralltnd 

0 NonllldlfllllAnd 

:: NMd~MtAc:otaRolld 

Access Acquisitipn 

Methods and Funding 

Objectives, Scope, 

and Methodology 

Ia- -· 

39 

Tile land management agencies have several ways to obtain public access. 

For example, the Forest Service and BI.M can acquire either all rights and 

interests associated with the land (called fee simple acquisition) or 

pe1petual access easements (limited rights to enter and ~ the land for 

access ihat are binding on succeeding owners). Fee simple acquisitions 

and perpetual easements can be acquired through purchase, donation, 

exchange, or condemnation. Additionally, land acquired for purposes such 

as wildlife conservstion (e.g., through the Land and Wster Conservation 

Fund) sometimes provides access as a secondary benefit. 

In flsca1 year 1991, direct funding for easement acquisitions amounted to 

$6.3 miiiJon for the Forest Service and $1.4 miiiJon for BLM, a total of$7.7 

miiiJon. Data were not available to determine how much of the money 

spent under other programs for fee simple land acquisitions resulted 1n 

access as a secondary benefit. 

The Chairman, Subcommluee on National Parks and Public Lands, House 

Commluee on Interior and Insular Affairs, asked us to determine (1) the 

extent of and reasons for inadequste access to public land managed by the 

Pat~ell 
Ia- -· 

40 

Forest Service and 81.11, (2) the effects or Inadequate acceaa, and (3) how 

the agencies resolve access problema. 

Because the Forest Service and BLM are clecentrallz.ed, most data on and 

knowledge of acceaa problems ezlst at the Individual fmests and reliOI1lce 

areas. Accordingly, we developed a questionnaire to obtain CI11TI!Jit 

lnfonnation on acceaa IMues from forest and resource area olftclals. The 

questionnaire requested lnfonnation on (1) the federal acreage that has 

Inadequate public access, (2) the reaaona for Inadequate acceaa and the 

extent to which these reasons have changed over the paat decade, (3) the 

types of public recreational and agency 11W1agement actiYIUes that are 

restricted by lnadequale acceaa and the severity of those restrictiono, and 

(4) how the agencies deal with acceaa problems. 

We pretested the questionnaire at 9 national forest aupervlaor olftces In 4 

regions and at 10 BLM resource area oftlces In 5 atates. After modltylng the 

questionnaire hued on pre-test reaulta, we dlstrlbuted It to forest 

supervisors of all122 national forest adminislntive units, to managers of 

all140 BLM reliOI1lce area oftlces, and to the 8 BLM dlstrlct oftlces that have 

no resource area oftlces under their jurisdiction. 

We received responses from 119 (98 percent) of the 122 forest aupervlsors 

and 143 (97 percent) of the 148 BLM managers. All statlstlcsl data reported 

are based on the total number of forest aupervlsors and BLMland managers 

surveyed. However, n!IIPOnaeB from the ftve BLM dlstrlct oftlces and four 

Forest Service admlnlstradve units In Alaska are excluded from this report 

because public acceaa to federal land In that state Is assured under the 

Alaska Nalive Claims Seltlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-203). The two 

agencies manage about 116 mDllon acres In Alaska. 

On a number of questions, we asked agency oftlclals to rate, on a scale, the 

extent to which selected factors contributed to an etrect. For example, we 

asked them to Indicate the extent to which certatn factors contributed to 

private landowners' unwllllngneaa to grant permanent, leg.al public acceaa 

acl"OIIS their land, U8lng the acsle: (1) little or no extent, (2) some extent, 

(3) moderate extent, ( 4) great extent, and (6) extreme extent. We s1so 

asked agency oftlclsls to quantll)r the amount of reduction In certain 

recreational opportunldes and the amount of Interference In agency 

management acUv!Ues caused by Inadequate acceaa. 

ln addition to obtaining data from the questionnaire respondents, we 

interviewed Forest Service and BLM oftlclsls at the agencies' headquarters . 

...... 
Toblo 1.1: Foreot Soi'Yiceond BLM 

Flold OlllcH Vlollod 

41 

Based on dlscuBslons with headquartels and tleld omclals, we selected 

and visited 16 tleld locations In the forests and resource &reM to obtain 

lnfonnalion on various access problems. At each tleld omce visited, we Interviewed agency omclals knowledgeable about acc....,lssues, and we reviewed pertinent documents and records. Table 1.1 shows the tleld 

offices we visited. Copies of the questionnaires, with response ftequencles, 

are available upon request. 

OfllceForest Service 

No<them Region HeadquartOI$ Missoula, Monl. 

Flathead National Forast Kalispell, Monl. 

Custer National FOfest Billings. Mont. 

Pacific Southwest Region 

Headquarters San Francisco, calif. 

Angokls National Forest Arcadia, Calif. 

Los Padres National Forest Goleta, Calif. 

Eldorado National Forest Placervll e, Calif. 

BlM 

California State Offoce Sacramento, Calif. 

California Desert District Riverolda, Calli. 

Redding Resource Araa Redding, Cslff. 

Montana Stata Offlca Billings, Mont. 

Billings Resource Area Billings, Mont. 

Big Dry Resource Araa Milas City, Mont. 

Oregon State Office Portland, Oreg. 

Three Rivers Resource Area Burns, Oreg. 

Vale District Vale, Oreg. 

To obtain vaeylng perspectives on the publlc ace""" Issue, we also met 

with private landowne111, representatives of a hunting and llshlng 

association, representatives of an outtltte111 and guides association, and 

representatives of national organlzatlons interested In ace ...... We also 

reviewed related reports issued by the Congressional Research Service, 

the Forest Service, BLM, and two national conferences on publlc ac~ 

issues. To undel!ltand the varloua ways available to the agencies to resolve 

access issues, we Interviewed agency omcials and reviewed pertinent laws 

and agency policies and regulations. 
42 

--· 

We conducted our work between Apr111991 and Januaey 19921n 

accordance with .-nJJy accept.ed government audllinJ -.dania. We 

cliscl.-llhe faduU lntonnallon In tills report with Forest Service and 

BLII headquarters omcJala responsible for reoo1Y1nJ aceesa problema. The 

omdals IJI'eeCI with the facta contained In tills report. How-, u 

requested, we did not obtain written agency conunents on a draft of the 

report. 

...... 
43 

Section2 

Extent of and Reasons for Inadequate 

Access 

Extent of Inadequate 

Access 

Based on oiu- review, public access to mllllons of acres of federal land Is 

~-Over the past decade, private landowners' unwillingness to 

grant public access acroes their land has increased. Factors contnbutlng 

to this unwillingness Include concerns about vandalism and potential 

llabWty, and desire for privacy. 

According to questionnaire respondents, access to 60.4 mllllon federal 

acres, primarily in the western states, Is inadequate. Of these acres, 17.3 

mllllon are managed by the Forest Service, and 33.1 mllllon by BLIL Figure 

2.1 shows, by region, the Forest Service acres with Inadequate access; 

figure 2.2 shows, by state, the BUI acres with Inadequate access. ln the 

case of BLM, 'eastern states' include all states other than the 10 listed In 

figure 2.2. Alaslra Is excluded because public access to federal land In that 

state Is assured under the Alaslra Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 and 

Hawaii Is excluded because It does not have any Forest Service or BUI 

land 

.... 1. 
Flgon 2.1: -lllrvlce-. by 

Region, With ...... Public 

-

44 

-· IC:deatolud ...... ,_.........._ 

-

M.O .....,oiAoiWI(In .... ) 

lf/IUfiJIII I I ;t-, I I I 

---
10.0 

.... 

.... 

... 

... 

21.0 

... 

11.0 

10.0 

.. 

1// I 

..... _ 

Reasons for 

Inadequate Access 

45 

I I 11 I I j/ 

I 

E.-nSIIIa~-no--. 

Scuco: --~byBUI. 

PrtvUe Jandownera' unwtlllngneu to grant public~ Ia bued on 

sewn! tactora. Th-factors, ICCOI'dlng to queaUonnalre respondenlll, are 

concema lbout Vllldallsm and potenUalllab~, and dellre for privacy. 

The... eoncems,ICCOI'dlng to the respondenta, have~ over the 

p.- decade, u hu private landownen'un~ to let the publlc: 

.,.,_their land. 

Table 2.lllhowa the percent ofFon!llt Service~ and 11U1 

manaaen who Indicated that certain tactora eontrlhuted, to a put or 

...... 
Toblo 2.1: lloopondonta Indicating 

F•ctof'li Contributing, to 1 Qrut or 

Ext,._ Exlonl, to Prtnte 

Landowner~' UnwiHingM .. to Grant 

PubUcAccell 

46 

Seetloal 

Esteat of uul ae..o.. for laadeq.ate 

-

extreme extent, to private landowners' unwillingness to Jet the public 

cross their land. 

Foetor 

Concern with vandalism 

Desire for exclusive personal usa of their own 

property 

Desire for privacy 

Concern with liability 

Noneconomic desire for exclusive personal use of 

agency-managed lands adjacent to 01' intermingled 

with private lands 

Disagreement With the agency over the value of the 

conveyance 

Poten1iallo6a of profrts kom renllng priva1e fishing 

and/or hunting rights on lands adjacent to or Intermingled with agency- managed lands 

Potentiaii08S of profits from charging access fees 

to the public 

Potential loss of profits from outfitter/guide 

operations 

Potential loss ot profits from operation of dude 

ranches on lands adjacent to or intermingled with 

agency-managed lands 

Other reasons 

PoiWIII oloupeMiora/llnd 

monogoN 

Forut Service BLM 

52.5 62.9 

55.1 41.3 

51.7 37.1 

24.6 35.0 

32.2 25.9 

11 .0 11 .2 

8.5 12.6 

6.8 13.3 

5.9 14.0 

1.7 8.4 

3.4 3.5 

As an example or private landowners' concerns, a Montana landowner we 

interviewed told us that allowing public access disrupts hls caule-ranchlng 

operation, because the public disturbs grazing caule and the animals move 

to other areas. The rancher Is then forced to spend time collecting the 

caule and returning them to the pasture. On this ranch we also observed 

signs that had been shot, and trespassem cutting down tteea for l!rewood. 

Another rancher we interviewed said he did not want hunting parties to 

cross his land because he feared they would introduce noxious weeds. 

Seeds of weeds such as leafy spurge and spotted knapweed, which crowd 

out pasture grasses, could be carried onto the land in tire treads, horses' 

hooves, or hlkeiS' clothing. As another example, aome private landownem 

in southern California do not want the public to cross their property 

because they rear the introduction or the root rot fungus to their avocado 

trees. 

Paaelt 
-........._to_ FlgonU: W.mlng 81gn- by Pullllo -'"""'--

-. c.llfoml8 

47 

Given eueh eoncems, prlvale landowners 1111! varloua meml8 of ~CIIn& 

the public's acceaa. According to .,ency olliclala we lnteMewed, 80IIIe 

priV1IIA! landownen ~cally block the acceaa routes; others erect 

warning signa; 8nd sWl others threaten treapaMen with guns or auacl< 

dogs. l'1gurea 2.3 and 2.411how public aceesa ~cUons Imposed by 

priVliiA! landowners. 
Flgurw 2.4: - on Prlvat.ly Owned 

Land Blocking Public AcceM too Trwll 

In the Angoloo- Forni, 

Colllomlo 

..... 11 

48 
49 

Secdon3 

Effects of Inadequate Access 

Reduced Public 

Recreational 

Opportunities 

T- 3.1: Reoponclontalncllcallng 

"--or--lnPubllo Opportunllleo Duo to lnadoqu.ta Accou 

Inadequale IICOellll to federal land reduoea the public's opportunlllea to uae 

the land. RoWIM!', .ccordlng to the quesl1onnaln! respondenta, the extent 

of acceaa problema Ia not the aune nationwide. Rather, the extent to 

which reereatlonal acdvltles are affected cWrera by ewe of acdvley and by 

geographic location. ln other wonla, what Ia a problem In one part of the 

counlly Ia not neceeaarlly a problem In another. 

Inadequate acceaa llao Interferes with the agencies' land IIWlSJI!Illellt 

acdY!Ues. ln aome cues, thla Interference Is extreme; In other cues, It Ia 

merely a nulaance. 

According to the questionnaire respondenta, the recreal1onal oppoltUnltiea 

III08t reduced by Inadequate accesa are hiU\Ung and o1f-road vehicle uae 

(e.g., dWle buggies and dirt bikes). Table 3.1 ahows the eypes of 

recreational actlvlliea that Fon!llt Service and BUC quesUonnalre 

reapondenta aald were either sreatJy or exlremely reduced by lnadecpte 

acceaa. ln addiUon, IPpendb< D llhowa the full range of responses given by 

both FOlellt Service and BUC managers for thla question. 

Hunting 

Off-road-vehiCle uao 

Hiking 

Camping 

V~ng sconory and wildlife 

Driving tor pleasure 

Horoeback riding 

Aahing 

WlldeiTIIII area UHI 

Mountain biking 

Rafting, conoalng, end other water oporte 

Croas-country aiding and anowmobile u10 

Recrea!Jonal mining 

Oove'-<1 Recreation Slle uae 

eornrr.rc1a1 UIOI (O.g. outlining/guiding, prOYiding access to aid areas, etc.) 

,...n 

lUI 

12.7 14.7 

10.2 8.4 

7.6 7.0 

4.2 8.4 

5.9 6.3 

5.1 4.9 

4.2 4.2 

3.4 4.9 

3.4 4.9 

4.2 3.5 

1.7 4.2 

1.7 2.1 

1.7 2.1 

0.8 1.4 

0.8 0.7 
Interlerence in 

Agency Management 

ActiVities 

50 

-ot--- -· 

Such n!Sirictiana are a concern to recreatlonlsts. According to 

repreoentalives of various sporting groups we Interviewed, private 

landowners wbo block access are In elrect "privallzlng" federal land for 

lhelr own pemonal uae or gain. The sportsmen fear that they wlllloee not 

only lhelr huntlng and fishing opportunities, but also other recreational 

opportunities available to the public. This concern Ia Wustrated by an 

excerpt from an ouUitter/gulde brochure to federal land. "Our huntlng 

territoey comprlaes 26,000+ acres of private property and private access 

National Forest land. Our clientele eJ\joys exclusive run of thla carefully 

preserved relNWit of North America's wilderness and representative 

wildlife.• 

Although Inadequate access reduces the public's recreational 

opportunities, the problem Ia not equally extreme nationwide, but varies 

by activiey and geographic area. For example, huntlng was reporled by BUI 

managers as being greatly or extremely reduced In California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, but not In Arl2ona, Nevada, 

New Meldco, or the eastern stsles. Huntlng was reporled by Forest Serlice 

supervisors as being greatly or extremely reduced eveeywhere but In the 

Eastern Region. 

The extent of reduction of other recrestional opportunities also varied 

from place to place. For example, according to BLM respondents, camping 

was reduced In Idaho but not In Oregon, whereas mountain biking was reduced In Oregon but not In Idaho. According to Forest Service 

respondents, fishing was reduced in the Rocky Mountain Region, but not 

In the Northern Region, wheress wilderness use was reduced In the 

Northern Region, but not in the Rocky Mountain Region. 

According to questionnaire respondents, the management activities most 

interfered with by Inadequate access are construction, trail and road 

maintenance, and wildlife habitat. Table 3.2 shows the type of 

management activities that Inadequate access Interfered with to either a 

great or extreme degree. Additionally, appendix ill shows the full range of 

responses given by Forest Service and BUI managers for thla question. 

._ .. 
T-U: lloopo-dalnclc8llng 

.........--Dueto ----10 ....,. __ 

51 

-· _o6......,._ 

Conalructlon, reconotructlon, and/Or Improvements 

Maintenance of oxilllng trails, roads, ate. 

Habitat or blcloglclll/ v.getat~ve dlversl1y 

management 

Law enforcement 

Inventory work (e.g .. tree counting, archoeoiogy, 

Ole.) 

Are prolection 

Contrect .or pennlt admlnlatrallon 

Ablll1y of contractors end penn-to reach areas for authorized activities (e.g., grazing permlttaea, 

outfitter/guides,- contractors, Ole.) 

Search end rescua 

Work at admlnlatralivo or communlcetlons lites 

Toxic waste cleanup 

Other 

-- lUI 6.8 4.9 

2.5 9.1 

4.2 3.5 

3.4 3.5 

1.7 2.8 

4.2 0.0 

3.4 0.7 

3.4 0.0 

0.8 1.4 

1.7 0.0 

0.8 0.7 

0.8 0.7 

Extreme Interference In agency and pennltt.ees' work, for example, was reported at a site In IIOUthem Callfomla. At this site, the Foreat Service 

does not have acceos to a mountaintop containing conununlcations 

equipment--some owned by the Foreat Service, and aome by other federal 

agencies or private corporations holding Forest Service pennlta. Part or the road lesdlng to the mountaintop crosses private land, and the private 

landowners charge the Foreat Service and the pennltt.ees an acceos fee to 

cross their land for equipment maintenance purposes. The private 

landowners' refulal to allow acceos Interferes to an exlleme extent, 

accordlng to the questionnaire respondent, with both the Foreat Service's 

and the pennltteea' work at this site. Because the Forest Service has not 

been able to obtain the access easements needed to croesthe private land, 

It is considering buDding a road to reach the site rrom the other side or the 

mountain, accordlng to a Foreat Service oftlclsi we Interviewed. No COIIt 

estimates for ~etlan or this road were available. 

In other cases, inadequate access Is perceived aa more or a nuisance than 

an Interference In agency management activities, and its effect Is slight. 

According to a BLII oftlclsi we Interviewed In Oregoo, BLII personnel 

occaalonally encounter locked gates on private land they are crollllinl to 

reach a lire on federal land. In such a situation, according to this oftlclal, 

p ...... 
52 

Seedoaa 

Effect. of llwlequate .UC.. 

BLM personnel olmply cut the lock and proceed to the tire. While ouch an 

instance or blocked access was a nuisance, Its effect on the agency's 

management ability waa slight 

.... u 

GMJotCBII.II.liiU ___ .. _~ 
53 

SecUon4 

Agency Methods of Acquiring Public Access 

The Fore8t 8elvlce and 111M have various tools for acquiring pubUe acceas. 

They can acquire all rl8hl8 and ~ UIOCiated with tbe land (c.alliJcl 

fee almple acqullldon) or pezpetu1 _...(limited rl8hl8 to enter and 

uoe tbe land for accsa Which are blndlns on aucceedlng ownem). Fee 

simple acqulshl0111 and pezpetul_.. can be IICqUired through 

purchase, donaUon, exchange, or condemnation. Condemnadon, limply 

put, Ia the federal government'• right to take private propercy for public 

use, without the owner'a CONent, upon pa.yment ofjuat compenaadon. 

Although both tbe Foreat Service and BUI are authorized by law to 

condemn nonfedenolland to obtain accsa for public recre.tlonal 

purpoees, 1 1hey rorely do ao. According to .. ency oftlc:lala, tbe 

condemnaUon procea Ia Ume consumJng, expensive, end can be 

poUUcally aenaldve. 

During the put 311acal yean, according to questionnaire respondents, the 

Fo~ Service and 111M have suc:cesstully completed about 2,600 accsa 

acUonS, 1 thereby obtalnln8 pubUc acceea to 4.5 mllllon acres of land. The 

methods moet frequently used wae pezpetuleasement acqulaldon and 

fee limple land acqulaldon. 

Figure U llhowa tbe methods tbe FOftOit Service used in obtaining public 

access to about 2.6 mlDlon acres of federal land. 

~ .. IIUdlarlotd.....,.,.,_..Lond.....,...,.._""'"''m 'Par~otour~we..t.ad.._........._tDCIINIII.dle_...olc-.~ 

cwerthe-.3tllc:ll,..., coundn&e.dl ~~ollandar-••lnlhklul 

CMe. n.e.~~ .. Niemd to• -.a-~lnthttad. 

.._ .. 
Figure 4.1: llethoclo UNCI by the 

foroot Service, 0vor 1he Poot3 FIICOI 

YMrO,to~Publlc-. 

54 

'----------- 3.1% 

Condemnations 

"'Oher- catlgOI'y includes cooperative .-ementa wil:h other egencin or private entities, u weH aa 

olhet' l'l'l8d'lod1 notlilt.dln 'tie que1tionnaire. 

F1gure 4.2 shows the methods BLM used In obtaining public access to about 

1.9 million acres offederal land. 

.... ., GA018CED-IIolliU ...... _.__toF_ ...... 
...... 4.2: - U-try ILII, 

O.Wihe_I_Y_Io_ 

--

55 

-· 

__ .. __ _ 

r---------------------0~% Condemnations 

..----------- Land Acquisillons 

-<>lhltr cattgory h'lc:ludtl c:ooperllive 19'"f"lnll wtth o._ agenciel or private endtiM, u well as ohr methodt not Jiattd in 1M quealonnaire. 

SCuco:--~ byii.M. 

AIJ of October 1991, the Forelt Servlee IIIII IIUI h8d .oout 3,300 acce. actions pencllna-«mme work h8d bee doae. but_,_ h8d not 7l!t been 

obtained. !fall tt.e .aiolw-~completed. anolherll.3 

million ao:rea wiD beopea ID pabUc ~~ece• .oout 18 pemmoflhe 150.• 

miDion ICI'e8 reported by the~ • havlna IMdequate aceea Of the 

3,300 _,_ .aiolw pencllnc. bowever, the~ have ldeaWied uo. 

lnwlvlnC 2.3 miiiJoR--. wblch theJ belleft wllli'IIQIIIN COIIdemnldan 

IICUon. 

G.IDrtCIII»>-lliU ___ .. _s... 
56 

dlxl 

Percent of Forest Service Supervisors and 

BLM Managers Indicating Reduction in 

Recreational and Other Opportunities Due 

to Inadequate Access 

Overall, how reduced, if at all, is the public's opportunity 1o enpac in each of the followina activities in your 

forest because of inadequ.atiC permanelltlepl public access to the areas you identified in Q. 14? 

Dispersed Recreatloa 

I. Hun1ing 

2. FJShina 

3. Drivin& for pleas11~ 

4. ViewinJ scenety and wildlife 

S. Hiking 

6. Camping 

7. Horseback ridina 

8. Cross-country skiing and snowmobile use 

9. Mounaain bikin& 

10. OCC-road vehicle usc 

11. Recreational mining 

12. RaCting. canoeing. and otherWIIICrspo.u 

Other Usa 

13. Wilderness Ana uses 

14. Developed Recrea1ion Sile uses 

~f!/Atl de :l if ~ ~ ll. ft? /l:;!IJ.h '4o/.lJ ,{l 1) (2) (3) (4) 15) (e) 

. 31.4 34.8 18 . 6 10 .2 2.S 

47.5 33.9 11.9 2.S 0.8 

fi0.2 20.3 10 . 2 '·' 1.7 1.7 

60.2 22. 0 

'·' •• 2 1 . 7 

39.11 JJ.2 17.0 S.l 2.5 0.8 

53.4 26.3 11.9 2.5 1.7 0.8 

50.9 28.0 13.6 1.7 2.5 0.8 

54 . 2 21.2 6.8 0.8 o.8 12.7 

54 . 2 21.2 11 . 9 1.7 2 . 5 4.2 

44.9 28.0 11.9 6.8 l.4 2 . S 

57.6 11. 0 7.6 1.-7 0 18.6 

66 . 1 11 . 0 ... 1.7 0 6.8 

55.124.6 8 .5 2.5 0.8 5 .9 

87.3 4.2 0.8 0.8 0 3.4 

15. Research 83.1 6.8 0 6.8 

16. Commerci•l uses (e.g., oulfitting/guidina. providing a«essiOsk.iaR:as, etc.) 7l. O l.f • .f 5.1 o 0.8 5. 1 

17. Consumplion/use or resources such as ti111ber, 

grasslands, e1c. 37.3 36.4 20.3 1.7 1.7 

18. 01her (specify); 

0 0.8 0.8 

._ .. 
57 

_, _____ _.,r .... ..,_.__ _ 

.. --OIIIora..--o.. 

.. --

Oven~U.Ilow reduced, i£ at 111, is the. public's opponunity to enpge in each o£ the following activities in your 

resource. •~• because of intdequate permar~enr legal public access to the BLM·manage.d lands you identiCicd in 

0 .14? 

Dispersed Rtcrulfon 

I. Hunting 

2. Ft5hing 

3. Driving for pleasure 

4. Viewing scenery and wildlife 

5. Hiking 

6. CampinJ 

7. Horseback riding 

8. Cross-country skiing and snowmobile usc 

9. Mountain biking 

10. orr-road vehicle use 

11. Recre.tional mining 

12. Rafting, canoeing, and other wau:r spons 

Olha-UHS 

13. Wilderness Area uses 

14. Developed Rccrc:nion Site uses 

15. Research 

16. Commcreial uses (e.g., OUifilling/guidinj, rroviding 

access to ski areas, etc.) 

17. Consumption/usc of reso\lrccs such as timber. 

grasslands, etc. 

18. Other (specify): 

P.,ell 

23 . 1 n . .a 251.4 u . 2 J.S 

40.6 24 . 5 15 . 4 4 .2 o. 7 11.2 

46 . 2 25.51 18 .9 4 . 2 0 . 7 0.7 

43 . 4 28 .7 18 . 2 4.9 1.4 

47 , 6 25 . 2 lt5.8 5.6 1.4 

39.2 30.8 18 . 2 7.0 1.4 

48.3 31.5 11.51 4.2 

46 . 9 21.7 6 . 3 2.1 0 19 . 6 

49 .7 25.5113.3 2. 8 0 .7 4 .2 

37 ".1 30 .1 19.6 '· 7 o. 7 o. 7 

Sl.t 21.0 6 . 3 2.1 0 11. 51 

49 . 3 18.9 7 . 7 4.2 0 15.4 

U.J U.O 11.2 4 . 2 0.7 23.1 

76 . 2 7.7 0 1.4 0 9.8 

69.9 14.7 4.9 o. 7 o. 7 2.8 

51.8 24 .s 9.1 o. 7 0 8 . 4 

46 .9 27.3 16.1 4.2 0 1.4 

0 2 . 1 0 2. 8 
58 

Append!xll 

Percent of Forest Service Supervisors and 

BLM Managers Indicating Management 

Activities Having Interference Due to 

Inadequate Access 

How much, i( at all, does the lack of adequate pemLinentlegal public access to areas in your forest interfere with 

each of the following activities? 

l. Fireprotection 

2. Contract or permit administration 

3. Habitat or biological/vegetative dive~ily management 

4. Maintenance of existing trtils, roads, etc. 

5. Construction, recOMtrvttion, and/or improvements 

6. Inventory work (e.g., uee counting, archaeology, etc.) 

1. Law enforcement 

8. Search and rescue 

9. Toxic waste cleanup 

10. Work at administrative or communication sites 

11. Ability of comractors and perminees to reach areas for 

authorized activities (e.g., grazing pennittees, outfitter/guides, 

servicccontractoB, etc:.} 

12. Other (specify): 

PAle II 

70.3 19 . 5 2.5 '·' 64.4 22.0 7.6 '·' 0.8 

53.4 27.1 ll.9 1.7 '·' 37.3 41.5 16.1 1.7 0 . 8 

45.8 31.4 13.6 5.1 1.7 

60.:.il 31.4 4.2 0.8 0 .8 

61.9 25.4 5.9 1.7 1.7 

79.7 15.3 1.7 0. 8 

9~ . 7 '·' 0 0 . 8 

83.9 '·' 1.7 0 .8 0.8 

55.9 31.4 5.1 1.7 1. 7 

0 0.8 0.8 0.8 
59 

..,._.D _.,p _____ _ 

----

____ .. 

--

How raadl. iC alall. doellbc 1ac:k of adequce pcnuaen1 Lepl public accea 10 BLM-m~upd pablic laads in. your 

reao.rce an:a iA1Citfae with cadl or lbe Col\owiaa Ktividea? 

1. Fsre protection. 

2. Coatnct or permitadnlialluadon 

4. Maintenanc~ of exislinJ tnils, mads. e1e. 

5. Constrvction, rccoltltruction, and/or improvcmcrus 

6. Inventory wort (e.g., tree counting, archaeology, c~.) 

7. Law en£orccmecu 

8. Search and rescue 

9. Toxic wute clQnup 

10. Work atadministralive or communication sires 

11. Ability of contractors tnd permiuees 10 reach arus for 

authorized activities (c.a .• pnina perminces, ou1liner/pides, 

53 . 1 

31 . 1 

U.l 

U.l 

U.7 

n .a 

11.1 

11.1 

74 . 8 

32.2 ... .. , 31 . 1 u.o '·' 26.6 ll. t 

'·' 32.2 10 .5 '·' 30.1 14 . 0 ... 23.1 ... '·' ... . ..... ... . ..0.1 

15.4 ... sccvicccotur.etoa,etc:.) 49 . 7 10 . 1 16 . 1 

12. Otbcr(spcc:ify): 

0 0.7 0.7 0.7 

...... 

... 

... 
60 

Appendix ill 

Major Contributors to This Briefing Report 

Resources, 

Community, and 

Economic 

Development Division, 

Washington, D.C. 

Denver Regional 

Office 

James R. Hunt, Assistant Director 

John S. Kalmar Jr., Assignment Manager 

Nancy A. Boardman, Evaluator 

Carolyn M. Boyce, Senior Social Science Analyst 

WWiam J. Temmler, Evaluator-In-Charge 

Stephen P. Gaey, Evaluator 

Felicia A. Turner, Systems Anal.yst 

Pamela K. Tumler, Reports Anal.yst 

...... 
61 

77-279 0 - 94 - 3 
62 

You're returning from a trip. You make the usual tum into your 

driveway and stop dead In your tracks. While you were gone, 

someone put up a locked gate and a sign that calls you a tres· 

passer for wanting to enter your own property. 

Your driveway has always passed through about three feet of 

your neighbor's yard. It's never been a problem before, but 

someone new just bought the property and doesn't believe 

In sharing. 

You can see your house, but you can't get there anymore. 

Blocked lands 

A preposterous scenario? Yes. But something 

very much like it is occurring with alarming frequency throughout the Great American West. 

Vast tracts of public lands are cut off from their 

rightful owners - the American people - by 

owners of neighboring private property who simply gate access roads and lock you, the people, 

and officers of the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) out. 

One result is that every American citizen loses 

the potential opportunity to use the lands that 

belong to each of us. Another is that the land 

and access roads cannot be properly managed 

or maintained by BLM or Forest Service. 

There's another result, as well. The private 

landowners who happen to own the access 

routes wind up with de facto ownership and 

exclusive use of your public lands. 
63 

Twenty-two Yellowstone 

National Parks: Off Limits 

About a third of our nation is public land -

over 700 million acres. Most of this land is 

managed by the Forest Service and BLM, 465 

million acres in total. 

The General Accounting Office (GAO), at the 

request of Congressman Bruce Vento, the 

Chairman of the Sub-committee on National 

Parks and Public Lands, has released a study 

of the extent and effects of blocked public 

access to public lands. The GAO found that 

50.4 million acres, or about 14 percent, of 

Forest Service and BLM land in the contiguous United States has blocked public access. 

This area is about the size of Virginia, 

Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont 

added together. Imagine 22 Yellowstone 

National Parks being off-limits to the 

public, and you can understand the consequences of 50.4 million acres of blocked 

public access. . 

Opportunities to use public lands are lost due 

to blocked access. The main activities that are 

affected are hunting and off-road vehicle use. 

But, the GAO has also documented losses of 

fishing, hiking, mountain biking, camping and 

pleasure-driving opportunities. Construction, 

trail and road maintenance and wildlife habitat 

management by the public agencies are also 

severely impacted. Not only is use blocked, 

but public natural resources deteriorate due to 

an inability of the public agencies to manage 

the lands. 

The biggest problems are in Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New 

Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming due to the 

checkerboard ownership created when the 

West was settled. 

But the problem is not just something for 

Westerners to worry about. Anyone who has 

traveled to the West for outdoor recreation is 

impacted. And with outdoor recreation the 

$300 billion industry it is, jobs are affected 

everywhere. 
64 

The Private Landowner 

Perspective 

Blocked access has been increasing over the 

past decade as the use of public land has been 

growing. In some cases the closed roads are 

public roads, bought and paid for with public 

dollars. However, without continued investment 

in upkeep and careful documentation of the 

existence of the road, a private landowner can 

put a gate up and close off access to adjacent 

public lands. 

Private landowners are increasingly blocking 

access to public land for a number of reasons. In 

some cases, the landowners have legitimate 

gripes. Vandalism, trespassing, poaching, liability and the desire for privacy are all factors in 

landowners "locking the gates." Outdoorsmen 

who cross private land to access public land 

have a special responsibility to ensure that private landowners' rights are respected. 

However, nefarious reasons also exist for 

blocking access, including obtaining exclusive 

personal use of vast tracts of public land and 

the ability to maintain guiding operations for 

hunting or fishing with exclusive use of public 

land. For example, a guided hunt operation in 

Montana boasted of its exclusive use of 25,000 

acres of National Forest in a brochure because 

it was able to block the on! y access to these 

public lands. 

Solutions 

The key to solving the access dilemma is to elevate the level of concern about the issue among 

the Administration and the Congress. The agencies have the needed authority and tools to 

solve the problems, but they need to be directed 

to use them and given the resources to carry out 

the programs. Three primary solutions exist: 

l) Document where legal access already exists. 

According to the Public Lands Access 

Association, Inc., 80 percent of all blocked 

lands are situations where legal access already 

exists. Legal resources devoted to documenting 

existing access would have a large payback to 

the public. 
"I would work to 

ensure appropriate 

access to public 

lands" 

-President Clinton 

Public Opinion 

Source: Roper Organization for Times Mirror Magazines 

65 

2) Presently, the primary method agencies use to 

enhance access is to purchase easements, a 

preferable alternative to condemnation. Such 

acquisitions should be made a separate line-item 

in the Forest Service and BLM budgets, and 

additional funds should be allocated to purchase 

easements in areas such as Montana where problems are particularly severe. 

3) Some private land passes through public ownership when there are defaults on federal loans 

such as those through the Farmers Home 

Administration. Rarely does the lending agency 

place easements on the land for public access 

prior to resale. This solution, without a direct 

cost to the U.S. Treasury, should become standard operating procedure as an easy-to-implement approach to increasing the public's ability 

to use its land. 

To implement these and other solutions, Congress 

needs to focus on this problem. Oversight hearings 

on the GAO report is a good first step to emphasize that the BLM and Forest Service maintain an 

innovative public access program to acquire and 

defend public rights, while mitigating private 

landowner concerns through improved public education about responsible outdoor behavior. 

What the People Want 

The public wants the government to focus on the 

access problem now. In a recent public opinion 

survey by The Roper Organization for Times 

Mirror Magazines, Americans were asked: "Do 

you think the Federal Government should find a 

way to provide access to public land at this time, 

or isn't this an important priority now?" Over 

half, 51%, responded that the government should 

provide access, while 39% felt this was not an 

important priority now. 

President Clinton feels this is an important issue. 

In a pre-election interview that appeared in all the 

Times Mirror magazines and newspapers, reaching 40 million people, he stated, "I would work to 

ensure appropriate access to public lands." 

The time for action to improve public access has 

arrived. Can Congress and the Administration 

respond to this need? 
66 

For More Information: 

Lands Staff 

USDA Forest Service 

PO Box 96090 

Washington, DC 20090-6090 

Lands Office 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 C St., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 

Public Lands Access Association, Inc. 

Box3902 

Bozeman, MT 59715 

Southeastern Montana Sportsman Associatim 

3708 Harry Cooper Place 

Billings, MT 59106-1025 

nmes Mirror Magazines, Inc. 

1705 DeSales St., N.W., Suite 801, 

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 467-4949 

Field & Stream Ski Magazine 

Golf Magazine Skiing 

Home Mechanix Skiing Trade News 

Outdoor Life Sporting Goods Dealer 

Popular Science Tournament Digest 

Salt Water Sportsman Yachting 
67 

94 STAT. 2488 PUBLIC LAW 96-487-DEC. 2, 198~ 

ACCESS 

Nonfederally 

owned lands. 16 usc 3210. 

16 usc 3211. 

In usc 3212. 

:-- t:SC 3213. 

P>.~blication in hdrral 

P. ·.:u•~r:. 

::?:tflcation of ~ ·onCT"ea. 

SEC. 1323. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 

subject to such terms and conditions as the SeCretary of Agriculture 

may prescribe, the Secretary shaU provide such access to nonfederally owned land within the boundaries of the National Forest 

System as the Secretary deems adequate to secure to the owner the 

reasonable use and enJoyment thereof: Provided, That such owner comply with rules and regulations applicable to ingress and egress to or from the National Forest System. fb) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, 

the Secretary shall provide such access to nonfederaUy owned land 

surrounded b~ public lands managed by the Secretary under the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Actofl976 (43 U.S.C. 1701-82J as the Secretary deems adequate to secure to the owner the reason· able use and enjoyment thereof: Provided, That such owner comply with rules and regulations applicable to access across public lands. 

YUKON FLATS NATIONAL WILDLlFE REFUGE AGRICULTURAL USE 

SEC. 1324. Nothing in this Act or other existing law shall be 

construed as necessarily prohibiting or mandating the development 

of agricultural potential within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife 

Refuge pursuant to existing law. The permissibility of such develol'" ment shaU be determined by the Sec:Tetary on a case-by-case basiS 

under existing law. Any such development permitted within the 

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Rt>fuge shaU be designed and con· ducted in such a manner as to m'nimiz'! to the maximum extent possible any adverse effects of tl·e na.:ural values. of the unit. 

TEIUlOR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN KODIAK NATIONAL WILDUFE 

REFUGE 

SEC. 1325. Nothing in this Act or the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd) shall be con· strued as necessarily prohibiting or mandating the construction of 

the Terror Lake l!ydroelectric Project within the Kodiak National 

Wildlife Refuge. The permissibility of such development shaU be 

determined by the Secretary on a case-by-case basis under existing 

law. FUTURE EXECUTIVE ACI'IONS 

SEc. 1326. (a) No future executive branch action which withdraws more than five thousand acres, in the a~ate, of public lands 

within the State of Alaska shall be effective except by compliance 

with this subsection. To the extent authorized by existing law, the 

President or the Secretary may withdraw public lands in the State of 

Alaska exceeding five thousand acres in the aggregate, which with· 

drawal shall not become effective until notice is provided in the 

Federal Register and to both Houses of Congress. Stich withdrawal 

shall terminate unless Congress passes a joint resolution of approval 

Within one year after the notice of such withdrawal has been 

submitted to Congress. fb) No further studies ofFederallands in the State of Alaska for the 

single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation 

system urut, national recreation area, national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless authorized 

by this Act or further Act of Congress. 
68 

Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to tum this around a little bit on the 

access question with regard to public lands. Some may raise questions since we do have a law that deals with public land access that 

was passed in 1980, which ensures that you can cross national 

lands to get to your private lands. Now the issue here, not to be 

lost and hasn't been lost on me, that I heard loud and clear from 

some of the Members at the meeting today, was that there are road 

restoration or closures on Forest Service and BLM lands. But the 

point is that there are-and that may cause some difficulty with 

regards to the time treatment, and so forth, for public lands. Of 

course, we are involved in a big debate ourselves in the committee 

on R.S. 2477, which is the rights-of-way. 

Let me yield at this time, because I know my colleagues are anxious to ask the GAO some questions. 

Mr. Hansen? 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don't know of a bigger problem that I have ever seen on this 

committee. I think that people who live in the public land States 

realize the mixture that we have all talked about, and you talk 

about in your report. It is truly a checkerboard. And you can find 

a little piece in the middle of some mountain chain, where some 

private inholder has got 10 acres and can block everything in there. 

As strong as I believe in private ownership of ground, I still think 

that some of our folks, a relatively minor group that I found in my home State of Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, where I spend a lot of 

time, most of them are pretty reasonable and let people go through, 

and for various reasons. 

In the 1970's, when I was in the State legislature, our governor 

was Governor Scott Matheson. Scott was a very interesting man 

with a lot of vision, and he suggested something called "Project Bold." Project Bold, we spent a lot of time on it. It was basically 

that the State would block up their ground, and the State had little 

pieces of it all over the map; the Federal agencies would block 

theirs up. They would then sit down and say, let's make an exchange if there is a way to do it, where maybe it is a win/win prop- osition, where you get ground that fits the needs of the Forest 

Service and/or BLM, we will exchange our ground for ground that 

fits the needs of the State of Utah. 

I think you would have to do it that way or else maybe we would 

do it on a retail basis, and we are talking acre for acre, and 40 

years isn't even close. One hundred and forty years probably isn't 

close, because of all the problems, the value and inventories and 

appraisals and all that type of thing. 

But it is either "eat the elephant," I guess, or ''take a bite at a 

time." I personally think that some bold people around here, 

maybe, someday, Mr. Chairman, we can take a bold shot at it like 

the late Governor Matheson intended to do it. 

I can give you horror stories on both sides of this thing. And I 

appreciate your report. It seems to get right to the issue. But to 

those of us who live in the West, "access," that word "access" comes 

up every time we look at a wilderness, a buffer zone, opening up 

ground, whatever it is. It is how do we provide access and should 

we provide access. The Forest Service out our way, who used to be 

)ooked at as one of the finer organizations, is becoming a hiss and 
69 

a byword because they closed so many things up. And they rightfully say we can't afford it, we can't keep the thing up. 

The public is saying, forget keeping it up, it wasn't kept up when 

the pioneers came in here, we were still able to do it. We don't need 

culverts; we don't need patrols; we don't need all this stuff; why do 

you care? 

Of course, that is not quite the way we do it. On the other side 

of the coin-and I am sure you found this in your study-! could 

give you numerous places where some private landowner, knowing 

that the vast majority of us have no knowledge at all of what is 

private and what is public, posts "Public Land." 

I have pictures of public land that has been posted by private 

landowners. And that always concerns me. I don't know why they 

would do that, but obviously there is a reason. 

There is a group right up in northern Utah that has a whole 

mountain and they bring people in and advertise in national magazines about shooting of bear, moose, elk, deer and antelope, and 

forest grouse in that area, and they hardly own any of it. They just 

happen to own the way in. And that is how they take advantage 

of that. 

So this thing cuts every which way. And you have empathy for 

both sides of this thing. 

I don't really have a question because I think you have covered 

it well. But I did want to make those statements and those comments. And I have never seen a tough thing to get involved in like 

the environmental groups; they don't want anybody in for any reason. You know, take only pictures, leave only footprints, and save 

it for two guys out of New York or something. I don't know what 

their plan is. But we get a little concerned about their extreme attitude on these things. 

So when it gets right down to it, I personally feel that the responsibility of this committee is to take care of the majority of the 

public and give them access where it can be done in an environmentally safe way and can be done in a way that they can enjoy 

the public land which should be there for the enjoyment of all people. 

And excuse me for not asking a question, but I just wanted to 

make that comment. 

Mr. VENTO. I am glad you had the last comment on environmental safety, because restoration of roads if they are left 

unmaintained can result in a lot of questions about damage to the 

environment in terms of streams and creeks and slumps, and so 

forth, as you know. So it isn't just a matter of no one took care of 

it when we came in here. 

But Congressman Williams, I am sure, has a question or two. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a difficult, contentious, complex issue, but I think one 

that can be resolved, perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction, but it 

isn't as though there is no way around it. And I commend Mr. Mike 

Penfold, BLM in Montana, and his testimony to you today. Many 

of you have seen the movie a "River Runs Through It." That movie 

runs through part of Montana, and BLM has done wonderful work 

in creating a recreation corridor, a well as setting aside a walk-in 
70 

hunting area of about 40,000-plus acres near the river that runs 

through it, the Blackfoot River. 

Mr. Penfold's testimony will, I think, demonstrate fairly significantly that there are cooperative ways to help resolve this, but it 

won't be easy. And as our current witness has indicated, more than 

50 million acres of public land is virtually shut off. And this comes 

at a time when public demand for the land is increasing, and increasing at a fairly significant rate. So we clearly have a very real 

problem on our hands and it is in fact going to require some innovation. And more than that, some genuine neighborliness. 

We can't do this from here by passing laws. You mentioned a 

"Cowboy's Heaven." Cowboy's Heaven is not only the States of Wyoming and Montana, but it is an actual place in Montana. There 

is a place called "Cowboy's Heaven." Access to that place was shut 

off 25 years ago at gunpoint. Well, there is not a hell of a lot of 

neighborliness in that act. With aggressive management techniques, maybe with new laws and new regulations, above all, we 

need neighborliness by both those who would use the land as well 

as those who own the private land that blocks them from their own 

land. 

Mr. Anderson, would you tell the committee more about your testimony on pages 3 and 4, in which you describe the genuine difficulties that private landowners have? 

You cite a couple of examples out in Montana. One of them 

strikes me, because I have got a couple of landowner friends out 

there who have shut off access or at least they contain it pretty significantly, simply because of the weed problem. You know, leafy 

spurge and spotted knapweed are funny sounding weeds, but deadly serious problems. 

Could you give us a little better sense of what some of the ranchers have told you with regard to the very real problems they have 

in allowing many, many people through their land? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. And I will call on my colleagues to help me 

on this, too. One of the examples that we had in our testimony was 

a real life situation that the staff saw when they were actually out 

there. They were on a ranch, I believe, in Montana, and talking to 

the rancher. And he was concerned primarily about vandalism and 

litter and that sort of thing. One of the things that actually happened when they were on the land was there were some people 

that weren't authorized to be there cutting down timber. I think 

maybe looking back at it in 20/20 hindsight, the GAO auditors 

went out to go try to find them. I think if they had to do over 

again, they might not want to have done that. But in any event, 

that is a classic example. 

I think several people have mentioned this morning what a difficult problem this is because you have landowners who have legitimate rights and needs, too. In some cases their property is being 

misused by visitors to get on to the Federal land. So that is something you have to deal with. 

I don't know whether, Jim, or Bill, you want to cite some examples. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Perhaps your colleagues could give us other examples of difficulties that private landowners have cited. 
71 

Mr. TEMMLER. Speaking to some of the ranchers, they indicated 

that the weed problem was very significant, especially around the 

Gallatin area, around Bozeman. This could be a perennial problem 

by the importation of some of these noxious weeds that can be carried in either through the hooves on horses and as well as hikers 

and on truck tires. We saw a similar problem out in the Los Padres, in California, where there is another problem caused with 

avocado root disease that hikers bring in on their boots. So there 

is a reluctance for some of the avocado growers to allow hikers to 

cross their land. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield, please, for a minute on 

that? 

I had somewhere back some botany or something. I am just wondering if, these were the reports that individuals were taking to 

you in terms of dissemination of weed seed and other types of disease, but I guess from a scientific standpoint, is that-did you actually try and go back and check to see whether or not that was the 

principal carrier? I was just wondering whether human impact is 

one of the principal causes; I am just wondering how serious an aspect? 

They certainly have a right to their views on it. But I was wondering if we checked it out really to determine whether or not that 

was the dissemination path that was accurate? 

Mr. TEMMLER. No, Mr. Chairman, we did not. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I just think it is useful. I am certain that it 

does contribute something; it could be the primary thing. A lot of 

things have been moved in the country. I don't want to take anything away from the report in terms of that, but I think we need 

to nail it down. I think they have got to in terms of these issues. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Your report summary notes that, according to 

Forest Service supervisors, hunting is greatly or extremely reduced 

everywhere, except in the eastern region of the United States. 

Quantify "reduced." I see where you say it is somewhat reduced in 

seven of the western States, but can you tell us what you mean by 

"greatly reduced''? 

Mr. TEMMLER. By greatly reduced, about 12.7 percent of the Forest Service supervisors indicated that this was a great problem on 

their forests. For the BLM, about 14.7 percent of the BLM managers reported that this was a great problem on their resources. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Are they basing those comments on the number 

of complaints they get or of actual closures? 

Mr. TEMMLER. Responses to the question we asked was based on 

their knowledge of the area. Mr. ANDERSON. I think it is really a judgment factor. In our 

questionnaire, we gave them five choices, ranging from "greatly," to 

"no problem at all. And I think they exercised their judgment, looking back anecdotally over time, and answered the question that 

way. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, finally, Mr. Chairman, in Montana at least, this hunting season, it is a greater problem than ever before in our 

State's history because hundreds of thousands of acres have been 

posted by private landowners who disagree with some new State 

regulations with regard to a.ccess. And I personally believe that 
72 

without some innovative approaches such as the BLM and Forest 

Service, as well, have applied in Montana, combined with neighborliness, unless those things happen, this problem is going to become 

a shootout at the OK Corral in the West in future years. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I thank the gentleman. Hopefully, by trying to 

participate here and get abreast of it, we can begin to set in place 

some policy that will temper what is obviously a very serious problem. 

I agree with you, I don't think it is just passing more laws to say 

you ought to get along, you know. So we have got a problem. Congressman Smith, do you have any questions for Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I just want to put this discussion in some kind of perspective. 

This is all about private property rights and, where the public interest overrides public property rights, private property rights for 

access. So that is the debate. And I can just see this committee 

making sure that we can trespass over every private property 

owner; I would like to see that bill. I am sure it would be interesting and likely. 

But, you know, I am surprised that there are only 14 percent of 

the public lands in BLM that are impacted. In my district alone, 

the Federal Government owns 75 percent of the public lands. About 

79,000 square miles. And I note that the Oregon problem is slight, 

about 3 percent, 3.1 percent, I believe. 

I understand that the Federal Government has the right to demand access to extract minerals and timber. Should they be denied 

access over private lands, they can condemn access. So this issue 

basically is about recreation and hunting and fishing, I assume. In 

your determination of 14 percent that have been denied access to 

public lands, what percentage of that is recreation, what percentage of it is for other reasons? 

Mr. HUNT. I believe, Mr. Smith, as far as the figure goes, that 

it included all lands where there was not adequate access. There 

was no distinction made between whether it was recreation or 

whether it was for mining purposes. 

In the report itself, the principal areas that were discussed, most 

of it relates to the recreation aspect, hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, that type of thing. 

Mr. SMITH. So that is what we are talking about, basically. Now, 

I was just in Oregon, I was on a ranch of 45,000 acres, privately 

owned. Right in the middle of it there is a section of BLM land. 

And, this fellow has this place blocked up. Now that section would 

be included, of course, in the total number, I assume. And I reverse 

the issues. If you forced access across this man's property to that 

section, I am sure that hunters, like me, would never take advantage of driving across private lands and killing a deer or an elk 

while getting to that section of public land. I know that wouldn't 

happen myself. 

There is another angle to this problem, and that is these isolated 

tracts. And I assume all the isolated tracts are included in your report of the 14 percent. Did you in your study determine that there 

were aggravated problems where a person owned 160 acres and de-
73 

prived the public of using thousands of acres of public lands? Did 

you break down your analysis at all? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I don't think we gathered the infonnation that 

would enable us to do it that way. 

Mr. SMITH. So I know there are aggravated problems. The other 

side of it is there are situations in which anybody, any reasonable 

person, would justify locking up a piece of public land if it were 

surrounded by private land. And that brings us back to this question of either exchanging lands or the Federal Government actively 

selling at public auction or whatever, or to the landowner, those 

isolated tracts which would eliminate part of this problem. I am 

surprised that there are not more than 14 percent, frankly; are 

you? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I don't think we really had an idea at all, 

other than what we had seen in the agency's files. And, you know, 

it depends on where you sit whether or not it is a big problem. If 

you are one that wants· to use the land, you could consider it a 

major problem if you can't get access to it. But 14 percent, you 

know, is not a large percent. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Like Utah, I assume, the State of Oregon has 

been actively trying to block and exchange lands, with the BLM 

primarily, because most of the area is controlled by the Bureau of 

Land Management, and done it very successfully. As you know, 

when we came into the Nation, Sections 16 and 36 were retained 

by the State. So we have this checkerboard pattern, not only private and public, but State lands and Federal lands. 

And we have done a good job in the last 20 years in blocking 

State lands with the Federal Government. That ought to be some 

sort of clue as to how to proceed, it would seem to me. And by the 

numbers, Oregon has less of a problem than many States. So I wonder if this blocking program might reduce the access. 

And, of course, it does. Maybe that is one reason Oregon has less 

of a problem. You didn't take a look at that at all? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No, we didn't. 

Mr. SMITH. And the reasons that Montana and Wyoming have 

larger problems than others, have you a comment on that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I don't think we know. All we found was that 

there was a wide variance in the problems among the States. But 

in tenns of why the problems, I don't think we have got a good 

handle on that. 

Mr. SMITH. All right, thank you very much. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. I would be happy. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 

I join the gentleman in his concern about private property rights 

and I don't think we are going to see a bill from this subcommittee, 

but if we could, like you, I would be eager to see what it did. 

Mr. VENTO. If I could just comment on the gentleman's comments, not on the bill that you will see on private property rights. 

You know this is an area that cuts both ways, as I indicated before, 

and I recognize that. I was looking in the Pacific Northwest Region, 

I can't tell the number, but it indicates that there are about 25 million. This is just Washington and Oregon, 25 million acres of land 
74 

between the two States that were indexed here with parks, and so 

forth, so it is probably larger than that. But the point is if you--

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. My number is 3 percent. 

Mr. VENTO. I didn't know, I was just looking at the chart. Maybe 

it is smaller than that. 

Can you, Mr. Anderson, for the benefit of Mr. Smith and myself, 

interpret your chart, put some numbers to it here? I didn't do it 

quickly enough on appendix one, the Northwest Region. Is that 

supposed to be just 3 percent of those lands that are affected there? 

It is page 8-had you attached this to your statement? And I just 

wanted to get some numbers on that particular instance for the 

benefit of my colleagues and I for--

Mr. ANDERSON. I think we have it by State for the BLM lands. 

And we have it by region for the Forest Service lands. 

Mr. VENTO. But it looks to me about 1 or 2 million, and so it 

looks like about 4 or 5 percent, for the Pacific Northwest. Can you 

give it to us for Oregon and Washington? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, Oregon for the BLM lands only, it is 6.6 

million acres with inadequate access. And that was about 42 percent of the Federal land in Oregon. 

Mr. VENTO. Inadequate, and "inadequate" means it is too far 

around or some other problem with it? 

Mr. ANDERSON. That the government didn't have the permanent 

legal right to get to the land. 

Mr. VENTO. So some of this is stating they don't have permanent 

right: Where they may have it today, they don't have it on a permanent basis? 

Mr. ANDERSON. That is right. The Pacific Northwest region was 

1.6 million acres with inadequate access, that comprised 7 percent. 

Mr. VENTO. So you are below us a little bit, but you have got 

enough of a problem so things aren't always as rosy as the 

gentleman--

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. VENTO. I yield to you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I have my numbers here that indicate 3.1 percent of the Forest 

Service as inadequate access. Is that according to--

Mr. VENTO. He was giving us BLM numbers? 

Mr. SMITH. This is Forest Service. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Right. The Forest Service. We only have the data 

by region; we don't have it by State. 

Mr. SMITH. We have it by State here. Old numbers; June 1988, 

from the Forest Service. 

Mr. VENTO. This survey was done, I think, Mr. Anderson said in 

1991. You probably need to update it. That is the reason I asked 

the question to begin with, whether this was a growing problem. 

I was curious as to the area that you were visiting where you had 

45,000 acres with a section which would be 660 acres. 

Mr. SMITH. Six hundred and forty, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Six hundred and forty, pardon me. And the point 

being that there are two things: One, they didn't have access to 

that particular land in this instance? 
75 

Mr. SMITH. No. The man has it blocked up, but he has got a section that he would like to exchange. He would like to trade; he 

would like to buy. It is sitting in there as a thorn in the side. 

Mr. VENTO. I was wondering if you actually knew that he didn't 

have it. Two is, when you get 50.4 million acres, I don't have to 

remind you that 640 acres is a pretty small portion of that, so that 

if there are a lot of isolated tracts, there may be a significant number. 

Mr. SMITH. If the gentleman will yield? 

There are significant numbers surrounded by private lands that 

add up to, we don't know, we haven't analyzed it this far, but it 

is not an insignificant number. 

Mr. VENTO. My point I was going to try and make is that the 

problem, obviously, goes well beyond that particular--

Mr. WILLIAMS. If the Chair would yield? 

Mr. VENTO. Sure, I would yield. Mr. WILLIAMS. We are coming to a different phase in the problem 

of private ownership. The gentleman from Oregon and I think all 

of us concerned about private property rights are usually referring 

to folks who have lived along with their families on this land for 

many years. They are permanent residents. But there is a new private property problem being created in the West. It is being created because of the lifestyle of the rich and famous 

greenhorns who are coming to the West, not to live on the land, 

but to visit the best of the wild places occasionally, and public 

places, and have those as their own. We have got a new neighbor, 

relatively new neighbor out in Montana who, by the way, is trying 

to be a real good neighbor in Montana, Ted Turner. 

Ted bought a lot of land around this area, Mr. Chairman, called 

Cowboy's Heaven. And when asked about how the public was going 

to continue to get access to it, he suggested they do it the old.:fashioned way, make $22 million and buy it the way he did. I am not 

denigrating Mr. Turner with regard to that, but that was a colorful 

statement that has often been quoted in Montana. And if I am not 

mistaken, it is quoted in the article which the Chairman passed around. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, it is. I put it in the record. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So that is the other phase of this problem, and 

that is growing. 

And in my judgment, we are very quickly going to go over 14 percent of public land that is being shut off, simply because of the rich 

and famous coming in and buying up huge portions of the land. At 

least Mr. Turner comes out and works the land and lives on it 

quite a bit. A number of other people who own the same amounts 

of land as Turner, do not come out and work it or don't ranch it. 

They really just use it for their own access. 

Mr. VENTO. I would suggest to the gentleman, I appreciate his 

insight, but it is akin to what happened where most of our ancestors came from in Europe, where these reserves and areas were left 

for a slight group of people and excluded the rest of us that might 

have had a lower social rank. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure, and that is my point about how the public 

should have right of access to its land without regard to wealth, 

not begin to move away from that in the West. 
76 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Turner and others obviously don't intend that. 

They have some questions, private property owners have some legitimate questions. Often the dispersal of weeds, other damage. 

One question, Mr. Anderson, before I recess because we have to 

vote. It is a question we are concerned with because one of the issues is going to come up later. I wanted to point out to my colleague from Oregon, too, the issue of the tools that the Forest Service and BLM have available. For instance, Congressman Smith 

suggested that the forest access roads and others were not important because they have condemnation. But the condemnation, later 

it will be testified to, is something that has to go before the Appropriations Committee. And we have to sometimes wait two and 

three years because of some particular provision they put in law, 

ostensibly, I am sure, thinking to safeguard against precipitous action by an agency, but it is interfering, stretching out, causing expense, causing difficulty even for clouded title matters with regards 

to this particular matter. And so did you find that the Forest Service and BLM tools in this case were, in your survey, not functioning 

effectively in terms of doing the job? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, specifically with regard to condemnation, 

the Forest Service and BLM managers readily admitted that they 

were very reluctant to use this as a tool. It is a tool available, but 

it is time-consuming. It can be politically difficult to do and has 

some administrative burdens associated with it, too. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think, you know, it is just another area where 

if we want to clear up these matters, we have to. 

I appreciate, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Temmler, your testimony. Can you wait there, we will be back momentarily. 

We stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. Let's resume our sitting now, and our efforts will, at 

this point-Congressman Smith, we have a long list. You said you 

had an additional question of the panel, a question. 

Mr. SMITH. I won't take long. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay, good. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Anderson, did you at all analyze the question of 

using Federal lands by building roads to access public lands that 

were denied access because of a particular spot of private land denial? . Mr. ANDERSON. No, I don't believe we did anything down to that 

specific parcel level or anything like that, no, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. I think you would agree that if we had a large road 

construction budget, we would go around a lot of that stuff on public lands, the isolated tract issue, merely build a road around it. 

That is true in the West. But of course, then that gets you into the 

question of building more roads. 

We don't build any more roads around here, as you well know. 

We build less roads. And we would run into an immediate problem, 

I am sure, with the environmentalists if we tried to do that. So 

there are some trade-offs. 

I have some numbers here that there are 134 million acres of 

public lands within grazing districts, and 128 million outside grazing districts. Did you determine whether or not public access was 
77 

denied within or without grazing districts as they are organized in 

the West, especially on BLM land? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I don't know. Bill, did we? 

Mr. 'I'EMMLER. No, we did not. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Well, it i!> obvious a lot of these isolated tracts 

are outside grazing districts, almost an equivalent number, and I 

wondered if you had done any study like that. That is the only 

questions I had. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay, fine, thank you. We appreciate your being 

brief so we could go on to the other witnesses. 

And thank you, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Temmler. We ap- preciate the effort here and we are probably going to redraft some 

questions to you on this topic after we get a better insight into the 

scope from the hearing today and the questions of Members. Thank you very much. . Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome the first panel. Jim 

Overbay, Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, and Mr. Mike Penfold, the Assistant Director of Land and 

Renewable Resources, the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 

Pleased to see Mr. Overbay back. He was explaining that he had 

some surgery and had been ill for some time. We wish him well 

and hope he has a good recovery from his health concern. Jim, welcome back. 

Your statements have both been made part of the record, incidentally, so you only need to summarize. I note they are long and 

good statements and we appreciate again your cooperation with the 

GAO and the work that they did. Welcome, Jim. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF JAMES OVERBAY, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND MICHAEL J. PENFOLD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LAND ANDRENEWABLE RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

STATEMENT OF JAMES OVERBAY 

Mr. OVERBAY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be back, and I have a clean bill of health now, so 

you will probably see some more of me. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to testify today on this very important but also very controversial issue. I do want to assure you 

that the Administration recognizes that access to the national forests is a significant problem and that we are committed to taking 

responsible action whenever necessary to correct this. You have already heard from the GAO witness and a number of the statistics 

and items in my testimony repeat what you have heard, so I will 

skip through that. I might just add a little bit based on some of 

the questions that you were asking the other witnesses. 

You asked if this was a growing problem? It is a growing problem. Principally because early in the history of the Forest Service, 

our acljacent landowners generally did not object to people crossing 

their lands to access the Federal lands, but as those land patterns 
78 

have changed, as ownership has changed, it has become much more 

of a problem. We are finding existing roads and trails being closed that people 

have used for years. A lot of the reasons for that you have already 

heard about-eoncerns about vandalism, concerns over liabilitybut a lot of it is because some of these new owners just want to 

have exclusive use and they really don't want the public having access across their lands. 

At present, 17.3 million acres or about 9 percent of the National 

Forest System does not have an adequate access. And we estimate 

that it would require about 28,000 easements involving about 7,500 

miles of rights-of-way to provide adequate access to all the national 

forest lands. I might add that the infonnation on our needs has 

come from our forest planning process. It is based on the forest supervisors' best estimates of what would be needed to implement the 

forest plans. So those particular figures on actual needs probably 

aren't going to change an awful lot in the future. 

I think it is a pretty good overall picture of what our access 

needs are. I think you are aware that the principal funding source 

for our access program has been construction dollars, mainly in the 

road program but we also use some trail construction money for 

this. That program has been decreasing dramatically in the past 

few years. 

We estimated from our current funding levels that we can acquire about 375 road and trail right-of-way easements and that we 

would eliminate the need for about another 275 on an annual basis 

through exchange and fee acquisitions. But at that particular rate 

of right-of-way acquisition, it is going to take 40 years to acquire 

all the needed access to the national forest land. 

One of the problems that we are encountering is an increasing 

reluctance on the part of county and State road agencies to defend 

the status of historic roads that are being gated and closed. We 

have entered into cooperative agreements that allows the Forest 

Service to maintain these important means of access, but this has 

not been a comprehensive approach. 

We want to work more with the National Association of State 

and Local Governments in developing incentives to encourage them 

to maintain legal rights. In addition, we are going to review the 

adequacy of our own authorities to defend, maintain and perfect 

historic rights-of-way that provide access to Federal lands that 

might otherwise be abandoned. As I mentioned earlier, liability 

considerations are one of the reasons many private landowners do 

not want to allow public access. 

We are working to develop cooperative agreements with private 

landowners, user groups and State and local governments to meet 

the need for reduced tort liability and enhanced law enforcement. I think this is an area that could probably help solve a number of 

those problems. 

We are also going to continue to urge both the Department of 

Justice and the USDA Office of the General Counsel to continue to 

defend aggressively U.S. interests in protection of existing rights. We feel we need to set the example. We will emphasize more the public access program through updates of our RPA program, our annual budgeting process, and we 
79 

are also going to include resolution of identified access problems as 

a specific item in our management attainment report so we can 

specifically track accomplishments on each of our national forests. 

But I think overall what we really have to do is become more diligent in completing our right-of-way acquisitions. 

As an agency, we strive to maintain good relations with all adjacent landowners, whether it is local government, private parties, or 

other government entities. And we are going to continue to do that, 

but at the same time, we must give equal weight to the rights and 

expectation of the general public. 

Congress has given us a number of authorities to satisfy those 

needs. Our challenge in using these authorities is to find ways to 

use these authorities in ways that best serve the needs of all of the 

users of the National Forest System. 

And with that, I will conclude my statement and be happy to answer questions. Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Overbay. And we will have questions 

for you. But we are going to ask Mr. Penfold, of course, to testify 

first before we do that. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Overbay follows:] 
80 

STATEMENT OF 

JAMES OVERBAY, DEPUTY CHIEF 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning Problems with Access to fUblic Lands. 

November 11, 1993 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMI'ITEE: 

Thank you for your interest in the issue of inadequate access 

to National Forest Systems lands and for providing to us the 

opportunity to offer our views on this matter. This 

Administration recognizes that access to our National Forests 

is a significant problem that prevents the American public from 

fully utilizing and enjoying these lands. We are committed to 

taking responsible action wherever necessary to correct this 

problem. 

Much of the information we are presenting today comes directly 

from, or was a consequence of, a report entitled "Federal Lands 

- Reasons for and Effects of Inadequate Public Access." The 

report was prepared in 1992 by the General Accounting Office at 

your request. This subcommittee's continuing support will be 

invaluable as we continue our efforts to address this issue. 
81 

Extent of the Access Problem 

During the early history of the Forest Service, little thought 

was given to public right of access. With some exceptions, 

adjacent landowners did not object to people crossing their 

lands to use the National Forests. Unfortunately, the 

willingness of private landowners to accommodate the public has 

-diminished. over the past few decades, the situation has 

changed dramatically with landowners increasingly closing 

historic routes of access. Existing roads and trails that have 

long provided public access across private lands are being 

closed _by landowners at an increasing rate. Some of the 

reasons for this change in behavior include a fear of 

vandalism, growing concern over liability, and general 

incompatibility between the owner's use and public access. 

At present, 17.3 million acres, or approximately 9 percent of 

the 191 million acres of National Forest system lands, does not 

have adequate access. Inadequate access, as defined by the 

General Accounting Office in its report, means "that the 

federal government does not have the permanent, legal right for 

the public to enter federal land at the point(s) needed to use 

the land as intended by the managing agency.• To provide 

adequate access to these lands, approximately 28,000 easements 

are needed involving an estimated 7,500 miles of 

rights-of-way. The majority of needed easements are located in 

2 
82 

the western regions where most of the inaccessible land is 

located. 

The most immediately identifiable effect of inadequate access 

is seen in the reduction of the general public's ability to 

recreate on National Forests. For example, over 10 percent of 

managers surveyed for the GAO report stated that hunting and 

off-road-vehicle use were greatly or extremely reduced due to 

the lack of adequate access. Other activities, such as hiking 

and camping, also have been significantly affected. To a 

lesser extent, important management activities, such as habitat 

improvement in support of biological diversity, have been 

hampered by inadequate access. 

CUrrent Program 

With increased emphasis on recreation and wildlife resources 

and opportunities to promote rural economic development, many 

individuals and interest groups are demanding that we improve 

accessibility to National Forest System lands. Access needs 

are identified through the forest planning process mandated by 

the National Forest Management Act. This process allows for 

substantial public involvement and is an important tool in 

identifying those areas where the public feels a need for 

better access to the National Forests. We maintain an ongoing 

program to resolve access issues using a variety of authorities 

to accomplish program objectives. We can acquire all rights 

3 
and interests associated with the land needed for access, 

called fee simple acquisition, or we can obtain perpetual 

access easements which are irrevocable rights granted by 

private landowners for access across their property. Either 

type of access can be acquired through purchase, donation, 

exchange, or condemnation. 

The GAO report shows that the Forest Service acquired public 

access to about 2 . 6 million acres during fiscal years 1989 

through 1991. Of these acquisition actions, approximately half 

were through perpetual easements, a quarter through fee simple 

land acquisition and another 17 percent through other methods 

such as cooperative agreements with other agencies or private 

entities. Only three percent were a result of condemnations, 

many of which were used to perfect title or to establish an 

equitable value for the property involved. In other words, the 

overwhelming majority of acquisitions were a result of an 

amicable transaction, beneficial to both parties. 

The principal funding source for the access program has been 

construction dollars, both road and trail. Historically, the 

road rights-of-way acquisition activities have been largely 

associated with our timber sale program. The program, with 

funding of $4.5 to $6 . 0 million in annual appropriations, has 

been declining, hQwever, at current funding levels, we are able 

to acquire about 375 road and trail right-of-way easements and 

4 
84 

eliminate the need for about 275 more on an annual basis 

through land exchanges, acquisitions and other means. 

Acquisition of needed rights-of-way has also been hampered by 

changing public preferences. The increased number of closures 

of historic access facilities, a declining willingness of 

owners to sell their land or interest in land, escalating land 

values, and ownership fragmentation all serve to complicate 

acquisition efforts. At the current rate of acquisition, 

adequate access to all National Forest Systems lands will not 

be guaranteed in the next 40 years. 

Initiatives to improve access 

With limited exception, we do not envision the need for new 

authorities to carry out this program. This does not mean that 

we do not need to improve our performance in this area. 

One of the major obstacles in providing access to public lands 

is a growing reluctance on the part of county and state road 

agencies to defend the status of historic roads that are being 

gated and closed. Limited resources are the prime reason for 

this trend. On a case-by-case basis, we . enter into cooperative 

agreements with local governments that allow the Forest Service 

to maintain these important means of access. However, this is 

not a comprehensive approach. In the future, we will work with 

national associations of state and local governments in 

5 
85 

developing incentives that will encourage them to maintain 

legal rights, services and travel-way facilities to and on 

National Forest Systems lands. In addition to these actions, 

we are reviewing the adequacy of our authority to defend, 

perfect, and maintain historic public rights-of-way that 

provide access to Federal lands that might otherwise be 

abandoned. 

As stated earlier, liability considerations detract from the 

willingness of many private landowners to allow the public 

access across their property. In addressing this problem, we 

are working to develop cooperative agreements with private 

landowners, user groups, and state and local governments to 

meet the need for reduced tort liability and enhanced law 

enforcement. 

Additionally, we will urge the Department of Justice and the 

Department's Office of General Counsel, to continue to defend 

aggressively United States interests in protection of existing 

rights. We believe we must lead by example if we are going to 

ask state and local governments to take a more proactive role 

in this area. 

We are also emphasizing the public access program through 

Forest Service internal activities such as Renewable Resources 

Planning Act updates, the annual budgeting process, and the 

Annual Report of the Forest Service. Recently, we have also 

6 
86 

decided to include resolution of identified access problems as 

a specific item in our management attainment report . This will 

allow us to better monitor our progress in eliminating access 

problems. 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must be more diligent 

in completing right-of-way acquisitions. As an agency, we 

strive to maintain a good relationship with all adjacent 

landowners, be they local governments, private parties, or 

other government entities. We must continue to do so. At the 

same time, we must give equal weight to the rights and 

expectations of the general public. Congress has entrusted us 

a variety of authorities to satisfy these needs. Where the 

planning process, with its attendant public involvement, has 

clearly established a need for improved access, we must be 

ready to redeem our responsibility for providing this access. 

Too often, our reluctance to use all delegated authorities has 

undermined our effectiveness in working to acquire 

rights-of-way. Our challenge is in using these authorities in 

a way that best serves the needs of all users of National 

Forest System lands. We are committed to meeting this 

challenge to the satisfaction of this subcommittee and to the 

satisfaction of the publics we serve. 

This completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 
87 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. PENFOLD 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Penfold, welcome, and your statement has been 

made part of the record. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you, sir. 

We appreciate being here and appreciate the committee having 

this hearing. It is an important matter. I will try to summarize my 

testimony because several points have already been addressed. 

Obviously, this is a big issue for the Bureau of Land Management on the 270 million acres of land it manages. Mr. Overbay and 

the GAO have pretty well articulated the factors that are involved 

in discussing access. We agree with GAO's definition of the problem. And the BLM manages a great deal of checkerboard lands 

which also exacerbates the land patterns that we are managing for 

the public. 

Congressman Williams pointed out the changes that are happening in terms of use, particularly going toward recreation uses. We 

very much agree with his point on that, and that will tend to increase the need for legal access. I might point out that we don't 

benefit very often from donations on easements, and I discussed 

that a little bit more in our testimony. 

A point on eminent domain and condemnation. First, it is important to say that we see that as absolutely last resort in terms of 

acquiring access. It is a useful tool to us, though, in several situations. Obviously, one where we just cannot get cooperation. But it 

is also a useful. tool where we have cooperation to the extent that 

a landowner agrees that the access should be given but we can't 

come to agreement on what the value is. Condemnation gives us 

a way to have somebody else weigh in to determine the value. 

And in recent years, as the Chairman pointed out, the Congress 

has asked us to consult with them and get approval from the Appropriation Committees before we move forward on condemnations. 

We think this is unnecessary oversight. But again, I want to emphasize, we see condemnation as a last resort. 

In fiscal years 1989 to 1991, the Forest Service and the BLM 

have acquired a great deal of access, but BLM still has, again as 

the Chairman pointed out, almost 13,000 easements. And we would 

expect that number to grow at the present rate, because of the factors that Congressman Williams has pointed out, the changes in 

land use. 

Since the GAO issued its 1992 report on this matter, BLM has 

taken steps to enhance its abilities to procure more adequate access. This includes a more holistic budgeting approach, whereby 

benefiting resource activities provide some of the funding necessary 

to pay for acquisition costs. For example, up until about 1989, 

about 80 percent of the funds that we got for access were put into 

overhead. · 

What we are doing now is taking the $1.4 million that we get for 

access, using most of that for paying for the access needs, and paying for the overhead out of other activities. 

Another thing that we are doing is developing partnerships with 

landowners and conservation groups so that BLM does not have to 

secure all the desired easements in a specific area. Also, we are 

emphasizing use of our field personnel to assist the recreation public during periods of especially high land use such as during hunt-
88 

ing seasons, so that the public can find where there is legal access 

to get into the public lands. 

Some of the best examples of innovative ways to resolve access 

problems are found in Montana. Federal, State, and local governments working with private landowners, and users, have made real 

progress in providing additional access for the public. ELM-administered lands in Montana are often included in block management 

hunting units administered by the Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks. This program utilizes a variety of incentives for 

landowners for the use of hunting license revenues for providing 

access for sportsmen. 

Montana BLM districts have been formal partners in management of these blocks. This is a State-run program. I think it emphasizes that it doesn't all have to be done by the Federal Government. State and local governments can help in this a great deal. 

As required under State law in Montana, passed in 1992, the 

BLM in Montana identified 220 roadways across State school trust 

land that and provide access for adjacent ELM-administered lands. 

These routes were approved by the Montana Department of State 

Lands field offices as routes which should remain open for use by 

hunters and fishermen. 

This program is to be fully implemented in this 1993 hunting 

season. We understand that there has been some controversy about 

this, and we hope that that will work its way out. It seems like reasonable public policy there in Montana. In order to resolve critical access needs, the BLM has been involved in two initiatives that did not require the purchase of easements. A 42,000-acre, walk-in hunting area was established in cooperation with all landowners. Vehicle access was limited on all 

lands within the management area that are open for public hunting. There are 16 additional similar areas in Montana that provide 

almost 216,000 acres of this kind of access that is developed in a 

cooperative way with the landowners. 

The second initiative that Congressman Williams mentioned as 

well is the creation of the Blackfoot River Recreation Quarter 

Landowners Agreement which involves a 40-mile stretch of the 

river east of Missoula. The land is located within 50 feet of the 

high-water line, and certain other designated parking and stopping 

areas are open to public use regardless of ownership. 

As with the block management hunting program, one of the keys 

to success in these initiatives is the enforcement provided by the 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, another cooperatively developed program. I might emphasize, too, Congressman 

Williams, knowing your interest in this, I did some assessment on 

what land exchange provides. Congressman Smith and a couple of the other Members men- tioned, the opportunity for land exchange to resolve issues. There 

have been in the last decade about 78 different land exchange 

transactions in the State of Montana. Fifty of those provide access, 

as well as other benefits. We see the land exchange program as a 

very important tool for us to move forward in getting rid of the 

need for access in some regards and blocking up and providing access in other areas. 
89 

I make a point in my testimony that access is also an issue for 

handicapped people. I just want to mention this. I know that is not 

what the committee is primarily focused on. We have got a program which we call "Access Means Freedom," which also recognizes 

that handicapped people need a special kind of access. 

As you can see, gaining access on all the public lands we think 

is a monumental undertaking. We have done a lot. We want to 

pledge our continued aggressive action and look forward to working 

with the committee in finding ways to move forward more aggressively. 

We are concerned that we have a good, positive program in the 

near future. We think that the problems get worse as time goes on 

and they are not treated in an up-front manner. · One other point that I don't make in my testimony, that I just 

want to touch on as a footnote, is that BLM lands that we manage 

and with our authorities don't have boundaries like the national 

forests, national parks, national wildlife refuges. What that means 

is we are able to work with landowners, local governments, State 

organizations, to reposition land anywhere it makes sense for the 

general public to provide access. We found this extremely valuable 

tool in providing access to navigable rivers where there is not adequate access at the present time. So BLM has a rather unique opportunity there. One other footnote is that we are discovering that mountain 

biking is the fastest-growing outdoor recreation activity in the 

country right now. We see a lot of it here in the East and we see 

a huge amount of it in some areas in the West. Mountain biking 

will put on us, I think, a new set of acquisition access requirements. I just want to make a footnote of that to the committee. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Penfold follows:] 
90 

NOV-9~ 

STATBJIEHT OJ' MICHAEL J. PENFOLD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-LAND AND 

REHBWABLE RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGBME!IT, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTKBBT OJ' THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR HATIOHAL 

PARKS, J'ORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE OR HATURAL RESOURCES, 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OJ' REPRESB!ITATIVES, AT AN OVERSIGHT KBARIRG ON 

"PUBLIC LANDS AND RATIONAL FORESTS LOCKOUT: OBSTACLES TO ADEQUATE 

PUBLIC ACCESS". 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the 

adequacy of public access to land managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the status of our efforts to improve such 

access. 

The BLM manages the surface area of approximately 270 million acres 

of Federal land and an additional 300 million acres of subsurface 

estate, mostly in the western United States. Approximately 

32 million acres of BLM land have inadequate public a .ccess. 

Many factors may cause access problems. Some public lands are 

surrounded by or intermingled with private lands that block public 

access. In other instances, the public may have access to large 

parcels of public land but the access is inadequate because it is 

only at points which are impractical to use. A result is the 

limiting of public use of the land. For example, there are many 

roads in the West that access ·public lands, but the presence of a 

large canyon· or a steep rock cliff may prevent direct physical 

access from that road to the public land beyond these obstacles. 

As defined by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in its 

April 14, 1992, report to you on this subject, the term "inadequate 

access" means that the Federal government has not acquired the 
2 

permanent, leqal riqht for the public to enter Federal land at the 

point(&) needed to use the Federal land as intended by the manaqinq 

aqency. 

Inadequate access to western public lands is the result of 

scattered and interminqled ownership patterns created when the 

lands were homesteaded and the railroads built. The problem is 

especially apparent in the areas of the West where Federal 

ownership forms a "checkerboard" land pattern. Inadequate access 

reduces the opportunities for the public to use what it owns. It 

may hinder proper manaqement of public land by the BLM under 

multiple use principles. 

As is happeninq with · other publicly-owned land,· the public land 

manaqed by the BLM is experiencinq chanqinq patterns of use. There 

are major trends away from use of public land for its extractive 

uses such as mininq and timber, and toward increasinq its use for 

recreational activities such as hikinq, bikinq, campinq, huntinq, 

fishinq, and photoqraphy. Because of these trends, the BLM is 

working to maximize access by the public to enjoy the use or public 

lands for these recreational activities. 

At the same time that public use patterns are chanqinq, there is 

also a chanqinq ownership pattern tor the western private lands. 

In many places, ranchers who had previously allowed the public free 

access across their property have . sold to new owners who have 
92 

3 

closed such access. These closings often lead to confrontations 

between such owners and disappointed prospective users. 

To resolve public access problems, the BLM can acquire either all 

r i ghts and interests associated with the land, known as fee simple 

acqui sition, or perpetual easements which provide limited controls 

over the land that are binding on the present and succeeding 

owners. Federal acquisition of the fee estate is more costly and 

is not always prudent if all that is needed is a road easement to 

provide public access across private lands. Purchase of easements 

is the most cost-effective and is usually the preferred 

alternative. 

Donations of land or easements for access purposes are rarely 

received. Acquisition of access cannot be paid for from our usual 

Management of Land and Resources ("MLR") appropriations; easements 

are acquired with funds specifically appropriated for such 

purposes. 

A special type of land management problem may occur when landowners 

refuse to seil easements across their property. Some owners do not 

want the public to cross thei r land and some disagree with the 

compensation offered. In such cases, the BLM must consider the use 

of the power of eminent domain, or condemnation. Condemnation is 

the acquisition method least used by the BLM and is resorted to 
93 

4 

only in special situations and only after other options fail. 

Since the early 1980's we have been required to file Declarationof-Taking actions only after receiving approval from the 

Appropriation Committees of both Houses of Congress. This 

procedure is presently directed in the reprogramming guidelines set 

out in Section 6 of House Report 102-116 on the Interior Department 

Appropriation . Act for FY 1992. We feel this is unnecessary 

Congressional oversight. 

Approval by the Committees, if received, generally took several 

years. Because of the delays, BLM field offices began using the 

less-desirable Complaint in condemnation process even though 

possession of the property does not pass to the BLM until after the 

final court orders are issued. In effect,. the BLM, and other 

agencies subject to the same restriction, have lost most of the 

potential use of condemnation procedures needed to quickly respond 

to resource management problems. 

In fiscal years (FY) 1989-1991, the Forest Service and the BLM 

acquired permanent, legal access to about 4.5 million acres of 

Federal land. At the present time, the BLM estimates that it will 

need to acquire about 13,000 easements to eliminate the backlog of 

access problems related to the public lands it manages. For the 

past few years, our appropriations for easement acquisition have 

been approximately $1.4 million per year and with those funds we 

have been acquiring about 150 access easements per year. The 

77-279 0 - 94 - 4 
94 

5 

average ti•e to process each easement acquisition is about one 

year. This includes time for negotiation, survey, and the 

preparation and execution of documents, etc. 

Since the GAO issued its 1992 report on this matter, the BLM has 

taken several steps to enhance its ability to secure more adequate 

access. These include: 

* Utilizing a more wholistic budqetinq approach whereby 

benefitting resource activities provide some of the fundinq 

necessary to pay acquisition processinq costs; 

* Oevelopinq partnerships with landowners and conservation 

qroups so the BLM does not have to secure all of the desired 

easements in a specific area; and 

* Emphasizinq use of its field personnel to assist the 

recreatinq public durinq periods of especially hiqh land use 

such as during the huntinq seasons. such field assistance 

helps users find leqal access to public land and assures that 

they will know for sure when they are on public land. 

Some of the best examples of innovative ways to resolve access 

problems are found in Montana. Federal, State, and local 

qovernments workinq with private land owners and users have aade 

real proqress in providinq additional access for the public. 
95 

' 

The BLM-administered lands in Montana are often included in block 

management hunting units administered by the Montana Department of 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP). The program utilizes a variety 

of incentives for landowners, through the use of hunting license 

revenues, while ·providing access for sportsmen. Montana BLM 

districts have been formal partners in the management of some of 

the block management areas. However, in most instances, the BLM 

has acknowledged the inclusion of BLM-administered lands within the 

block management areas but has not been a formal partner in the 

administration of the units. 

As required under State law passed in 1992, the BLM in Montana 

identified 220 roadways which cross State school trust lands and 

provided access to adjacent BLM-administered lands. These routes 

were approved by the Montana Department of State Lands field 

offices as routes which should remain open for use by hunters and 

fishermen. The program was to be fully implemented prior to the 

1993 Fall hunting seasons. We understand the new procedures have 

encountered resistance from some land owners but believe the effort 

will enhance the publics access in the lonq term. 

In order to resolve critical access needs along the Blackfoot River 

corridor in Montana, the BLM has been involved in two initiatives 

that did not require the purchase of easements. A 4 2, 000 acre 

walk-in hunting area was .established with the cooperation of all 

the owners. Vehicle access is limited and all lands within the 
96 

7 

manaqement area are open for public huntinq. Sixteen additional 

similar areas in the State provide access to 216,000 acres. 

The second initiative was the creation of the Blackfoot River 

Recreation Corridor Landowners' Aqreement which involves a 40 mile 

stretch of the river east of Missoula. ~he lands located within 

50 feet of the hiqh water line and certain other desiqnated parkinq 

and stoppinq areas are open to public use reqardless of ownership. 

As with the block manaqement huntinq proqram, one of the keys to 

success of these initiatives is the enforcement provided by the 

MDFWP. 

Althouqh it may seem to be outside the scope of the GAO definition 

of inadequate access, I would like to point out that the BLM is 

also workinq on some excitinq new projects to provide and enhance 

physical access to all Bureau facilities and proqrams. For too 

lonq, physically handicapped people, many of whom are BLM 

employees, have been neqlected or forqotten when we are doinq our 

daily work. With an interstate team of professionals dedicated to 

really improvinq .access, the BLM is workinq to correct that problea 

in a biq way. We invite you to watch for the new banners 

proclaiminq "ACCESS MEANS FREEDOM" as the proqram develops. 

As you can see, qaininq adequate access to all of the public land 

is a monumental undertakinq. We aqree with the GAO that at the 

present rate of acquisition the BLM will be neqotiatinq such 
8 

actions for many years into the future . We want to assure the 

Subcommittee that we are doing all we can to make the most logical 

progress possible in the matter. We can also assure you that the 

problems caused by denial of access to public lands can be very 

frustrating to BLM managers as well as to members of the general 

public who are denied such access. We will be happy to work with 

the subcommittee to improve access as quickly as practicable. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to respond 

to questions. 
98 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Penfold. 

Both of your Departments have prepared good testimony on this 

matter and, again, have cooperated with the GAO in this matter. 

Mr. Penfold, you did testify that you think it is an increasing 

problem, will be an increasing problem with BLM, where you are 

at 13,000 incidents, where you find inadequate or no access today. 

You think that it is a growing problem. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Absolutely. I don't feel bad about the accomplishments that we made, but we understand that some land patterns 

are changing in the West, and where you have one easement need 

now, if that area becomes subdivided, you might end up with quite 

a number. We see that happening in some States. We think the 

pace of that is going to increase. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, well, I think it underlines the need to make certain that the tools you have are working. I had picked up from your 

statement the issue about when you do go to condemnation, that 

you have to report this to the Appropriations Committee. While it 

is in a very small number of instances and you try to avoid it, 

clearly, it does then stretch it out and make the problem more difficult to address in terms of filling the mission of access; is that 

correct? 

Mr. PENFOLD. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Overbay, does the Forest Service have a similar 

experience, can you say, with regards to this reporting requirement? 

Mr. OVERBAY. We don't have that requirement at the present 

time, Mr. Chairman. We did I think back in 1987. It was in our 

appropriations bill, but since then it has not been a requirement. 

Mr. VENTO. They forgot to include you, I take it. 

Mr. OVERBAY. Well, either that or they were pleased with the low 

rate of condemnations or something. 

Mr. VENTO. I am fairly certain that the purpose of this wasn't 

to deal with access, but because it is sort of a blanket provision, it doesn't end up excluding access. And so I am certain if we visited 

with our colleagues, at the very least, this particular limitation 

might be resolvable, at least on a narrow basis. So it might be 

something that we should solve, because it does increase costs if, 

in fact, at last it carries out further. That is the other aspect of 

this, in terms of the legal problems. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I might inteiject, Mr. Chairman. For example, we 

had a bug infestation in Oregon that needed to be treated right 

away. We had to acquire six access agreements or right-of-ways. 

We were able to negotiate five of those. We were not able to get 

the last one. We had to go toward a declaration of taking on that 

and come to Congress. Congress did not process that very quickly. 

The insects spread to other areas. I think this is a good example. 

Sometimes we would prefer taking the longer approach; sometimes 

you need to move quickly. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Well, it is a pretty dramatic example. I am certain that they are not that particularly dramatic always, but it is 

the same sort of incident that occurs. 

One of the other points, Mr. Overbay, you might want to expand 

upon, is the increasing pressure that the rights-of-way across private land is placing on local governments in their reliance on the 
99 

Forest Service. I guess you are testifying, to really carry through 

in trying to maintain these rights-of-way, that they are not pursuing them across private lands where they have had historic rightsof-way, and the consequence leaves the Forest Service facing a significant challenge, maybe even having to purchase rights-of-way 

where there may have been some legal right that a county or State 

could have, should have pursued. You testified to it, and I want 

you just to address that. 

Mr. OVERBAY. That is right, Mr. Chairman. And, of course, we 

would prefer to work with the local government, with the county, 

and help them in whatever way we could to make sure they continue to exercise that particular right. But in a lot of cases because 

of funding, other reasons, the counties are no longer wanting to 

maintain a particular road as a county road. We have some opportunities I think in that case to try to step in a more aggressive way 

to try to maintain that easement. That is one of the things we need 

to look into. 

But you have to prove, first off, there is a historic right, that 

there was use, there was construction. There are a number of 

things that have to be done. 

Mr. VENTO. I think it is understandable that these sometimes 

rural, out-State areas, would have, if they have an increasing incidence of this, they simply don't have the budget or the ability. Plus 

it is an uncomfortable topic. I think that trying to go in and get 

a right-of-way across someone in the county is not a pleasant task. 

Mr. OVERBAY. No, and most of the adjacent landowners do not 

want public access there. You know, there is a lot of pressure. Mr. VENTO. Even though historically, there may be a legal right. 

And the point, of course, is inviting the Forest Service to come in 

and deal with this, which I would say, or the BLM, in this instance, to deal with what is an unpopular topic, doesn't help your 

popularity at all, I guess; is that right, Mr. Penfold? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Sometimes it doesn't help our popularity. 

Mr. VENTO. Otherwise, you are so well revered and loved, I am 

certain you have no problems. 

Mr. PENFOLD. We notice that on the Hill these days. 

Mr. VENTO. But I just want to point out to my colleagues, perhaps we can deal with this particular problem where the local government, State government is not picking up a normal responsibility. There may be reasons for it; I don't think it is sort of a conspiracy. 

I don't think that yet. Notwithstanding, have the Forest Service 

and BLM been able to identify a greater number of trespass cases 

that you are experiencing because of these access problems, or been 

able to observe trespass cases with regards to individuals, for whatever reason, that are using or trying to use public lands? Can you 

comment on that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We don't have quantitative information on that, 

but the anecdotal information is quite clear. There is a growing 

amount of private landowners who are subjected to a growing 

amount of trespass, as the demand to get access to the public land 

is increased. So I think it is anecdotal, but I believe it is real. 
100 

Mr. VENTO. I suppose it could be helpful if we wanted to get 

more of an insight into the magnitude of the problem to include 

that in the GAO survey. 

Mr. Overbay, did you want to comment on that point? 

Mr. OVERBAY. Yes, I don't have any statistics on that either, but 

I am sure that is a growing problem. Congressman Williams said 

that there is going to be a shootout in Montana one of these days, 

and that may be what causes some of that. 

Mr. VENTO. I suppose you don't have any knowledge on weed dissemination either, along these corridors? 

Mr. OVERBAY. I do have some information on that. That is a real 

problem. I am particularly familiar with the problem in the State 

of Montana. There are weed-free areas where the local counties 

and weed districts have worked very aggressively to keep those invading weeds out of those areas. There are other parts of the State 

that are absolutely covered with invading, noxious weeds. And 

those weed seeds are disseminated with vehicles or foot traffic or 

animal traffic. 

Mr. VENTO. My point is, of course, that normally the weed dissemination goes on where you have disturbed areas, you know, 

along the side of a road certainly can be a factor. 

Mr. OVERBAY. I would like to add one thing. The Forest Service 

assumes the responsibility for weed control along those easements 

that we acquire. So we do feel a responsibility to take care of that 

problem where we acquire easements. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I just was wondering what the human incidence of it is. I didn't want to diminish the importance of it. I just 

want to understand it better, to know if it is a real problem or if 

it is one that we are having reported to us. Do we keep records of 

the categories? Who monitors and records such incidents? How do 

we keep records in the two agencies of such problems? 

Mr. OVERBAY. Are you talking about weed infestation? 

Mr. VENTO. No, no, I think I have moved beyond that back to the 

major point here in terms of the access issues or problems. 

Mr. PENFOLD. We don't keep any records on trespass problems. 

The local sheriffs would be the place where most of the complaints 

would be formally filed on trespass. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. Well, Mr. Hansen, let's give him a chance to 

get a question or two in. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know the study the GAO did was basically Montana, Oregon, 

and California. The rest of us don't quite have the attention on this 

particular issue, so I would like to discuss some generalities, if I 

may. 

It always has been a concern of mine, dealing with either the 

BLM or the Forest Service, as a city councilman in a little city, as 

a State legislator and as a Congressman, as I look at the tools that 

are given you, exchanges, trades, purchases, that it is almost an 

impossible task to make those come about. 

I don't know if you have an average of how long it takes, but I 

recall working on a case where Forest Service was right in our little town of Farmington, Utah, my hometown. I worked on it as a 

city councilman off and on for 12 years; as a State legislator, eight 

years; Speaker of the House for two years, and finally we got it ac-
101 

complished when we put an omnibus bill in that picked up little 

pieces all over the West, in 11 western States. 

It was like the district ranger was bored out of his mind with it 

and it went almost to the bottom of the pile, some movie actor 

came along, he thought it was very interesting, as we saw happen 

in Utah County-but I won't go into that. 

Why does it take you folks so long to bring one of these things 

about? 

Mr. PENFOLD. You want to go first? 

Mr. OVERBAY. Yes. 

It depends really on the complexity of the exchange. There are 

a lot of requirements that do take some time. But if we have a fairly simple exchange, we can get those through in fairly short order. 

When we try to put together a large exchange involving a number 

of private lands, say, and a checkerboard ownership-! am thinking particularly of some that I worked hard on Montana as did 

Congressman Williams-~me of the difficulties we run into, we may 

have a willing proponent part of the private landowner, but when 

we start identifying all of the national forest lands that they would 

like to acquire in exchange, we suddenly find a whole lot of people 

that say we don't want that piece of national forest going into private ownership so find some somewhere else. 

And we are having increasing difficulty finding those parts of the 

national forest land that we can exchange for the private ownership. If you are talking about just a couple of 40's, particularly that 

are isolated, those generally are fairly easy to exchange. 

Mr. HANSEN. How long does it take? Let's say you look in the 

West. These little towns start growing, and because they grow and 

they encroach farther out, we also find the Forest Service in there. 

All of a sudden, we find kids riding their bikes over them and garbage on them and mess. We have to take care of them, clean them 

up; the Forest Service doesn't do anything for us on that. 

It would seem to me that should be a simple matter, if the States 

want to work it out and they exchange them. Why does it take so 

long? What I am driving at is, Do you feel in your heart of hearts 

that maybe the procedure is so complex and difficult that Congress 

should streamline it somewhat? 

Mr. OVERBAY. Okay. There are a lot of procedures. We have to 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. We have to 

notify the local governments. We have to look to see if there are 

any artifacts or cultural resources on that land and, if there are, 

take actions to protect those. 

We have to do a survey to see if there are any endangered or 

threatened species on that land and, if so, figure out how we can 

mitigate that. All of those things do take time, going through all 

those procedures before we can declare a valid exchange. Of course, 

there is also the appraisal process. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I might interject, too, often planning amendments 

need to be done, at least with our areas. So I might point out-excuse me, Jim. 

Mr. OVERBAY. Go ahead. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I might point out something else that is good 

news, and that is our Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act regu-
102 

lations have finally been turned loose by OMB. So we should have 

those printed Monday or Tuesday. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is encouraging. 

Mr. PENFOLD. I think that will help. 

Mr. OVERBAY. And those will apply both to the BLM and the Forest Service. 

Mr. HANSEN. By the time you jump through all those hoops you 

were just talking about, Mr. Overbay, how long do you think it 

would normally take to make a simple land change, not one of 

those complex rascals, but one of those simple ones? 

Mr. OVERBAY. I think if it was simple and we worked as quickly 

as we could, we could probably do that in just a year. 

Mr. HANSEN. One year? 

Mr. OVERBAY. Yes. Again, it depends on the availability of the 

funding and what you find when you go out to look at what is on 

the land. 

Mr. HANSEN. In my opening statement I talked about the State 

of Utah where I represent the first district. The complaint I get 

from county commissioners and local county officials is the Forest 

Service closing roads. Now, I have to go with the governor down 

to St. George, Utah, Thursday morning, and speak to the county 

commissioners. It is a sure bet first question will be, Why did the 

Forest Service close these following roads? And they will bring 

their map up and show it to me. 

Now, you have got some very fine people out there. I don't want 

to criticize them; they just do what they are told to do. They say, 

well, we can't maintain them. Is that the real story? 

Mr. OVERBAY. That is part of the story. Lack of adequate funds 

to maintain the road. If you leave it open, you get some damage, particularly with increasing use, that is going to be unacceptable, 

so closure at least prevents the erosion from the road. Roads are 

a major source of erosion in a lot of our watersheds. But the thing that is going on in a large part of the West is concerns about open 

road-density and the impacts that has on wildlife habitat. And I 

can think of a particular example. Again in Montana, we got a 

jeopardy ruling from the Fish and Wildlife Service on our existing 

road system on the Flathead Forest as causing jeopardy to the grizzly bear, and recommending that we reduce that open-road density 

to, I think, something less than a mile per section. So we are closing roads for wildlife purposes as well. 

We have had an active program in the State of Idaho, working 

with the State Game and Fish in regards to that. There is a resource issue as well as just lack of adequate money to maintain the 

roads. 

Mr. HANSEN. In our particular area, the issue in front of us 

today, I am sure there is no question, it is more the BLM enforcer 

is closing roads than it is private people not allowing public 

through. And it just drives us crazy. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have constantly 

asked Craig Reynolds for a report on all the roads they closed. That 

high. Of roads that had been used for access, and the reason. Some 

of the reasons you just talked about, would be the reasons. Others, 

it is just kind of a catchall. You know, you have always got to have 

a catchall in every contract. You just can't maintain it. It is not too 
103 

hard to maintain roads across the desert in some areas, but that 

is not my place to say. 

Let me just ask a couple more, ifl may, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I worry about the poor John Q. Public who wants to 

go out on public lands and he is absolutely confused. Deer season, 

antelope season, whatever, camping, fishing, goes out there and he 

has got people yelling at him from both sides. All he wants is a 

pleasant experience. Some landowner is saying you are on private 

land; he doesn't know that. And maybe somebody else is telling 

him he can't camp there, he can't camp there. Why can't we just 

put together some very simple maps that would show what is private and what is public? 

Now, all of us are not in a position to go up to the State and get 

the maps or go to the county and get the maps or even read them. 

But if a person is going to a certain hunting area, in the State of 

Utah, in big game we divide up the State by hunting areas, and 

if he just had one that would show him what he had, I am sure 

he would be happy to pay for those. I know you have got all kinds 

of maps in your areas, I have got piles of them that I picked up. 

Has anyone ever just thought of simplifying those and making 

them available to the public? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We have tried that, and it has been very successful. We have different classes of maps. Some of them are a little 

too complex, but we have developed in some States a very simplified, very local, inexpensive handout type of a map that helps a 

person get into this particular drainage and how to get there. We 

have found those to be very successful. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think the poor guys gets bamboozled. He goes in 

there, he is at the mercy of somebody who speaks with great authority, doesn't know what he is talking about, just doesn't want 

him on the ground. 

You mentioned that mountain biking is becoming a very important thing. In southern Utah, around Moab, Utah, it is almost the 

capital of the world. I have never seen so many bike shops in that 

particular area. People are buying those, and they want more access to certain areas. 

Now, I know I disagree with my good friend from Minnesota 

here, but it would seem to me if we allow horses into wilderness 

areas-and I know I am spitting on a flag of some of the people 

here, and I have had horses most of my life-but I know horses 

cause probably as much mess, more than a mountain bike would, 

clawing up those trails, people taking all kinds of trash. And we 

have taken out packs full of junk that people have brought in with 

horses. And I don't want to take horses out, but it would seem to 

me if we are going to allow horses in some of those areas, I don't 

know where a mountain bike would be all that detrimental. 

Terrible thing for me to ask you, so I am not going to ask it. 

Well, we did make one change on it, you may recall, we allowed 

the mechanized vehicle in there known as a wheelchair. But would 

either of you like to comment on that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We can find plenty of good areas for the mountain 

bikers to go without being in the wilderness areas, we really can. 

Mr. HANSEN. Do you think a mountain bike is dirtier and 

messier than a horse? 
104 

Mr. PENFOLD. I have cleaned up after quite a few horses and I 

haven't--

Mr. HANSEN. Not too much exhaust from a mountain bike like 

there is from a horse, you notice. Also, they don't eat the grass 

while they are in there. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pit 

horses against it. I wouldn't want to do that. 

Well, I better stop. I see my friend from Minnesota--

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to see both of you 

here. 

And, Mr. Overbay, your appearance here signifies the real reason 

I asked for the hearing. I just wanted to see you come up and talk 

to us about something besides the Montana wilderness. 

Are we going to get it done this time? I see we have got the Forest Service with us for a change. 

Mr. OVERBAY. Mr. Williams, I really was disappointed I wasn't 

able to testify in favor of the Montana wilderness in time. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Me, too. 

Mr. Penfold, when you say mountain bikes, you are referring to 

pedal bikes, not motorized? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Overbay, you speak in your testimony of the 

road access fund being between $4.5 million and $6 million but decreasing. You say that because of the limitations of money from 

that fund, as well as other problems, including reluctance of private landowners to sell or trade and because of increasing prices 

of land, that it may take as much as, what, 40 years or half a century to get appropriate access, I think you said, to the public's estate. 

Let me ask you about that fund. What is in that line item? What 

do you fund out that line item in the Forest Service? 

Mr. OVERBAY. We don't get a line item for access. We pay for 

that out of our roads--

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, the road access fund. What are the competing elements within the fund? 

Mr. OVERBAY. That is the money that is appropriated to do all 

of our road construction, reconstruction and the accompanying engineering that is needed to do that particular program. And that 

is a program that has dropped dramatically in the past four or five 

years. 

The trail program, trail construction is still going up, so that 

isn't as much a restriction, although the bulk of our access easements have been connected with roads and not trails. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. What percent of that, whatever it is, $5 million, 

is used for acquisition for purpose of access? 

Mr. OVERBAY. That $5 million, which is down to $3.5 in fiscal 

1993, is used for the access program. The total road program, well, 

for fiscal 1994, what is in the budget is about $97 million. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I see. So the $4.5 million to $6 million is the access-those are the access dollars only? · Mr. OVERBAY. That is the amount that we identify for access. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Within the full--

Mr. OVERBAY. Within that full line item for road construction. 
105 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would the public be better served and your agency better served, which may be one and the same thing here, if we 

had a separate line item just for access and funded that separately, 

through the appropriations process? Just for acquisition, rather. 

Mr. OVERBAY. I hate to testify on more line items for our budget. 

We would really like to see it go the other way. Perhaps what we 

need to do, and maybe we would work with the committee, is to 

figure out a way to identify that better and track it better so that 

it is clear how much is going for access, so that when Congress is 

looking at our total road program, they see that there are parts 

needed for other purposes that may have a high priority that they 

will leave there in the budget. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. What did the Forest Service spend last year, and 

perhaps what you intend to spend this year, on road building for 

the purpose of timber sales? 

Mr. OVERBAY. The amount that the President asked for in fiscal 

year 1994 was $133 million. The amount that is in the conference 

bill is $97 million. It is a $36 million reduction. That is for all 

roads, but general purpose and recreation as well as timber. 

I don't have the specific break down right with me. I can provide 

it if you would like. 

[Editor's note-Information not received at time of printing.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Penfold, there are one or two things that you 

think this committee or any committee, appropriations, perhaps, 

could do to encourage the resolution of this problem before us, what 

would they be? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We talked about the condemnation. That is not a 

big piece. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Not condemnation, the whole acquisition and access problem. 

Mr. PENFOLD. That is not a big piece of it. What we look at in 

terms of moving forward more rapidly. We. have the staff capability 

as we sit right now to do a lot more than we are doing. Particularly, in right-of-way acquisition the limiting factor primarily is 

dollars to pay for right-of-ways, as opposed to staff time. What happens is that we choose very carefully which right-of-ways we go 

after, because we have a very limited amount of dollars, so we look 

at the least-cost right-of-ways, which might not be the highest priority for public purposes. 

So we recognize that the Administration has to limit its requests 

and the Congress has to choose carefully, but the authorities are 

in place. Primarily, the probelem is dollars to carry out the program. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Penfold-the gentleman yields? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. 

Mr. VENTO. What is the source of your funding for this? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We get $1.4 million for right-of-way acquisition 

from Congress. Mr. VENTO. Specifically, a line item for that purpose? 

Mr. PENFOLD. It is part of our lands program and specifically 

mentioned. 

Mr. VENTO. LWCF? 

Mr. PENFOLD. No, no. 
106 

Mr. VENTO. Just part of a lands program. 

Mr. PENFOLD. The lands program takes care of land acquisition, 

which is a separate appropriation. 

Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to ask. 

Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Penfold, do you find that the ability to reach 

compromise, to create corridors or purchases or trades, do you find 

that that difficulty is on the rise in Montana? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I think it is on the rise. And the information I got 

from talking with some of our managers before coming to this hearing was the same kind of information. It is getting more difficult 

out there as tension in the West increases. That is driven by a lot 

of different things, but we see it getting more difficult. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Now, in this issue, Mr. Chairman, and a number 

of others, we are finding that America is coming over the brow of 

the last hill. And it creates the kind of contention that we see in 

this issue as well as many others, whether they are timber-sale 

roads or geothermal drilling around Yellowstone Park, or whatever. 

We are standing on the brow of the last hill trying to figure out 

what to do. 

Thanks. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, welcome. I am glad to see you healthy again, Jim. 

I wanted to ask you, both of you, something Mr. Overbay hastestified to about 9 percent of the Forest Service land that is inaccessible because of access. Do you have any idea how many landowners are denying access, what percentage? Must be a very small 

percent. 

Mr. OVERBAY. You are talking about where we don't have an 

easement? I don't have that specific information. 

Mr. SMITH. It is probably small, isn't it? 

Mr. OVERBAY. No, when I talk about the percentage or the 

amount that we don't have clear easements to the Federal land, 

there are other areas where there is access today that may be denied in the future, particularly as landowners change. That is the 

growing problem; there is no question of that. 

Mr. SMITH. But you have to say, turning this around, that a very 

high majority of landowners allow access for hunting and recreation? 

Mr. OVERBAY. That has been the history. The problem was not 

very severe several years ago, but as the landownership is changing, that is where we are really running into some of the problems. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand. You know, sometimes the difficulty in 

our jobs collectively is we overreact to the minority problem and we 

restrict or deny rights to the majority who are allowing access, 

doing a good job, allowing people to trespass, cross their land for 

whatever purpose, including recreation. I wanted to make that 

point, because that is still the case, even though there may be a 

rising problem. 

Mr. Penfold, would you comment on that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I agree entirely with what Mr. Overbay said. I 

think it is a small percentage, but growing. 
107 

Mr. SMITH. And I heard you use the exchange tool as one of the 

many, Mr. Penfold. I have not seen that aggressiveness with the 

Forest Service. 

Is the exchange item a strong priority or not? 

Mr. OVERBAY. It is a high priority, and we feel we can solve a 

lot of the access problems through exchange. But as I mentioned 

earlier, some of those are becoming harder to accomplish. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Mr. Penfold, from my own experience, I know that the landowner 

must initiate the proposal to the Bureau of Land Management for 

exchange. It must come from the individual. 

Mr. PENFOLD. That is generally the case, but not all the time. 

Mr. SMITH. Then if you were aggressive about it, somebody might 

in the Burns District look at a map and propose that the landowner come in for an exchange program that he might not have 

even thought about. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Absolutely, and that is what we would call a ''bureau in motion" program. We think that is a good tool. 

Mr. SMITH. And that kind of an issue would be very important, 

because as you know, you have a habit of operating traditionally 

over the years, and change sometimes doesn't occur to you. So I 

would encourage both agencies to propose to people land exchanges 

that would block up and help solve some of these problems. 

Mr. OVERBAY. Mr. Smith, in our forest planning process, we identify particularly those isolated tracts that we would consider available for exchange. We have specific maps, and that does help encourage some people to take a look and propose exchanges. 

Mr. SMITH. Now, what about sale of isolated areas? I know itMr. OVERBAY. We do not have authority to sell. We have no authority to sell land. 

Mr. SMITH. BLM? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, we do, and we do occasional sales. We prefer 

to do land exchange, though. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure, I understand that. 

Would it assist the Forest Service if they had a chance, if you 

had authority to sell isolated tracts? 

Mr. OVERBAY. We would prefer to exchange. 

Mr. SMITH. I am sure you would, but there may not be that opportunity either. 

Mr. OVERBAY. I am not sure that we want to see authority granted to us to sell off the national forest. 

Mr. SMITH. You don't want the ball on that. 

Mr. OVERBAY. Don't want to open that can of worms. 

Mr. SMITH. All right, okay. 

Then to both of you, does the law give you sufficient authority 

now to demand access for the essential kinds of efforts that both 

your agencies have to perform for the public? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Eminent domain ultimately is the authority and 

we have talked about that. 

Mr. SMITH. But you don't use eminent domain for recreation 

kinds of access? Or do you? 

Mr. OVERBAY. We can. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, we can. 

Mr. SMITH. Can you? 
108 

Mr. PENFOLD. We can. 

Mr. SMITH. I didn't realize you could. But you hesitate, you are 

correct, you have a public image as well. 

Mr. OVERBAY. It is a last-resort effort. We really would try to 

work things out with the landowner. 

Mr. SMITH. You know most of the lands in the West I am familiar with, small towns, Federal Government, BLM and Forest Service are the major employers. And so you are part of the community. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Thomas? 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try and be fairly 

brief. 

I must tell you that I have the same experience that Mr. Smith 

mentioned in terms of exchanges, and I tracked some of them. It 

has been more than five years, and they still are not done. We either ought to get on or get ofT, it seems to me. And that hasn't happened. 

I have to tell you that I think the arrangement is such that if 

a local manager or a local supervisor doesn't want to do it, it 

doesn't happen. There are a million ways you can keep it from happening. 

Mr. OVERBAY. I know a lot of examples where exchanges have 

dragged on for years and years, too. You are absolutely right. And 

there are a lot of reasons. And sometimes it is a lack of aggression 

on the local manager. 

Mr. THoMAS. What about leases, Mr. Penfold. If I have a lease 

on public land for grazing or whatever purpose, and I have the adjacent private land, is there any arrangement made then for me to 

provide access to that land? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Access to the private land by virtue of a lease on 

the Federal Government land? 

Mr. THOMAS. Access to the public land, is there any trade-ofT, 

any arrangement, any obligation in the contract? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes. Generally, for government access only, but 

not public. 

Mr. THOMAS. I see. Have you thought about that? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, we have. 

Mr. THOMAS. And what have you thought? 

Mr. PENFOLD. We have not developed an initiative to put before 

Congress to go after that. 

Mr. THOMAS. It would take that, you think? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes. 

Mr. THoMAS. Some sort of, that is right, authority. I am sort of 

interested in this study. I haven't reviewed the study, but it looks 

to me like it is the result of a questionnaire; is that right? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes. The GAO study? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMAS. And you indicate, both of you--

Mr. PENFOLD. Excuse me, sir, GAO did do some field trips in regard to that as well. 

Mr. THoMAS. Basically, though, they just talked to people in your 

agency. And you indicated in a couple places that you have been 
109 

moving on this since the study. Is this the first indication you had 

of the need for access? 

Mr. PENFOLD. No, not for the BLM. Matter of fact, BLM participated in a Keystone dialogue in 1989 relative to access. We did our 

own evaluation before that. And so this is not a new issue. 

Mr. THoMAS. I wouldn't think so. I mean we are acting like this 

GAO study is something that brought up a new idea. It is not a 

new idea at all. 

Mr. OVERBAY. No, we have identified this problem for years, and 

I am also particularly familiar with it from when I lived in Montana. The governor held a number of town meetings and it was 

identified as probably the number one issue. Mr. THoMAS. The hunters hold town meetings in my State and 

talk about it, have for years, and properly. It is something that 

ought to be done. It indicates, Mr. Penfold, according to the numbers here, that 33 percent of Wyoming BLM land has inadequate 

access. Would you think that sounds reasonable? 

Mr. PENFOLD. I don't have any other information what is there. 

Mr. THoMAS. Just from your own background, doesn't that seem 

a little high? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Little bit high for Wyoming. Montana 

percentagewise would probably be higher than that, just from what 

I would believe. Wyoming tends to have a little bit better blocked 

land. Mr. THoMAS. BLM land usually splits out. I mean, after all, this 

is not withdrawn land. This is land that was residual after everything else was done. And so it is scattered around. I really guess 

I find it difficult to imagine that 33 percent of it is--

Mr. PENFOLD. That would be my gut reaction, too, although I 

don't have any different information than that. 

Mr. THoMAS. I guess I don't ever either. At any rate, it is good 

to have you here. The GAO study didn't have any answers. You all 

have sort of recited the things you have been doing, so no one has 

really a breakthrough on notions here of what to do. Would you say 

that is fair? 

Mr. OVERBAY. I think we both indicated, though, that we probably need to become more aggressive and probably need additional 

resources to really step up the pace of acquiring these easements. 

Mr. THoMAS. When you think about it, there are a number of 

very effective groups, private groups that have resources. They buy 

land for the most part and sell it to you all. 

Mr. OVERBAY. Yes, we work closely with those, and that is another way it acquires easements. 

Mr. THOMAS. What would you think with encouraging access to 

what we have rather than purchasing more? 

Mr. OVERBAY. That could be a priority, certainly, in providing 

adequate access. We could put more priority in the use of our 

Land-Water Conservation Fund for that. 

Mr. THoMAS. It just seems in general that it is sort of obvious 

to be saying a third of the land you already have is unaccessible, but we are busy buying some more with what resources we have. 

Mr. PENFOLD. Our principal acquisition program is land exchange, and we are acquiring 250,000 to 300,000 to 350,000 acres 
110 

a year. That little sample in Montana, for example, 50 out of 78 

tracts had important access aspects of the acquisition. 

Mr. THoMAS. That is ten years, ten years? 

Mr. PENFOLD. Per year. In the last ten years, I guess I don't have 

the figure on the top of my head, but generally on an annual basis, 

we are acquiring a quarter of a million to 350,000 acres per year. 

And that also puts land in private ownerships. So we see--

Mr. THoMAS. Sure, and I understand it is not easy. I don't mean 

to be critical, but it does seem that when it is all said and done, 

there is more said than done in this issue. And maybe we ought 

to change. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I have a series of other questions, but I think 

I will restrain because we have a long list. If I get started, I know 

that others will then join in. So I want to thank the agencies for 

their testimony. 

We may send some written questions along to help guide us in 

terms of getting you transfers. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

We are pleased to welcome the second panel, Dr. David Rockland, executive director of Times Mirror Magazines Conservation 

Council, one of the principals that pointed this issue out to me and 

to others, and prompted the GAO review which brought this into 

better focus. 

Mr. Lewis Hawkes, the Public Land Access Association from 

Bozeman, Montana, Mr. Stan Frasier, the Montana Wildlife Federation, Helena, Montana, and finally, Ms. Anne Kersten, Reno, 

Nevada. 

We are pleased that you are here, and thank you for your patience today. The members are very interested, as I am, in this particular 

topic. 

Your statements have been made part of the record. 

And, Mr. Williams, did you want to welcome any of your--

Mr. WILLIAMS. Just to thank each member of the panel, particularly the Montanans for traveling back here. It is nice to see you 

here. 

Thanks for responding to our request to be with us. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF DR. DAVID B. ROCKLAND, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, TIMES MIRROR MAGAZINES CONSERVATION 

COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, DC; LEWIS E. HAWKES, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LAND ACCESS ASSOCIATION, INC., BOZEMAN, MT; STAN FRASIER, VICE PRESIDENT, MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, HELENA, MT; AND ANN KERSTEN, 

SPARKS, NV 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID B. ROCKLAND 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Rockland, your statement has been made a part 

of the record. You can summarize it as you wish as you proceed . . Thank you very much. 

Mr. RoCKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
111 

My name is David B. Rockland. I am the executive director of the 

Times Mirror Magazines Conservation Council. Times Mirror Magazines is the Nation's largest publisher of outdoor recreation magazines. 

Times Mirror Magazines reaches 30 million Americans every 

month through the pages of Fkld and Stream, Outdoor Life, Popular Science, several ski publications, the Sporting News, a golf magazine and a boating magazine. We see the use of public lands as 

critical to the recreation activities that we cover in our magazines. 

I would also like to point out that this testimony is beirig submitted on behalf of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus Foundation 

on whose board I happen to serve. 

Our company applauds your leadership, Chairman Vento, and 

that of the subcommittee, Mr. Williams as well, for bringing this 

issue to the forefront. It is a big problem out West. 

Mr. Williams, I just traveled back from Montana. I am a resident 

of this area, and although it is a topic I heard a great deal about 

in the southeastern corner of your State, it is not an issue we see 

a great deal of here within the Beltway. 

This committee's request for the GAO study and the subsequent 

hearing I think will greatly help bring this issue to the forefront. 

I am not going to deal in my testimony here this morning with the 

causes and effects of blocked access. I think it has been done very 

well by the previous witnesses, as well as some who will follow. I 

would, however, like to offer up several solutions and also point to 

a little public opinion research that our company has done. 

Last year, we hired The Roper Organization to look at the issue 

of public lands access among several others that we covered in a 

survey of all Americans, a representative cross section of the American public. We asked the question, At the moment, about onetenth of all land owned by the Federal Government is not accessible to the public because it is surrounded by private propertythat means there is no access to Federal land without trespassing if individuals want to go hiking, hunting or fishing-do you think 

the Federal Government should find a way to provide access to this 

public land at this time, or isn't this an important priority right 

now? 

The responses from this representative cross section of the American public were: 51 percent came back and said, Yes, this is an 

important priority, the government should work on it; and, 35 percent came back and said, No, it is not an important priority right 

now. A volunteered response was that we should provide access for 

individuals only, not for businesses; that was provided by 6 percent 

of the public. There was no response from about 7 percent. 

It was interesting, looking at some of the demographic breakdowns of the response to this question, that it does divide somewhat along income lines. People who make very little money 

thought this was much more important than the general public. 

Those who tend to be much more affluent found this not as pressing an issue. 

I would like to mention one other sort of source of public opinion 

in a way. President Clinton, in a voter's guide that we ran in our 

magazines and newspapers last fall right before the elections, 

wrote that he would work to ensure appropriate access to public 
112 

lands. Therefore, this Nation's leader has seen this as an important 

issue as well. 

I think when we talk about solutions, we have to be very careful 

how we frame the problem. As I mentioned, I spent last week in 

your State, Mr. Williams, hunting on a ranch. It is a 25,000-acre 

ranch on which are scattered seven 40-acre parcels. And when I 

talked to the rancher about the problem, he said, I don't want to. 

I believe in the importance of addressing it, but we can't go too far. 

I don't want people walking across all my land to be able to access those 40-acre parcels. That is not at all what this issue is 

about. It is more about problems, such as Lew Hawkes showed me 

when I had an opportunity to visit the Gallatin National Forest, 

where there is a thin strip of private land that prevents access to 

about 500,000 acres of that national forest. 

I would like to offer several solutions. We talked about the problem a great deal this morning but I would like to throw out some 

ideas about how this subcommittee and the Administration might 

address this topic. I have seven thoughts in mind. 

One is the old Washington solution of "we need more money." Indeed, that is probably the case here, at least a redirection of funds 

within the BLM and the Forest Service, to encourage those agencies to aggressively seek easement acquisition from willing buyers 

and make much better effort to consolidate public holdings into accessible tracts. It is never popular as a second idea to suggest that 

we need more lawyers, but maybe in this case it would actually 

help. Legal resources devoted to documenting the legal access that 

already exists would take a major step in the right direction. 

A third idea is that there have been efforts by this committee in 

fact, and the Congress as well, to disallow R.S. 24 77 claims. This 

would only serve to really exacerbate this problem. R.S. 2477 is one 

of the primary tools that is used to prove the existence of a public 

road before that land passed into private or State hands. 

A fourth idea is that some of the private land does pass through 

public ownership and there are defaults on Federal loans handled 

by the FMHA or the RTC. Rarely- does the government place easement on those lands for either the purpose of creating public access 

or for other reasons such as conservation. 

It seems to me that solutions such as this which do not have direct cost to the U.S. Treasury ought to become standard operating 

procedure. 

A fifth approach that could be considered is that Congress sent 

about $125 million to counties that hold major tracts of public 

lands in the form of payment in lieu of taxes. There is no reason 

that, in certain cases, a portion of those funds might be devoted to 

creating public access to those lands on which the public is in fact 

paying these taxes or pseudo-taxes. 

The sixth idea, that has come up already this morning, is that 

permittees who use public lands should be required, in many cases, 

to provide a<.cess across their adjacent private lands as a condition 

of their penr.it. 

My final thought is that we ought to consider devoting a portion 

of the Land and Water Conservation Funds to the addressing of 

public access problems. We spend most of the money acquiring 

land. It seems a much more cost-effective approach to providing 
113 

recreation opportunities, what that fund is partially intended to do, 

is instead to purchase easement to open up existing public land. 

Just to conclude, I think the West is really changing. Part of that 

change is a movement in a way toward a land ethic that is very 

similar to what we have here in the East. There has been a continual erosion of access to public land. I think we need to confront the 

problem and reverse the trend. 

Chairman Vento, Mr. Williams, I applaud you and the other 

members of this committee for convening this hearing, and I hope 

that your efforts will result in an increased focus on this important 

problem. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Dr. Rockland. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Rockland follows:] 
114 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID B. ROCKLAND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

TIMES MIRROR MAGAZINES CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

BEFORE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON PUBLIC LANDS ACCESS 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

NOVEMBER 9, 1993 

LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 
115 

Introd,uction 

Chairman Vento, my name is David B. Rockland. I am the 

Executive Director of the Times Mirror Magazines Conservation 

council. Times Mirror Magazines is the nation's largest publisher 

of outdoor recreation magazines. We reach 30 million Americans 

avery month through the pages of Field & Stream, Golf Kagazine, 

HqmeMechanix, Outdoor Life, Popular Science, Salt Water Sportsman, 

$ki Magazine, Skiing Magazine, Sporting GoodS pealer, Skiing trade 

Hmal, Tbe Sporting News, and' Yachting., Use of public lands is 

critical to the recreation activities we cover in our magazines. 

The conserv~tion council was developed in 1990 to collectively 

use the communications strengths of our magazines to address 

natural resource conservation issues. our programs include 

quarterly editorials that run identically in all our titles 

informing our readers and urging their involvement in conservation 

issues, annual surveys with The Roper Organization on Americans• 

conservation views, an environmental education grants proqram, and 

our Washington office activities. 

I am also a Board member of the congressional Sportsmen's 

Caucus Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Blocked access to public land is an issue that is particularly high 

on the agenda of the Caucus Foundation. 

Our company applauds your leadership, and that of this 

subcommittee, in bringing the issue of public lands access to the 

forefront, first through your request of the GAO study, and 

secondly by holding this hearing. Blocked public access is a 

2 
116 

concern of many Americans, yet ·its implications are not understood 

within the Beltway. Hence, this hearing is an important step toward 

improving Congress' understanding of the issue. 

We view blocked public access to public lands as a critical 

problem in public lands management. With an increasing diversity of 

interests seeking to use public land, and a growing urbanization in 

the West, blocked access is a growing problem. Many of our readers 

have related to us cases of being excluded from lands to which they 

and every American have equal title. Blocked access to public lands 

is a critical issue for this subcommittee. 

The Public Access to Public Lands Problem 

As one example of the cause and effect of blocked public 

access to public land: 

Tomorrow deer season opens. For years you've been 

hunting the mountain meadows on the Gallatin National Forest 

behind the Jones ranch. Your son is with you for his first 

deer hunt. You plan to set up camp for the night and await 

the dawn. Anticipation is high. 

But as you reach the turn-off to enter the Forest, you 

find a locked gate. "No Trespassing, No Hunting, No Access to 

National Forest," says the sign. 

Then it comes to you -- an out-of-state resident recently 

bought the Jones ranch, and this once public road that runs a 

hundred yards through the ranch has now been blocked off. 

Looking over the Forest :Service map of the area, and with 

3 
117 

nightfall quickly approaching, you see there is no other way 

into the National Forest. The spectacular scenery before you, 

with the public lands you have always used for hunting, family 

picnics and hiking are now off-limits. A once public land has 

become private. 

You turn to your son and say, "I 1m sorry 1 we won 1 t be 

able to hunt this year." 

Wbv Does.the Problem Exist? 

The West was settled in a checkerboard manner. As a 

consequence, access to some tracts of public land is only obtained 

across private land. Although these access roads were publicly 

built and maintained, periodically they are closed -- due to new 

owners or a lack of maintenance. 

From the 1860s to the 1950s, federal, .state, county and 

railroad company efforts were combined in an important effort to 

create unhindered road/trail access to public lands. For example, 

R.S. 2477 was passed in 1866 to give miners, loggers and 

homesteaders legal right to build public roads across public lands 

to facilitate the development of the West. Also, in 1885, Congress 

passed the Unlawful Enclosures Act to prevent anyone from enclosing 

public lands within private lands and thus controlling public 

lal'lds. Similarly 1 when the railroads transferred property to 

private land owners, they normally added a phrase to the deed 

declaring that any roads across the land were public roads. In 

1906, Congress passed the Forest Homestead Act to permit patenting 

4 
118 

of lands for agriculture within the . forest reserves. When the 

homesteads were established, the rangers reserved 60 foot strips of 

land across the homesteads for public access. 

But beginning in the 1960s, attitudes toward increasing access 

to public lands changed for several reasons: 1) the increase in 

value of big game animals; 2) the acquisition of large ranches by 

corporations or non-westerners; 3) efforts by preservationists to 

limit public use of public land and activities such as hunting and 

fishing; and 4) fewer availa~le funds for local governments to 

maintain roads. 

Times Mirror Magazines was especially interested when 

Congressman Vento asked the GAO for an analysis of the public 

access problem. GAO found that 50.4 million acres of public lands 

are off-limits -- 17.3 million on the Forest Service and 33.1 

million on the BLM. This is an area about the size of Maine, 

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 

New Jersey and Delaware combined. Or, to put that in another 

perspective, it represents an area equal to about 22 Yellowstone 

parks. 

The problem is most significant in California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming. 

Impacts 

The GAO found that the primary impacts are losses of fishing, 

hiking, hunting, off-road vehicle use, mountain-biking, camping and 

pleasure-driving opportunities. In addition, construction, trail 

5 
119 

and road maintenance, and wildlife habitat management are also 

adversely affected by blocked public access. 

While the problem is concentrated in the West, its impact is 

felt by many Americans in other parts of the country. These include 

people who travel West to tour the land and anyone working in the 

outdoor recreation industry providing goods and services to those 

who use Western publi9 lands. outdoor recreation is a $300 billion 

industry, so people in every state in the country including those 

who earn their livelihoods in .outdoor recreation, are affected. 

There is also the matter of equity.'While we worry about 3.2 

million public acres having been given away under the patenting 

provision of the 1872 Mining Law, the reality is that lands with 

blocked public access are ostensibly being given away as well. This 

total, however, is 50.4 million acres. The individual controlling 

access to public land can have defacto exclusive use and ownership 

of that land. They may never take title, but the individual 

controlling the access receives many of the same benefits as fee 

simple title. 

Private landowners who block access may have legitimate 

concerns. Vandalism, trespass, poaching, liability or simply a 

desire for 'privacy are some of the reasons landowners "lock the 

gates." 

However, other reasons also exist, including exclusive 

personal or commercial use of public lands and charging access fees 

to these lands. 

6 
120 

Framing the Solution 

The public would like Congress to take steps to resolve the 

public access issue. In a survey our company commissioned last year 

with The Roper Organization, we asked: 

"At the moment, about one-tenth of all land owned by the 

federal government is not accessible to the public because it 

is surrounded by private property. This means there is no 

access to federal land without trespassing if individuals want 

to go hiking, hunting, o~ fishing. Do you think the federal 

government should find a way to provide access to this public 

land at this time, or isn't this an important priority?" 

The responses from this representative cross-section of the 

American public were: 

Yes, should provide access -- 51% 

Not an important priority now -- 35% 

Provide access for individuals only, not for businesses (a 

volunteered response) -- 6% 

Don't KnowfNo Answer -- 7% 

Some of the demographic groups believing that provision of 

access is more pressing than the level of concern of the general 

public were people making less than $20,000 a year (58%), Democrats 

(57%), Westerners (56%), and hunters (59%). Individuals who did 

not feel this was as important as the general public were upper 

income Americans (43%), college graduates (38%), and 

preservationists (46%). 

7 
121 

President Clinton has pledged to address this issue. In a 

voters• Guide we ran in all our magazines and newspapers just prior 

to the 1992 elections, he wrote: "I would .•• reinvigorate the Land 

and Water conservation fund to make more funds available for the 

acquisition of public outdo.or open spaces.... I would work to 

ensure appropriate access to public lands·." 

But to address this issue, the problem must be carefully 

framed. First, proponents of increased access to public lands are 

not asking for every acre of p~blic iand. For example, I have just 

returned from visiting the Medicine Rocks Ranch in southeastern 

Montana. This 25,000 acre ranch includes seven 40 acre tracts 

managed by the BLM that are scattered throughout the ranch. The 

rancher is justifiably concerned that calls for increased public 

access will result in the public being able to walk or drive across 

his land to use these 40 acres, which are virtually 

indistinguishable from the rest of his ranch. Cases like this ranch 

are not the issue. 

What we are talking about are situations such as exist on the 

Gallatin National Forest, where a thin strip of private land 

prevents access to 500, 000 acres of National Forest and where 

existing public roads have been ···closed by private landowners. 

And, this is not a matter of takinq away private property 

rights. Instead, it is a matter of enforcing existing public 

rights by not privatizing vast tracts of public land. 

8 
122 

Specific Approaches 

Solving the public access dilemma is not a matter of passing 

new laws. our government agencies have the necessary powers now to 

resolve many of the problems. While the public access issue is 

discussed everYJolhere people gather in the West, it is not a "hot 

issue" inside the Beltway. Therefore, a first step is to raise the 

profile of the issue, and ask the agencies why they have not done 

more to address this problem. This hearing is a giant step in that 

direction. 

There are some solutions to be cons~dered: 

1) Money is often what it takes. Higher appropriations for 

easement acquisition, consolidation of existing tracts, and 

documentation of existing public roads are where funds are needed 

or where resources need to be re-directed. This subcommittee should 

encourage the BLM and Forest service to spend more money on 

easement acquisition from willing buyers and to aggressively use 

land exchanges to ~onsolidate public holdings into accessible 

tracts. The rancher I visited last week in Montana believes much of 

the problem could be solved with greater efforts by BLM to 

cons·olidate its holdings. 

2) More legal investigations would help. The Public Lands 

Access Association in Bozeman, Montana reports that 80% of public 

access problems are situations where legal access already exists 

but needs to be documented and enforced. Legal resources devoted to 

documenting existing access would deliver a sizable payback to the 

public. 

9 
123 

3) Efforts to disallow R.s. 2477 claims (such as H.R. 1603) 

would exacerbate the public access problem. While disallowance of 

R.S. 2477 claims would help designate areas as roadless, and make 

them eligible for wilderness designation, the result would be lost 

public access to public lands since R.S. 2477 is one of the primary 

tools to prove the existence of a public road before land passed 

into private hands. 

4) Some private land passes through public ownership when 

there are defaults on federa~ loans. Rareiy does the government 

place easements on the land for public aceess prior to resale. This 

solution, without cost to the u.s. Treasury, should become standard 

operating procedure as an easy-to-implement approach to increasing 

the public's ability to use its land. 

5) Today, state counties receive approximately $125 million a 

year in Payment in Lieu of Taxes on public lands. A portion of 

this could be used for public access acquisition or maintenance. 

6) Permittees on public lands should be required to provide 

access acros their lands as a condition of their permit. 

7) A portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund could be 

used to address public access problems. One of the purposes of the 

Pund is to create outdoor recreation opportunities. It would be 

cost-effective to use these scarce dollars to acquire more 

easements that open up thousands of acres of public lands, rather 

than buy entire tracts of private lands. And, purchase of these 

easements would not impact rural tax bases in the same manner as 

outright purchase of·private lands. This subcommittee should urge 

10 
124 

the agencies to include on their lists of LWCF projects the 

acquisition of key easements that would unlock tracts of National 

Forest and BLM lands for public use. 

Conclusion 

The West is changing. And part of that change is movement 

toward a land ethic similar to what we have in the East. There has 

been a continual erosion of access to public land. We need to 

confront this problem and rev~rse this negative trend. New laws 

are not needed. Instead, a higher priority on solution of this 

problem and the allocation of existing resources in a more 

efficient and focused manner will solve the problem. Americans 

should not be locked out of their own lands. 

Chairman Vento, I applaud you and the other members of this 

subcommittee for convening this hearing. And I hope that your 

efforts will result in an increased focus on a problem that affects 

the constituents of every member of this subcommittee as well as 

all other Americans. Thank you. 

11 
125 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hawkes, I am pleased to welcome you. Please 

proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF LEWIS E. HAWKES 

Mr. HAWKES. Thank you very much. You have my statement for 

the record, and I will just excerpt parts from it. And I have some 

recommendations I would like to put in. 

Chairman Vento, my name is Lewis E. Hawkes. I am the executive director of the Public Land Access Association Incorporated, a 

nonprofit Montana corporation. I spent 38 years as wildlife manager of the Gallatin National Forest from 1973 to 1980 and kind 

of feel like we were really in the trenches when it came to the issue 

of public lands access. And as a result of that, in 1985, we went 

out and organized, after I had retired, the Public Land Access Association. 

Their objective is to promote the restoration, maintenance, and 

perpetuation of public access to the boundaries of the Federal and 

State lands in Montana. Currently PLAA has about 900 individual 

members, about 7,000 institutional. We have successfully maintained numerous road and trail routes to public lands simply because we constantly monitor public access routes and immediately 

protest any pending closures. 

As a last resort, we have also won several State District Court 

cases on public access rights. For example, Robert M. Lee and Victor DeBoer. Currently we have two other pending court cases. We 

have also helped establish other public land access organizations in 

Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, and Arizona. 

Chairman Vento, we sincerely appreciate your leadership, Pat 

Williams' support, and the support of this committee. In scheduling 

the GAO report and this hearing, Congress should soon have a 

much better understanding of the public land access problem. 

From a historic standpoint on access, at the beginning of the 

Civil War, the United States was land rich but money poor. From 

the Federal Union's standpoint, there was a great need to bring the 

Western States into the Union to obtain Western silver and gold 

and settle the lands. Subsequently, in 1862, Congress passed the Homestead Act to 

actively encourage the settlement of the West and strengthen the 

Union. Land grant railroads were granted alternating sections of 

land, several miles wide, on either side of their rights-of-way. The 

land was subsequently to be sold to settlers to help pay for the railroad. In 1866, Congress passed Revised Statute 2477 which states: 

"The right-of-way for the construction of highw~rs over public land, 

not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.' The intent of R.S. 

24 77 was to encourage homesteading and allow early miners and 

settlers to build wagon roads or trails wherever needed without 

being in trespass on Federal lands open to settlement. 

The majority of the major wagon roads and trails serving westem communities in today's State and Federal lands were constructed prior to homesteading of the lands over which the homes 

and trails traversed and thus, by Federal law, are public highways. 

In 1895, when Montana first codified its laws, the legislature 

blanketed all such existing wagon roads and trails into county sys77-279 0 - 94 - 5 
126 

tems. Unless these wagon roads and trails have been formally 

abandoned by petition or other legal means, these roads and trails 

are still public highways. 

Yet, most Federal, State, and county attorneys have been reluctant to acknowledge the existence of those public property rights 

because, collectively, there are insufficient Federal, State, and 

county funds for the maintenance of the primitive roads and trails. In 1885, Congress also passed the Unlawful Enclosures Act, of 

which section 1063 states in part that, "No person by force, threats, 

intimidation, or any fencing or inclosing or any unlawful means, 

shall prevent or obstruct . . . any person from peaceably entering 

any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the 

public lands laws of the United States ... or shall prevent or ob· 

struct free passage or transit over or through the public lands, n emphasis added. 

This law was recently used by the Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

to prohibit a rancher from fencing and blocking an antelope herd 

from reaching their traditional winter range at Red Rim in Wyoming. 

After 1895, when additional wagon roads were needed across 

homesteaded lands to supplement the federal public highways already established, the Montana legislature strengthened a petition- ing process whereby ten freeholders or landowners could petition 

for addition · of a road to the county system. 

If the majority of the freeholders agreed, the county could add 

the road by reviewing and surveying the road. The county could 

also condemn or pay damages for rights-of-way or easements, and 

the last step after construction was to declare the road public and 

open for use. 

In addition, under Montana statutes, a public road can be established by dedication to the county by the landowner deeding the 

right-of-way to the county. Also public roads and trails can beestablished by prescription or continuous, adverse, and uninterrupted 

use by the public for a period of years. , After 1903, the majority of the deeds from the . Northern Pacific 

Railroad to the first private landowners contain a clause stating, 

"the lands hereby granted being subject, however, to an easement 

in the public for any public roads or roads heretofore laid out or 

established, and now existing over or across any part of said described land." The Northern Pacific Railroad thus made a major effort to assure maximum access to early miners and settlers, and 

they fully recognized public highways established by Federal laws. 

In 1906, Congress also passed the Forest Homestead Act which 

allowed patenting of the agricultural lands within the forest reserves. When these homesteads were established, the old forest 

rangers reserved 60-foot strips of land across those homesteads as 

a continuation of a public highway and to maintain public access 

to these public lands. 

All of the above actions established public property rights in the 

early wagon road and trail systems. Public Lands Access Association was established in 1985 to encourage Federal, State, and county officials to stop acljacent landowners from blocking historic public roads and trails and thus taking long established public prop-
127 

erty rights. The purchase of homesteads to create larger ranches 

does not limit public road and trail rights leading to public lands. 

PLAA's major efforts are geared toward helping State and Federal land management agencies research historical records and encourage Federal, Stl;lte, and county attorneys to defend these longstanding public property rights. 

We fully support and will defend private property rights. However, historically established public property roads and trails are 

too often ignored at a tremendous monetary cost to the public and 

Federal Government. 

Why should the Federal Government be forced to purchase road 

and trail rights that the public already owns because of h~storical 

action by Congress? R.S. 2477 and the Unlawful Enclosure ACt established those. 

Aggressive action by Federal attorneys would preclude the attempted closure on most historical routes to public lands in the 

West at a tremendous savings to the Federal Government in the 

long run. . · I have six quick recommendations that would go to the committee. I will touch on those in just a minute. 

Chairman Vento, we thank you for holding this hearing. We also 

want to say thank you to Montana's Congressman Pat Williams 

and his staff for all their help. We believe this hearing will be a 

positive step toward keeping the 50.4 million acres of public land 

public and available for citizens of the United States. 

Briefly, our recommendations-and I am talking as somebody 

that has worked down in the trenches; we are the troops. I will 

give you an example. I had a complaint the other day where a 

State representative called me, and one of our members had been 

up a year ago and had gone in on a road across a State school section. It was public road. He was arrested. He was convicted, and 

he took his case and appealed it up to the district judge. The district judge said that is a public road across that State land because 

the county has collected gasoline tax on that for 22 years. So the 

county stopped collecting gas tax on it . . But the declaration was ~&ro~ . 

Now this year, it just happened, same man went back up there 

and he found the gates locked, so he cut the locks. And the next 

time he went by somebody had taken a trencher, backhoe, and dug 

a big trench across that road on that State land. 

The people involved have gone to the State Land Department 

asking to do something about it. They have g<,me to the county commission to do something about it, but none of them will do anything. It is an impasse right there. 

Now that is the kind of things we encounter. So in trying to get 

at some of these things that I would recommend after being down 

in the trenches and really looking at these-and I get several calls 

like that a year~me of the things that would help a lot, we think, 

would be to tie the county PL payments to taxes, because very few 

counties, even though they draw tax monies from the Federal 

lands, will support doing anything for public access. There are a 

few, but not many. 

We think that Federal attorneys, Justice Department of the 

United States, and the BLM and USDA, Office of General Counsel, 
128 

they are really reluctant in supporting the historical public road 

and trail rights, probably because they believe they have higher 

priorities. 

We hope the Congress will request more aggressive action and 

provide financial support for these Federal entities in the Federal 

court cases. The rights are there. They are just not being defended. 

I won't go into R.S. 2477 any more because I covered that. We 

would like to see the definition of R.S. 2477 as defined by the BLM 

in 1988. We think it is good. We have tested it. It looks like it 

meets the on-the-ground requirements and meets historical needs. 

We would like to see that retained. 

Access now has become a public safety issue. And as you just 

said, the Wall Street Journal-I have that with my attachmentit is coming not only to fisticuffs, but it is coming to Mexican standoffs with firearms in the West. 

I think Congress has a responsibility from a public safety standpoint. And when you get to where there are historically unsolvable 

access problems, where the landowner and the agencies absolutely 

have no reason to compromise or work out something and it has 

been going on and on, I think you have to return the right to the 

BLM and the Forest Service to be more aggressive with condemnation. 

This was very restricted during the Reagan and Bush Administrations and practically didn't exist. And that is one of the reasons 

your public access has gotten so much worse, because they couldn't 

take any actions. 

In Montana, you just touched on it, there are increasing private 

land closures because in 1992, under pressure from pending lawsuit, the Montana legislature opened about 3 million of 5.2 million 

acres of State school land to hunting, fishing, and general recreation. Mostly ranchers opposed uses other than hunting and fishing 

in season. 

In 1993, under similar pressure, the State Land Board opened 

the same lands to year-round hiking and bird watching. Subsequently, portions of Montana ranching industry are threatening to 

close large tracts of private lands to hunting and fishing if hiking 

and bird watching are not allowed on State lands. 

Increasing closures of private lands places a greater need for access to public lands. And maintaining access to most public lands 

is even more critical. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Hawkes. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hawkes and attachments follow:] 
129 

TESTIMONY OF LEWIS E. HAWKES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

PUBLIC LAND ACCESS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED 

BEFORE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON PUBLIC LANDS ACCESS 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

NOVEMBER 9, 1993 

LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 
1~ 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Vento, my name is Lewis E. Hawkes. I am the 

Executive Director of the Public Land Access Association, 

Incorporated (PLAAI), a non-profit Montana corporation. I am a Forestry Graduate of Utah State University (1951) with minors in 

Range and Wildlife Management, and I obtained a Masters in Public 

Administration from the University of California, Berkeley (1965). I spent 38 years as a wildlands manager with the United 

States Forest Service, and I was Supervisor of the Gallatin 

National Forest from 1973 to 1980. 

PLAAI's objective is to promote the restoration, maintenance, and 

perpetuation of public access to the boundaries of federal and 

state lands in Montana. Currently, PLAAI has about 900 individual 

members, and over 7,000 institutional members. We have 

successfully maintained numerous road and trail routes to public lands simply because we constantly monitor public access routes 

and immediately protest any pending closures. As a last resort, we have also won several state district court cases on public access rights (i. e.- Robert M. Lee, and Victor DeBoer). 

Currently, we have two other pending court cases. We have also 

helped establish other public land access organizations in 

Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, and Arizona. 

Chairman Vento, we sincerely appreciate your leadership, Pat 

Williams support, and the support of this subcommittee, in 

scheduling the GAO report and this hearing. Congress should soon have a much better understanding of the public land access problem. 

HISTORICAL 

At the beginning of the Civil War, the United States was land 

rich, but money poor. From the Federal Union standpoint, there was a great need to bring the western states into the Union, 

obtain western silver and gold, and settle the lands. 

Subsequently, in 1862, Congress passed the homesteading act to 

actively encourage the settlement of the west, and strengthen the 

Union. Land grant railroads (i.e.- Union Pacific, Northern 

Pacific, etc.) were granted alternating sections of land 

(checker board pattern) several miles wide on either side of 

their rights-of-way. The lands were subsequently to be sold to 

settlers to help pay for the railroad. 

In 1866, Congress also passed Revised Statute 2477 which states: 

"The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public land, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted". The 

intent of R.S . 2477 was to encourage homesteading and allow early miners and settlers to build wagon roads/trails wherever needed 

without being in trespass on Federal lands open for settlement. 

The majority of the major wagon roads and trails serving western 

communities and today's state and federal lands were constructed 
131 

prior to homesteading of the lands over which the roads and 

trails traversed and thus by Federal Law are public highways. In 

1895, when Montana first codified its laws, the Legislature blanketed all such existing wagon roads and trails into county 

systems. Unless these wagon roads and trails have been formally abandoned by petition or other legal means, these roads and 

trails are still public highways. Yet, most Federal, state, and 

county attorneys have been reluctant to acknowledge the existence 

of these public property rights because, collectively, there are insufficient federal, state, and county funds for maintenance of 

these primitive roads and trails. 

In 1885, Congress also passed the Unlawful Enclosures Act, of 

which section 1063 states in part that "No person by force, 

threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct ... any person from peaceably entering any tract of public land subject to 

settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United 

States ..• or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands." (Emphasis added) This law was recently used by the Wyoming Wildlife Federation to prohibit a rancher from fencing and blocking an antelope herd from reaching their traditional winter range at Red Rim in Wyoming. 

After 1895, when additional wagon roads were needed across homesteaded lands to supplement the federal public highways already established, the Montana legislature strengthened a petitioning process whereby 10 freeholders (landowners) could 

petition for addition of a road to the county system. If the 

majority of the freeholders agreed, the county could add the road 

by reviewing and surveying the route. The county could also 

condemn and/or pay damages for rights of ways or easements, and 

the last step after construction was to declare the road public and open for use. 

In addition, under Montana statutes, a public road can be 

established by dedication to the county by the landowner deeding the right of way to the county. Also, public roads and trails can be established by prescription or continuous, adverse and 

uninterrupted use by the public for a period of years. 

After 1903·, the majority of the deeds from the Northern Pacific 

Railroad to the first private landowners contain a clause 

stating: "the lands hereby granted being subject, however, to an easement in the public for any public road or roads heretofore 

laid out or established, and now existing over or across any part of said described land". The Northern Pacific Railroad thus made a major effort to assure maximum access to early miners and 

settlers, and they fully recognized public highways established 

by federal laws. 

In 1906, congress also passed the Forest Homestead Act which 

allowed patenting of agricultural lands within the forest reserves. When these homesteads were established the old forest 
1~ 

rangers reserved 60 foot strips of land across these homes~eads 

as a continuation of a public highway and to maintain public access to public lands. 

All of the above actions established public property rights in 

the early wagon road and trail systems. The Public Land Access 

Association, Inc. (PLAAI) was established in 1985 to encourage Federal, State, and County officials to stop adjacent landowners 

from blocking historical public roads and trails and thus taking long established public property rights. The purchase of 

homesteads to create larger ranches does not eliminate public road and trail rights leading to public lands. 

PLAAI'S major efforts are geared towards helping State and 

Federal land management agencies research historical records and 

encourage Federal, State, and County attorneys to defend these 

long standing public property road/trail rights. PLAAI fully 

supports and will defend private property rights. However, 

historically established public property road trail/rights are too often being ignored at a tremendous monetary cost to the 

public and the Federal Government. Why should the Federal 

Government be forced to purchase road and trail rights that the 

public already owns because of early historical action by Congress. (R.S.-2477 and Unlawful Enclosures Act)? Aggressive action by federal attorneys would preclude the attempted closure 

of most historical routes to public lands in the west at a tremendous savings to the Federal Government in the long run. 

Chairman Vento, we thank you for holding this hearing. We also 

want to say "thank you" to Montana's congressman Pat Williams and 

his staff for all of their help. We believe this hearing will be a positive step towards keeping the 50.4 million acres of public lands "public" and available for all citizens of the United 

States. 
133 

PLAAI ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS 

The April 1992 GAO Report documents there are 50.4 million acres of land (17.3 National Forest and 33 . 1 BLM} with inadequate access. The report also implies that the Forest Service and the 

BLM are primarily at fault for this condition. The real truth is 

that although Congress has designated these public lands for 

public use, they in turn have placed so many constraints on land 

management agencies that they cannot do the job. Constraints on the land management agencies that should be removed or remedied are: 

1} TIE COUNTY PILT PAYMENTS TO ACCESS. The counties now rece~ve payments ~n l~eu of taxes of About 124 million 

dollars from federal lands. Yet, few counties will 

accept any responsibility for access to the public lands 

from which they draw payments in lieu of taxes. This is 

not ethical or fair in anyway and it tends to maintain a federal/county animosity over the issue of public access. Currently, the counties are asking for an increase in PILT payments . .. A portion (25% is suggested} of these PILT funds could and should be designated only for county cost-share agreements with federal land 

management agencies for maintaining needed access to 

public lands within that county. This would create a much better federal/county working relationship. 

2} FEDERAL ACTION. Federal attorneys (Justice Department, Off~ce of General Council - USDA, BLM} are very reluctant to support any historical research and 

subsequent litigation to protect historical public road 

and trail rights probably because they believe they have 

higher priorities. We hope-~hat Congr.ess will request more aggressive action and provide financial support for 

these federal entities in federal court actions to 

defend public road/trail property rights. 

3} PROTECT R.S. 2477 RIGHTS. R.S. 2477 was the major method by wh~ch congress allowed early miners and 

settlers to patent mines and homesteads without 

trespassing on public or private lands. Most R.S. 2477 

routes are/were wagon roads and now many are 4-wheel 

drive routes. Yet they are the key to providing reasonable public access to the 50.4 million acres with 

inadequate access. On December 7, 1988, Donald Paul 

Hodel, in the Department of the Interior established a policy and criteria for the recognition of an R.S. 2477 

road/trail (see attachment}. PLAAI has tested this 

policy and criteria in the field, and we fully support it's retention. Recently, there have been attempts to 

weaken or destroy R.S. 2477 (H.R. 1603}. Such action 

would cost the public and the federal government millions of dollars in the long run and add to the 
1~ 

budget deficit. 

4) ACCESS NOW A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. As shown by the 

attached October 8, 1993 art~cle from the Wall Street Jo~r~al, public access confrontations in the west are becoming increasingly serious and even life-threatening. 

We believe Congress has a responsibility to move forward 

from a public safety standpoint and help provide the resources and methods for resolving the issues as rapidly as possible. Public lands were established by Congress for public use and reasonable access is a necessity. PLAAI does not know of any rancher that does 

not have adequate access to his ranch. The public lands are the publics ranch and reasonable access is a prerequisite for public use of our ranch. 

5) HISTORICALLY UNSOLVABLE ACCESS PROBLEMS REQUIRE STRONG 

FEDERAL ACTIONS. Start~ng w~th the Reagan Actm~n~strat~on and continuing through the Bush 

Administration to the present, the word is out that the 

Forest Service and the BLM are "paper tigers" with no authority. Many adjacent landowners and/or new landowners are quick to reject most "willing buyer- willing seller" attempts by these management agencies to 

acquire needed rights-of-way. The administration and 

Congress should encourage, as a last resort, the use of 

eminent domain to resolve many long standing and to date 

unresolvable disputes. The BLM has been particularly (and politically) hard hit because Congress has unduly limited any condemnation actions by this agency through the restriction of appropriations. Let's allow the 

agencies to do a "professional" not "political" 

management job of the publics resources. Land exchanges alone by the BLM will never resolve the access problems 

to 31.1 million acres of public lands. 

6) INCREASING PRIVATE LAND CLOSURES. In 1992 under 

pressure from a pend~ng lawsu~t, the Montana Legislature opened about 3 million of 5.2 million acres of state 

school lands to hunting, fishing, and general recreation. The lessees (mostly ranchers) opposed uses other than hunting and fishing in season. In 1993, 

under similar pressure, the State Land Board opened the same lands to year-round hiking and bird watching. Subsequently, portions of the Montana ranching industry are threatening to close large tracts of private lands 

to hunting and fishing if hiking and bird-watching are allowed on state lands. Increasing closures of private lands place a greater demand for access to public lands, 

and maintaining access to these public lands is even more critical. 
Memorandum 

135 

T'M£ S£CJit£TAAY 0,. TMC INTI:RIOR 

WASHINGTON 

To : ~~ ) 1S~ from:.\cUq Assistant secretary !or Fish and Wildli!e and Parks .. 11 fli!~ce 

-~ssistant Secretary tor Land and Minerals Hanaqemerl£'T 

Secretary 

Subject: Departmental Policy on Section 8 ot the Act ot 

Jul y 26 , 1866, Revised Statute l477 (Repea l ed), 

Grant ot Riqht-ot-Way tor Public: Hiqhways (RS 2477) 

Althouqh RS 2477 was repealed nearly 12 years aqo , controversies 

periodically arise raqard i nq whether a public hiqhway was establishe< pursuant to the congressional qrant under RS 2477 and tho extant ot 

riqhts obtained under that qrant. Under RS 2477, the United St~te~ 

h~d (has) no duty or authority to adjudicate an assertion or application. However, it is necessary in the proper manaqement ot 

fedanl lands to be ab.le to recoqnize with some certainty the 

existence.- or lack thereof, ot public hiqhway qrants obtained under 

RS 2477. 

With the passaqe or the Federal Land Pol-icy and Manaqamant Act, the 

Bureau of _Land Hanaqe11ant (BLH) developed procedures, policy, and 

criteria for racoqnition, in cooperation with local qovarnmants, ot 

the existence ot such public: hiqhways and notation to the BLH's land 

records. This has allowed the BLH to develop land use plans and to 

make appropriate manaqement decisions that consider the existence o~ 

these hiqhway r.iqh_ts. 

Issues have recently been raised by the State or Alaska and others 

which question not only the BLH policy but also the manaqe11ent actions by other bureaus within the Depa~tment. We have had the B~! 

review and report on the various issues. and concerns (Attachment 21 

and consulted with the State or Alaska, the D·LH, the fi!lh and 

Wildlife service, and the National Park Service. 

We believe that the land aanaqeaent objectives ot the Department wi: : be improved with adoption ot a Depart .. ntal policy and recommend tha· 

the attached policy (Attachment 1) be adopted tor Departmentwida usa 

Approve : Donald Paul lloclel D_isapprove : 

Date: DEC 07 1988 Date: 

AI~ or,., QUCiiic ri!CflrM , .. ...., ft\" f .r 

Attachments: 1-RS 2477 Policy 2-Bt..'l Report 

f. ·•e!•! r. lP.! .: ~~~t:t! , M~ 't-"l.. 

I· ':':"J )r. :. !.; ~ l t..,;.: -:n:r'l · 

r..:. .;, . 

s.:...-.... ~:.::;;;-- ;;../;_:.. ' JJ;.... r '""?:.:. """"'L'--

CtltbMtillf tltl Ullillol StiJIIS c~IIS:itut OII ~ ~'""'u·• "" 

137 

VOL. CXXlX NO. 70 

Wild West 

GunfJ.re and Lawsuits 

Greet City Slickers 

Who Block Old Trails 

New Owneis Seek Privacy, 

But Neighbors Say They 

Tread on Historic Riabts 

Trouble in ·Cowboy Heaven 

IIJ.IIIIC..UW a.t/R...,_,.e/,._ WALL.._..,_.. I.VIISCIIIIIX._tlllo_ll_ 

A.S<allldo. 

(IM"o~ -M ...... II-

_,.......,lllr.-Uda 

....... -" boiiPI -~--..-­ .-... IIIII IIIt- lllno.LIICIII,wlll-llnadlllltlllnl b)' drttllr ball U -· .. faa I 

_____ ....... 

U.Wlll_ll_., ............ ln•lllllltf.Onlac••-* --.------- ....,. 

_ ....... 1 __ .....,... .. _....... ............ __ ............. llr.-1111 ~ofa-.11111---­

llr-*'J-Ir 111-ll ... llr. lcaiiWIIOIIIIII.-.a. ''WIIIl IJI01'ft ..,... II.. llr. Wlllt· _.,..,. ...... n.,., .... .,.._ ltlllroucu'laola."' nao...- ___ .. ..,...-....,.,._ 

~~~~--·--­ ll't-allb)'rlcllUd--

-TIIIIIIU.,udlUoaliiUtnlpi<Cia-- ...... ---~~~.-­ .... - Old WOit..,_ ......,. UoUI .-I ,..,._ II Wll -..1J •riOnadllllt ___ ., ... 

WalbfltaftlltnroldnolloiiOdlnll 

----- ---"'""'" - --...... ·-- -IOftllld ____ . 

Jllllll«·warforllll. · _ llootlalllellcw-..., _ ....,...., .... ___ _ ... Ill - ... joMIIdllaJ .... 

---·--

-~~~~-- .. -.... ... ---...___ lftofllltlallll All-··--· ........ ~llll­

.,._ ...... _.._u.s.._..,_ 

.-w-. tloolll1-- n11P1J 

..,.alllllltlllll .. -. ...... .. 

·-

:'.:':at~=- · ......... -...-... - . ''non ... -..-..--· ,.. ................. -..... IIOdl'flll--.''111111111..- -~~~~~~~-... - ;. ................. --

l'lladlen UlllJUertottp 

PriYIKJ r ... Aida..- 1s lilt IUiD 

..... ~~~a • .---!Atld· onen say 11aat .....aed rillton dwnp 

prtoop and - aWe or .wllclllle. llattdlm- r1lt Ia- K ......... ... loj-.. Utelr 111111 • 

.. U I miD - I piece of pruperlJ 

....... - ....... u.n ....... baN I1IJIIOdJ - ltla, lltll'l ldl rtcltl. .. __ w.-.aLu 

l<lllllllllldaloo- y------

-·-· ·--· .............. _IQI_ 

------...--, larllll-~"011 ... 111410 

-.... -....... ·.----- --· . .................... __ 

....,lllai..,..I'IIWIIImi.allltDD- cnt--.1111.._....,.. .,__... .... __ llotallrllll 

~--.-. ____ ... .. 

. ...,..,_ . 

-n..,Bullr,aw,..toc.,_. 

plal1l, loattiM I nadl Ia -- ldaloo--··.-alf- allanu_llr_,..._ 

-"'-··--~~~~~~-­

______ .. lilt 

<<lt: .. Kaop.._, -· .... .-u ... ,.. .. ........, ..... ~. llr------- ...... ____ .. __ 

., ........ _.,.....,... __ liM---..---- -

_· _ .. -. "Wo)lll-IDbaloft "" _ _, .. ...., .. _ 

::-.:::.-::..--

fteleC..IIIeJfelatllloi 

___ ..... 

.. - ............. .... -. 

_, ........ 1111 ... - ... dlr--....-a· -.llr.-.llleLIIY--. 

-all--llllldaloorudt, 

lordiii_ID_It_ID 

-·----lllatlllaJ-10 

......... -.... --.n.. Mr. -loattllll a -IDI- a ....-...--.... -.. ,_ __ ,...... ....... '1-ll'l&-· lolltliactiD " ... _,_, __ _ _,.., .............. lllewrr-

..... - cu.~ •- 11oe cor•·• ------tiiiCit .. ,. .....-1111--IHI-M·Bit .,._., __ ·l-1. ,............ -.-..... ---._ ...... v _ _, 

·-ne,-.....,.. ....... -rmao -l'lnlt,..A1.'*-I 
138 

.TilE WALL STREET JOURNAL FIUDA Y. OCTOBER 8, 1993 A7· 

Wild West: Gunfire, Lawsuits Greet City Slickers 

Who Seek Privacy by Blocking Wilderness Trails 

l

lbeptaa Up-.. "-1 . lliii•..C1101o-ana'tllllonir . . culprlll. Laolltlml- ........ .,._Uio_,_..,_ .. 

I

. ln(ur!IU _,,In 1111 LAMICiooll 

......__ ...... -.-.r.r- .............. . . ·~.....,alllrllr Scolllllolllll .... _ ...................... ..... toiiii--.Mr.-wu 

,rldlllf.-,. .· "AIII-Ioolollllafta1111,.... .. 1'(11111111 .... ---· l'lolorllfii-," Mr.Scolllllo,alallllln(' _.,...,..,,._ullotta-

- ~~~~-,.~-Calli. Mr.: --··llllpii-..W __ ...... _II. .· 

-·-~Trall ,. . ...., .......... ---· ... _...,,lllll · -an-llla~-WIUi 

-~~~~~-1111--IIIOidWIII 

_ ............... -.. We """ Mr. SCIIllda - ·" - 01111111 . 

Mow, lit UJI: ,;WI C1t1J I .. Willi.,; 

WhoaWIIIWCICllllfnadl." ' 
139 

Mr. VENTO. We have a vote here. But if we can give Mr. Frasier 

about five minutes, it doesn't look like his testimony is quite as 

long as others; and so we will give you an opportunity to get your 

testimony. 

And now, Mr. Frasier, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF STAN FRASIER 

Mr. FRAsiER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, my name is Stan Frasier. I am one of the many vice presidents of the Montana Wildlife Federation. I will just hit a few high 

points here. Some of these things have already been mentioned. 

The Gallatin Range, in particular, and the Madison Range are 

two mountain ranges which have very limited access. The Gallatin 

has almost continuous private ranches running along it. So we are 

talking about tens of thousands of acres of mountain range which 

have virtually no access, the Gallatin on the east side and the 

Madison range, same sort of problem on the west side, which is the 

next range to the west. 

The Madison range contains the most spectacular wilderness 

areas, and it has also been blocked on the north by the Flying D 

Ranch. 

The battle in Montana for access to our State school trust lands 

has been fought by sportsmen with our own Department of State 

Lands for nearly 40 years. 

And one of the real big things that happened with an addition 

to opening up the State lands, it has opened up a lot of Federal 

land. Because by leasing State school lands for grazing, for a very 

low fee, the lessee could deny access to the State land previously 

and, in turn, cut off access to Federal lands behind that. 

We are making progress in that, but there is still some problems 

in getting to some of these extremely large areas of Federal lands, 

especially the mountain ranges. And we in the Montana Wildlife 

Federation are not interested in having .roads throughout forest; 

but we are interested in being able, at least, to get to the edge of 

the forest. And in many places that is not possible now. 

We don't want special treatment. We only want to have an equal 

opportunity to enjoy our public lands. A few of the things that have 

been touched on earlier here, the isolated tracts kept coming up. 

That is really not a problem. The problem is the areas like the Gallatin Range or the Madison Range where we can't get to tens or 

even hundreds of thousands of acres of Federal land. 

And the gentleman from Utah kept asking questions about the 

Forest Service closing roads. I can say that the ones that in cases 

I am familiar with, the Forest Service closes roads because they cut 

down trees in order to maintain some sort of minimal wildlife habitat. And they go in and take down the trees in a timber sale; and 

in compensation for that, they have to limit access. 

So in many cases that I've seen, the Forest Service, through the 

timber sale program, are creating their own problem. They have, 

in .fact, closed mining roads that have been open for a hundred 

years, because they built new roads into an area, took the trees 

down, they close off the new roads when they are through. They 

close the old roads, and that has been a problem. 
140 

But one of the things that the BLM has done-and I hope they 

are still doing-they have some excellent access maps. And I would 

ask you to encourage the BLM to continue putting these out. These 

are a real help. They have these for the entire State of Montana. 

They cover very small sections. They are very detailed. And I think 

they sell these for $5 a piece, which I hope is cost. But I would certainly like to have a set for the entire State, and I am going to pursue that with the BLM. I hope we can get those for the Wildlife 

Federation also. 

And one of the problems that we run into in rural county commissioners not protecting access, is that these rural county commissioners are the friends and neighbors of the ranchers that want to 

close these roads. And, quite frankly, the private individuals, 

sportsmen's organizations, should not have to spend their time and 

energy fighting to keep these historic accesses open. 

I would like to see more help from the Forest Service and BLM 

whose lands are affected in maintaining these historic accesses. 

Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Frasier follows:] 
141 

MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

P.O. Box 1175, Helena, MT 59624 .ao6-449-76CM 

1990 Outstanding State Aifi!iate of the tVa!ional Wildlife Federmton 

TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY MR. SI'AN FRASIER, 

VICE-PRESIDENT, MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

BEFORE 

THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON NA'IlJRAL RESOURCES 

Noftlllber 9, 1ll93 

Fifty-seve11 Years of Preservi11g tlte Last of Wltot's Best ..... '601 ..,.._ 

-­
142 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS STAN 

FRASIER. I AM A VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 

AS WELL AS A MEMBER OF A LOCAL SPORTSMEN'S CLUB. AS A NATIVE 

MONTANAN I HAVE SPENT MY LIFE RECREATING IN THE GREAT OUTDOORS OUR 

STATE HAS TO OFFER. 

WHEN I WAS A CHILD GROWING UP, MY FAMILY WENT FISHING, 

PICNICKING, AND CAMPING TOGETHER; AND WHEN I MARRIED AND STARTED 

A FAMILY OF MY OWN, MY WIFE, DAUGHTER, AND I ENJOYED THE SAME 

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AS A FAMILY THAT I HAD AS A CHILD. THOSE 

FAMILY OUTINGS ARE WONDERFUL MEMORIES, AND CREATED IN ME A DEEP 

APPRECIATION OF THE OUTDOORS WHICH HAS LASTED ALL OF MY LIFE. 

THESE WERE ACTIVITIES THAT FAMILIES COULD DO TOGETHER WHICH DID 

NOT COST MUCH. THEY WERE ACTIVITIES A FAMILY COULD ENGAGE IN ON 

PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS. 

AS A CARPENTER BY TRADE, AND ONE WHO IS CURRENTLY UNEMPLOYED, I 

CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND THAT THERE ARE MANY OF US WHO LIVE IN 

MONTANA WHO DON ° T MAKE MUCH MONEY . BUT THERE IS A RICHNESS TO ALL 

OUR LIVES THAT COMES FROM THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION 

ON PUBLIC LANDS. 

IN MONTANA ABOUT 1/3 OF OUR TOTAL STATE ACREAGE IS IN PUBLIC 

OWNERSHIP -- OR ABOUT 30 MILLIONS ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND. OUR STATE 

HAS A RICH HERITAGE OF USE ON PUBLIC LANDS; OVER 300,000 SPORTING 

LICENSES ARE SOLD EVERY YEAR TO STATE RESIDENTS, AND AN 

ADDITIONAL 250 0 000 NON-RESIDENT LICENSES ARE PURCHASED. THIS 
PAGE2 

FRASIER/LAND ACCESS TESTIMONY 

NQVEMBER 9. 1993 

143 

MASSIVE FINANCIAL OUTLAY BY INDIVIDUALS GOES TO SUPPORT THEIR 

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES FOR HUNTING AND FISHING, MUCH OF WHICH · 

OCCURS ON PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS. 

DESPITE THIS SEEMINGLY ENORMOUS WEALTH OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE 

GENERAL PUBLIC TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, THERE IS A DARKER SIDE 

TO THE PICTURE. IT TOOK 3 DECADES OF CONSTANT CITIZEN ACTIVISM TO 

OPEN MONTANA'S 5.2 MILLIONS ACRES OF STATE OWNED TRUST LAND TO 

HUNTING AND FISHING IN 1991, AND THE BATTLE STILL CONTINUES TO 

FURTHER OPEN THESE LANDS TO OTHER RECREATIONAL USES. UP UNTIL 

1991 LESSEES OF STATE LANDS, PRIMARILY LEASED TO AGRICULTURE FOR 

GRAZING , WERE ABLE TO PROHIBIT THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM ENTERING 

THOSE LANDS. THESE STATE LANDS OFTEN BORDERED FEDERAL PUBLIC 

LANDS, SO THE AFFECT OF THIS SITUATION WAS TO CLOSE MILLIONS OF 

ACRES OF BLM AND FOREST SERVICE LANDS TO THE PUBLIC. 

BUT DESPITE THE SUCCESS REGARDING STATE LAND ACCESS, THE PROBLEMS 

ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESS TO FEDERAL LANDS IS GROWING. 

MONTANA IS CHANGING IN THIS DECADE. MORE AND MORE INDIVIDUALS ARE 

MOVING TO OUR STATE, PURCHASING HUGE TRACTS OF LAND THAT BORDER 

FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS, AND CHOKING OFF ACCESS POINTS. ADDITIONALLY, 

AS MONTANA'S RICH FISHING AND HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES BECOME MORE 

VALUABLE AS THEY BECOME RARER IN OTHER STATES, PRIVATE FEE 

~CREATION IS GROWING. PRIVATE LANDOWNERS WHOSE LAND ABUTS PUBLIC 

TROUT STREAMS AND PUBLIC WILDLIFE HABITAT, ARE AGAIN CLOSING OFF 

ACCESS, AND THUS CREATING PRIVATE PRESERVES FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. 
PAGE3 

FRASIER/LAND ACCESS TESTIMONY 

NOVEMBER 9. 1993 

144 

THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF THIS EMERGING PROBLEM IN MONTANA. 

THE PARADISE VALLEY RUNS NORTH OUT OF YELLOWSTONE PARK, AND IS 

BORDERED BY TWO MAGNIFICENT MOUNTAIN RANGES. TO THE WEST IS THE 

GALLATIN RANGE, ENCOMPASSING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF 

PRIMITIVE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY. DESPITE THIS HUGE PUBLIC 

RESOURCE, THERE ARE ALMOST NO ACCESS POINTS FOR A DISTANCE OF 50 

MILES THROUGH THIS VALLEY FROM GARDINER; MONTANA TO LIVINGSTON. 

PRIVATE RANCHES BLOCK THIS WILDERNESS AREA; THE DEPEW RANCH BLOCKS 

ACCESS ALONG TRAIL CREEK, THE 8 MILE CREEK ACCESS IS BLOCKED THE 

JACK BRANDIS RANCH, THE STORY RANCH ALONG FRIDLEY CREEK SHUTS OFF 

ANOTHER PRIME ACCESS POINT. ADDITIONALLY, ACCESS DIFFICULTIES ARE 

CREATED IN CINNABAR BASIN, DONAHUGH CREEK, AND POINT-OF-ROCKS, ALL 

MAJOR POTENTIAL POINTS OF DEPARTURE INTO THE GALLATIN RANGE. 

IN THE MADISON RANGE, ONE OF MONTANA'S MOST SPECTACULAR WILDERNESS 

AREAS, THE FLYING D RANCH IN THE 1960'S PETITIONFD THE GALLATIN 

COUNTY COMMISSION TO ABANDON THE CHERRY CREEK ROAD WHICH HAD 

HISTORICALLY SERVED AS AN ACCESS POINT TO THIS RANGE. WHEN THE 

COMMISSION GRANTED THE ABANDONMENT, THEY EFFECTIVELY BLOCKED 

ACCESS TO THIS RANGE FOR OVER 40 MILES OF HIGHWAY THAT SURROUNDS 

THE NORTH END OF THIS INCREDIBLE RANGE. 

UP ON THE EASTERN FRONT RANGE NORTH OF CHOTEAU, MONTANA, WHERE THE 

SPECTACULAR BOB MARSHALL COMPLEX SWEEPS DOWN ONTO THE FLAT EASTERN 

PLAINS, A HUGE RANCH ON DUPUYER CREEK WAS PURCHASED BY THE BOONE 

AND CROCKETT CLUB, WHO IMMEDIATELY CLOSED A ROAD THAT TRANSECTED 

THE RANCH AND PROVIDED ACCESS TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE BOB MARSHALL 
PAGE4 

FRASIER/LAND ACCESS TESTIMONY 

NQYEMBER 9. 1993 

145 

WILDERNESS. EVENTUALLY, THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF SPORTSMEN GROUPS, 

THIS ROAD WAS RE-OPENED. 

THE PROBLEMS IN MONTANA ARE ACCELERATING. AS MORE AND MORE PRIVATE 

LANDS ARE PURCHASED AND ADJOINING FEDERAL LANDS ARE BUTTONED OFF 

OF PUBLIC ACCESS, RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES DIMINISH. THERE ARE 

BOTH CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS TO THIS TREND. 

ECONOMICALLY, PUBLIC LANDS REPRESENT AN ASSET THAT IS GROWING IN 

VALUE AS OUR NATION BECOMES MORE URBANIZED AND TROUBLED BY THE 

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH URBANIZATION. CULTURALLY, THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS PUBLIC LANDS BINDS FAMILIES TOGETHER AND 

NURTURES POSITIVE INDIVIDUAL VALUES. 

THE MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION URGES THIS COMMITTEE TO 

AGGRESSIVELY LOCATE SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM. WE WOULD ENCOURAGE 

SOLUTIONS THAT PROMOTE SOUND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, AND WE DO 

NOT ADVOCATE PUNCHING ROADS INTO EACH AND EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY OF 

PUBLIC LAND. RATHER, WE BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD SEEK REMEDIES 

THAT ALLOW FOR VARIED RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY; THAT PROVIDE 

ACCESS POINTS TO WILDERNESS AND ROADLESS LANDS FOR HIKING AND 

BACKCOUNTRY RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCE; THAT PROVIDE CAMPGROUND 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILIES IN THE· MORE DEVELOPED PUBLIC LAND AREAS 

THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED OFF; AND IN APPROPRIATE INSTANCES, PROVIDE 

VEHICULAR OPPORTUNITIES WHEN THEY DO NOT INFRINGE ON THE SOLITUDE 

AND WILDLIFE INTEGRITY OF A GIVEN AREA. 

AS STRATEGI~S FOR SUCH SOLUTIONS, WE FEEL THAT DESPITE THE 

FINANCIAL BIND WE ARE IN AS A NATION, FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT 
PAGES 

FRASIER/LAND ACCESS TESTIMONY 

NOVEMBER 9. 1993 

146 

FUNDS SHOULD BE RE-CHANNELED INTO ACCESS AS A PRIORITY. IN DOING 

SO, THE USFS AND BLM SHOULD LOOK TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE AND 

PRIORITIZED LIST OF MAJOR ACCESS PROBLEM AREAS, AND PROCEED TO 

SOLVE THEM. 

TOOLS FOR CREATING ACCESS SHOULD BE ENACTED 'IN THIS ORDER: 1) LAND 

ACQUISITIONS THAT PROVIDE ACCESS, 2) EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS THAT 

PROVIDE ACCESS, J) USING THE AGENCY PLANNING PROCESS TO CREATE 

TRAILS AND ROADS AROUND PROBLEM AREAS SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN GAIN 

ENTRY ONTO ITS PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, AND FINALLY, 4) CONDEMNATION 

IN T.HOSE AREAS WHERE NO OTHER SOLUTIONS EXIST, BUT THE PUBLIC 

GOOD OVERRIDES PRIVATE INTRANSIGENCE. 

IN CLOSING , MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, WHEN PRIVATE 

LANDOWNERS WHO OWN THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF LAND CAN PREVENT THE 

PUBLIC FROM ACCESSING THE PUBLIC LANDS WHICH THOSE PRIVATE TRACTS 

ADJOIN , THEN THE PUBLIC GOOD IS BEING THWARTED. · THE VAST MAJORITY 

OF AMERICANS HAVE NOT ·BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO OWN SUCH PRI VATE 

ENCLAVES, AND THEIR OPPORTUNITY FOR OUTDOOR EXPERIENCE RELIES 

SOLELY ON THE LANDS THAT ARE HELD IN THEIR NAME BY THEIR 

GOVERNMENT. WE DON'T WANT SPECIAL TREATMENT; WE SIMPLY ASK FOR 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY OUR PUBLIC LANDS. 
147 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

And we will get back in a little bit. We have to vote. And we will 

perhaps return in about ten minutes and then be able to conclude 

your testimony. And we will have a few questions for each of you 

as well. 

So we will stand in recess at this point. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. Let's resume our sitting. We had one witness on the 

panel that we hadn't heard from yet. So I am pleased to welcome 

Ann Kersten from Reno. 

Pardon me. It was envy, I was trying to think, from Reno. 

Please proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF ANN KERSTEN 

Ms. KERSTEN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Ann Kersten. I was born and raised in Nevada. I am 

a lifelong resident, and my interest in the issue of inadequate access to public lands comes from the fact that I am an avid hiker, 

backpacker, and fisherman; and spending time outdoors is more 

and more important to me the older I get. 

And I am finding it increasingly difficult to access the beautiful 

publicly owned land in my own State. And I have also done some 

research on this issue because my paper for my master's degree is 

on urban interface issues and inadequate access to public lands. 

Two Nevada areas I am going to talk about today illustrate, I 

think, two sides of the same problem. We are finding loss of access 

to wild lands, newer urbanized areas, and inadequate access to 

wild lands in remote suburb areas. 

Mount Rose in the Carson Range is in Reno's backyard and is 

one of my favorite places. It is 20-30 minutes from Reno. We have 

pine forests, · great trout fishing streams, meadows, deer, and bear 

habitat. And a portion of the area encompasses the Mount Rose 

Wilderness Area which is fairly newly designated. 

It has been very popular with the people of Reno for day hikes. 

You often see families day hiking. It is very popular with fishermen 

and hunters. 

I am going to show this map, which is hard to see, but I will submit a copy. This is the Carson Range in 1960. And white is private 

land, green is public lands. And Reno is right up here. So basically, 

in 1960, there was no national forest here. Through the years, consolidating ownership and with the red field land for tax forgiveness 

legislation, we created basically a wonderful national forest unit, 

which today looks lake this. And Reno again is right up here. 

These are the two units of the Mount Rose Wilderness. What we 

are finding is that, as Reno grows, traditional access routes which 

were old Jeep trails, just, you know, dirt roads, Jeep trails, that 

people have used for years and years to access this area, the city 

is growing up; and we are finding subdivisions creeping up into all 

of these areas and access being cut off really dramatically. 

One example that is the one I am very familiar with is Hunter 

Creek, which is right here. And this subdivision actually advertised 

the national forest will be in your backyard when it sold lots. And 

then proceeded to cut off the public access to really this whole very 

huge area behind it. 
148 

Rarely is access being planned into subdivisions, and we are in 

danger of having wonderful public resources made up of land that 

was painstakingly acquired for the public over the years, which the 

public cannot reach. 

And in addition, the district ranger who manages this area has 

spoken publicly about serious concerns about wild fires. Public 

safety issues. He is afraid that he is not going to be able to get 

back behind these subdivisions to fight the fires that will probably, 

fairly inevitably, roar down these canyons. It is a natural part of 

those areas to have fires every once in a while. 

The other area I wanted to talk about is out in Elko County in 

the far northeast part of Nevada. And these are the Ruby and East 

Humboldt Mountains, which are separated by a low pass called Secret Pass. And these are some of the most spectac:11lar and, I think, 

famous lands in Nevada. Basically here we have approximately 

250,000 acres of public land. This is beautiful land. It is glaciercarved mountains, a lot of lakes, abundant wildlife habitat. 

Right now, the public has clear unclouded access in really only 

three places. Angel Lake at the far north end of the east, Humboldt, Lamoille Canyon, down near the middle, and Harrison Pass. 

And, basically, private land around the edge&-the roads may be 

open now-but they are being closed rapidly. 

And we have had one case recently which was pretty famous and 

is very controversial, out of the Te-Moak Indian Reservation, of a 

public road which was long used for access, being closed. Long Canyon, it is called. 

So I will submit these. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, without objection, those maps will be placed in 

the committee record. 

[The maps follow:] 
149 

FIGURE 8. CARSON RANGE, 1960 

US Forest Service Land 

0 Private Land 

77-279 0 - 94 - 6 
, . GENERAL LOCATION MAP 

CARSON RANGE, 1993 

US Forest Semce 

0 Private Land 

150 

ACCESS POINTS 

1 • Ganon Road 

2 ~ Levi.otina Canyon Road 

3 • Hunter Creek 

4 • Alum Creek/Hunter Lake Road 

S • EvanrJDry Creeks 

6 - Thomas Creek 
151 

Ms. KERSTEN. Inadequate access results in nondisbursed use so 

that the few areas that are open are overused and damaged. And 

resources that belong by definition to the people of the United 

States are unreachable. And locked gates keep out not only the 

recreating public but Federal agency personnel who need to fight 

fires or rescue injured parties. 

Just a few ideas for the future. I think improved planning and 

zoning, especially in rapidly growing urban areas, can help to build 

access into subdivisions. No development abutting public lands 

should be approved unless it provides for adequate public access. 

New partnerships of county planning staff, Federal agency personnel, recreation users, and private property owners can work together to solve access problems. 

And the U.S. Forest Service's Salt Lake Ranger District has organized an ad hoc group of this kind, and it has been fairly successful. I am hoping to work with the Carson Ranger District to do 

something similar for the Mount Rose area. 

In rural areas, too, county officials, Federal agencies, and private 

property owners, along with recreation users, should, when possible, try to work together to understand one another's concerns 

and seek solutions. 

And I think Montana's Block Management Program that Mr. 

Penfold discussed earlier is a good example of this kind of program. 

Fear of liability is one of the main reasons that private landowners deny public access across their land. Sometimes their fears 

are unnecessary. Nevada State law, for example, has clear protection from liability for landowners who allow the public to cross 

their land for recreational purposes. Other States may as well, and 

it would be worthwhile for the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and 

recreation hunting and fishing groups to work to educate the public 

about what are the true liability situations in the individual States. 

The State of Arizona recently passed a tort reform bill this past 

year, I think-yes, it was this past year-which was aimed at 

greatly reducing a private landowner's liability when he allows the 

public to cross his land to use public lands behind his land. 

For States which lack such protection for property owners, perhaps liability relief could be part of an easement or a cooperative 

agreement negotiated with the Federal agency. 

The expense of maintaining roads or providing signs also discourages some landowners from providing access. And, again, perhaps 

new partnerships here could help. Hunting and hiking groups 

maybe could help with these costs and these groups might also assist the agencies with the costs of purchasing easements. 

Fear of vandalism is another reason for denying the public the 

right to cross over land. There is unfortunately, I think, a very 

small minority of public land users who are bad neighbors; and 

perhaps a fund could be created much like a degradation fund 

whereby private landowners whose cows are shot or whose buildings are vandalized could be reimbursed. Again, a public-private 

partnership could help with the funding. 

And I think education is another key here as well. Federal agencies and recreation groups need to expand their recreational ethics 

teaching to reach the minority of people who are poor public land 

users. 
152 

In conclusion, I just hope that we could send a message to the 

BLM and the Forest Service managers that inadequate access to 

public lands is a serious problem and one that they need to 

prioritize with their realty staff. Increase funding for the purchase 

of rights-of-ways and exploring new partnerships to help bring 

some of these to fruition. 

I would urge them to work cooperatively with the public land 

users, local governments, the private property owners to seek solutions. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak at this hearing. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Kersten follows:] 
153 

November 9, 1993 

U.S. House Subcommittee on National Parks, F<1rests and Public Lands 

PUBLIC LANDS LOCKOUT OVERSIGHT HEARING 

Statement of Ann Kersten 

5570 Dolores Dr. Sparks, NV 89436 

My name is Ann Kersten. I was born and raised in Nevada and am a lifelong 

resident. My interest in the issue of inadequate access to public lands comes from the fact 

that I am an avid hiker, backpacker and fisherman. Spending time outdoors is more and 

more important to me, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to access the beautiful 

publicly-owned lands in my own state. I've also done some research on this issue because 

my paper for my Master's degree is on urban interface issues and inadequate access to 

public lands. 

Two Nevada areas I will talk about illustrate two sides of the same problem. We 

find loss of access to wildlands near urbanized areas and inadequate access to wildlands in 

remote, suburban areas. 

Mt Rose in the Carson Range is in Reno's backyard, and is one of my favorite 

places. It is 20-30 minutes from Reno, with pine forests, good trout fishing streams, 

meadows and deer and bear habitat. A portion of the area encompasses the Mt. Rose 

Wilderness a:rea. Much of the land was private 30 years ago but land exchanges and the 

Redfield land-for-tax deal has resulted in much of the area now being managed for the 

public by the U.S. Forest Service. This is a wonderful public resource and is used by a wide 

variety of people - fishermen, hunters, wilderness hikers, and those who 4-wheel drive and 

sightsee. But, Reno is growing rapidly. Large scale subdivisions are springing up on the 

private land bordering the National Forest and the old roads and trails that have provided 

access to users for years are being covered by homes or crossed with locked gates. Rarely 

is access being planned into subdivisions. We are in danger of having a wonderful public 

resource, made up of land painstakingly acquired for the public over the years, which the 

public cannot reach to use. 

Out in Elko County, in the far northeast part of Nevada, are the Ruby and East 

Humboldt Mountains, which are separated by low pass called Secret Pass. Here are some 

of the most spectacular lands in my home state, dramatic glacier-carved peaks, high 

mountain lakes and bountiful wildlife. Two other units of the Forest Service Wilderness 

System are located here - Ruby Mountain Wilderness, and East Humboldt Wilderness. 

Here, it is less urban growth and development that threatens access, but individual ranches, 

which, historically, homeste~ded in the canyon mouths leaving the massive mountains above 

them in public ownership. In the entirety of the Ruby and East Humboldt Ranges, 

approximately 250,000 acres owned by the public there are only about three locations -

Angel Lake, Lamoille Canyon and Harrison Pass that are guaranteed, unclouded access 

points for the public. All others are in danger of revocation at any time and several have 

had gates locked in the recent past. 
154 

Inadequate public access results in non-dispersed use: the few areas that are open 

are over-used and often damaged. Resources that belong, by definition, to the people of 

the United States are unreachable. And locked gates keep out not only the recreating 

public but federal agency personnel who need to fight fires or rescue injured parties. 

Some Ideas for the Future 

• Improved planning and zoning, especially in rapidly grOwing urban areas, can help to build 

access into subdivisions. No development abutting public Jands should be approved unless 

it provides for adequate public access.· New partnerships of county planning staff, federal 

agency personnel, recreation users and private property owners can work together to solve 

access problems. The USFS' Salt Lake Ranger District has organized an ad hoc group of 

this kind. I hope to work with the Carson Ranger District in Reno to do something similar. 

• In rural areas too, county officials, federal agencies, private property owners and 

recreation users should work together to understand _one another's concerns and seek 

solutions. Montana BLM's Block Management Program is a good example of this kind of 

program. · 

• Fear of liability is one of the main reasons private landowners deny public access across 

their land. Sometimes their fears are unnecessary. Nevada state law, for example has clear 

protection from liability for landowners who allow the public to cross their land for 

recreational purposes. Other states may as well, and it would be worthwhile for the BLM, 

USFS, recreation, hunting and fishing groups to work to educate the public about liability. 

The state of Arizona passed a tort reform biii this past year aimed at greatly reducing 

private landowner liability. For states Jacking such "protection for property owners, perhaps 

liability relief could be part of an easement or cooperative agreement negotiated with a 

federal agency. 

• The expense of maintaining roads or providing signs also discourages some landowners 

from providing access. Again, new·partnerships could help here. Perhaps hunting or hiking 

groups could help with these costs,-and these groups might also assist the agencies with the 

costs of purchasing easements. 

• Fear of vandalism is another reason for denying the public the right to cross over land. 

Perhaps a fund could be created, much like the depredation fund, whereby private 

landowners whose cows are shot or whose buildings are vandalized can be reimbursed. 

Again, a public/private partnership could help with funding._ Education is a key here, as 

well. Federal agencies and recreation groups need to . expand their recreational ethics 

teaching to reach the minority of public land users who vandalize. 

• Send the message to the BLM and the Forest Service managers that inadequate access 

to public lands is a serious problem and one that they need to prioritize with their realty 

staff. .Urge them to work cooperatively With public land users, local governments, and 

private property owners to seek solutions. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

speak at this hearing. 
155 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. Thanks for your testimony and the work that 

you have done on this. You have actually done it for a degree program in urban interface issues and with access to public land. So 

I am sure that the paper includes a lot more detail in terms of the 

specifics. Ms. KERSTEN. Yes. Mr. VENTO. I think this is the type of quality work that helps instead of just having anecdotal solutions as you noticed was so often 

the case earlier. So we have to sharpen up the GAO and others to 

get to the specific information. 

More important I think are the solutions that both you and Dr. Rockland offered in your testimony, as well as those from Mr. Hawkes. Some of you really get down to some important points. I think, Mr. Frasier, your that this isn't the case of isolated 

tracts in sections that happen to be surrounded all by private land. 

As in the case of Ms. Kersten, the issue of the Humboldt and Ruby 

Mountains, I think you said it was 250,000 acres of wilderness? 

Ms. KERSTEN. Approximately. 

Mr. VENTO. And they have clear access in three cases. Is that right? 

Ms. KERSTEN. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Am I interpreting what you said correctly? 

Ms. KERSTEN. Yes. Mr. VENTO. I recall this working with Senator Reid and others 

when we were working on the Wilderness Act. Yet you are saying 

this is an ongoing process because there hasn't been a recordation 

on private lands-perhaps not on public lands either-Mr. Hawkes, of the roads. That is eliminating access. 

Ms. KERSTEN. Yes. Well, my understanding is the roads are recorded, but there is a hesitancy on the part of the county commissioners to go after the roads that are public. 

Mr. VENTO. I can relate to that. I mean there is a cost; there is 

a problem; and I think the suggestion is that, then, the Forest 

Service and the BLM, the folks from Washington, in essence, ought 

to step in and go to bat and do what the locals are reluctant to do. 

That causes me a little bit of heartburn. 

Mr. Hawkes, does it cause you some heartburn? 

Mr. HAWKES. Yes, it does. In my opinion, there is some Federal 

county animosity, at least in our county and wherever I worked, 

over that. The counties say, we are not going to do anything for the 

public lands: that is your business, feds. And the Federal forest engineer will say, gee, they ought to be doing something to help us. 

Mr. VENTO. Basically most of these rights-of-way are not based 

on national statute. That is, the ones that are affecting private 

land generally. Although you pointed out a couple of provisions or 

laws that might be applicable, but that they have not been broadly 

utilized to maintain that access. Is that--

Mr. HAWKES. A lot of good research brings up many things. The 

BLM or the Forest Service will be negotiating with a landowner. 

We go there as a third party and say, we found this information 

indicates it is a public right-of-way, and that moves things along. Mr. VENTO. One of the things you pointed out-and this has been 

something of a hot topic, I happen to be the sponsor of 1603, iron- ically, which deals with the R.S. 2477-but the point is that R.S. 
156 

2477 has been repealed. Although passed in 1866, it was on the 

books until the FLPMA rewrite in the mid 1970's, which I am sure 

you are aware of. 

Mr. HAWKES. Yes, we understand that. 

Mr. VENTO. And the issue, of course, that we are really trying 

to get at is one of recordation. And the expectancy and the concern 

comes because of the timeframe in terms of claiming a right-of-way. 

Is that the concern, Mr. Hawkes, basically? 

Mr. HAWKES. Well, when we get a request or somebody complains, the first thing we do is look at the GLO plats, the patents, 

and what they call a master title sheet. And if you can show that 

the GLO plats have a road on them and they predate homesteading, you have got claims for a public highway. That evidence is just 

not being dug up, never has been. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think the problem is, from my perspective, as 

we move 125 years from 1866 or so, it is hard to come up with tangible information and objective information. Unless the road had 

been continually used over a long period of time, it is difficult to 

always come up with adequate information. 

Mr. HAWKES. Well, our experience out there is the roads exist; 

they are in; they are being used; and the public's always used 

them. Now, all of a sudden, somebody comes up and puts a gate 

across it, and says, you can't do it any more. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I understand that. But on the public land it 

isn't if you have any access at all; isn't it a question if you have 

access to the public land, obviously it doesn't bar you. It is a question of whether you actually have some sort of a property-right 

ownership or an easement on public land, which, if we want to 

remedy, we would have to buy back if it presents a problem for any 

reason whatsoever. 

And so there are a lot of other equities or questions involved with 

equity. But this isn't a hearing on that subject, and I understand 

what you are saying in terms of access-that we need to maintain 

adequate access within the public lands. 

Mr. Hawkes, Mr. Frasier, let me ask you this question. Have you 

also, in your experience, noted that individuals are representing essentially what are public lands as private lands that they own and 

that you are not able to cross. Mr. FRASIER. This has been a problem with the State leased 

lands. Not so much that I am aware with the Federal lands, but 

very much so on the State public lands. 

Mr. VENTO. And you are from the State of.--

Mr. FRASIER. Montana. 

Mr. VENTO. Montana. That is right. Pardon me. And the point 

is you have State lease lands, and the lease lands provide a clause 

that you lease the lands you have to provide access--

Mr. FRASIER. No--

Mr. VENTO [continuing]. Across them or you cannot bar access 

across public rights-of-way? 

Mr. FRASIER. Up until 1991, I believe; isn't that right? 1991, the 

Montana legislature passed House Bill 778, which gave the public 

access for hunting and fishing and other recreation. 

Prior to that time, there was an administrative decision by the 

Montana Department of State Lands which would allow leases to 
157 

deny access if they wished. I did a little research, and that was 

pretty much exclusive to Montana. I surveyed Idaho, Wyoming, 

North Dakota, South Dakota; and they never had any problems 

with that. 

So I guess it is kind of a peculiarity of Montana that maybe we 

are more peevish or more clannish or like to be left alone more or 

something. But there has been historic problems with that. 

Now we have pretty well got that settled on the access to State 

lands. And, like I said before, one thing it did do is open up further 

access through those to a lot of Federal land, which has helped a 

lot. 

Mr. VENTO. Dr. Rockland, you point out that the problems simply 

tend to be with recreational use especially as an acute problem in 

this instance. Is that your testimony and the impressions in terms of the surveys that you have done, that recreation use you think is the larger 

problem here? 

Dr. RocKLAND. From what I have seen in the GAO report, and 

then we don't publish magazines that go to miners or loggers directly, although some of our readers certainly are, but we do get 

a tremendous amount of mail from recreational readers of our publications that indicate that this is a problem. It certainly seems to 

be in the GAO report as well. 

Mr. VENTO. In the surveys you notice the distinct difference that 

some actually marked off that they only thought that access ought 

to be at least available on a broad basis for recreation use but not 

necessarily for commercial use. 

Dr. ROCKLAND. That was a volunteered response, and that is a 

survey, not of recreational users. That is a representative survey 

of the American public done by The Roper Organization for us. 

Mr. VENTO. I think there are a lot of questions that need to be 

addressed here in terms of trying to balance out these rights. 

Now the other issue dealt with the whole issue of liability. And, 

you know, on national ends, I think we have a standard policy with 

regard to that. It hasn't been a concern, but we have been sometimes approached about trying to modify the rights of individuals 

to seek liability at various times. This is, I know, a society that has 

a lot of litigation issues. I don't know that there's been an increase. Mr. Hawkes, is it your impression that there's been a big increase in litigation concerning liability with that? 

Mr. HAWKES. Not in the lands that we have been dealing with. There have been increased liability requests particularly in the 

grizzly bear attacks in Glacier Park and Yellowstone and some of 

that. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, that is on public site. So I don't know how that 

gets treated depending on whether people have adequate advice. 

Personally, when they start sending the children down to get a 

photograph on top of the buffalo, you have got a potential problem. Mr. HAWKES. Many landowners I talked to expressed concern 

over liability. · Mr. VENTO. Yes, I know that. The concern is not just that. I am 

just wondering if there had been a lot of liability cases that had 

suddenly come up or if there is an ongoing concern and they don't 

want to be involved. 
158 

I note that. So States have tried to develop a general policy that 

the liability does not attach to the purpose of providing easement 

across the land in these instances. 

The other aspect here from a legal standpoint-and I am not an 

attorney-but if we are talking about fee simple ownership, it is 

one thing. If we begin to talk about something less than fee ownership, such as an easement or another type of covenant, each 

State-Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, Nevada-would be slightly 

different. 

Your research touched on that, didn't it, Ms. Kersten? 

Ms. KERSTEN. Yes. Actually, only to the extent that those kinds 

of covenants really have to be created. on a sort of case-by-case 

basis is the impression that I have gotten. 

And especially in Nevada, it has negotiations with the particular 

property owner and with an agency and maybe with the county or 

city that is also involved. 

So it is a very case-by-case situation. I think that complicates 

things for the agencies. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I know certainly in our State, in Minnesota, in 

tenns of private lands that a lot of people have just been completely frustrated in tenns of hunting and fishing type of activities, 

especially hunting in some areas, because they can't get access to 

land and private. landowners are reluctant to let individuals go on 

and shoot ducks or pheasants or so forth. So it is a real problem. But it isn't a question of public land necessarily involved in those instances. 

Well, I appreciate all of your patience and the work that you put 

in. I think it is very helpful for us to get a good insight into the 

types of problems both in terms of the national public opinion, 

which is hardly what we ever get treated to, David, and in tenns 

of the subcommittee on a scientific basis, and the other questions. 

It points to the need to continue to try to focus and to redefine 

what this problem is and then start looking at some of the solutions. 

Obviously, giving the parks or the Forest Service and the BLM 

additional funds or additional authorities might be desirable; but 

I think that also may make some private landowners a little nervous in the sense of when they look how that funding is used. 

I think it is especially important when the BLM, for instance, 

has made a decision that they not have to be forced to jump over 

additional hoops because someone in Congress wants to 

micromanage what the land manager is doing. That appears to be 

the case here in-some instances. 

And I think then the greater priority is in tenns of dollars in this 

area. I know this, Mr. Hawkes. 

I wanted to comment about the PILT funds and attaching some 

responsibility to that. I am sure that the decision had been made, 

I guess a long time ago before I began serving, when they established PILT not to allocate a specific amount to the States and local 

governments that received those funds, because it is a small 

amount; and if you start attaching certain requirements to it, you 

have accounting and other types of problems, plus it takes away 

the flexibility. 
159 

But there may be some other ways that we can of course encourage. I think the answer to a lot of this is in the types of cooperative 

groups getting together, because the problems are just too many or 

too numerous to probably resolve through law. We could perhaps 

look to try and establish some support for groups that have this as 

a focus in addition to gathering up the Forest Service or the BLM 

to monitor and quarterback those groups so that they do get together. 

I think really we need to do something, too; and I don't know if 

we need to have that separate. Maybe it should be associated with 

the R.S. 2477 problem that I am trying to solve in terms of codification. And it might build up a little better understanding of that 

issue rather than, I think, what has come down as sort of a slam 

dunk in terms of just extinguishing those rights in too few years. 

So that is at least what I am thinking, as I have listened to this 

today. And you have been very helpful in terms of your testimony. 

Let me thank you, then, and excuse you. We have a couple other 

witnesses that we want to hear from yet this afternoon. 

In the last panel is Jack Metzger, National Cattlemen's Association, from Flagstaff, Arizona, and Bud Eppers, from Roswell, New 

Mexico. 

And let me thank them, to start with, for their patience in wait~ 

ing. And, as you can see, part of it was my fault; part of it was 

just the nature of the issue and the number of Members that wanted to be engaged in this particular issue. So we appreciate your 

testimony and participation this afternoon on this important topic. 

Mr. Metzger, your material is before me, and it has been made 

part of the record by a previous request; so I just invite you to proceed with an outline of what you have in your statement. 

Please proceed. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF JACK METZGER, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL 

LANDS COMMITTEE NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, 

FLAGSTAFF, AZ; AND BUD EPPERS, ROSWELL, NM 

STATEMENT OF JACK METZGER 

Mr. METZGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I was getting a little nervous wondering whether there was going 

to be any committee left as we sat in the back and watched it sort 

of dwindle. 

I do want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before your 

committee. I am Jack Metzger. I am chairman of the Federal 

Lands Committee of the National Cattlemen's Association. I am the 

managing partner of our family's ranch, which is a five-owner limited partnership in Arizona. We have Federal lands. We have State 

trust lands. We have national forest lands. 

I have dealt with access issues personally, and I have dealt with 

access issues in representing the greater industry throughout the 

West. Our experience has been that, in terms of access, there is a 

core issue that has to be recognized in order for progress to continue in any discussion of access; and that is the fundamental primacy, so to speak, of private property rights. 

Once that is understood by all parties involved and everyone 

agrees that that is indeed a base right from which we can build, 
160 

then the heat disappears out of arguments. The questions and the 

jockeying and the posturing disappears; and then parties can get 

down and seriously look at access issues. 

The second thing that is critically important in tenns of access 

is to define what kind of access we are talking about. 

This morning I have heard three kinds talked about. One is public access across private land to Federal lands for recreation and 

other use purposes. But that has a complementary side which has 

also been discussed, which is private parties' access across Federal 

lands to their private land for economic business or whatever purposes. 

And a third component that was discussed at times here, though 

kind of loosely, is what is access on public lands. In other words, 

what is the need for access over and across and through Federal 

lands for the purposes of administration and for public use and 

commodity production, et cetera. 

I think the GAO document misrepresents the whole issue by not 

discussing the other two parts of it. I think that is a serious omission, because we can't talk about one part without addressing the 

other two. They go hand-in-hand. 

I also am disappointed in the GAO document in that it did not 

look at some of the solutions that are existing in the West. There 

are some very innovative, creative things going on in the West 

where people have frankly given up on the Federal agencies and 

given up on the system and process and kind of taken things into 

their own hands. 

One such case is in Arizona, which, interestingly enough, is listed as one of the problem States in this document. About eight 

years ago the Arizona livestock industry and the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department got together and decided that access could be 

resolved on a community basis with local participation and local investment. 

Over the course of the preceding eight years, a million acres of 

previously locked up-and I mean locked up-Federal lands have 

been opened for public access. It has worked extremely well. It is 

on 146 ranches. 

To date, not one ranch where we had an access problem has 

failed to yield a solution. We have had problems where some 

ranches have been sold for subdivision, rural subdivision, back-land 

subdivision. And in those instances, we have not been able to succeed and get access. I think that point was made earlier here. 

For a long-tenn solution for access, really the only solution can 

be at the local level where the people involved-the landowners involved-the communities involved, can work out their differences 

and sort through and find solutions. 

Access is like any other commodity on Federal lands; it is like 

a product. It is marketable in a sense. And if opportunity can be 

given to landowners to succeed somehow, economically or socially 

or in their security structure in their business, then access can be 

generated. I brought some maps along just for fun to show you what a Federal land ranch looks like. This is my family's ranch in Arizona. 

There are five owners of this ranch. It is about 90,000 acres. The 
161 

black land is private land. The white is national forest. And the 

gray-! hope you can see that-is State of Arizona trust lands. 

About half of it is national forest. About a quarter is private. And 

about a quarter is State trust. 

As you can see, it is difficult to manage really any land area separate from any of the others. In fact, the fencing patterns on that 

ranch do not follow property lines except only in rare cases. And 

it is more by circumstance than by design. 

So it is impossible for us to manage as private landowners the 

controlled access situation. This is a very common thing in the 

West. We do know and have heard testimony this morning of areas 

where that is not the case. But, by and large, this is what they look 

like. 

And the attitude in the West among recreation users is that this 

is public lands, it is all public lands; it is all open for multiple use; 

and it is treated that way. 

Recreation is not managed. It just happens on these lands. It is 

managed occasionally in developed sites, at boat docks, and perhaps around national parks and things; but on millions and millions of acres, it just happens. So there is no protection for private 

property interests, and it just must happen. 

The next map shows the water development on this ranch. Each 

one of these waters is a place to hunt ducks, a place to build a 

blind for the archery hunting. It is a place to take the family dog 

to chase sticks, et cetera. And each one of them, I can assure you, 

is used for that, whether on private land, Federal land, or State 

land. 

We have documented from our Game and Fish Department 

125,000 hunter days on this ranch in 1973. Since then, we have increased from about 35 or 40 days of regulated hunt annually to 

about 140 days. So now we have in excess of 60 to 70,000 hunter 

days on this ranch. This year we had 3,650 elk pennits issued on 

this ranch. That is a lot of activity, Mr. Chainnan. 

The complications that result from that we have heard about in 

terms of liability. For our situation in Arizona, we did pass a law 

that said recreational access precludes a liability consideration for 

the landowner. 

However, things like windmills, fences, cows, horses, cattle 

guards, all of those things are considered attractive nuisance by 

the legal profession. And we have been advised by our attorneysand frankly industry attorneys West-wide-that there is no way 

that we can contract away public liability. 

This ranch carries a $5 million excess liability policy. I just paid 

the premium before I came back here, half year, $1,876. It is a big 

expense. 

The next map is just showing the roads that are on the ranch. 

There are 16 points of access to this ranch. Some are on private 

land, some are on State trust lands, and some are on Federal 

lands. Of all of these roads on this ranch, there is about nine miles 

that is fairly often maintained by national forest equipment. They 

do it about every other year, every third year. The balance of those 

roads that are graded, we maintain ourselves with our own equipment. 
162 

We also plow snow to the highway which grants public access in 

the _wintertime. We have to plow it for our own access. Again, this 

is--not an uncommon situation. But the fact that we do plow the 

snow on those roads gives us a liability consideration just like the 

counties have when they grade a road and someone drives off the 

road. Then the county is liable for whatever kind of damages someone might be able to construe out of an accident like that. 

The balance of those roads are little two-wheel track roads that 

have mostly been built by recreationists. This is the issue of access 

on Federal lands. They cause a tremendous amount of management 

headaches for the agencies, for us, a lot of poaching, a lot of Indian 

ruin digging, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

Again, recreation is unmanaged on most of these lands. Therefore, with this kind of an access system available, it is frankly a 

zoo, Mr. Chairman. 

The next map, just to give you an idea of the options and alternatives that we have in the ranching industry, those two little 

squares in the middle represent the land area, the larger one being 

the land area that is the largest land area occupied by livestock at 

any one time on this ranch, a function of management. 

The livestock are moved throughout the ranch throughout the 

seasons for various purposes. The small square represents the 

smallest land area at any one time that would have livestock on 

it. 

So using this kind of format and our hunter and sportsmen and 

recreation interest in access in Arizona, we have been able to take 

the various situations you see on this ranch and mold them into 

access and recreation plans. It has worked. It is working very well. 

And the agency's participation has been little more than kind of 

a rubber stamp when the agreement's done. The participation has 

been earned, I guess, by the sportsmen and recreation community 

by supplying things that the livestock industry would need, like a 

cattle guard instead of a gate, a sign-in/sign-out program, instead 

of God knows who is in there and for how long. All kinds of ways 

to address the issues of liability-who is in, who is out. People are 

accountable, and agencies are accountable, and landowners are accountable. It works quite well, and it is a growing program. I would suggest that, for resolution of this, that this committee 

and this government encourage that to happen at the local level. 

Perhaps I am wrong, but I will be willing to wager with you that 

this committee and the staff and people in this room and everybody 

who has been here today could not write a public access plan for 

this ranch from here. I don't think it can be done. But it can be 

done on the ground. And that is where it is being done, and it is 

working very well. 

And so I would suggest that that is what we encourage. Rather 

than try to write some blanket policy to address this kind of a 

broad issue that has so much variety in it because of topography, 

individual landowners, different kinds of recreation needssnowmobiling at times, or hunting or backpacking, or photographers. They are all different. They all require different kinds of 

access. Each has to be dealt with carefully and in the context of 

some kind of a whole picture and plan. 
163 

Once that is looked at and done kind of on a shared basis, recognizing the base of property rights, then it works. There is no contention, and it works. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks. We will get back with a question or two. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Metzger follows:] 
164 

NAnONAL CA~-N'S ASSOCIAnON 

1301 PQflMytvanla A~•. N. W. • S&Jte 300e WB&h.ngton, D.C. 200CU·1701e (202) :U1.fJ22Be FAX (202) 63JS4)607 

HHdqu...,.: 

SUOSoutltOU<ebt#cSirHte P.O. l/oJt:H6Pe E~ Cclo/ado/1015$ e (303)61H-4'J05 • FAX{303}6-"4-215J 

Comments 

on behalf of the 

NATIONAL CA ITLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

in regard to 

Acass to Federal Lands 

submitted to 

The United States House of Representadves 

Committee on Nalunll Resources 

Subcommittee on Nadonal Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

submitted by 

Jack Metzger. Chainnan 

Federal Lands Committee 

National Cattlemen's Association 

November 9. 1993 

The National Cattlemen's Association is the national spokesman for all segments of the 

beef cattle industry -- including cattle breeders. producers. and feeders. The NCA 

represents approximately 230.000 cattlemen. Membership includes individual members as 

well as 46 affiliated state cattle associations and 29 national breed associations. 
165 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear before this committee to 

discuss the issue of access to federal lands .. 

I am Jack Metzger, Chairman of the Federal Lands Committee of the National 

Cattlemen's Association. I am the managing partner of my family's ranch in Northern 

Arizona. Our ranch operation includes a National Forest permit, State of Arizona Trust 

Lands and private lands. I have personal experience with public access problems and with 

solutions to those problems on our family ranch and in the West 

In our experience as landowners and as food producers who must use land and 

water, public access through and across our private lands is often contentious; it is usually 

very personal and it is always best resolved at the most local of levels. 

Successful resolutions of public access issues have a commonalty in their 

uncompromising recognition of private property rights. Without a clear belief in the 

primacy of private property rights shared by all parties involved, there is little chance for 

success. When government agency people or public participants treat private property 

rights as though they were amorphous and relative to the peculiarities of a given situation, 

resolution is impossible. Further, when government actions and policy have the 

appearance of negating property rights, confusion and petty politics take the place of 

sound and reasoned debate over legitimate access concerns. 

Another access issue, often ignored in discussions of access but of equal 

importance and complementary to public access concerns, is the issue of private 

landowners' right of access through or across public land to his or her private land. We 

77-279 0 - 94 - 7 
166 

find the GAO April 1992 Repon entitled Reasons for and Effect of Inadequate Public 

Access to be incomplete in scope by its omission of this other problem. 

Further, the GAO Repon did a major disservice to the many agency people and 

landowners along with interested sponsmen and recreationists who have on their own, 

outside of the system, resolved access issues on a case-by-case basis throughout the West. 

As a point of information to this Committee, about eight years ago, in the State of 

Arizona, the livestock industry in conjunction with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Commission initiated a joint program to resolve access issues for recreationists, 

landowners, and the various agencies involved. It is called the Sponsman/Landowner 

Respect Program. A governing board of 5 landowners, 5 sponsmen, one representative 

from the Arizona Game and Fish Department, one from the Forest Service, one from the 

Bureau of Land Management and one from the Arizona State Land Department was 

created to make the program work. With an annual budget of $500,000 this board, acting 

through the Game and Fish Department administers access agreements with 146 Arizona 

ranchers involving more than 1,000,000 acres of heretofore "locked-up" public land. At 

the outset, 1,500,000 acres of public land was considered to be "locked-up". Arizonans 

are confident that they will be able to finalize agreements opening the remaining 500,000 

acres within the next few years. Their collective experience is that access issues are local 

issues and best addressed at the local level with the actual parties involved. 

Central to the Arizona experience has been clear and definite recognition of 

propeny rights held by the landowners. With that clear and uncontested shared belief of 

the primacy of propeny rights among all parties; resolution of access concerns has been 

relatively simple. We found that propeny rights and their enforcement were the 

cornerstone of our success. We found that any assertion of an easement based solely on a 

2 
167 

one time. or once upon a time. public use of a particular point of access across private 

land yielded a high level of consternation and difficulty effectively stopping any rea~onable 

dialogue. The access achieved has been individually tailored to the 146 separate ranch 

situations and the particular needs of affected management agencies, the public and the 

landowners. By reaching a consensus of what the basic problems are, with all of the 

affected parties involved, and what might be workable solutions, we have "created" 

workable relationships that allow for amendments as may become necessary. Our 

agreements are simple contracts with a five year life. It has been our experience that 

changes in agency personnel and agency policies and directions preclude longer planning 

frames. 

These contracts are called "stewardship agreements" . If structural improvements 

are necessary, they are generally funded by the State Game and Fish Department with 

various cooperative agreements to outline maintenance and subsequent ownership of the 

improvements. Additionally, the State Game and Fish Department also has a fund 

available for road maintenance, .to assuage a very common complaint among landowners. 

Lastly, through our program, we have been able to address all of the various concerns 

surrounding the mode of access to a given public land area by ensuring options for 

vehicular, horseback or foot access. 

Unfortunately, overriding all of the successes in Arizona and throughout the West 

is the growing adversarial atmosphere between the federal government and the landowners 

of the west. Where there was once a sense of community and cooperation for a 

partnership of interests and goals, we now find growing posturing for outside control from 

the national level. It was on the sense of partnership that Arizona's divergent interests 

built its access program. We Arizonans are disappointed that the GAO chose not to study 

and report on our success story; but, rather identified Arizona as one of the problem states 

3 
168 

in the West The National Cattlemen's Association is further disappointed that the 

Arizona example was not illustrated as a positive in the GAO Report The National 

Cattlemen's Association believes that the Arizona example along with any other similar 

approaches should be explored as a potential solution of how to correct access problems 

throughout the West. 

The National Cattlemen's Association will pledge itself to work at the local level 

with solution processes developed by the parties involved to resolve access issues on the 

land. Additionally, the National Cattlemen's Association would recommend that the GAO 

be instructed to review the access issue from both perspectives; public access to public 

lands and its complement, private access to private lands through public lands. 

The issue of access across private lands to federal lands has surfaced, submerged 

and resurfaced several times in the last few years as a national issue. It is our belief that 

access issues are best dealt with at the local level and that the government has adequate 

"tools" for the job. We further believe that access to private lands across or through 

federal lands is of equal importance as public access to public lands across private lands. 

Lastly, we are certain the foundation of access resolution is an uncompromising 

recognition of private property rights. 

Thank you. 

4 
169 

I .!! 

:i ~ I! "iii '0 0 •c: c '0 '0 ..! l&.ca ca c &II: ...1 c ca ! ca ...1 .1:1::& "' Cl) ...1 :::r ... en I:T u!' CIS Gl en > - I&. ::::E- ·;:: CIS en • .,~£ ... c a. en :::;) 0 

II-
. . . 

The Metzger family 

Flying M Ranch 

~ 

LEGEND 

• 

w 

............ 

Natural Water Source 0 

One Square Is One Mile 
~ 

The Metzger FamUy 

Flying M Ranch 

Cindered -

Graded Fair -

Graded Poor """'" 

2 Wheel Truck 

Old 30+ years 

5-30 years 

Last 5 years 

One Square is One Mile 
l::l 

The Metzger Family 

Flying M Ranch 

LEGEND 

Maximum Land ........., 

Area Occupied 1-J 

at Any One Time 

by Livestock 

Minimum Land : ............ : 

Area Occupied L.. ...... .J 

at Any One Time 

by Livestock 

One Square I• One Mile 

...

t 

i 

I 

. 

L 
173 

Mr. VENTO. Finally, Bud Eppers from Roswell. 

Bud. 

STATEMENT OF BUD EPPERS 

Mr. EPPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is, indeed, a pleasure 

to be here before the committee to testify on an issue so important 

to the livestock industry, private landowners, as well as the Federal land manager. I am a landowner in the State of New Mexico. I, too, have 

brought a map of one of our ranches. We have two. I think this is 

Federal land, the yellow. The blue is State trust lands. And the 

white down here is private land. There is only one access route into this area, and it is to our 

headquarters which sets right near the northwest corner of this 

private land area, and it comes in on State trust lands. It is main- tained by the county: And it accesses to our headquarters. 

Outside of that, the only other road on this entire ranch are just 

roads that are used for our purposes of management of the livestock operation and the various improvements that we have installed upon the land over several generations. 

Mr. VENTO. How large is that area? 

Mr. EPPERS. This area is just over 11,000 acres, Mr. Chairman. 

And it is approximately 40-48 percent Federal, 47 percent State; 

and the balance is private land. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Mr. EPPERS. AB I stated, my family has been in the ranching 

business now in southeastern New Mexico for over a hundred 

years. We have been principally involved in the livestock producing 

business. We have learned to manage under the mixed intermingled land ownership patterns that exist throughout our fair 

State of New Mexico. The access problems have-as has been stated here several times 

this morning-increased dramatically over the past several years. 

Primarily due to the awareness of the public now that Federal 

lands exist out there, they have the opportunity to recreate or go 

upon these Federal lands to do whatever they would like to do. Most of it is unrestricted, uncontrolled, and unmanaged by the 

Federal land managing agencies. We have, in our area, a pipeline 

that transfers gas and other products from eastern New Mexico to 

California. When this pipeline company desired to come through 

our ranch, they came and negotiated a right-of-way with the pri- vate landowners, which was us. They negotiated the right-of-way 

with the Federal Land Managing Agency, as well as the State 

Trust Land, or the Commissioner of State lands in the State of 

New Mexico. For many years, and after this pipeline was completed, we did 

not have access problems or use by other individuals other than 

just the pipeline company, their maintenance crews, etcetera. But 

now, in recent times, we are experiencing increased problems with 

the public wanting to use a right-of-way that was granted for the 

exclusive purpose for the pipeline company. 

Although we have the right and have had locks provided to us 

that we can lock the gates on these pipelines, we have not elected 

to do so because we are not desiring to restrict or prohibit the 
174 

public's access. But it is a problem that is becoming more serious 

and severe. 

In our State trust lands, we, as lessees of those State trust lands, 

have to police these lands for the trust. This is a condition of our 

lease. Anybody who is on these lands without a permit from the 

commissioner is in violation of trespass; and we are responsible for 

trying to police this activity or all of these activities. 

Hunting, as Jack said, now exists nearly 150 days out of the year 

in New Mexico. We have numerous problems with trying to just determine whether somebody is out there for the privilege and experience of hunting or whether they are out there to try to obtain meat 

of other sources which is beef or lamb. 

The liability factor is increasing and getting more expensive as 

Jack related, too. One of the things that I think somewhat ironic 

is, in the Forest Service areas in our State, we are seeing now that 

the Federal Government is restricting the use of access to private 

lands within the block forested land areas. They are putting more 

restrictions on use. They are requiring a permit now to access these 

private lands within the forested areas. 

Many of these rights-of-way were granted before the forests were 

established. But now the problem is increasing to the extent to 

where the agencies are recognizing the problems and starting to 

limit and restrict, more so, the access along private roads to private 

property. 

What this ends up doing is transferring more responsibility, 

more cost, to the private sector, the private individual who has access to his lands. It is something that is of concern to all of us. 

Public access is transferring from the Federal sector to be more a 

responsibility of the private sector and local governments. This is 

cost prohibitive to those of us who own land and the counties who 

are responsible for maintaining public access to many of the areas 

throughout their counties. 

I had the opportunity in 1988 and 1989 to attend the Keystone 

dialogue. It was conducted in Keystone, Colorado. I thought that it 

was a very good exercise to bring together the diverse opinions surrounding the access issue. 

Mr. Hawkes, who spoke previously, was one of the members on 

that access dialogue; and we were able to come to consensus on a 

number of issues that were raised by all of the people in attendance. 

One of the things that came out during this dialogue was that 

the Forest Service had access roads throughout many of their 

lands, but they desired to shut off those roads because of the cost 

of maintenance, the degradation to wildlife habitat, that was being 

created by increased public activity. They were desiring to open up 

access just to the boundary lines of the forest to where the public 

could access them with mechanical vehicles to that point and then 

they would have to use other means to be able to actually enter 

upon and traverse across the Federal lands. 

This, of course, creates numerous problems with the expense of 

maintenance across a public thoroughfare across private land by 

the private landowner. It increased the vandalism, increased the 

dust, increased the management responsibilities for livestock. Because of the increased traffic, increased activity, we had more live-
175 

stock that are crippled or run over, killed by the public. And this 

all increases our cost of production. 

And I can tell you that right now at this time the livestock industry does not need any additional costs because, at most, it is very 

hard to make a profit on these Federal land ranches. 

There were a number of areas identified in this dialogue in 

which the Federal Government could acquire access or could use 

existing access routes, and many of those were State or county access routes that were already in existence that a lot of the agencies 

had not thoroughly considered nor reviewed. 

And I would hope that, prior to taking any action in Congress, 

that the agencies could be instructed to go out and do a very thorough research of existing routes rather than trying to acquire other 

access routes into public land areas. Access donations are a means 

of acquiring access that the private landowners can capitalize on 

through the available tax benefit and donate that access to the 

Federal agencies. 

Rights-of-way purchase, although they are very expensive, are, I 

guess, as close to being a willing-buyer/willing-seller opportunity, 

or transaction, as anything that we could have. It is if the agency, 

Federal Government desires access to a given area for public lands 

then they should attempt to purchase it if all other opportunities 

have failed through exchange or donation for existing rights-of-way. 

Condemnation is the last resort, and none of us would desire to 

enter into a condemnation exercise with the Federal Government. 

I think one of the limiting factors to the condemnation process is, 

though, that the access sought might be for a specific purpose, not 

just generalized public access for everybody, because each segment 

of the public who desires to recreate or enter the lands for whatever the purpose is, is a different use. 

That needs to be addressed and concerned with in the condemnation process. It does add to the expense of acquiring access by condemnation. 

I did have some problem with the General Accounting Office's 

document. I noticed that their illustration that they used on page 

11, the caption underneath the illustration says that if a parcel of 

Federal land were totally surrounded by non-Federal land and the 

government did not have legal right for the public to cross any portion of non-Federal land then access would be inadequate. Yet the 

illustration shows that it is Federal land that the access route does 

traverse. There is wildlife habitat on one side and sensitive environmental areas on the other side of the road. But, irregardless, this road was either in place at the passage of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or it has been 

placed there since that time through the planning process that has 

been brought about by that act. 

And to go and try to acquire access across non-Federal lands 

now, we don't know whether any of these sensitive areas exist over 

here on the non-Federal lands at all. There have been no studies, 

or if they have, the landowners wouldn't know about them and 

have access to them. 

Figures 2-1 and 2-2 in this document leave the impression that 

since model portions of the Federal land remain where inadequate 
176 

access exists, that the costs could greatly exceed the value the public would receive from obtaining access. 

We talked about the small isolated scattered tracts, and they 

seem not to be that much of a problem with other people that testified on this panel as well as the agencies. But yet those small isolated tracts would comprise probably 90 percent or more of the 52.4 

million acres or 50.4 million acres of land that were identified as 

having access problems or inadequate access. 

The GAO went to great lengths to describe how they developed 

the questionnaire for the BLM and the Forest Service, but there 

was very little addressed about the questions asked of the private 

landowners. In fact, there were only three private landowners that were identified as responding to the problems associated with the access 

issue. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the GAO report only touched the 

tip of the iceberg in addressing the access issue. In my opinion it is biased to distort the concern of the Federal 

land managing agencies and their unwillingness to recognize and 

address and compensate non-Federal landowners for access across 

their land. 

The GAO states that of the 465 million acres of Federal land 

managed by the BLM and Forest Service, only 50.4 million has inadequate access. This is approximately 11 percent of the land 

under their jurisdiction. This is such an insignificant amount when 

especially you take into consideration those small isolated tracts, 

where any attempt to acquire additional access routes may be more 

expensive than all of the values that could be attributed to the Federal land activities. 

Such consideration should be cautiously approached by this Congress. And we are currently spending more than we are receiving 

in our budget anyway. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will stop and respond to any questions which you might have. I appreciate the opportunity. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Eppers follows:] 
177 

. STATEMENr BY BUD EPPERS 

I am a landowner in . the state of New Mexico. I also have 

a lease to gra~e live1tock on state trust lands and a permit to 

gTaze livestock on federal Landa under tha managemant of the. 

Bureau of Land Mauaaement fBLM) • My family haa been involved 

in the livestock producing business for over 100 yaara in 

Southeaatern New Mexico. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide te1timony on the 

iaaue of acceaa. Thia isaua ia as important to the privata land 

owners as it ia with covernmencal land management agencies. However: the problems over accesa differ greatly:•batween tha private 

and federal sectors. 

The United Statal Yoreat Service (USJS) in the past aevaral 

years has baaun requirins a permit for persona owning private land 

within a forest to access their property. Theaa permits aatabliab 

restrictions on the width of the road, ecandards and specification· 

condition• and to .. whom the access would apply. 

Virtually all of the private inholdinaa :were established prior 

to the creation of the Forest Reserves. Aeceaa to theae properties 

was srandfatherad into the reservations. It ia very eoncernin& 

that the USFS is restricting the usa ·of private propoarty by acceaa 

permita. 

Much of the land atatu• in the western statea is under i~tar=­

ingled ownership patterns which compound. the accea1 p~oblems QOre. 

Since land boundariea are not marked Or identifiable on the ground, 

very few people know Whoae land they are actually on. Frivate land 

ownera daaire to know wbo and for what purpoae a person wishes to 

enter their land. State truat lands are restricted,·to only persons 

with a permit of use which is granted by the Commissioner. Additionally the grazing laesae is required to POLICE the trust landa for 

trespass violators • . . Federal lands for tha moat part have unlimited 

access with the exception of the Tanewable and non-renewable resources 

users. Their activities are highLy regulated, restricted and 

"on trolled. 

The general public has unrestrictad _access for hnnting, hiking, 

camping, off road vehicle use, fishing, bicking, water spores, wild· 

life, and scenery viewing, horseback riding and wilderness use. 

As prev_ioualy stated the recreating public cannot differentiate between 

the land ownerahip boundaries. Con~equently hundreds of atilioQj o! 
178 

ae~ea of privata ~4 atate t~t lauda ara treapaaeed upon by a 

confuaad public aacb year with oftan times unpieasant raqueat to 

vacate. 

I waa fortucata to aerve on an acceaa dialogua at ' the.Eeystone Center in 1988-1989. The final report vas releaaed March 7, 

1989 ~d I would be pleaaed to provide a copy to thia Committee'• 

membera if they 4o not receive one from BLM or FS. A hishly diverse 

g:oup comprised of repreaentativaa from landowners, accaaa advocates, 

ILM and PB personnel, Congresa1onal Committee staff, oil &Dd gaa, 

udnina. ttmber, Couuty Govaramanta and the Weatera Governors A8eociation participated in tbe dialogue and reaehed conaenaua on a larae 

number of important acceaa iaauea. 

The major eoncerna of the landownera vera, but not lilllited to: 

1. Fencina needa and aubaequeut ~~~&intenance 

2. load • t:andudt ( ie- w1dt:h, aurfacing, drainaae 

aud eulverta 

3. Duet 

4. load maintell&nce 

S. Weac! eontrol 

6. Theft 

7. luatling of liveatock 

B. Fire 

9, L1.ab1lity 

10. Vandaliam 

11. Gatea .and cattle guardi 

12. Siantns 

13. ~oxtmity to buildings and other intensive 

uae areaa. 

1,. Mitigating cbangea in uaa 

15. Impacts on the landowne~a. farmins and·ranching 

operatioua. 

16. Mitigating alternative acceaa locations. 

The Kayatone aroup idantified numeroua metboda for obta~l 

acceaa acroaa pri~ate land. Tbere are two very 1imple and iuexpeu•ive 

approachee to obtain1na ace••• by uaer• ot federal land •. One ia a 

private, conaeneual a1reement: between a uaer, uaer 1roup and the landowner. A voluntary a~eement pr0110t:e1 ancl enhencu a apil:'it of 

communicatiou between the parti••· Second ia a ~ooperative a;ranaement 

(2.) 
179 

Between hunters, snoWJDobile qroups, fishermen, recreationists, etc. 

This would provide seasonal access and could be developed into 

improvinq private lands in return to the access qranted. 

There were a number of ways permanent_ access could be 

obtained, but a problem always exists in establishing a value for 

a variety of uses souqht by or applicable to federal access. 

First, State or County access routes should be researched and 

which may facilitate the federal needs. county governments can be 

petitioned to develop access routes. Also, participation in county 

planning processes can provide opportunity to identify needful 

access routes. 

Second, aqencies should research other existinq rights of way 

to avoid more expensive or confrontational means of access. 

Third, gifts or donations provide a means for private 

landowners to capitalize on available tax benefits and donate 

access to federal agencies. 

Fourth, land exchanges are an option to obtain access to a 

given area. A problem With this method is identification of lands 

for exchange and assessing a value to the properties. It is 

obvious that all of the identified means of obtaining access from 

this alternative forward becomes increasingly more expensive. 

Fifth, right of way purchase is a preferable acquisition 

method. The qovernment determines the type of access desired then 

negotiates with the private land owner to determine a value. This 

method is based more on a willing buyer willing seller 

transaction. 

sixth, condemnation all would agree is a last resort option. 

ANeither side wins and it is extremely expensive . This alternative 

should not be iqnored, but hopefully the qovernment and the 

private property owner could reach a reasonable settlement with all 

of the other options available. 

In reference to th~ General Accountinq Office (G . A.O.) report 

dated April, ~992 and titled Federal lands, Reason for and Effects 

(3) 
180 

of Inadequate PUblic Acc .. s appreas to be somewhat naive in the 

reportinq of probl ... identified that concern access. 

The G.A.O. states that only in the past several decades bas 

public access become an issue. This is true, but the explanation 

falls short of describinq the associated problema. Before adoption 

of the Federal•nd Policy and Manaqement Act of 1976 multiple use 

primarily included the consumptive uses of both renewable and nonrenewable resources. Recreation was accepted and recognized as a 

leqitiaate use and caused very few problems. However, with the 

implementation of the FLPMA the qeneral public was informed that 

everyone should use the federal lands for all types of recreational 

purposes. Virtually millions of citizens departed for the wide 

open spaces, uncontrolled, un-managed and without the knowledge of 

the intermix of private, state and federal lands. Numerous 

problems arose and continue today because of the qeneral publics 

lack of information about existinq business activities permitted on 

federal lands. 

Vandalism and liability quickly surfaced as a major problem 

for private land owners includinq exhilarated increases in costs of 

production. Misaanaqement or the lack of manaqement of the public 

continues today and is not adequately addressed in the G.A.o. 

report. 

The unwillinqness of the Federal Government to participate in 

~undinq the maintenance of existinq pUblic access routes 

transferred that cost to local governments and the private sector. 

Sufficient resources were not available which created conflict 

within localized areas. Acquisition is just a small seqment of the 

access issue. Maintenance, enforcement and management of the 

qeneral publics use of the lands is a major cost item that needs to 

be addressed. 

Si9Dificant problems arose where rights of way for enerqy, 

mineral and tillber development beCUie readily usable by the general 

public. These riqhts of way across private property were for the 

exclusive use of the coapanies and individuals involved in the 

area. They were not inclusive of other uses. Had the private 

(4) 
181 

property owners been aware of the pendinq increase of unregulated 

uae the uae of the oriqinal dqbta of way would have had a 

considerably hiqher value. This value should be compensated for by 

the Federal Goverrment because they were responsible for it 

happeninq. 

The G. A. o. illustration in Fiqure 1.3 ia obvioualy not 

associated with the situation described. As I interpret the 

diaqram there exists a riqbt of way acrose federal land between 

wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive areas to another 

portion of federal land. 

This road vas either qrandfathered in when the FLPMA passed 

Conqress or it vas constructed after the planninq requirements of 

the FLPMA provided for it to be constructed. If there is a problem 

with confininq the public to the access route the enforcement of 

the area needs to be considered rather than acquiring additional 

access. 

since the new route is across non-qovernment land have they 

deterained that this area is less sensitive to public pressure? If 

they b&ve ascertained this cUd qoverJUilent employees notify the 

landowner as to their intent.to study the non-qovernaent land and 

did they notify and provide the other land owners with copies of 

their findinqe? If they did not, which I seriously question that 

they did, qiven this situation then this committee should 

understand the oriqin of part of the problea. 

FiC)Ures 2 .1 and. 2. 2 leave the impression that such small 

portions of federal lands reaain where inadequate access exists 

that the costs could qreatly exceed the value the public would 

receive for obtaininq access. 

Figures 2. 3 and 2. 4 ex .. plify the frustration of property 

owners ion their atteapt to aanaqe public access and activities on 

the non-federal interainqled lands. 

The G. A. o. went to qreat .lenqt:hs to describe how they 

developed the questionnaire for the BLM and OSFS, distributed it 

and the responses that they received. What is so obvious that it 

creates suspicion and questions accountability of the report is the 

(5) 
182 

lack of the questionnaire of the private land owners, how many were 

interviewed per FS or BLM district offices or areas and a 

description of public access and use to lands administered under 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau 

of Reclamation to name a few. 

Table 2.1 illustrates an alarming number ot concerns of 

private land owners for not qrantinq public access across their 

property Only three private land owners are quoted as to their 

problems or concerns. 

Table 3.1 cites less than 1St of the 262 supervisors and 

managers or only 13 identified •hunting" activities reduced due to 

inadequate access. The remainder of activities yielded fewer 

responses which is mostly insignificant in relationship to the 

millions ot acres of federal land available tor such purposes. 

Table 3. 2 lists leas than lOt of responses from the 2 62 

supervisors and managers that cited construction, maintenance and 

i.lllprov-ent as a significant issue due to inadequate access. Below 

fiqure 3.2 a Forest Service official stated that he was considering 

building a new road to a collllllunication site on top of a mountain 

because the private landowner refused access across his property. 

This appears to be a rather expensive approach toward resolution of 

an access problem. 

In conclusion, the G. A. o. report only touched the tip of the 

iceberg ion addressing the access issue. In my opinion it is 

biased to distort the concern of the federal land managing agencies 

and their unwillingness to recognize and address and compensate 

non-federal land owners for access across their land. 

The G. A. o. states that of the 465 million acres of federal 

land manaqed by the BLM and FS only 50.4 million acres have 

inadequate access. This is approximately 11\ of land under their 

jurisdiction. This is such ·an insiqnif icant amount when one 

considers that there may exist now temporary access across much of 

the non-federal lands. Any attempt to acquire additional access 

routes may be more expensive than all the values which could be 

attributed to the federal land activities. Such considerations 

(6) 
183 

ahoul<l be cautiously approached by thia conqreaa when we are 

currently apendinq more that we are recei vinq in our budqet 

analyaia. 

Aqain, I thank you tor the opportunity to qive this statement 

and I will stand tor questions. 
184 

Mr. VENTO. I know. I appreciate your patience to stay and the 

work that you put into your statement, trying to point out other 

issues. 

Obviously, the GAO did what they were asked to do, and I think 

that we were concerned about the issue of public access or access 

to public lands across private lands, although there has been a lot 

of discussion about other issues today-important issues. Nevertheless, they were doing what they were asked. 

There is a need to sharpen it up probably to some extent, and 

we will certainly use the critique you did. 

But, Mr. Eppers, one of the points you made was that 90 percent 

of the 51,000 instances of inadequate or no access were made up 

of these small tracts. Did you get that someplace out of the report? 

Mr. EPPERS. No, Mr. Chairman. But the issue came up a while 

ago about the--

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Smith raised the issue about small tracts, isolated tracts. 

Mr. EPPERS. Well, the percent of Federal lands, the section 15 

lands which are those small isolated scattered tracts, comprise 

some 118 million acres, I believe, compared to 134 million acres 

that are more in solid blocks. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, Mr. Penfold in responding to the BLM questions 

said he didn't think that the problems that they were working on 

or that they had identified were scattered tracts, but we can probably point that out. 

I just wanted to point out that that wasn't the impression I got. 

And you had a different impression, I guess, is my point. 

Mr. Metzger, we have to go and vote, you see; so I am really at 

a disadvantage in asking you any questions at this time. And it is 

late in the afternoon in any case. There are some cases pointed out 

here, for instance, around the Ruby Mountains and Humboldt 

Mountains in Nevada as an example. I commend you for what you 

did in Arizona, and I am not as familiar with that project so I 

think it served a good purpose today, especially since some of us 

were kind of moving in that direction or talking about that particular type of resolution mechanism. 

But with regard to the Ruby and Humboldt Mountain Wilderness 

Areas here, they pointed out there are only three access points now 

to that particular forest and that there has actually been an effort 

to extinguish public access rights as people in land management, 

or whatever changes occur-for all I know, it could be the cattle association members-but in any case, you recognize that as a problem, don't you? 

Mr. METZGER. Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman. But I think it may 

be indicative of things that are coming. The West is feeling under 

assault, frankly, from Washington in a lot of different ways. And 

there is some reaction coming from that. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, that is fine, and I think there are a lot of 

changes in terms of urbanization and ownership patterns and private property, p'30ple that are buying property, putting up fences; 

this is sort of the march of civilization to some extent. ·I don't know that it is Washington that has, in fact, asked these 

people to buy this particular land and to create these particular 
185 

problems. But, in any case, everyone's entitled to their own feelings. I don't want to deny that. 

Mr. METZGER. May I speak to the Ruby Mountains in particular? 

Urbanization is not a problem in the Ruby Mountains. I mean Elko 

on the west side of them has a pretty small downtown. So I don't 

think that is necessarily the issue. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't think it is the urbanization. You misunderstood what I am talking about. I am just saying that more people 

in, for instance, Nevada, now live in Clark County than live in the 

rural parts. That is not what I am talking about. Urbanization, in terms of 

people living in urban areas and not as many people proportionately in others. They are getting out there recreating, driving to 

the wilderness to do things. There has been an increase in the 

amount of recreation. You have identified that yourself on-is it 

the Flying M? The Flying M, right? 

Mr. METZGER. That is certainly true, Mr. Chairman. 

But another point that kind of flows from that is that, as the urbanization has occurred and we have a much more sort of urban 

mentality in this Nation about land, land use, et cetera, there 

isMr. VENTO. That is right. Fences. This is mine, and we don't 

share it. 

So what about the issue of the counties and States here that was 

testified to by the land management agency, the Forest &rvice, 

about them being reluctant to exercise the rights of way across private land? Do you identify that as any type of a problem where the 

local governments aren't doing this; they are sort of putting it on 

Forest Service? 

If I am the national manager, you keep saying, you do it, we 

don't want to deal with Metzger and Eppers; you do it; it does lead 

one to have a little more of a popularity problem. 

Mr. METZGER. Well, I think the issue is a little bit bigger than 

just access. It is the amount of expenditure that has been shifted 

down to the States and then ultimately down to the counties. The 

counties, just particularly in the West, with no tax base, don't have 

many options. 

Mr. VENTO. I empathize that the problem is fairly new, and they 

probably didn't have a budget for it and don't have a budget for it. 

But beyond that, there might be a reluctance. 

Of course, as one of our witnesses here, Mr. Hawkes said, he 

said, they found out the Park Service or the Forest Service and the 

BLM are paper tigers in terms of pursuing this. Found out the 

counties and local governments and States are paper tigers in 

terms of pursuing access rights. 

Mr. METZGER. I think that is correct. And that is where we got 

to that point several years ago in Arizona and found out that there 

really was no desire by any governmental entity to make anything 

happen. So it had to happen from essentially the private sector and 

the recreating public. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, loading these guys up with a lot of new weapons and money and so forth and sending them out there to do it, I guess what you are saying, is sending them out into a mine field? 

Mr. METZGER. Well, I don't think that will work. It hasn't yet. 
186 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it has occurred to me that it may take more 

than that. So I think the hearing has been helpful. I have to go 

vote. I appreciate, again, the effort. Mr. METZGER. May I add one thought before I go? There was recognition or discussion of easements and permanent easements, 

temporary easements, that sort of thing, as being an option for access. 

I think it is important to know that those of us who do have land 

in the West and are slowly being denied a productive use of it, to 

grant an access for a tax consideration over a period of time becomes kind of crazy, looking at a long-term situation where we may 

have to change the use of those lands in order to survive. In other 

words, sell and--

Mr. VENTO. You may have to what? 

Mr. METZGER [continuing]. Develop those lands. Mr. VENTO. Oh, yes. The other issue, of course, is the subdivision 

where you are not dealing with 90,000 acres and one Metzger family, which is no mean task. You are all of a sudden dealing with 

hundreds of different individuals. 

Mr. METZGER. Well, I think your option from this body is to decide whether you want to deal with just me or whether you want 

to deal with everybody I can sell to. Mr. VENTO. Fine. Well, we will do what we have to do. That is 

what we will do. Anyway, I appreciate, again, the testimony of all the witnesses. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:06p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

NOVEMBER 9, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

GAO UaltedGenenl AccoomiiDt omee WulaJa&t<>a, D.C. ZOM8 

--CommuiQ', and Ecoaoallc Dewlopmellt DIWIIoa 

December 6, 1993 

The Honorable James v. Hansen 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Hansen: 

As requested by your letter dated November 17, 1993, 

enclosed are our responses to some additional questions relating to my testimony before your Subcommittee on November 9, on Access to Public Landa. 

Please contact me at (202) 634-7535, if you or your staff 

have any questions. 

Sincerely yours, 

~fl. L't-~~ 0. 

John H. Anderson, Jr. 

Associate Director, Natural Resources 

Management Issues 

Enclosure 

(187) 
1. Question: 

Response: 

2. Question: 

Response: 

3. Question: 

Response: 

188 

Response to Questions Posed by 

Congressman James Hansen 

Your report defines "inadequate access" as meaning "the federal government does not have 

the permanent, legal right for the public to 

enter federal land at the point(s) needed to 

enter the land as intended by the managing 

agency." What process did you use to come up 

with the term "inadequate access" and how to 

define it? 

The definition of "inadequate access" was arrived at through extensive consultation and concurrence with BLM and Forest Service 

headquarters and field personnel. Early in our survey work we realized that the term 

"inadequate access", could and was, interpreted 

in various ways. In the process of developing our questionnaire we tested the terminology and 

definition of "inadequate access" and arrived at 

the definition stated in our report. 

Your report states that inadequate access "does 

not necessarily mean that the public is 

physically prevented from entering federal 

land." Do you have an estimate of what 

percentage of land is classified as having 

"inadequate access" is physically accessible to 

the public? 

We do not have an estimate of the acreage of 

public land which is physically accessible but 

for which the government does not have the legal 

permanent right for the public to enter. 

Information in this format is not maintained by 

either BLM or the Forest service. 

GAO reports frequently contain conclusions and 

recommendations regarding your findings. Why 

did this report contain neither conclusions or recommendations? 

As we stated in the report, the agencies had 

recently revised their operating procedures to 

identify and document public access needs. As a result, we felt they should be given the 

opportunity and sufficient time to fully 

implement and test the effectiveness of those 

revisions. Therefore, we restricted the report 

to only factual information. 

1 
4. Question: 

Response: 

5. Question: 

Response: 

6. Question: 

Response: 

189 

Mr. Jim Hunt of your organization has provided our staff with the 21 "non-agency contacts" that 

GAO interviewed while conducting this study. I 

note that of these 21 people only 6 were private landowners and the rest were sportsmen and 

retired Forest Service and BLM employees. Since 

private landowners are so integral to this 

debate, why were they less than thirty percent of your non-agency interviews? 

The majority of information contained in our report reflects data obtained through a questionnaire sent nationwide to Forest Service 

and BLM officials. The nationwide data was supplemented with a limited number of individual 

contacts with sportsman groups, ranchers, and 

other. private landowners. Information obtained 

from these individual contacts was used only as examples to help demonstrate or add clarity to a point being made in the report. 

I understand that the situation illustrated by 

the picture of the private road on page 20 is 

merely a case where a county abandoned a road 

and that this particular private landowner owns .3 miles of the total mileage but has never blocked its use to the public. Is this your 

understanding also? 

The purpose of this photo was to illustrate one · of the means private landowners use to limit access to public land. While the road was not 

physically closed, the private landowner, in 

this instance, erected a sign which noted that 

trespassers were in violation of law and subject 

to arrest. 

Page 20 also mentions that agency officials that 

you interviewed indicated that some landowners 

threaten trespassers with guns and attack dogs. 

How many people are in this category and could 

you provide me with their names and addresses? 

The statement is an example of another method 

that is used to limit public access. We made no attempt to quantify how often this type of 

method or behavior is used to intimidate the 

public, nor did we attempt to obtain the names and addresses of private landowners who engage 

in this type of intimidation. The particular incident sighted on page 20 occurred on the 

Eldorado National Forest in California. The 

2 
7. Question: 

Response: 

190 

Forest Supervisor of the Eldorado National 

Forest would be able to provide you with the name and address of this individual if you so desire. 

Although you only personally interviewed six 

private landowners, page 19 of your report discusses how GAO personally observed a Montana 

ranch where trespassers were cutting down 

standing trees for firewood. Could you describe 

in detail what you observed? 

As previously stated, our nationwide 

questionnaire data was supplemented with a limited number of individual contacts. In this 

particular case we were accompanying a rancher 

in his pick-up truck as he pointed out posted 

signage and fencing on a road across his 

property. He allowed public access over the 

road to reach adjacent federal land. At one point on the tour we heard a chainsaw and asked 

the rancher about the source of the noise. He 

indicated that it was a common occurrence for 

people to leave the road and trespass on his 

property to cut trees for firewood. we then got 

out of the truck with the rancher and saw two men with a chainsaw cutting trees on his 

property. The rancher stated that he did not 

know the two men and that he had not given them 

permission to cut trees. 

3 
191 

~~ ~· L IIPiooialilciLamni~IFioiulndiaacilonlllm!EIIIIII III!JDII!ili !tli@U@!.!FiiJUf 

for America's HeritaF 

National Parks, Fore ~ and Public U.nds Subcommittee 

Chairman 8 ruce Vento 

812 House Anne;: 1 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento. 

The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) submits the following observ.,ti•jt·os 

and recommendations regarding the "Public Lands and National Forests 

Loc~.out": Obstacles to Adequate Public .c..ccess. Please make thi' ' letter 

p<!rt of the record of the Oversight Hearings of Nov. 9. 1993 by yoc~r 

Subcommittee. 

The PLF is ~ n~tion~l non-profit ''rg~n z~tion of re~ired Burea'J 1:1f Land 

Man .. gement (BLM) employees dedicated to enhancement of the 

management of the public lands. The Foundation has .:s unique body of 

knovvledge and expertise and truely understands what is happening on the 

public l.:srods. 

The PLF has a contimrinq interest .:snd concern with the lack of 

adequate public access to our n.:stions public lands. V.ie have expressed th;s 

concern in a variety of vwitten reports and testimony before both Houses of 

Congres ~. and specifically to your S•Jbcommittee .ond the Ho•Jse App 

ropriations Committee, with the ho;,pe of increasing the awarness of thi'' 

situation. We applaud your efforts to e'plore ideas on how the BU·.·1 and 

Forest Service (FS) c11n correct this problem and enable the .<>.merican 

people to better enjoy their public lands. 

Because of the PLF concern for this issue .. we conducted .;,n 

assessment of the more critical acces.s needs artd problem:S in 1992. 'v./i~h 

the concurrence of the Bureau. we requested field offices to identif}' their 3 most critical ~cce:ss need:s. Bosed on this infor m~tion , and kno~'\·ledge 

of PLF members. we issued a report of May 1993. I am enclosing a copy 

of our report for ~·o•Jr inforrnatiorr and use. This assessro-oenet c lear!}' 

concludes thot the outdoor recreational activities are the most effec~ed b·~ 

this: it1adequate access. This is consister.t , . ...,jth the: G Bne~ al AccountinQ 

Office assessment . 

There is gener.;,l agreement on the estero( and ro-o.3grortude of inadequate 

access. The PLF feels strongi,Y. based on our members e:.:perience:s, that 

the problem will increase in the futwe and be more difficult to resolve. The 

fragmented land ownership p11tterns created by hit torical publi.o land disposal 

policies and the changing public demands for a variety or outdoor 
192 

recreational activities, are fundamental to this issue for BLM. The lack of a 

significant effort to do something about access has allowed it to become the 

problem it is today. 

Our May 1993 report contains a series of recommendations. I •Nilf 

therefore only highlight those recommendations we feel are the most 

important. 

· 1. Access needs to be given a higher priorit9 by BLM and the 

Department and a committment made to devote more resources to resolving 

the problem. \A/e feel the authorities are adequate.·Added funds should be 

transferred to the access program from other lower priority Department-sf 

programs, i.e. reclamation projects, thereby not increasing the overall 

Departmental budget. The ccommittment of additional resources will enable 

the BLM to purs•.1e agenc9 initiatives to help correct this problem through 

more cooperative and partnership approaches that have been pioneered in 

several places in the western states. 

2. Access needs to be strengthened in the BLM Planl:'ling S_l-'stem. This 

is the best opportunit}• to get public ace;ess needs identified and analyzed. 

In many instances .:;ccess is a very controversial issue that needs the full 

public participation provided for by the Plannir,g System. 

3. The most critical access actions need to be prioritized so when the 

opportunity exists, action be completed timely. Ow requests of the field 

offices indicated that m.:my have not prioritized their needs .:md rna!; not be 

able to take advant.:.ge of opportunitie:s th-:~t m.:~y orise. 

4 .. O:::..cquistion of access needs to be made. an intregal part of the whole 

land repositioning program. BLM h.:.s the opportunity to use variou~· land 

title interests for exch<!lnges th<!l! may be inducive to <!lequire eccess from 

private larrd owners o .. vho are root iroclined to sell·an easer.-yer.t to the: 

qovernment. This cou!d include the e:·:chanqe of reserved federal title 

rt11Eoreste, especially fo:oderal miroeral intere~ ,; 

5. V.fe see nco need for the Senate and Hou:;:e .~.pprot:oriation Ccommittees 

req•Airements lor the -:~pprov.:~! of e-:~d1 -:md every Bweao.l condemnation 

action in the acq•Ji:;:ition of easement:::: \1-/e feel the BLM is very carefull 

.:;,nd diligent the the •J:se of this author it,:,•. Condemnatic,n has been used 

sparringly <!lnd only ':'!hen very important public values are involved. 

Historical!~• lengthy del-':!!,'<• in these micro:• ·man,;,gement apprcoval1.; can result 

in significant damages teo PLlblic: resource.;~ . 

\-'/e th.:.nk. }'•:.t.do:or .:ofleording us H·o•.:. opporttmil.y t•:> co:•ntribtltE:• Olll vieo,v:;: on 

the pubhc acc€ s: ~:~ ue. 

~ndL '•./irK:ent . . J. ?fecker 

B.:..9rd· ,:.f Directc-rs 

F\,Jblic Land:;: Found.:;tion 
193 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. TOMLIN 

AND WILLIAM S. BROADBENT 

To tile 

lubccnaalu.. oa Netlaaal Perk,, Forftt aa4 Pallllc Laa .. Coaaltltl oa Netual Re10urcu 

Ualttd Stattt Ha1111 or Repruentatlvtt 

Nonaller 21, lttS 

MR. CIAilWAN AND MBMBERS OFTHB SUBCOMMITI1m: 

Thank you for your intereat in obataclea to public aeceu to public 

Ianda and for alvlna 111 the opportanlt)' to pNUDt our vtows on thtl 

aubjocL We 1re tho owncn of tho Point of Rocka Ruch near 

Emiarant. MontanL The ranch conllatt of aovenl traeu of land 

located adjaceDt to the Gallatin National Porut ud a 1namber of 

RIUIC:b ud Foroat Service aectiona are intermiDJ)od ill a cbockorboud 

panom. Tbla pauam bu created a aumber of maaaaement 

dltftculdta. iaclucllna tho iuuo of public ~ over our land to 

isolated Porett Service tractl. For over throe ye111 wo bave been in 

1 diaputo with the U. S. Forest Service over die ulatoDce of a 

purportecl htatoric crail croaaiDa tho Rucb to roach Poroat Servloo 

Ianda. Ahbouab we appreciate that public acceu to public Iandt ll 

Important, wo would Uke ·to point out that thia laue must be 

resolved within the autdeUn01 of the Conatitutioa and the riahta of 

private landownen to use and enjoy their Iandt without invuivo 

aovernmontal interforonce. 

The hlatorical m•ona that thlt problem ext1t1 today hu boell 

outllnod in earlier toatimony to the Subcommittee. The majority of 

the problema ud 1111101 of publlc acce11 to public Janda were created 

by CODJI'OII a hundred yeara aao. or more, whoa those rcpre~entativoa eatablbhoc:t pollcloa that wero soemtnaly bolpful at 

that time iD history. They were not able to forctee the impUoatioft of 

thoae actions on ptabllc accea• ia•ue• today. 

Be it the Hornoatead Ace or the Railroad Act. ane of the by·prodacta 

of thoao reaulations wu to create isolated pubUc lucia without any 

clear moua of pubUc Kclll. Wo uo clsall•aod today to urive at 

aoludoaa to this problem without apln latina acdona like oar 

forefather• that aet unintended preeodentl for our poaterity 

comorrow. To accomplish tbls, we mull anive at aoladona that 
194 

respc~t tho lDtepit)' or tho Constitution and indlvlclual ripu. Tboae 

principles are the bedrock of our political system and the atandud 

by which any solution• must be judaed. · 

With thia In mind, wo bavo soveral obaervatio111 and propoaals we 

oan make, pven our banda-on experience with this laaue. Whh finite 

resources available to tho various sovernmont aaencles, thoro must 

be a more efficient means of acttina priorities on publlc accoa1 and 

applyina these resources where they are needed. Bach qency can 

and doe• develop its own list of acceu priorities within various 

roalo11al or diatrict subdivisions, and differ for each aaency. By 

aottin& national priorities (e.a.. acres oponed, rcaource1, demand, otc.) 

for &be public, and not by various aovemmenc ftefdoms, will allow 

tho limited re~ourcea to focus on the hisbcst priorities. 

Once the priorltiea are set. men various solutions can be analyzed 

and applied. Would tho private landowner sell tho lueS or an 

euomcnt to me isolated public land? Cm a land swap be concluded 

to 10lvo tho problem? Is mere uy historical riabt of ways that exist 

under state law? Is It of hiah enouah priority to use federal 

condemnation procoedina• •• outlined in the Constitud011? 

These are tho available solutions. How lhey ire applied and 

implemented by sovemment aaencies is the question and tho 

problem. 

Oovernmc11t inadvertently created the problem many years aao, not 

'lho private lmclowncr. Therefore, aovemment needs to work in a 

constructive manner with the private citizen to resolve the issue. 

Much bas boon uid about the private landowner buyiDJ property 

and closlni off accoaa used In tho put by the public to reach public 

Ianda. 

If there ia not a perfected riaht of way to tho public, then this Ia the 

risht of lhe private citizen. If in me put the prior landowner 

allowed or permitted acceaa because it wu aei&hborly to do so and 

the new owner II not u neiabborly and closes acce11, then thi1 ia 

their riaht. They are not bad cidzent or breaking tho law, they are 

Just not u noiahbarly u the put owner. Many of the dmos thl1 

chuae 11 d11o to tho lack of respect showa by the public: for priva&e 

property riahts. As this Subcommittee meetina •uaaest•• there ll far 

more pressure by tho public for areater recreational resources. Thil 
195 

pre11uro baa tanecl wllat In the past waa nolpborly ••• to what la 

aow often pubUc abaae of private property. 

So what It tho 10ludoo.'l If paat leCOII waa 1tv• by a private 

landowner ud It b tlbll away. then the facti muat be tevlcwod to 

aeo if lt fa a lopl el01ure. S• law• oun tbac deal wtdl preiCilpdve 

naomtnll ud the clecmninadon mutt be arrivod at by rovlewlaa 

tho facta. 

Ia tbe exporieaco of Polac ot Roc:ka Raach (POD). ao 0111 baa ever 

preMDted ua wlda the facta that would aappon dlo cODclualon \bat a 

prcsc:rlptivo euemoat owca. Inatead. we · llavo bcoD ropeacoc!ly 

throatellOd by lepl acdoa &Dd atatementa tbu we ca • faou Ia 

court. No private cldzua lbould have 10 fiCIO tht tlmt. coau ad 

iathnldadoD of a aoveramellt aaency juat to flad out the facu. 

R.omombor the CooatltutioD: A cltlzon la iiiDOCIIlt untll provn aatlty. 

In theao aituatlolaa d1efe ahoald be aome tlalrd party arbhradoa 

procen that la efftcloat ud not coat prohlbldve that allow• eaob 

party to revlow the facts. If reaeuch II roquirod to ftDd dat facu, 

then a budaot ahould be eatabUshed to review she biatorical facta 

that auppon the c111m. If pubUc acceaa Ia a pllod&y for tho pabUc:, 

theD the pubUo (aovomment) should bear the costa of perteedaa tho 

acce•• withla tho auidelbtOI of the exisdaa law1. 

If no ICQOII oxi•ca. thea tho aovommeat abould diacusa with tho 

landowner tho foaaiblUt:y of purcbaatna ICQOII or ttndiaa aa efftcieat 

land awap that aolvea tho problem. Altboap tb11e proceaaea. eldst, 

irnplomentadon il far toO dlfftc:ult or burta\JCI'Itic to provide 

aoluclou. 

No one dlacuuod whh us tbo merits of p1110hutna aa easement to 

ilolatod USPS property tu our ranch, but if they had, t am auro that 

we would have experienced a almilar procut to a lud excbaaao. 

Iu this lacter c:uo, wo dlouaht a atmple lud swap to block private 

and public llftd wu 1ht tow aolutlon. After aevtnl attompU to 

arrive at worlcablo soludoaa, it became clow that tho B)'Aildlll proc:ot~ wu not aotna to lead to a sattafactar)' coacl111ioa. Bv.-y 

soludoa we proeoatod wu mot with a leqtlay daiCriptlOD ol wby oar 

soludoD did not meet the criteria noceaauy to flll.U. a truaacdon. 

We do not know if the proce11 fcm:ocl on aovemmont qeaci11 it I& 

fault ot those entrualed with lmplomeutina 1ho prooe11 caused the 
196 

problema, but one thin& ia clear: Tho proceP dooa not work 

effectively. II aolutiona to public access are to be toWJd, then thil 

aoal must be aet u a priority that ia recocnizcd in the valuation 

process of land awaps or uset purchuoa. Conpss must provide 

leadenblp by dcflnins a simple process that resolve& these iasaea 

and that hold& the aovemment aaenciea accountable for efficient 

Implementation. And then ultimately, it all procedures are followed 

in &oocl faith by landowners and aovemment aaoncles and a 

resolution can not be found, then government hu a risht to condom 

the nocesaary ri&bt ol way in situations whore public policy Mtl that 

outcome u a priority. 

As a private cidzoa who believes in workin1 toward public accosa to 

public lands, I have found tho procosa forcod on the individual 

citbeo u abusive, oxpentive and WJnec:euuy. Of the tlfty miiUon 

acrea described that needa better public access, the priority we 

represent for public acccaa fa difficult to fathom. We have spent 

years tryins to uaclcrstand · tho lsaues, bein1 threatened by lldaation, 

bcina thwarted by aovornmcnt aaenctes. bein& loat in aovtrDment 

buroaacradc proceuea, consumlna our time and money ud that of 

the taxpayer via the bureaucracy, all for ~•• to 640 acres. 

Not only ia the proceas destructive of the privato citizen, but tho 

prioridea u set by aovemmeat agencies have to be brouahc iDto 

question--and answered. 

Oao final note on our personal experience. At tho beJlnnJDa ot tho 

proeoaa with PORR, we offered to cousid~nt aloaa 1he 

pulpOfted trail that would remain u a foot and horseback trail. This 

wu our nolahborly accommodation. We were refused and have 

weathored the storm of the USPS ever alnco. Where ill the Justice to 

tndlvidual rtabta. 

Remomber. if pabllc acceu is a public priority, then there will be a 

coat uaociatcd with reaolvina the ipues··one which che public 

ahoalcl aece))l and Conareas should auppon. Without aettina aational 

priorities, eara'bliahlna an efficient and apolldcal mtllll of conflict 

avoidance and reaolution and appl)'lns the lunda to perftct the 

accesa, Use aoal wlll not be met in any fashion that Americans can be 

proud of. 

0 

77-279 (200}