GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION 

AND PROTECTION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 873 

GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 

67-642 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

MARCH 23, 1993 

Serial No. 103-13 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

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

ISBN 0-16-040858-X 
COMMITIEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking 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. 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. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

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

American 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, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J . BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

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

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranking Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. 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,ii JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

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

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

JAMES BRADLEY, Professional Staff Member 

GWYN FLErCHER, Staff Assistant 

KURT CHRISTENSEN, Republican Consultant on Public Lands 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: March 23, 1993 ............................................................ ................... . Text of the bill: H.R. 873 ....... ........................................................................ ......... . Statements: Opening statement of Chairn;uw. Vtqto ......................................................... . Hon. Craig Thomas, a U.S. ~J)~ntative from the State of Wyoming .... . Hon. James V. Hansen, a U.S. ~ presentative from the State of Utah ..... . Hon. Pat Williams, a U.S. Repreffn~tive from the State of Montana ...... . Letters in support of H.R. ~73 submitted for the record by Mr. Williams ............................... , ................................................................. . Panel consisting of: Kemp Conn, Deputy A$st,tuxt Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the l,nt§rior ........................................................ . M~l:t Reimers, Deputy C~ef, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, accompani~ by ~ob Dennee, Lands Program Manager, Gallatin National fo~i ................ ............................................. . 

Sufl:J~s;t!!th~::~e~':.1:t-!t~:fs ~~~ .. ~~~.~~~ .. ~~:~~~ ~~~~'.~~ Panel consistinfi of: 

PaJrat ~f M~~=~. Wei~:~: ~:~~~~ ~~ .. ~'.~~'.. ~'.~~~~~~ .. ~~.~~~~'. Micqael Scott, Northern ~ ifes regional director, the Wilderness 

~~~t~e rcfo~ift1~~.n!o!~in:? ~~r.~~ .. ~~~~~ .. ~~~ .. ~~~ .. ~~~~~~ :~ ~ Prepared statement of ,art Koehler, the Greater Yellowstone 

Coalition, submitted fo.r t~e record by Mr. Scott ................. ....... . Tim Blixseth, owner, Big Sky Lwn~r Joint Venture, Portland, OR .. . Mike Atwood, Brand S Corp., Livingston, MT ....................................... . Nature Conservancy 1992 Fi~ S !!,l Report cited by Hon. Joel Hefley, a U.S. Representative froqi U¥ ·e~ te of Colorado .................................... . 

~PE_NDIX. 

MMCH 23, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the pearing record: 

Prepared statement of Hon. Co:,rad Burns, a U.S. Senator from the 

Page 

1 

2 

14 

14 

14 

15 

18 

22 

23 

34 

48 

52 

59 

69 

71 

74 

State of Montana .... ... .... ..................... ......... .... .... ... .... .......... ... ................... ... 83 

Letter from David P. Carlin, !Jl@Jging director, William M. Mercer, 

Inc., expressing support for H.lt. S73 .. ......................... ... ............................ 85 

Prepared statement of Meridian Oil Inc., and Meridian Minerals Co. expressing support for H.R. 873 .......... .... .... .... ............. ... .......... .................. 86 

Prepared statement of Steve ~~ly, president of Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies, pointing out what h,e ~ ijeves to be deficiencies in H.R. 873 ..... 91 

(IIJ) 

GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND 

PROTECTION ACT OF 1993 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PuBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

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

Public Lands will come to order. As members have been notified, 

we are meeting this morning for hearings on a bill, H.R. 873, which 

deals with a matter addressed in the last Congress but not resolved 

at this time. 

[A copy of the bill, H.R. 873, follows:] 
103n CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

2 

H.R.873 

Entitled the "Gallatin Range Consolidatioh and Prot.ection Act of 1993". 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPllESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 1993 

Mr. WILLIAMS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural hurces 

A BtLL 

Entitled the "Gallatin Range Cotisc'.>lidation and Protection 

Act of 1993". 

1 Be it enacted 1Jy the Senatt atul House of Representa2 tives of the United States of A~ in Congress assembkd, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be refetted ro as the "Gallatin Range 

5 Consolidation and Protection Act'ot 1993". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that: 

8 ( 1) It has been the clear policy of the Federal 

9 Government since 1925 to COIIBOlidate the checker10 board lands along the Gidl'itih Range north of Yel11 lowstone National Patk. 
3 

2 

1 (2) These lands north of Yellowstone possess 

2 outstanding natural characteristics and wildlife habi3 tat which give them high value as lands added to the 

4 National Forest System. 

5 (3) Although these lands have remained pristine 

6 up till now failure to consolidate at this time will in 

7 the near future lead to fragmentation and develops ment. 

9 ( 4) The Federal Government has already in10 vested a great deal in keeping the lands along the 

11 Gallatin Range protected from excess development. 

12 SEC. 3. PLUM CREEK LAND EXCHANGE-GALLATIN AREA. 

13 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall, subject to the 

14 provisions of section 4(b) and section 5(b) and, notwith15 standing any other law, acquire by exchange and cash 

16 · equalization in the amount of $3,400,000, certain lands 

17 and interests in land of the Plum Creek Timber, L.P. (re18 ferred to in this section as the "company") in and adja19 cent to the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wilderness 

20 Study Area, the Scapegoat Wilderness Area, and other 

21 land in the Gallatin National Forest in accordance with 

22 this section. 

23 (b)(l) DESCRIPTION OF LANDs.-If the company of24 fers to the United States the fee title, including mineral 

25 interests, to approximately 37,752 and 15/100 acres of land 

Hll8.73 m 
4 

3 

1 owned by the company which is available for exchange to 

2 the United States as depicted on a map entitled "Plum 

3 Creek Timber and Forest Service Proposed Gallatin Land 

4 Exchange", dated May 20, 1988, the Secretary shall ac5 cept a warranty deed to such land and, in exchange there6 for, and subject to valid existing rights, recommend that 

7 the Secretary of the Interior convey, subject to valid exists ing rights, by patent the fee title to approximately 12,414 

9 and 6/100 acres of National Forest System lands available 

10 for exchange to the company as depicted on such map, 

11 subject to12 (A) the reservation of ditches and canals re13 quired by the Act entitled "An Act making appro14 priations for sundry civil expenses of the Govern15 ment for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eight16 een hundred and ninety-one, and for other pur17 poses", approved August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391; 43 

18 U.S.C. 945); 

19 (B) the reservation of rights under Federal Oil 

20 and Gas Lease numbers 49739, 55610, 40389, 

21 53670, 40215, 33385, 53736, and38684; and 

22 (C) such other terms, conditions, reservations 

23 and exceptions as may be agreed upon by the Sec24 retary of Agriculture and the company. 

BR 871 m 
5 

4 

1 (2) On termination or relinquishment of the leases 

2 referred to in paragraph (1), all the rights and interests 

3 in land granted therein shall immediately vest in the com4 pany, its successors and assigns, and the Secretary shall 

5 give notice of that event by a document suitable for record6 ing in the county wherein the leased lands are situated. 

7 (c) EASEMENTS.-At closing on the conveyances au8 thorized by this section9 (1) in consideration of the easements conveyed 

10 by the company as provided in paragraph 2 of this 

11 subsection, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, under 

12 authority of the National Forest Roads and Trails 

13 Act of October 13, 1964, or the Federal Land Policy 

14 and Management Act of 1976, execute and deliver to 

15 the company such easements and authorizations over 

16 federally owned lands included in this exchange as 

17 may be agreed to by the Secretary and the company 

18 in the exchange agreement. 

19 (2) In consideration of the easements conveyed 

20 by the United States as provided in paragraph (1), 

21 the company shall execute and deliver to the United 

22 States such easements and authorizations across 

23 company-owned lands included in this exchange as 

24 may be agreed to by the Secretary and the company 

25 in the exchange agreement. 

BR 873 m 
6 

5 

1 (d) MAPs.-The maps referred to in subsection (b) 

2 are subject to such minor corrections as may be agreed 

3 upon by the Secretary and the company. The Secretary 

4 shall notify the Committee on Energy and Natural Re5 sources of the United States Senate and the Committee 

6 on Interior and Insular Affairs to the United States House 

7 of Representatives of any corrections made pursuant to 

8 the subsection. 

9 (e) TIMING OF TRANSACTION.-lt is the intent of 

10 Congress that the conveyances authorized by this section 

11 be completed within ninety days after the date of enact12 ment of an Act making the appropriation authorized by 

13 subsection (g). 

14 (f) FOREST LANDs.-All lands conveyed to the Unit15 ed States pursuant to this section shall .become national 

16 forest system lands to be administered by the Secretary 

17 in accordance with applicable law. 

18 (g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There is 

19 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section the 

20 sum $3,400,000, which amount the Secretary shall, when 

21 appropriated, pay to the company to equalize the value 

22 of the exchange of land authorized by this section. 

23 (h) QUALITY OF TITLE.-Title to the properties ref24 erenced in this section to be offered to the United States 

25 by Big Sky Lumber Company, its assignees or successors 
7 

6 

1 in interest, shall be inclusive of the entire surface and sub2 surface estates without reservation or exception. The 

3 owner shall be required to reacquire any outstanding inter4 est in mineral or mineral rights, timber or timber rights, 

5 water or water rights, or any other outstanding interest 

6 in the property, except reservations by the United States 

7 or the State of Montana by patent, in order to assure that 

8 title to the property is transferred as described in this sec9 tion and sections 4, 5, and 6. The agreement shall clearly 

10 evidence that the owners have the legal capacity to accom11 plish the foregoing requirements. Title standards for ac12 quisition shall otherwise be in compliance with Forest 

13 Service policies and procedures. 

14 (i) REFERENCES.-The reference and authorities of 

15 this section referring to Plum Creek Timber Company, 

16 L.P., shall also refer to its successors. 

17 SEC. 4. LAND CONSOLIDATION; PORCUPINE AREA. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.-The exchange described in section 

19 14 of this Act shall not be consummated by the Secretary 

20 until the conditions of this section are met. 

21 (b) CONDITIONS.-The Secretary or a qualified sec22 tion 501(c)(3) conservation entity, acting on its behalf for 

23 later disposition to the United States, shall have acquired, 

24 by purchase or option to acquire, or exchange, all of the 

25 Porcupine property for its fair market value, determined 

HR 873 m 
8 

7 

1 at the time of acquisition in accordance with appraisal 

2 standards acceptable to the Secretary by an appraiser ac3 ceptable to the Secretary and the owner. Any appraisal 

4 for exchange purposes shall be conducted by the same par5 ties, utilizing the same standards noted above; "And fur6 ther that, if said acquisition or option to acquire has been 

7 consummated by a qualified section 501(c)(3) conserva8 tion entity, said entity shall have notified the Secretary 

9 that the quality of title in fact secured meets applicable 

10 Forest Service standards with respect to surface and sub11 surface estates or is otherwise acceptable to the Forest 

12 Service". 

13 (c) DESCRIPTION OF LANDs.-The Secretary is au14 thorized and directed to acquire by purchase or exchange 

15 the lands and interests therein as depicted on a map enti16 tied "Porcupine Area", dated September, 1992. 

17 (d) LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES.-Acquisitions 

18 pursuant to this section shall be under existing authorities 

19 available to the Secretary. 

20 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There 

21 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec22 essary to carry out the purposes of this section. Funds 

23 necessary for land acquisition are authorized to be appro24 priated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

HR 873 m 
9 

8 

1 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF EXCHANGE.-The Secretary 

2 is authorized to offer the lands and interests described on 

3 a map entitled "Porcupine Exchange Lands", dated Sep4 tember, J 992, to Big Sky Lumber Company, its assignee 

5 or successors in interest to fulfill the purposes of this sec6 tion: Provided, That the lands shall not transfer to the 

7 company until the provisions of this section and section 

8 16 are met. 

9 (g) EQUAL V ALUE.-Any exchange of lands between 

10 Big Sky Lumber Company and the United States shall 

11 be for equal value. 

12 (h) REFERENCES.-The reference and authorities of 

13 this section referring to the Big Sky Lumber Company, 

14 shall also refer to its successors. 

15 SEC. 5. LAND CONSOLIDATION-TAYLOR FORK AREA. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.-The exchange described in section 

17 14 of this Act shall not be consummated by the Secretary 

18 until the conditions of this section are met. 

19 (b) CONDITIONS.-The Secretary or a qualified sec2O tion 5O1(c)(3) conservation entity, acting on its behalf for 

21 later disposition to the United States, shall have acquired, 

22 by purchase or option to acquire, or exchange, all of the 

23 Taylor Fork property for its fair market value, determined 

24 at the time of acquisition in accordance with appraisal 

25 standards acceptable to the Secretary by an appraiser acBR 873 m 
10 

9 

1 ceptable to the Secretary and the owner. Any appraisal 

2 for exchange purposes shall be conducted by the same par3 ties, utilizing the same standards noted above; and further 

4 that, if said acquisition or option to acquire has been con5 summated by a qualified section 501(c)(3) conservation 

6 entity, said entity shall have notified the Secretary that 

7 the quality of title in fact secured meets applicable Forest 

8 Service standards with respect to surface and subsurface 

9 estates or is otherwise acceptable to the Forest Service. 

10 (c) DIRECTION.-The Secretary is directed to provide 

11 Congress, within two years, recommendations designed to 

12 acquire by purchase or exchange Taylor Fork Area lands 

13 owned by Big Sky Timber Company: Provided, That such 

14 recommendations are agreed to by Big Sky Lumber Com15 pany: Provided further, That nothing in this section limits 

16 the Secretary's authority to acquire or purchase said 

17 lands. 

18 (d) DESCRIPTION OF LANDs.-The Secretary is au19 thorized and directed to acquire by purchase or exchange 

20 the lands and interests therein as depicted on a map enti21 tled "Taylor Fork Area", dated September, 1992. 

22 (e) LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES.-Acquisition 

23 pursuant to this section shall be under existing authorities 

24 available to the Secretary: Provided, That notwithstanding 

HR 873 m 
11 

10 

1 any other law, exchanges authorized in this section shall 

2 not be restricted within the same State. 

3 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There 

4 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec5 essary to carry out the purposes of this section. Funds 

6 necessary for land acquisition are authorized to be appro7 priated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

8 (g) EQUAL V ALUE.-Any exchange of lands between 

9 Big Sky Lumber Company and the United States shall 

10 be for equal value. 

11 (h) REFERENCES.-The reference and authorities of 

12 this section referring to the Big Sky Lumber Company, 

13 shall also refer to its successors. 

14 (i) REPORTS TO . CONGRESS.-For a period of two 

15 years from the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec16 retary shall report annually to the Committee on Interior 

17 and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and 

18 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

19 Senate, on the status of the negotiations with the company 

20 or its successors in interest to effect the land consolidation 

21 authorized by this section. 

22 SEC. 6. LAND CONSOLIDATION-GALLATIN AREA. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall work dili24 gently to assure all lands within what is generally known 

25 as the Gallatin Range owned by Big Sky Lumber ComHR 873 m 
12 

11 

1 pany, its assignee or successors in interest, not acquired, 

2 purchased or exchanged pursuant to sections 14 and 15 

3 of this Act are acquired by the United States through ex4 change or purchase. 

5 (b) DIRECTION.-The Secretary is directed to provide 

6 Congress, within three years, recommendations designed 

7 to acquire by purchase or exchange Gallatin Area lands 

8 owned by Big Sky Timber Company: Provided, That such 

9 recommendations are agreed to by Big Sky Lumber Com10 pany: Provided further, That nothing in this section limits 

11 the Secretary's authority to acquire or purchase said 

12 lands. 

13 (c) DESCRIPTION OF LANDs.-The Secretary is au14 thorized and directed to acquire by purchase or exchange 

15 the lands and interests therein as depicted on a map enti16 tied "Gallatin Area", dated September, 1992. 

17 (d) LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES.-Acquisitions 

18 pursuant to this section shall be under existing authorities 

19 available to the Secretary: Provided, That notwithstanding 

20 any other law, exchanges authorized in this section shall 

21 not be restricted within the same State. 

22 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There 

23 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec24 essary to carry out the purposes of this section. Funds 

HR 873 m 
13 

12 

1 necessary for land acquisition are authorized to be appro2 priated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

3 (f) EQUAL V ALUE.-Any exchange of lands between 

4 Big Sky Lumber Company and the United States shaiI 

5 be for equal value. 

6 (g) QUALITY OF TITLE.-The quality of title to the 

7 properties referenced in this section in fact secured shall 

8 meet applicable Forest Service standards with respect to 

9 surface and subsurface estates or shall otherwise be ac10 ceptable to the Forest Service. 

11 (h) REFERENCES.-The reference and authorities of 

12 this section referring to the Big Sky Lumber Company, 

13 shall also refer to its successors. 

14 (i) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.-For a period of three 

15 years from the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec16 retary shall report annually to the Committee on Interior 

17 and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and 

18 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

19 Senate, on the status of the negotiations with the company 

20 or its successors in interest to effect the land consolidation 

21 authorized by this section. 

0 

BR 873 m 

67-642 0 - 93 - 2 
14 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. The measure, H.R. 873, introduced by our friend and 

colleague from Montana, a member of the subcommittee, would facilitate blocking up the checkerboard ownership of ecologically significant lands in the Gallatin Range of Montana. The subcommittee 

visited this site in the 100th Congress? Or 101st Congress, in 

1987--88. This proposal then was passed by the House twice. It was 

passed in the 100th Congress in the wilderness bill that was, unfortunately, vetoed by- the President at that time, and then again 

in the wilderness bill that was passed in the last Congress but 

failed to make it across the finish line in the Senate in the waning hours of the last Congress. 

A copy of the bill with background of material-the Gallatin 

Range issue is a derivative of the broader Montana wilderness bill, 

but action needs to be timely on that in order to facilitate an agreement that was made between the Forest Service and other interested parties concerning that land. As I say, a copy of the material 

and description is before each member. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Mr. VENTO. The gentleman from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me make 

a couple of comments from Mr. Hansen's statement and then ask 

that it be included in the record. 

There is-and I agree there is a merit, of course, in consolidating 

land ownerships, and particularly in the Gallatin as talked about 

here. However, it does appear there would be a large gain for Federal ownership, and I certainly feel very strongly about that. As 

you know, it has been my view that we certainly should not have 

a net gain, and indeed in some instances probably should dispose of some Federal lands. So I think that is an interesting, perhaps unintended, effect of this bill. Secondly, updated appraisals, according to Mr. Hansen, should be made and the timber prices have 

changed substantially. So I would like to submit that for the 

record, if I may. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, the entire statements of all members, opening statements, and the statements of witnesses in their 

entirety will be made part of the record. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hanson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES V. HANSEN 

I thank you for holding today's hearing and look forward to hearing from the wit- nesses. Although there clearly_ is a great deal of merit in consolidating some land owner- ships in the Gallantin National Forest and throughout the west, I have some con- cerns about H.R. 873. 

First, it appears that this bill will result in a large gain of federal land ownership 

at a time when the Forest Service does not have the resources to manage the lands 

it already owns. Second, updated appraisals are not yet available for two of the tracts in this bill. 

Because timber prices are sky rocketing, this Subcommittee must have updated ap- praisal information before we go to mark-up. How can we possibly estimate the coat 

to the government without such information? 
15 

Finally, I note that the Nature Conservancy has options on two of the tracts in 

this bill which they would like to eell to the Forest Service. The Nature Conservancy 

spent more money in land acquisition last year than the Forest Service, I wonder 

why we don't let the Conservancy exercise their option, by the land and protect themselves. 

Mr. THOMAS. Actually, you know, this is in Montana, and I have 

a fairly strong feeling about those representing a particular State 

certainly should have the lead. It does seem as if this legislation is on a fairly fast track. We are holding hearings today and I think 

mark-up is later this week. 

I have been contacted by some folks who I happen to know who 

grew up on the ranch across the river from us that now live in this 

area. They are concerned that there hasn't been more opportunity for them, at least recently, to have participation in it. The Inspector General, of course, which depending on your point of view we 

have either given a great deal of credit here or discredited entirely, depending on whether we agree with what they say or not--

Mr. VENTO. Depending on whether we agree or disagree with 

them. [Laughter] 

Mr. THOMAS.-exactly-has issued a report critical of the involvement of third parties in land purchases and exchanges, and 

now, of course, we are fast-tracking that kind of an arrangement here. 

Nevertheless, as I indicated, even though there does appear to 

me to be some issues that need to be talked about, I understand 

it has the support of the three members of the Montana delegation, and I respect that. And I hope that when other wilderness bills 

comeup that they will respect that in terms of Wyoming. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have no statement. Mr. VENTO. I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Montana, a member of the subcommittee and the sponsor of the Gallatin Range Consolidation Protection Act of 1993, Mr. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT WILLIAMS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of H.R. 873 

I address myself this morning. I want to thank you for holding this 

hearing today and for moving so quickly in this year's agenda to 

consider this important piece of legislation, the Gallatin Range Consolidation Protection Act. 

This legislation, as I think you are aware, Mr. Chairman, from 

our previous discussions, consolidates checkerboard lands in Montana. It was included in the Montana wilderness bill that passed 

this subcommittee, the full . committee and the House last session. That was the third time that legislation consolidating lands in the 

Gallatin has passed the House. It is being presented without the 

accompanying wilderness bill this year because of the real public 

lands disaster that is looming in Montana if this legislation is not 

adopted by this sprin~. 

Just north of Amenca's first national park, Yellowstone, the Gallatin Range connects the other mountains of the Yellowstone Ecosystem much like spokes in a wheel. This range was not protected, 
16 

of course, when the park was set aside because every other section 

in the area had been granted to the railroad as payment for the 

transamerica construction. But the range's importance to the integrity of Yellowstone has never been questioned, and it has essentially remained wild ever since the park was first designated. 

The range is the home of some of the largest elk herd in America, along with countless other species, including the endangered 

grizzly bear. The range also is the headwaters of some of the most 

pristine streams and rivers left anywhere in the lower 48 States. 

The first attempt to consolidate these lands happened back in 

1925, and since then there have been countless attempts to bring 

the Gallatin Range into Federal ownership. The Federal Government has already spent more than $12 million to acquire elk winter range, and the House of Representatives have held countless 

hours of testimony on the importance of these lands. In fact, the 

first hearing that was held after I became a member of this subcommittee outside of Washington was in Montana concerning these 

lands 15 years ago. The House has passed, as I said earlier, three 

bills to complete these land trades and purchases, but still the 

range, the area remains chopped up in checkerboard land ownership. 

Now, let me be current on this, relatively current. In 1988 both 

the House and Senate passed a consolidation bill for these lands. 

It was vetoed as part of an overall wilderness bill by then President Reagan. Following that veto, the railroad that owned the 

lands sold them to a private timber company in order, I think, to 

avoid a hostile takeover, and the company has since again sold the 

lands to several new owners interested in timber and development. 

Part of the new sale arrangement requires that timber be provided off the private lands, and so now we face a serious problem. 

If we don't solve these intermingled problems by the time the contractual harvest becomes necessary and due, I submit that the days 

of relatively gracious corporate neighbors in and around the Gallatin are over, and increasingly important recreation and watershed and wildlife habitat lands will be subdivided, will be harvested, will be posted off limits, will be sold for private hunting 

rights, unless this legislation is signed into law by this spring. 

I helped to bring the various parties together last year to reach 

this agreement. Without this agreement in the Gallatin we face a 

June deadline, and at that point a company will enter and log the 

nationally significant Porcupine drainage, it is called, with the public therefore losing its precious opportunities and already scarce 

public access. I think that the majority on this subcommittee will 

be committed to see that this area is not lost. 

Local landowners are in agreement. Conservation organizations, 

nationally and locally, are in agreement. The Park Service and the 

Forest Service are in agreement. The immediate private owners of 

the properties are in agreement. It is now left only for the legislative and executive branch to join the agreement. If we do not, an 

opportunity to keep the area north of Yellowstone National Park, 

an opportunity which has been dreamt of since 1925 will be lost for 

the rest of our lives and our children's and their children's children. 
17 

Mr. Chairman, again I urge haste on this legislation, and thank 

you for the haste with which you have treated this matter in this 

Congress. 

[The letters follow:] 
18 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MONTANA 

MARC RACICOT 

GOVERNOR 

March 3, 1993 

Kathy Hadley, President 

Joe Gutkoski, Vice President 

Montana Wildlife Federation 

P.O. Box 1175 

Helena, MT 59624 

Dear Kathy & Joe: 

STATE CAPITOL 

HELENA , MONTANA59620•0801 

Thank you for letting me know of your support for H.R. 873, legislation which seeks an exchange 

of land involving the Gallatin National Forest. 

I support the consolidation and protection of the Gallatin area's important wildlife habitat, 

majestic scenery, pristine water quality, recreational values and wilderness potential. I support the 

intent of H.R. 873 and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks also strongly favors 

the components of the bill. 

In addition to the Gallatin Land Exchange portion of the bill, the acquisition and protection of 

the Porcupine and Taylor Fork areas are key elements to an overall package of land stewardship 

and improved wildlife management in the Gallatin area. 

Another proposed land exchange also has positive potential for the Gallatin Valley. Brand S 

Lumber in Livingston is working on an exchange with the Forest Service which offers possible 

state park, wildlife management, silviculture and economic benefits in the Lost Creek drainage 

near Anaconda and the Gallatin area. That exchange is in the process of being finalized, and 

there is a possibility that this exchange could be amended into H.R. 873 or serve as a stand-alone 

exchange for congressional consideration. 

I see tremendous potential for these exchanges to consolidate blocks ofland in the Gallatin which 

will protect important habitat and recreational values for years--even generations--to come, and 

at the same time allow model timber programs which create and preserve jobs and demonstrate 

solid forest stewardship. 

Thank you again for your letter. Please let me know if I can be help in future matters. 

Sincerely, 

-;t,1th...Qo.,.,J. 

MARC RACICOT 

Governor 

cc: Max Baucus 

Conrad Bums 

Pat Williams 

TELEPHONE : (406) 444·3111 FAX : (406) 444•5529 
19 

03/12/93 15: 11 PAT WILL I AMS llJTTE 006 

TO -• Ui. 1!193 9 : U.., P 1 

FRCJ"I : cu i; or Bozeman 

F'IOENJ,. ~~~Jji. TH .. CITY 0#' 90Z&MAN 

"I IE , MAIN ST. ""· IIOX l40 

K~ . .,1 ,ttONSl•OllSNolUI _,,,,,,.,,- . y 90P:Jrri111AN, MONTANA tt7tl-OUO 

March, •• "" 

,_,,._,.,,w ,,., ~- United StetH H- of ,,_,,_terltln 

Room 2467, R.yblll'fl Hol/N omc. ..,,,,, Wahington, OC 20616 

0.., ,..,...,.,.,,.,. ~: 

I .,,, wrlrlng In ,uppon of tit• l«ld _,, In Cotra11-od c.n,._, ll/lllk;h la commonly 

,.,.,,_,, to u th• "Oelletln Cenyon 11111d uc/,Mge". 

In 19!10, rite city Md counry ,O,,_,. edopt«I die t.-0 /lonmM Al'N MNter 

Plan Uptlete. One of ,,,. lmportent (10M of die II'-" • to wpport ,,,. .. ,.,,..,,,,_, Md 

melntenen,;e of ~Hlt11endopen.-i;e, fndlldlnl dlep,...,.,.tJonof tn/1 Md 0/IM ..,:e. 

To help,,,,,,,._,,, rll/1 I/HI, rlle City CIIIMIIU/on-crurwl die lw#ls, open $pM;e end ».1111 

CommltrH to devetop • f)llflc end open spe,;e p/MI. T1le COIICflPt of Hnlt/ng Main Sftffr ro the 

mount.,,, rengu to the north end to rhellOllth of llo-hN t>«;o,-known u "From Main 

SrrHt To .,.,,. Mountelnll • end hH ,.,,,.,, ... public e«eptMIC. .,,,, MtllUIHllm. 111• 

e,;qu4ftfon of th• property In Cottonwood Cen)lllff, to be und for public KCeU to forHt 

11MV1,;e lent/11 In th• Gelletln Canyon, -uld bee lllgn/lfcent 111ep towerd provldlnf1 the dell/red ,,.11 ayet.n,. 

The propoad pub/It: et;CNII - Mt/ rite tre// llylltem thet ,;oult/ be de1191op«/ wfll 

provide e lllgn/lfcMt-f!Y In thet portion of tlle VNley. ~ ttell WIii proVIIIII • q"'-t netural 

etmo11Phere for the serious or rec:rutlonel Mer; 111d It could elllo be "-'Dp«/ to 

e,;,;ommod11t• mountain blk.,.. It he, become dnr Iller our treill l)'INm lltlltlnf1 our l'Nlden,. 

end vl.nora to wild ple,;n et our dooratep hH become • eipnlflcent Ulmulu11 to our loGel 

economy. 

A11 Meyor of the City of llo6.,,,.,,, I -ourllf/9 you to eupport the leg/a/et/on thet 

mekH thl• drum • ,..,,,.,.. 

TS:n 

HOME OP' MONTANA STATII: UNIVll:1181TY 
03/12/93 15: 12 

20 

PAT WI LL I R"S 9.JTTE 

. TO 17.2.~9~1 !'11_•,. 

~ ,;,;6"_ 

'l1lfl 

, . 1 2 

MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION . . . ' . . . . . . 

lCVA Platb•ad Chapter ,P•alti,OJ! OD liallaU,• , Land llac:bailf• 

Tbe Montana Vildero••• ,A•• ocia~on • upport•:' U.. -~l• t.1D LaDd 

11:xob .... e, i11cl\ldl ... th•. tr..S-, .of ·.~,830 ioore• lil tlle Plattaead· 

"• tional Pore• t' • ·I • l • Dd Unit ··tc, Bia ·•"7 ~r __ co.....,.. TIie 

csci.•,nse VO\llcl pr,otect Poro...,.iil~ c_r._k dr~i--~ . ..,.. : th• blolo1ical heart of the· Qallatt,a, Wild•...,.. • ,t~ AH• , tbe IIO•t i • portant and •o•t. t.hre<!-t.eoed l~!' 111 th• . or.ii."'!ter T• llow• tl>D• Bcoa,..ate• t.bat. c.urreat.17. •~ ·.--.~otectecl. ·· 

Th• eacb• nC• i • th• -re• ult .of -~ 7~• of. iN1ouai1oa -betv•• D 

interc.~ed .r•:,,u., .. , · -11nd 11ow ei,j_qa O'f•rt!lai!lliiq/ aapport · fl'Otl 

ova•-..,. • tion iroup•, apor't• -n···~•·~ tJait .. co~••lOll&l 

del• 1at1on, Tb• eaobaq• ori,l,...ll7 ·1_a.,.l"•d ·PlU. Cre-k Ti•'ber 

Co• pADJ', which • upport• d the. tr• !!•, · ·LUt -7• ar;., p1- Cn• k • old 

it• Gallatin land• -to BiS &lr.7 Liiitbcr ~IQ&ll1', : •hi.ch no• • 11pport• th• exch•na•• The federal_ •-•~11t viU. ·acg~h'•. • t _atal of 

T0,000 acre• in th• •x.cllaDJc , · :.: •... · 

Th• Flat.bead Cha1>t.~r · i • .oe,,11.r cqcr to •• e· .,;.blic.- l • Dd tuned· 

over to .corporate ··til1ber colJ!IISDt•il-, . but tJiil -..a•:nt• to . IIOnt.ua 

ot the proposed exc;hanp .. ~•re oui .. 1Ch llil7- !MPO•e: aai,-ct• ; • aid Pletbead .Chapter Pre• id11at IO .. :Ti_tu• , · . . · ,· 

"The Ieland Unit. ba1t ll• e11 be~vll7 lOlled and, roadccl. 117 tu ,orHt 

Ser,riee to the det.ri-nt· ot·,••t•r· qualit.;r il!Dd: .. • ;i;ld,l.ife,·• Titll'!' ••id. "There ' • no Naaoa .to 'be,J,1••• that Ml ~ -.. Lua,b• r v -111 • &nace theee land• in a ·41ft•.re11t.- -IUll•r· ·- tball··tb• · PoNt&t 8es-v.1Ge. • ·· · · · · 

•xn ~•raa o~ envi~on.aentel ~al~•, •tbare'• DG •o••.,.rtaoa with tbe outet• ndi.nl elk •inter .. ..,..:·tut -uld be .•ctulnd , ii the 

Gallatin IIN>ce , All tbiDC•' ei,i>.~der• d, .thi•,: ~c~• 1• clearl7 in th• public intere• t ., • 1it1,1a .·,. 1M,1id, 
21 

Citizens to Save the Gallatin Valley Face 

984 Lower Tom Burke R,oad 

~n James, President 

(406) 763 -47 19 

George Smith, Vice President 

(406) 763-4343 

Linda Ric(:, &crctary / lrcasurcr 

(406) 763-4 544 

Daniel J. Roth, Esq. 

Legal Counsel 

March 19, 1993 

Keprcsentative Pat Williams 

U.S. House of Representative 

Washington, D.C. 50515 

Gallatin Gateway, Montana 59730 

RE: Pat Williams Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act HR873 and S489 

Dear Representative Williams: 

Because it is absolutely essential that this Bill be acted upon before June 1st, we beg you to give its merits your most earnest consideration. The Federal Govcmmcnt has, since 1925, 

been trying to bring these lands into public ownership and this appears to be the last and 

best chance as the clear-cutting will begin in June, if the deadline is not met 

These lands have been described by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition as the "biologic 

heart" of the S393 Wilderness Study Arca established in Southwest Montana, 16 years ago. It is part of the fragile Yellowstone Eco-System which offers wonderful fishing, hunting, 

all sorts of other outdoor recreations while providing habitat critical to moose, elk, grizzly 

bear, sheep and native cutthroat trout which have already disappeared in many areas. The 

70,000 acres, which would be acquired, is largely intermingled with National Forest lands 

and would help preserve the very best of what is left If we don't acquire these lands now 

we will have missed our last chance. 

Should the Gallatin Face not be brought into public ownership, the entrance to the canyon would be <O defaced by clcar-cnts it would be •l=st impossihlr. to have Highway #191 

through the Canyon designated as a Scenic By-Way. If you have seen it you know it is a most worthy candidate. The pristine Gallatin River and its tributaries would also be at risk. Please remember, the lands concerned will be NATIONAL lands and that your constituents 

will have an interest in them fully equal to those who happen to live here. 

When you think on what this plan will do, we believe you will agree that the future of this 

magnificent area does not lie with more aggressively developing extractive industries, but in preserving the integrity of it's eco-systems and the whole community of life they 

support. 

Respectfu~ ~urs, 

/flc/u~#fL4- ;:;J7 '7n -zL~ _ ~ Robert James . . _ -- c:z;.,,-/, ✓,, . __ ~ --~ . --z:;..,,.:Lf __./2e7,_,,,<__,{_, c,,,// /y ~ ( .. P«,,n-1..<-?<.-e..-<..-

~ ~ ~pyn,U..T;;_., ~?~ ...eWz;;,, c-T 

u ,c~ -?Af_ ..Av'='-PL--,J_ 
22 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for his work. I thought that 

probably I had-I remember when I first jurisdiction we went to 

this area and looked at it, and the Forest Service had been working 

on a negotiated-type of consolidation and it had been going, and 

has been going at, apparently, a deliberate speed but there is some 

need for legislation to facilitate it. So I commend the gentleman for 

the agreement. Hopefully, as we look at it more closely in detail 

today we will act positively on it, as we did. 

I think this was really something that came from both of the 

Representatives from Montana in the last session, not just one. So, 

in that sense it was bipartisan and it remains a bipartisan proposal, apparently, put together by the gentleman from Montana, 

Mr. Williams. 

Let me turn to the witness liRt. We are pleased to welcome the 

representative from the BLM, Mr. Kemp Conn, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Interior, BLM. 

Without objection, your testimony, Mr. Conn, has been made part 

of the record, and feel free to proceed in summarizing or reading 

the relevant portions thereof, or all of it if it is brief. Please proceed, Mr. Conn. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF KEMP CONN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR; AND MARK REIMERS, DEPUTY ClllEF, 

FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY BOB DENNEE, LANDS PROGRAM MANAGER, 

GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST 

STATEMENT OF KEMP CONN 

Mr. CONN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to H.R. 873, 

when given the necessary information to issue a patent, as the Bureau of Land Management's only role in this issue, we will be more 

than willing to do so. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Conn follows:] 

STATEMENT OF KEMP CONN, DEPUTY AsSISTANT DIRECTOR, LAND AND RENEWABLE 

RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 

873, THE "GALLATIN RANGE CONSOLIDATION AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1993." 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 873, a bill which would provide 

for the exchan.ie of certain National Forest System lands in Montana for certain private lands to be added to the National Forest System. Among other/rovisions, the 

bill would also provide that the Secretary of Agriculture recommen that the Secretary of the Interior convey certain National Forest System lands by patent to com- plete the exchange transactions. The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) only involvement in the land transactions proposed by this legislation would be to iHue the land patent or patents for 

the referenced 12,414.06 acres of National Forest System lands. 

By law the boundary of public lands to be patented must be surveyed by standards a_p_proved by the BLM. The only description pro~sed in H.R. 873 for the lands 

the BLM would patent is a reference to a map entitled "Plum Creek Timber and 

Forest Service Proposed Gallatin Land Exchange", dated May 20, 1988. At this time, we have not seen the referenced map and do not have sufficient information to determine whether the lands are properly described for conveyance or whether existing surveys of the lands in question conform to the official rectangular survey system. 
23 

If we are provided legally sufficient descriptions of the lands to be conveyed, the 

BLM would have no objection to the bill and could issue the patent or patents promptly. 

If new surveys are required before a patent can be issued, arrangements should 

be made to ensure that there is sufficient funding to cover the survey costs and the 

surveys would have to be approved by the BLM. The bill should provide for that 

contingency. 

Although they do not affect the BLM, I would also like to note that there are sev- eral technical corrections which should be made to H.R. 873. These technical correc- tions are addressed in the Forest Service statement. 

This completes my statement. I would be pleased to answer your questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for your testimony, and the full statement 

will be in the record. 

Mr. Reimers. 

STATEMENT OF MARK REIMERS 

Mr. REIMERS. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I 

think we all hope that the BLM can carry out their role as soon 

as possible and issue these patents. That is the objective that we 

are headed towards. I share with you and the other members a 

long history and love this particular area of Montana. 

Since both you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Williams have highlighted the history and the background, with your permission I will 

just highlight my testimony and submit it for the record. I have 

with me also today Bob Dennee, the Lands Program Manager, from 

the Gallatin National Forest, so if we get into some detailed ques- tions about particular tracts he is available both now and later to 

your committee staff to help answer those. 

The Department of Agriculture supports enactment of H.R. 873, 

the Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act. We do suggest some amendments which we have provided to the committee. 

The legislation involves the Big Sky Lumber Company inholdin~s 

in four locations within the Gallatin and Madison Mountam 

Ranges, and we have a display map. You are pretty familiar with 

these, but as you look at them, the background is the Gallatin National Forest. The Plum Creek Exchange is shown in the bright 

pink. The Porcupine area is shown in orange. The Taylor Fork area 

is shown in the bold yellow. The land consolidation, Gallatin area, 

is shown in dark blue near the top. 

Most of these lands are within the Gallatin Range Wilderness 

Study Area that extends from Yellowstone Park to the north. The 

other colors in the background, the light yellow is BLM, the light blue is State, and then there are other ownerships. 

As was already mentioned by Mr. Williams, these lands contain 

critical wildlife habitat and outstanding recreation opportunities. 

There is broad support for the action that is proposed in this legislation. We understand that Big Sky Lumber is receptive to these 

proposals. As was mentioned, there is a time frame and they are 

seeking to have legislation enacted by June of this year. 

The overall proposal involves checkerboard lands with a long and 

complex history. A key to the current proposal has been the involvement of interested parties such as The Nature Conservancy 

and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The bill recognizes this 

involvement and employs three distinct methods to accomplish the 

overall purposes. I will briefly highlight the sections of the bill. 
24 

Section 3 would direct the Forest Service to complete the Plum 

Creek Exchange. Thie 2-party exchange was first proposed in 1987, 

as was mentioned. It involves 37,000 acres of Big Sky Lumber 

lands and 12,000 acres of National Forest System lands in exchange with a $3.4 million equalization payment. In the present 

proposal, completing the Plum Creek Exchange is contingent upon 

related acquisition of the Big Sky Lumber lands in Porcupine and 

Taylor Fork. 

Section 4 deals with the Porcupine area. A key to this part of the 

bill is the involvement of The Nature Conservancy as a third party. The Nature Conservancy holds an option to acquire these lands 

within 2 years. 

Section 4 authorizes the Forest Service to acquire approximately 11,000 acres of Big Sky Lumber lands in the Taylor Fork area of 

the Gallatin by purchase or exchange, and authorizes Land and 

Water Conservation funding. The Nature Conservancy again is involved in this transaction as previously noted. 

The fourth area additionally authorizes and directs the Forest 

Service to pursue acquisition of other Big Sky Lumber lands in the 

Gallatin area and authorizes Land and Water Conservation funding. The Forest Service would report to Congress regarding this acquisition effort. These are the remaining 24,000 acres of intermingled Big Sky Lumber lands in the northern Gallatin Range. 

About half, or 40,000 acres, of these inholdings are located within 

the Gallatin Range Wilderness Study Area. The Porcupine, Taylor Fork, and southern Gallatin Range are within the Greater Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The acquisition, as was mentioned, would consolidate public ownership in the upper Gallatin, 

Porcupine, Taylor Fork as it relates to elk winter range. If the proposed acquisitions are not consummated, as Mr. Williams pointed out, there is the concern and likelihood that the Big 

Sky Lumber owners will develop their lands to serve their own corporate purposes. These are private lands. The land adjustment allows for the consolidation of National Forest System lands and also 

the consolidation of lands owned by Big Sky Lumber. 

There are some tradeoffs with regard to the exchanges. There are 

some National Forest System lands near the boundary and in 

checkerboard areas that would be transferred to private ownership. 

One question I would like to address is the question of minerals. 

Although the Forest Service would acquire all the mineral rights 

under the lands in the Plum Creek land exchange portion of this 

bill, the mineral estate is owned separately in the case of the Porcupine and Taylor Fork areas. We believe it is important that we 

acquire both the surf ace and subsurface ownership to satisfy the 

purposes of the acquisition. We understand the owners of the subsurface rights are willing to convey the locatable minerals and 

agree to no surface occupancy with regard to the leasable minerals 

and the geothermal energy. These conditions are the minimum we 

feel would be acceptable to support the overall purposes of the exchange. 

Our supplemental statement does have some additional sugges- tions. There is one major suggestion. In the addition, we recommend a provision for exchange of mineral rights in several other 

areas. This provision was in previous versions of the bill that the 
25 

committee considered. This exchange would involve mineral rights underlying National Forest System lands on the Gallatin and Lolo 

National Forests that are held by Burlington Northern, and acquir- ing these subsurface rights would enhance management opportunities for the Federal Government. 

We believe the proposed exchange and acquisition would be in 

the public interest. We are hopeful that the committee will be able 

to move ahead. 

This completes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to 

answer your questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Reimers. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reimers follows:] 
26 

Statement of Mark Reimers, Deputy Chief 

Forest Service 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Pub lic Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Concerning H. R. 8 73 

March 23, 1993 

Mr . Chainnan and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with 

our views on H.R. 873 . 

The Departme n t o f Agriculture supports enactment of H.R. 873, 

the "Gallatin Ra nge Consolidation and Protection Act , " with 

amendments ae we recommend. This legislation would enable 

pub l i c a cquisition o f critical inholdings within the Gallatin 

National For est in southwest Montana . 

This legislation involves acquisition of Big Sky Lumber Company 

i nholdings in four locations within the Gallatin and Madison 

Mountain Ranges, as shown on the display map . These same land 

acquisitions were included in the Montana Wilderness bill 

considered by the 102nd Congress . 

These lands contain important wildlife habitats and outstanding 

recreation opportunities. A broad spectrum of national and 

local conservation and recreation organizations, Federal land 
management, and State fish and wildlife agencies agree that 

these lands should be acquired. We understand that Big Sky 

Lumber is receptive to these proposals, provided authorizing 

legislation can be enacted by June 1993 . 

2 

These lands are part of a complex ownership pattern resulting 

from an earlier Federal land policy that granted lands to the 

railroads for opening up the West. The practice of granting 

lands in a "checkerboard" fashion has created some of the land 

management problems we are dealing with today. The difficulties 

are particularly acute when management objectives of the owners 

are different. 

Efforts to resolve this issue began in earnest in the 1980's, 

with then-owner Plum Creek Timber Company. As circumstances and 

owners have changed over time, an exchange with several 

components has evolved. A key has been the involvement of 

interested parties such as The Nature Conservancy and Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation. The bill recognizes this involvement 

and employs three distinct methods to accomplish its broader 

purposes. 

First, there is a land exchange involving the Forest Service and 

Big Sky Lumber. Second, there is a transaction involving The 

Nature Conservancy, whereby it could acquire Big Sky Lumber 

lands in two other areas and hold them for future acquisition by 

the Forest Service. Third, there is an additional area of 

intermingled Big Sky Lumber and National Forest System lands 
28 

3 

which will be examined for possi ble future acquisition. I wi l l 

describe each of these components in more detail. 

Section 3 of H.R. 873 would direct the Forest Service to 

complete the Plum Creek Land Exchange (Gallatin Area). This 

two-party exchange was first proposed in 1987, and has been 

included in most of the Montana wi lderness b i lls conside red 

s i nce that time . A total of 37,752 acres of Big Sky Lumber 

lands would be a cquired in exchange for 12,414 acres of National 

Forest System lands and a $3.4 million equalization payment 

through Land and Water Conservation funding. In the present 

proposal, completing the Plum Creek Exchange is contingent upon 

related acquisition of Big Sky Lumber lands in the Porcupi ne and 

Tayl or For k areas. 

Section 4 of H.R. 873 specifically authorizes the Forest Service 

to acquire 8,050 acres of Big Sky Lumber lands in the Porcupine 

Area of the Gallatin Forest by purchase or exchange , and 

authorizes Land and Water Conservation funding. A key to this 

part of the bill is the involvement of The Nature Conservancy as 

a third party . The Nature Conservancy holds an option agreement 

to acquire these lands wi thin 2 years . 

These lands are located in the upper GallQtin Canyon, just north 

of Yellowstone National Park. They are the same lands included 

i n a previously-proposed Porcupine Land Exchange between the 

Forest Service and the previous owners of the lands. 
4 

Section 5 of H,R, 873 authorizes the Forest Service to acquire 

approximately 11,200 acres of Big Sky Lumber lands in the Taylor 

Fork Area of the Gallatin Forest by purchase or exchange, and 

authorizes Land and Water Conservation funding . The Nature 

Conservancy also is involved in this transaction as previously 

noted. 

The lands are located in the Taylor Fork and Buck Creek 

drainages in the upper Gallatin Canyon, between Yellowstone 

National Park and the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. These same lands 

are currently proposed by the Forest Service and conservation 

organizations for Land and Water Conservation purchase in 1994. 

Section 6 of H,R, 873 additionally authorizes and directs the 

Forest Service to pursue acquisition of other Big Sky Lumber 

lands in the Gallatin Area, and authorizes Land and Water 

Conservation funding. The Forest Service would report to 

Congress regarding this acquisition effort. These are the 

remaining 24,000 acres of intenningled .Big Sky Lumber lands in 

the northern Gallatin Range. 

I will briefly highlight the key values on the lands which would 

be acquired and protected through this legislation, and the 

likely consequences if the public is unable to acquire these 

inholdings. 

67-642 0 - 93 - 3 
30 

5 

About half, or 40,000 acres, of these inholdings are l ocated 

within the Gallatin Range Wilderness Study Area. Acquisition 

would consolidate public ownership in the Congressionallydesignated wilderness study area and continue to main~ain the 

wilderness character of the Gallatin Range until Congress can 

address the wilderness question. These lands contain 

outstanding wildlife , scenic, wilderness and recreation values. 

The Porcupine, Taylor Fork, and southern Gallatin Range are all 

within the Greater Y.ellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery zone . 

These private inholdings contain resident grizzly bear 

populations and habitat components necessary for the recovery of 

this threatened species. In total, nearly 25,000 acres of the 

lands to be acquired on the Gallatin Forest are considered 

essential for recovery of the grizzly bear. 

The acquisitions would consolidate public ownership in the upper 

Gallatin, Porcupine and Taylor Fork elk winter range, which is 

important habitat for over 3,000 elk which migrate from 

Yellowstone National Park. 

The lands to be acquired in the upper Gallatin and Madison Range 

are the headwaters of the Gallatin and Yellowstone Rivers, two 

nationally-known wild trout streams. These headwater areas also 

contain sensitive riparian areas and valuable watersheds . 

If the proposed acquisitions are not consummated, Big Sky Lumber 

owners will likely develop their lands to serve a variety of 

corporate purposes. 
31 

6 

The land adjustments allow for consolidation of National Forest 

t 

System lands and also consolidation of lands owned by Big Sky 

Lumber. In total, the National Forest boundaries would be 

reduced by about 540 miles, at an estimated total cost savings 

of $2.5 million (present value) in corner and property boundary 

maintenance. 

There are also some tradeoffs if these transactions occur. The 

lands that would be exchanged also have resource values such as 

productive timber lands with significant volumes . Since the 

lands to be acquired are largely within a wilderness study area, 

they would not be available for timber management . Overall, 

this would slightly reduce the available timber harvest from the 

National Forests. 

Valuable wildlife habitat exists on the Federal lands which 

would be exchanged , such as quality mule deer summer range and 

habitat for elk, black bear, and moose. The northern slopes of 

the Bridger Range, including some of the exchange lands, have 

outstanding scenic qualities. 

Nearly half of the Gallatin National Forest lands to be 

exchanged are within the Bridger Mountain Roadless Area. 

However, this roadless area is recommended for non-wilderness 

purposes in the Gallatin Forest Plan. Forest Plan direction for 

these lands emphasizes timber management, livestock grazing, and 

other objectives that are more compatible with Big Sky Lumber's 

ownership objectives. 
32 

7 

Over the long term, the lands which would be acquired by Big Sky 

Lumber may be subject to residential development , particularly 

in the Bridger Mountains . 

Although the Forest Service would acquire all mineral rights 

under lands in the Plum Creek Land Exchange portion of this 

bill, the mineral estate is owned separately in the case of the 

Porcupine and Taylor Fork areas. We believe it is critical that 

we acquire surface and subsurface ownership rights that would 

satisfy the purposes of this acquisition. We understand the 

owners of the subsurface rights are willing to convey the 

locatable mineral rights and to agree that no surface occupancy 

would occur for any leasable mineral or geothermal energy 

development. These conditions are the minimum we believe to be 

acceptable to support the overall purposes of the exchange. 

The attached Supplemental Statement provides our suggested 

amendments to the bill. Briefly summarized, we recommend adding 

a provision for an exchange of mineral rights, as considered in 

previous versions of this legislation before the 102nd 

Congress. This exchange involves mineral rights underlying 

National Forest System lands on the Gallatin and Lolo National 

Forests that are held by Burlington Northern. Acquiring these 

subsurface rights would enhance management options for the 

Federal Government. We also recommend several minor technical 

corrections. 
33 

8 

In the balance, we believe the proposed exchange and acquisition 

to be in the public interest. The Forest Service would acquire 

many more acres than would be exchanged out of public ownership 

and the lands to be acquired have outstanding public values. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement and I would 

be pleased to answer the Subcommittee's questions on the bill. 
34 

USDA Forest Service 

Supplemental Statement 

concerning 

H. R. 873 - Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 1993 

The copy of H.R. 873 shows reconunended changes. Recommended additions are 

underlined, deletions are [evers~nsek] . Most changes are obvious, such as 

changing conunittee name references . The substantive changes are discussed 

below . 

Sec . 4(f) : Recommend deleting this section . The lands identified in 4(f) were 

originally part of the proposed 1983 Porcupine Land Exchange . The reason 4(f) 

was included in 1992 was to help facilitate a possible exchange for Porcupine. 

At this point, we see little benefit in having this section because the 

preference is to acquire Porcupine Area by purchase . 

Sec . 4(g), S(g), 6(f): Recommend deleting, as this prov ision could be 

construed to be more restrictive than existing authorities for exchange , which 

provide for 25 percent cash equalization . 

Added Sec. 7 : This section would add a severed minerals exchange which has 

been considered in previous versions of this legislation in the 102nd 

Congress. This section is a part of the Senate version of this bill. To 

clarify, this exchange is not directly associated with the lands to be acquired 

set forth in previous sections. 

Added Sec . 8 : This section would provide language concerning maps in one place 

rather than reiterating in each of Sections 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6. Also clarifies 

intent that no surface occupancy or access to subsurface rights not conveyed to 

the United States is provided for under the bill . 
103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

35 

H. R. 873 

Entitled the "Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 

1993 11 • 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

February 4, 1993 

Mr. WILLIAMS introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Conunittee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

Entitled the "Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 

1993". 

//Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 

States of America in Congress assembled,\\ 

! !SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.!! 

This Act may be referred to as the 11 Gallatin Range Consolidation and 

Protection Act of 1993" . 

!! SEC . 2 . FINDINGS.!! 

The Congress finds that: 

{l) It has been the clear policy of the Federal Government since 1925 to 

consolidate the checkerboard lands along the Gallatin Range north of 

Yellowstone National Park . 

(2) These lands north of Yellowstoμe possess outstanding natural 

characteristics and wildlife habitat which give them high value as 

lands added to the National Forest System. 

(3) Although these lands have remained pristine up till now failure to 

consolidate at this time will in the near .future lead to fragmentation 

and development. 

(4) The Federal Government has already invested a great deal in keeping 

the lands along the Gallatin Range protected from excess development . 
36 

!!SEC . 3. PLUM CREEK LAND EXCHANGE--GALLATIN AREA.!! 

(a} IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Agriculture, hereinafter the 11 Secretary 11 

shall, subject to the provisions of section 4(b) and section 5(b) and , 

notwithstanding any other law , acquire by exchange and cash equalization in the 

amount of $3 , 400,000, certain lands and interests in land of the Plum Creek 

Timber, L. P. (referred to in this section as the 11 company 11 ) in and adjacent to 

the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area, the Scapegoat 

Wilderness Area, and other land in the Gallatin National Forest in accordance 

with this section. 

(b) (l) DESCRIPTION OF LANDS . --If the company offers to the United States 

the fee title , including mineral interests, to approximately 37,752 and 15 / 100 

acres of land owned by the company which is available for exchange to the 

United States as depicted on a map entitled "Plurri Creek Timber and Forest 

Service Proposed Gallatin Land Exchange", dated May 20 , 1988 , the Secretary 

shall accept a warranty deed to such land and, in exchange therefor , and 

subject to valid existing rights, upon such acceptance [reeeffllfteRd- ~Ra~] the 

Secretary of the Interior fillAll convey , subject to valid existing rights, by 

patent the fee title to approximately 12,414 and 6/ 100 acres of National Forest 

System lands available for exchange to the company as depicted on such map , 

subject to--

(A) the reservation of ditches and canals required by the 

Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for sundry civ il expenses of the 

Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and 

ninety-one, and for other purposes " , approved August 30 , 1890 (2 6 Stat . 

391 ; 43 u.s.c . 945); 

(B) the reservation of rights under Federal Oil and Gas Lease numbers 

49739 , 55610, 40389 , 53670 , 40215 , 33385, 53736, and 38684; and 

(C) such other terms, conditions, reservations and exceptions as may be 

agreed upon by the Secretary [ef-Agriettltttre] and the company . 

(2) On termination or relinquishment of the leases referred t o 

in paragraph (l), all the rights and interests in land granted therein shall 

immediately vest in the company , its successors and assigns, and the Secretary 

shall give notice of that event by a document suitable for recording in the 

county wherein the leased lands are situated . 

(c) EASEMBNTS.··Reciprocal easements shall be exchanged at closing on the 

conveyances authorized by this section• • 

(l) in consideration of the easements conveyed by the 

company as provided in paragraph 2 of this subsection, the Secretary of 

Agriculture shall , under authority of the National Forest Roads and Trails 

Act of October 13, 1964 , or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 , execute and deliver to the company such easements or other rights of 

.!fi!Y [alld] authorizations over federally owned lands included in this 

exchange as may be agreed to by the Secretary and the company in [tHe] 

ifil exchange agreement . 

(2) In consideration of the easements conveyed by the United States as 

provided in paragraph (l), the ccxnpany shall execute and deliver to the 

United States such easements or other rights of way [a.BB] authorizations 

across ccxnpany-owned lands included in this exchange as may be agreed to by 

the Secretary and the company in [tHe] l!ll exchange agreement. 
37 

4 

[·~d•·MAPS,··Tl\e·fflaps·referred·te·iR·S>il!JseetieR·~e•·are·slil>jeet· 

Ee-stteh-ffliser-eerreetiess-as-may-be-agreed-ttpen-by-tfte-Seeretary-and-Efte 

eempan.y~-Tfte-Seeretary-shall-setify-tfte-€el'ftfflittee-en-Eser!fl'•aBd-Natttral 

Resettrees- ef-the-Ysited-States-Sesate-aB8-tfte-€el'ftfflittee-ea-Isterier-a.Rd-Iasttlar 

Affairs-te-tke-Haited-States-Hettse-ef-Represestatives-ef-aay-eerreetiess-made 

pttrsttant-te-the-s'd.Eseetien~] 

(e) TIMING OF TRANSACTION . · · It is the intent of Congress that the 

conveyances authorized by this section be completed within ninety days after 

the date of enactment of an Act making the appropriation authorized by 

subsection (g). 

(f) FOREST LANDS.··All lands conveyed to the United States pursuant to this 

section and in sections 4, 5 1 and 6 shall become national forest system lands 

to be ·administered by the Secretary in accordance with applicable law . 

(g) AlITHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.··There is authorized to be 

appropriated to carry out this section the sum $3,400,000, which amount the 

Secretary shall, when appropriated, pay to the company to equalize the value of 

the exchange of land authorized by this section . 

(h) QUALITY OF TITLE .· ·Title to the properties referenced in this section 

to be offered to the United States by Big Sky Lumber Company, its assignees or 

successors in interest, shall include both [be-inelttsive-ef] the entire 

surface and subsurface estates without reservation or exception . The owner 

shall be required to [relacquire any outstanding interest in mineral or 

mineral rights, timber or timber rights, water or water rights, or any other 

outstanding interest in the property, except reservations by the United States 

or the State of Montana by patent, in order to assure that title to the 

property is transferred as described in this section and sections 4, 5, and 6. 

[Tke·agreeffleRt·skall · elearly· evideaee·tkat-tke-eWRers·kave·tke·legal·eapaeity 

~e - aeeeMplisft-the-feregeing-reEJt1,irements ~-Title-stanl!iarBs-fer-aeCfl:lisities-sftall 

etfterwise-be-in-eempliaBee-witft-Ferest-Serviee-~elieies- aBS-~reeedttres . ] 

Title to land to be conveyed to the United states shall be acceptable to the 

secretary and shall otherwise be in conforinity with title standards for federal 

land acquisitions . 

(i) REFERENCES .- -The reference and authorities of this section r e ferring to 

Plum Creek Timber Company, L. P., shall also refer to its successors and 

~ -

!!SEC . 4 . LAND CONSOLIDATION; PORCUPINE AREA.!! 

(a) IN GENERAL . ··The exchange described in section 1 [14] of this Act 

shall not be consummated by the Secretary until the acquisition authorized by 

this section is completed [eenBitiens-ef-tftis-seetien-are-met] . 

(b) CONDITIONS . ··The secretary or a not for profit corporation (hereinafter 

"conservation entity"} exemot from federal taxation under section so1(c) (3} of 

the Internal Revenue Code [EJt1alifieS-seetien-591~e• ~3 • --eenservatien 

eatity;] acting [eft•its·eekalf] for later disposition to the United States, 

shall have acquired, by purchase or option to acquire, or exchange, all of the 

Porcupine property for its fair market value, determined at the time of 
38 

5 

acquisition in accordance with appraisal standards acceptable to the Secretary 

by an appraiser acceptable to the Secretary and the owner . [AHy-appraisal 

fer--exehange-pttrpeses-shall-ee - eeadtteted-ay-the-sall\e-parties;·tttiliziag-the 

sa.me-stan6ar8s-sete8-8.eever] And further that, if said acquisition or option 

to acquire has been consummated by a ['1"-alified-seetiea-se1,e• ,3 •] 

conservation entity, said entity shall have notified the Secretary that the 

quality of title in fact secured meets applicable Forest Service standards with 

respect to surface and subsurface estates or is otherwise acceptable to the 

Forest Service . 

(c) AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISITION [BBS€RIPTI9N-9F-LANIJS] .--The Secretary 

is authorized and directed to acquire by purchase or exchange the lands and 

interests therein as depicted on a map entitled "Porcupine Area", dated 

September, 1992. 

(d) LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES . --Acquisitions pursuant to this section 

shall be under existing authorities available to the Secretary. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be 

appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this 

section. Funds necessary for land acquisition are authorized to be appropriated 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund . Expenditures authorized from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund may be made without regard to restrictions or 

limitations contained in section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

of 1965 116 us c 4601-9! 

[-,f••AYTH9RIZATI9N-9F-BX€HANGB,--The-Seeretary-is-atttherizea-~e-effer-~he 

lands-and-interests-deseri5ed-en-a-rnap-entitled-uPerett.pine-Exeftange-bandsu; 

da.ted-Septel'ft8er;-1992;-te-Big-Sky-b'd!ll8er-€eaq,any;-its-assi!Bee-er-s~eeessers-is 

iaterest-te-fttlfill·the-pttrpeses-ef-this-seetiea,-//Previdee,-\\-That-the-laads 

sftall -Ret-transfer-te-tfte - eempany-l:lRtil-tfte-previsiens-ef-tkis-seetien-and 

seetien-16-are-met~] 

C,g• -EeBA1,-VJU.HE,--ABy-exeaange-ef-lands-between-Big-Sky·bW11eer-€effl!'aRY 

aaa-the-Ynited-States-shall-ee-fer·e'l"-al-valtte,J 

(h) REFBRENCES . --The reference and authorities of this section referring to 

the Big Sky Lumber Company, shall also refer to its successors and assigns . 

!!SEC. 5 . LAND CONSOLIDATION--TAYLOR FORK AREA. !! 

(a) IN GBNERAL.--The exchange described in section l [14] of this Act 

shall not be consummated by the Secretary until the [eeRditiens-ef-this 

seeties-are-met] acquisition authorized by this section is completed 

(b) CONDITIONS.--The Secretary or a not for profit corporation (hereinafter 

"qualified conservation entity") exempt fran federal taxation under section 

so11cl 13) of the Internal Revenue code [Ej>lalifiee-seetiea-sei,e•,3 • 

eeaservatiea-eatity,J acting [ea-its-eenalf] for later disposition to the 

United States, shall have acquired, by purchase or option to acquire, or 

exchange, all of the Taylor Fork property for its fair market value, dete:anined 

at the time of acquisition in accordance with appraisal standards acceptable to 

the Secretary by an appraiser acceptable to the Secretary and the owner. [AHy 

appraisal-fer-exehaage-pttrpeses-shall -ee-eeadtteted-loy-the-same-parties, 
39 

tttilizieg-tfte-saffle - standards- Reted-al:leve:] And further that , if said 

acquisition or option to acquire has been consummated by a qualified 

c onservation entity, said entity shall have notified the Secretary that the 

quality of title in fact secured meets applicable Forest Service standards with 

respect to surface and subsurface estates or is otherwise ac_ceptable to the 

Forest Service. 

[Jef-BIRECTI0N,--Tl\e-Seeretary-is-direeted-te-previde-€eH~ress;-witkiH-twe 

years; -reeeffllftendatiens-6esi~e6-te -aeq1:1ire-By-~ttreRase-er-exeha.age-Tayler-Ferk 

Area-laRds-eWHed-by-Big-Sky-Timber-€e"'!>aRY•-//Previded;\\--Tkat-sttek 

reeemmeHdatieHs-are-agreed-te-ey-Big-Sky-~ttmber-€e"'!>aRY•-// Previded-fttrtker;\\ 

That - eeERisg-in-this-seetieH- limiEs-Ehe-SeereEa:ry's- attERerity-Ee-aeE!l::J,ire-er 

pttrekase-said-laRds, J 

(d) AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISITION [BBS€RIPTI0N-0F-l.ANBS] . --The Secretary 

is authorized and directed to acquire by purchase or exchange the lands and 

interests therein as depicted on a map entitled "Taylor Fork Area 11 , dated 

September, 1992 . 

(e) LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES.--Acquisition pursuant to this section 

shall be under existing authorities available to the Secretary : //Provided, \\ 

That notwithstanding any other provision of law, exchanges authorized in this 

section shall not be restricted within the same State . 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be 

appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this 

section. Funds necessary for land acquisition are authorized to be appropriated 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund . Expenditures authorized from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund may be made without regard to restrictions or 

limitations contained in section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

of 1965 (16 u.s C. 4601-9) 

(jgf-BeEAL-VALYE,--ABy-exekaRge-ef-laRds-ee~weeH-Big-Sky-~ttmber-€empaRy 

aRd-tke-Eaitea-States-skall-ee-fer-eq>ial-valtte] . 

(i [kl) REFBRENCES . --The reference and authorities of this section 

referring to the Big Sky Lumber Company, shall also refer to its successors and 

illlil!l§ • 

(h [i]) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.--For a period of two years from the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report annually .to the Committee on 

Natural Resources [Iaterier-aRd-IRsttlar-Affairs] of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

Senate, on the status of the negotiations with the company or its successors in 

interest to effect the land consolidation authorized by this section. 

!!SBC . 6 . LAND CONSOLIDATION--GALLATIN AREA .! ! 

(a) IN GBNBRAL . --It is the policy of the congress that the Secretary shall 

attempt to acquire by pμrchase or exchange [werk-diligen~ly-~e-ass~re] all 

lands within what is generally known as the Gallatin Range owned by Big Sky 

Lumber Company, its assignee~ or successors in interest, not otherwise 

acquired, purchased or exchanged pursuant to sections .L..a!!lLi (14-aRd-15] of 

this Act [are-aeq>iired-ey-tke-Eaited-States-tkrettgk-exekaRge-er-pttrekase] . 
40 

(Jef-BIR!!€TI9N,--Ti'le-seereta:ry-is-aireetea-te-previae-€engress,-within 

tftree-years;-reeefflfflendatiens-designed-te-aegt1.ire-)9y-pHrehase-er-exeftaft~e 

Sallatin-Area-lanas-eWftea-ey-Big-Sky-Tilllloer-€e111pany,-//Previaes,\\--That-stteh 

reee111111enaatiens-are-agreea-te-ey-Big-Sky-Lttlllloer-€e111pany,-//Previaea-fttrther,\\ 

Tftat-netftiB!·in-tftis-seetien-limite-tfte-Seeretary's-aHtherity-te-aeEJttire-er 

pttrehase-saia-lanas,J 

(c) AQTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISITION (BBS€RIPTI9N-9F-LANBS] .- -The Secretary 

is authorized and directed to acquire by purchase or exchange the lands and 

interests therein as depicted on a map entitled "Gallatin Area", dated 

September, 1992. 

(d) LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITIES.--Acquisitions pursuant to this section 

shall be under existing authorities available to the Secretary : //Provided, \\ 

That notwithstanding any other law, exchanges authorized in this section shall 

not be restricted within the same State . 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS . --There are authorized to be 

appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this 

section. Funds necessary for land acquisition are authorized to be appropriated 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Expenditures authorized from the 

Land and water Conservation Fund may be made without regard to restrictions or 

limitations contained in section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

of 1965 <16 u s.c. 4601 -9! 

(jff·BeYAL-VALllli,--Afty-exehange-ef-lanas-ee~weeH-Big- Sky-Lttlllloer-€empany 

ana-the-9nitea-States-shall-ee-fer·e'lttal-valtte,J 

(1 (g]) QUALITY OF TITLB . --The quality of title to the properties 

referenced in this section in fact secured shall meet applicable Forest Service 

standards with respect to surface and subsurface estates or shall otherwise be 

acceptable to the Forest Service . 

(g (hl) Rl!FERBNCES . --The reference and authorities of this section 

referring to the Big Sky Lwnber Company, shall also refer to its successors and 

il.ii9!l§. . \ 

(h (i]) REPORTS TO CONGR!!SS . --For a period of three years from the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report annually to the Committee 

on Natural Resources [Ift~erier-and-Ina~lar-Affairs] of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

Senate , on the status of the negotiations with the company or its successors in 

interest to effect the land consolidation authorized by this section . 

I ! SBC. 7 SBVl!RBD MINERALS BXCHANGB . ! ! 

!al FINDINGS --The congress finds that'-

{ll underlying certain areas in Montana described in 

subsection {bl are mineral riahts owned bv subsidiaries of Burlington 

Resources, Incomorated its successors and assigns (referred to in this 

section as the "company"); 

(21 there are federallv owned minerals underlying lands of the comoanv 

lying outside those areas; 
41 

(3) the company has agreed in principle with the Department of 

Agriculture to an exchange of mineral rights to consolidate surface and 

Subsurface ownerships and to avoid potential conflicts with the surface 

management of such areas· and 

(4} it is desirable that an exchange be completed within two years 

after the date of enactment of this Act . 

(bl DESCRIPTION OF MINERAL INTERESTS.- - (ll Pursuant to an 

exchange aareement between the Secretary and the company the Secretary may 

acquire mineral interests owned by the company or an affiliate of the company 

thereof underlying surface lands owned by the United States located in the 

areas depicted on the maps entitled "Severed Minerals Exchange, 

Clearwater-Monture Area", dated September 1988 and "Severed Minerals Exchanges 

Gallatin Area", dated September 1988, or in fractional sections adjacent to 

those areas -

(2) In exchange fqr the mineral interests conveyed to the Secretary 

pμrsμant to paragraph (1) 1 the secretary of the Interior shall convey subiect 

to valid existing rights such federally owned mineral interests as the 

secretary and the company may agree upon 

(cl EQUAL VALUE --(1) The value of mineral interests exchanged pursuant to 

this section shall be approximately equal based on available infonnatiqn 

(2) To ensure that the wilderness or other natural values of the areas are 

not affected, a formal appraisal based upon drilling or other surface 

disturbing activities shall not be required fqr any mineral interest proposed 

for exchange. but the Secretary and the company shall fully share all available 

information on the quality and quantity of mineral interests proposed for 

exchange 

(3) In the absence qf adequate infonnatign regarding values of minerals 

proposed for exchange, the Secretary and the company may agree to an exchange 

on the basis gf mineral interests qf similar development potential, geologic 

character, and similar factors 

(d) IDENTIFICATION OF FEDERALLY OWNED MINERAL INTERESTS.--(1) Subject to 

paragraph (2), mineral interests conveyed by the united States pursuant to this 

section shall underlie lands the surface gf which are owned by the company 

(2) If there are not sufficient federally owned mineral interests of 

approximately equal value underlying company lands. the Secretary and the 

secretary of the Interior may identify for exchange any other federally owned 

mineral interest in land in the State of Montana of which the surface estate is 

in private ownership 

(el CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR . --(ll The Secretary 

shall consult with the Secretary pf the Interior in the negotiation of the 

exchange agreement authorized by subsection (bl, particularly with respect to 

the inclusion in SUCh an agreement of a provision calling fgr the exchange of 

federally owned mineral interests lying outside the boundaries of units of the 

National Forest System 

(2) Notwithstanding any other law, the secretary of the Interior shall 
42 

9 

convey the federally owned mineral interests identified in a final exchange 

agreement between the Secretary of Agriculture and the company and its 

affiliates 

{f} DEFINITION --For pμi;poses qf this section, the term "mineral interests" 

includes a11 locatable and leasable minerals, including oi l and gas, geothermal 

resources and all other sμbsurface rights 

(g) ENVIRONMENTAL LAW . --The execution and oerfgrmance of an exchange 

agreement and the taking of other actions pursuant to this section shall not be 

deemed a maier Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

environment within the meaning of section 102 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 u s.c 4332). nor shall they require the preparation of 

an environmental a s sessment μnder this Act . 

! ! SEC 8 MAPS 1 1 

The mapg referred to in sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are subject 

to such minor corrections as may be agreed upon by the Secretarr and the 

company The Secretary shall notify the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources to 

the United States House of Representatives pf any corrections made pursuant to 

the subsection The macs shall be on file and available £or public inspection 

in the office of Chief, Forest service USDA 
43 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Reimers, about the last statement you mentioned that there is a sought legislative direction with regard to the 

purchase of mineral rights underl;ving some national forest lands in 

the same area-or is it outside this area? 

Mr. REIMERS. Well, it is actually outside. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. 

Mr. REIMERS. The section I referred to is a separate area. 

Mr. VENTO. But doesn't the Forest Service have existing authority to purchase that, lacking legislative direction? 

Mr. REIMERS. That is right. It is a complex situation that would 

involve us acquiring subsurface rights and the Federal Government 

giving up subsurface rights under private land somewhere else. 

Mr. VENTO. Under private land that you now own? 

Mr. REIMERS. Yes. The Federal Government holds mineral interests under private lands in a number of places in Montana. 

Mr. VENTO. So, in order to do that you need legislative action or 

authority or not? 

Mr. REIMERS. No, it could be done under existing law. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. 

Mr. REIMERS. This legislation would give impetus to try to complete that. Mr. VENTO. Well, we will take that under consideration. Obviously, that was something that we had had in one of the earlier 

versions, and I will consult with the principals involved. 

There is no time schedule problem there, is there? 

Mr. REIMERS. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. So I think we do have that, and I am sure 

there is a concern on the part of those that had negotiated, especially my colleague, the concerns about not bogging down with 

some of these desirable but nevertheless time-consuming other issues. I don't want to delay that. 

This legislation is needed to block it up. Obviously, you have authority to do some of these activities now, but this again would give 

legislative impetus and it also is necessary, as I understand, in 

order to facilitate. As part of the agreement, have legislation in 

place that would facilitate this. That is my understanding. What type of authority or new authority would be granted in this 

legislation that is different from what the Forest Service would do 

or could do now, Mr. Reimers? 

Mr. REIMERS. Right. Well, under the Plum Creek part of the exchange it authorizes us and directs us to do that, so it actually 

completes the exchange on that portion. We also have a limitation 

on the amount of authority that can be cash equalized, which is 25 

percent, and although this particular exchange only exceeds that 

by a small amount, that would complicate it if we had to do it 

under our existing authority. This legislation directs the exchange 

and makes clear with regard to the Plum Creek aspect both the exchange of lands and the cash equalization. 

Mr. VENTO. We would not be changing-would we be changing 

an_y of the forest boundaries in this proposal? 

Mr. REIMERS. No. This is internal to the national forest. 

Mr. VENTO. So the boundaries already embrace these, basically, inh--.ldings; is that correct? 

M.r. ~ ::.i:MERS. That is correct. 
44 

Mr. VENTO. There are resources, I note, on the lands being given 

up in terms of timber values which would be given up on those 

traded back in since they are in a Wilderness Study Area and probably will be designated as wilderness based on the policy path we 

are pursuing in this area. There is that lack of revenue that would 

occur there; is that correct, Mr. Reimers? 

Mr. REIMERS. Well, that is correct. There are lands-some of the 

lands that we are giving up have timber. On the other hand, the 

whole picture on the Gallatin is complicated by the roadless situation with regard to how much timber we have been able to harvest 

as it relates to the roadless area question, and so ultimately we 

hope for the resolution of not only this exchange but whatever wilderness designations are appropriate to allow us to move ahead 

with the forest plan with regard to an orderly timber harvest program. 

Mr. VENTO. Obviously, as we look at that map and you have 

highlighted some of the checkerboard areas that are subject to this 

bill, we notice some around there that are not the subject of it, you know, to, I guess, the northeast-in the northeast region of these 

forests that obviously don't present the same problem. Can you explain the basis? Are those areas that are not critically important, 

or are those areas that are candidates for exchange? 

Mr. REIMERS. Well, the best comparison really would be that 

when this exchange, this legislation, was completed the lands 

would be essentially blocked up within the Wilderness Study Area. 

A number of the other checkerboard areas are areas that are already developed, and so it is much easier to carry out joint management with private landowners in checkerboard areas if both 

areas are being developed mutually for a number of resources. 

Where you have a checkerboard ownership within an area that is 

anticipated to remain roadless or near roadless it presents prob- lems both for ourselves and the private landowner. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I note that you eliminate 540 miles of boundary problems by virtue of these particular exchanges. The others, 

obviously, would persist and would be logical. Obviously, if we were 

to make further actions, and there are those. I guess Brand S will 

testify that another exchange involving its lands should be added 

to the bill. I don't know if you know what lands, candidate lands 

they are suggestin~ for exchange, Mr. Reimers, or not. Mike Atwood will be testifying that he would like to see consideration given 

to an additional exchange. 

Do you know what lands he is proposing, or speaking to in his 

testimony, Mr. Reimers? 

Mr. REIMERS. I don't have knowledge of all the details. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. Mr. REIMERS. They have talked with our people at the forest 

level. We generally have a number of proposed exchanges between 

ourselves and private landowners in checkerboard areas. The difficult i:>art usually is the determination of the lands that would 

leave Federal ownership. It is fairly easy to get agreement that 

some lands, particularly in a blocked up pattern, should come to 

the Federal Government and the National Forest System, but then 

when you are giving up other lands then other owners, other users 

of those lands quite often raise questions, and so we have to go 
45 

through a fairly lengthy process to find an exchange that we can 

feel is truly in the public interest in order ~ 

Mr. VENTO. You know, it happens when you get a good bill, Pat, 

and it is moving along everybody suggests, as the Forest Service 

here has today, that they would like to add their little changes to 

it with regards to mineral exchanges, and Brand S would like to 

add its little proposal to it. You know, what sometimes can happen 

when you begin to add these is it begins to delay the consideration 

ofit. 

Obviously, if agreement can be achieved and we can do more 

good and it doesn't take away from the basic momentum and agreement in the bill, I will be happy to deliberate with my colleagues 

and others on those matters. We want Pat Williams to do as much 

good as he possibly can with this bill. [Laughter] 

Mr. REIMERS. And we agree and we will go with whatever he 

sees fit here and be supportive of it. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hefley, can we defer to our colleague from Montana for questioning here out of deference to this sponsorship? Mr. 

Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thanks. You have answered a couple of questions 

that I had, Mr. Reimers and Mr. Conn. I appreciate both of you 

being here and your willingness to continue to work with us. I particularly want to thank the Forest Service, and most particularly 

the local people who joined at the table in reaching this agreement, 

which I say has alluded us since 1925. So we are very close now 

and we are hopeful that there are no unnecessary delays, even 

those for good purposes, which might prevent us from our spring 

deadline in finally realizing this goal of a northern area of green 

adjacent to Yellowstone. 

Let me ask one remaining question that I have, Mr. Reimers. 

When the Forest Service considered its support for and involvement in this process, were you required by law or did the Forest 

Service without being mandated to do so look at the impact on the 

supply, the timber supply to the mills adjacent to the entire area 

affected by the trades? 

Mr. REIMERS. Well, I guess I could only answer in a general 

sense. As we worked on the forest plan and as we looked at these 

specific lands, we do have data that I can provide the committee 

that indicates the kind of timber volumes and the nature of the 

timber resource on the lands that are being acquired and that 

those that are being given up-I don't think I could be as specific 

as we might like to be because of the complication of the roadless 

areas and in this case the Wilderness Study Area. The lands in the 

proposed Wilderness Study Area and that were in further planning 

status were in fact included in the base for the Gallatin National 

Forest, but in recent times, with an allowable sale quantity of 21 

million we have only offered approximately 8 to 10 million based 

on trying to work our way through some of those questions. 

And so we are aware of the timber values that are involved there 

and the volumes, and some of the lands that would be exchanged 

out of or go into private ownership do in fact have a timber resource that is important to Big Sky Lumber :to meet some of the 

commitments, as I understand it, to the mill in the Bozeman area. 
46 

But that is about as specific as I could be other than to actually indicate volumes area by area. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You mentioned that mill. Have you also looked at 

the effect that the trade would have on Brand S? 

Mr. REIMERS. No. No, we haven't evaluated that in the same detail, nor do we have as specific a proposal at this time. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Has the Forest Service done an analysis as to 

whether or not the results of this trade add or subtract from Montana's roadless base? · Mr. REIMERS. Well, we will increase the nu:rnber of roadless area 

acres because the predominant part of the lands that are acquired 

are within the Wilderness Study Area and are roadless and undeveloped. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hefley? 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reimers, I would 

like to establish the net gain of the Federal land ownership would 

be if this bill passes. My calculation shows that the Forest Service 

could receive up to 81,000 acres of private lands and is only required to exchange 12,414 acres. That results in a 69,000 acre gain 

of lands for the Forest Service. Is that in the ballpark? 

Mr. REIMERS. Yes, that is correct. And I have a page that I can 

provide for the record that shows the acreages of each owner in the 

proposed exchange, and the numbers that you have are correct. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Also, our staff has indicated to me that the ballpark 

cost for this would be about $13 million. However, as I understand 

it, the appraisals for lands in the Taylor Fork area, the 11,000 

acres, and the Gallatin face will not be completed for at least another month. Is that correct? Are we just making wild guesses here 

on how much it will cost? 

Mr. REIMERS. Yes. We have just tentative estimates. We, of 

course, know the amount of money with regard to the Plum Creek, 

and we have estimates of the amount that would be required to 

complete the Porcupine and the Taylor Fork. We would have to go 

on with the process to do that acquisition. 

But, as I mentioned, The Nature Conservancy is already involved 

in both the Porcupine and the Taylor Fork, so they actually have 

options as I understand it. So in each case, we will have to make 

sure that any acquisition we do is in the public interest. But I 

think that the number that I have for the three portions-the Plum 

Creek, the Porcupine, and the Taylor Fork-would, in fact, require 

a total of $12 million. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, you bring up The Nature Conservancy. It is 

my understanding that the Congress appropriated $62.4 million for 

land acquisition for the Forest Service this year, and that is down 

from $88 million that was appropriated the previous year. The Nature Conservancy, on the other hand, does have options to buy two 

of the tracts in this bill and has an annual budget of $27 4 million 

and last year earned about $70 million selling lands to government 

agencies, and I just wonder. 

The Nature Conservancy has a tremendous reputation. I have 

great respect for them. I have worked with them on other projects 

in Colorado. Why not let them go ahead and exercise their options 

and buy these lands to protect them? They have shown that they 
47 

do as good or better job of protecting lands as we do as a Federal 

Government. 

Mr. REIMERS. They can probably speak to it themselves, but their 

approach is to facilitate the government to get key tracts, and you 

are correct that this happens over a period of time with a number 

of tracts. But the ultimate management and ownership of tracts, 

particularly in cases like this that are entirely surrounded by the 

Federal Government is it is usually envisioned to be in Federal 

ownership. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would just Jj.eld for a moment, he 

said that The Nature Conservancy earned $90 million selling land 

last year. I think that is more than we spent in Forest Service 

lands, so I don't know how they could have earned it from the Forest Service. So I think that that-you probably need to be careful. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, they also work with State as well as Federal 

Government. 

Mr. VENTO. I would be very surprised if that were their-in any 

case, that is something to evaluate, I think, further. I would just 

question that myself. 

In any case, Mr. Reimers, in looking at this, your testimony, 

more carefully, there are two separate requests that you have for 

authority. One is within the lands that are to be acquired, there 

is I guess an implied agreement that the mineral rights in those 

areas that would be owned would be acquired, but, you are sug- gesting some technical language changes in that area too. In addition to that you are seeking authority to acquire mineral-I mean 

these are distinct mineral rights that you are talking about, another set of mineral rights that are owned by Burlington Northern. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. REIMERS. That is right. Those two are completely separate. 

Mr. VENTO. Okay. Okay. 

Mr. REIMERS. One is that we want to be sure to get the subsurface rights in the specific areas mentioned in this bill, and the 

other deals with a separate question that has to do withMr. VENTO. Well, that is right. And I, you know, I am friendly 

to both the suggestions in terms of trying to clarify for administrative purposes and eliminate the potential for problems, especially 

I think in the area that we are focusing on here, which are in the 

exchanges as well as in the other area. I just don't know what all 

the ramifications of that would be. I assume it is not in this bill 

for some reason. 

But I think it is essential-I agree that it is essential that we 

certainly clarify the mineral rights and the acquisition of those in 

the areas that are being exchanged here. So we should solve this 

all within the same policy document. 

Are there further questions of the panel? 

[No response] 

Mr. VENTO. If not, thank you very much, gentlemen, for your testimony. Mr. Conn, for your patience. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONN. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to have a panel of witnesses Mr. Patrick Graham, the Director of the Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, State of Montana, Helena; Mr. Michael Scott, the Northern 
48 

Rockie·s Regional Director, The Wilderness Society, and also rep- resenting the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, from Bozeman; and 

Mr. Tim Blixseth, the owner of the Big Sky Lumber Joint venture, 

from Portland, Oregon; and finally, Mr. Mike Atwood, Brand S Corporation, Livingston, Montana. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, while these people are coming to 

the table, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include, immediately following my opening statement, letters of support for this 

le~slation. Those letters of support come from Montana's Governor, 

Mike Racicot; from the Mayor of the city of Bozeman, which, as the 

chairman knows, is the closest large city affected l>y_ this exchange; and two additional letters, one from the Montana Wilderness Association and another from a local gro!}p in the area there which calls 

itself Citizens To Save the Gallatin Valley Face. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, they will be made part of the 

record immediately following the gentleman from Montana's introductory and opening statement. 

We are pleased to welcome the witnesses. Gentlemen, I think we 

will have all of your written testimony before us, I hope we do, and 

if you just take 4 or 5 minutes to summarize it, I think it would 

be helpful for the facilitation and consideration of the measure before us. Mr. Graham, please proceed. Director Graham. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF PATRICK J. GRAHAM, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, STATE OF MONTANA, HELENA, MONTANA; MICHAEL SCOTT, NORTHERN 

ROCKIES REGIONAL DIRECTOR, WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

REPRESENTING THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION, 

BOZEMAN, MONTANA; TIM BLIXSETH, OWNER, BIG SKY LUMBER JOINT VENTURE, PORTLAND, OREGON; MIKE ATWOOD, 

BRAND S CORPORATION, LIVINGSTON, MONTANA 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. GRAHAM 

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. ~ain, as you noted, I am the director of the Department of 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the State agency that is responsible for 

managing the fish and wildlife resources of Montana in addition to 

State parks and other outdoor recreation activities including snowmobiling, watchable wildlife and others. 

The Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 1993 

could greatly benefit all of these important resources. I have personally seldom seen the kind of broad support that is occurring for 

this piece of legislation. Groups that are often in opposition have 

united behind this effort. There would be even more support if the 

millions of visitors who now pass by these lands each year knew 

what this legislation could accomplish. 

Governor Mark Racicot, as Congressman Williams indicated, also 

has expressed support, and I would quote from him: "I see tremendous potential for these exchanges to consolidate blocks of land in 

the Gallatin, which will protect important habitat and recreational 

values for years, even generations, to come, and at the same time 

allow model timber programs which create and preserve jobs and 

demonstrate solid forest stewardship." 
49 

Consolidation of the checkerboard ownership in the Gallatin and 

Madison ranges will benefit Montana's resources by ensuring consistent management through public process. Because these lands 

are adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, their significance is 

even greater. I would just like to touch on a few of the important 

resources that we have identified. 

These lands provide winter range for 70 percent of the Gallatin 

elk herd that winters in Montana and summers in Yellowstone National Park. It has the highest concentration of wintering moose in 

the Gallatin, Madison and Yellowstone drainages. It has the primary migration route through the Taylor Fork drainage for over 

2500 elk that summer in Yellowstone park and winter in Montana's Madison Range. The lands are vital to the recovery of the 

endangered grizzly bear population and are within the recovery 

zone designated for the Greater Yellowstone. 

This habitat may also be important to the Arctic grayling. It has 

recently been reintroduced into the Gallatin drainage. This species 

is currently under review for potential listing as an endangered species. Consolidation of these lands would remove numerous trespass and access conflicts for a wide variety of outdoor 

recreationists, hunters, anglers, backpackers, hikers and others. It 

will also aid with the problem of access to public lands. 

The Big Sky snowmobile trail, which is the longest trail in Montana, connectin~ Bozeman with West Yellowstone and then connecting trials m Yellowstone Park and Idaho, this trail goes through the mixed ownership sections. There are a number of other 

important assets to this land which I won't go over, but they are 

included in the recent testimony. 

In summary, it is clear that these lands are of both local and national significance. Montanans and hundreds of thousands of tourists visit this area each year. The scenic and recreational qualities 

of these lands bring pressure to subdivide and otherwise change 

the land use. Change would fragment the important habitat and, 

for all practical purposes, be irreversible. 

We urge your support of this legislation. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Graham, for your testimony-Director Graham. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:] 
50 

TBSTIXOIIY OH HR 873 

Gallatin Range consolidation and Protection Act or 1993 

Washington, DC 

March 23, 1993 

Presented by 

Patrick J. Grab-, Director 

Montana Department or Fish, Wildlire, Parks 

My name is Pat Graham, and I am director of the Montana Department 

of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Our state agency is responsible for 

managing fish and wildlife resources and, in addition, state parks 

and outdoor recreation activities including snowmobiling, 

watchable wildlife and others. The "Gallatin Range Consolidation 

and Protection Act of 1993" (HR 873) could greatly benefit all of 

these important resources. 

I have seldom seen the kind of broad support that is occurring for 

this piece of legislation. Groups that are often in opposition 

have united behind this effort. There would be even more support 

if the millions of visitors who pass by these lands each year knew 

what this legislation would accomplish. 

Governor Marc Racicot also has expressed support for this 

legislation. To quote Governor Racicot: "I see tremendous 

potential for these exchanges to consolidate blocks of land in the 

Gallatin which will protect important habitat and recreational 

values for years - even generations - to come, and at the same time 

allow model timber programs which create and preserve jobs and 

demonstrate solid forest stewardship." 

Consolidation of the checkerboard ownership of the Gallatin and 

Madison ranges will benefit Montana resources by ensuring 

consistent management through public process. Because these lands are adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, their significance is even greater. 

This legi slation will provide the following benefits: 

Winter range for 70 percent of the Gallatin elk herd that 

winters in Montana and summers in Yellowstone National 

Park. 

Winter range for the highest concentration of wintering moose in the Gallatin, Madison and Yellowstone drainages. 

The primary migration route through the Taylor Fork 

drainage for 2,500 elk that summer in Yellowstone Park 

and winter in Montana's Mad.ison range. 

Lands vital to recovery of the endangered grizzly bear 

population in the Yellowstone ecosystem. 
51 

Habitat that may be important to Arctic grayling that 

have recently been reintroduced in the Gallatin drainage. 

This species is currently under review for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Consolidation of these lands will resolve numerous trespass and trail access conflicts for a wide variety of 

outdoor recreationists such as hunters, fishermen, 

backpackers, hikers and others who make use of these high 

value recreation lands. It will also aid with the 

problem of access to public lands. 

The Big Sky snowmobile trail, the longest trail in 

Montana, connects Bozeman with West Yellowstone and 

connects with trails in Yellowstone Park and Idaho. The 

trail goes along the Gallatin range, through the mixed. ownership sections. 

Headwaters for world famous trout streams - the Madison, 

Gallatin and Yellowstone rivers. 

The state fish, cutthroat trout, depend on many of the 

headwater streams. 

Native bighorn sheep use the lands year-round. 

Deer, moose and about 4,500 elk use these lands in spring summer and fall. 

It is clear that these lands are of both local and national 

significance. Montanans and hundreds of thousands of tourists 

visit this area every year. The scenic and recreational qualities 

of these lands bring pressure to subdivide or otherwise change the 

land use. Change would fragment this important habitat and, for 

all practical purposes, be irreversible. 

We urge your support of this legislation. 

2 
52 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome Michael Scott with The 

Wilderness Society. Please proceed with your testimony, Mr. Scott. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SCOTT 

Mr. SCOTT. My name is Michael Scott. I am the Northern Rockies 

regional director of The Wilderness Society. I am pleased to be here 

today to testify both on behalf of the Society and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 

Our two organizations enthusiastically support H.R. 873. As Mr. 

Williams pointed out, this has been the culmination of 65 years of 

effort on behalf of Montanans, and there is/robably too many people and too numerous to thank, but I woul like to thank a couple here: yourself, Mr. Chairman, for the role that you helped play 

back in 1987 when you brought the Forest Service and then Plum 

Creek together to help push the Gallatin land exchange; Representative Williams for his early understanding of the importance of this 

and his bringing together many of the parties to work on this; Senator Baucus and Senator Bums for cosponsoring this legislation in 

the Senate; and the role that The Nature Conservancy has played 

in helping facilitate this process; as well as the gentleman sitting 

to my left, Mr. Blixseth, who recognized the public value of the 

lands that he owned and was willing to sit down and negotiate. 

As many have testified here, Mr. Chairman, this bill is overwhelmingly in favor of the public. Not only does the public net out 

increased acreage of very, very high wildlife, but we also are well 

on our way towards consolidating the checkerboard ownership in 

the Gallatin Range Wilderness Study Area, which is, perhaps, really the heart of the matter. In the first phases of this acquisition 

we will end up with a clean Wilderness Study Area, the largest Wilderness Study Area in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. One, 

Mr. Chairman, again that you had a key role in, when Plum Creek 

illegally bull-dozed a road into the Rock Creek drainage in 1988. 

You helped, along with Mr. Williams, facilitate the undoing of that 

and the protection of that Wilderness Study Area. When this legis- lation passes it sets the stage for potential future discussion about 

the Wilderness Study Area as wilderness. 

We would also like to point out that the Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation has been very active in this area to protect what Director Graham has pointed out is the largest elk herd in Montana and 

the United States. 

We acknowledge that there are some impacts from this legislation, particularly in the North Bridgers where some lands are consolidated and there will be some increased timber harvest by Big 

Sky Lumber. But we also would note that these lands are designated as timber harvest areas by the Forest Service in the Gallatin Forest Plan. Our statement, Mr. Chairman, goes into some 

detail about the impacts and potential benefits that outweigh those 

impacts. 

In sum, Mr. Chairman, what this land exchange would do would 

be to greatly benefit the northern half of the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem. As mentioned earlier as well, there is many, many peo- ple that support this legislation. I would like to mention among 

them the Gallatin County Commissioners, the Montana Chapter of 

The Nature Conservancy, Sacajawea Audubon, Gallatin Outfitters 
53 

Association, Concerned Citizens for Cottonwood, Gallatin Wildlife 

Association, Valley of the Flowers Chapter of the Native Plant Society, Montana Wilderness Association, Madison-Gallatin Alliance, 

Madison Wildlife Federation, Madison-Gallatin Trout Unlimited, 

Great Bear Foundation, Bozeman Viewshed Council, Bear Creek 

Property Owners Association, Black Ram Bowmen, Citizens to 

Save the Gallatin Face, Public Lands Access Association, Montana 

Bowhunters Association, Big Sky Owners Association, and several 

local State legislators. 

Even northwest Montanans support this even though, as Representative Williams pointed out, the net acreage in northwest 

Montana actually goes to the private sector. I would note a couple 

of things that haven't been pointed out. First, this particular piece 

of legislation cleans up the last inholding in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, a section of Plum Creek ownership on the north 

fork of the Blackfoot River in the Scapegoat Wilderness goes public 

as a result of this exchange. In addition to that there is a section 

of land immediately adjacent to the town of Libby that is needed 

for a school expansion that goes to the town of Libby as a result 

of this. So there is an awful lots of benefits associated with this, 

not just in the Gallatin. 

Mr. Chairman, as noted, we are up against a June 1 deadline. 

We really are out of time and out of options on this. legislation. We 

are very pleased that you have scheduled this on a fast-track for 

hearing and mark-up in the subcommittee, and we understand it 

will be potentially for mark-up next week in the full committee. We 

really need that fast-track in order to make that June 1st deadline 

because The Nature Conservancy holds options that will expire at 

that point to the Porcupine drainage. If we lose the Porcupine 

drainage, this whole convoluted and complex land exchange process 

may start to unravel, resulting in some of the problems that Mr. 

Reimers pointed out, Mr. Graham pointed out, and Representative 

Williams pointed out. 

You will hear a little later testimony from Brand S which will 

ask that you potentially consider the attachment of an exchange 

that Brand S is currently discussing with the Forest Service to this 

piece of legislation. We would urge this committee to resist that be- cause the Brand S exchange is still in its infancy. 

We don't have appraisals; Brand S hasn't yet held the public 

meetings that it has discussed and has promised that it would. We 

don't have a position yet on the exchange. It may be a very good 

exchange, but we don't want to lose this larger, more important exchange currently because we are waiting for what happens with 

Brand S. If the Brand S exchange has merit, we urge this committee to act on it expeditiously. 

We are pleased to see the Forest Service and Meridian Minerals 

having worked out the subsurface estate issue. We adhere to a 

basic principle on this, and that principle is that whoever ended up 

owning the minerals, that the Forest Service needed to be able to 

assure the public that it had sufficient control over the surface and 

subsurface minerals in order to protect the surface values, which, 

after all, is what this exchange is all about; we are protecting the 

wild lands and wildlife of the Gallatin. 
54 

Our testimony speaks to two suggested changes in this legisla- tion: one, to make it clear that the lands that would be acquired within the Gallatin Range Wilderness Study Area be managed to 

protect their wilderness qualities in accordance with Public Law 

9~150; and, secondly, that the lands acquired outside the WSA be 

subject to a forest plan amendment so that the J>eople of Montana 

will have an opportunity, as well as the rest of the country an opportunity, to provide the Forest Service with their recommendations on how those lands be managed. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 873 is an historic opportunity 

to finally correct land ownership patterns in the Gallatin National 

Forest disrupted by decades of checkerboard ownership. Montanans 

have worked for years toward this worthy goal, but we are out of 

options and almost out of time. H.R. 873 represents our last and 

best chance for checkerboard consolidation. We urge speedy ap- proval of this vitally needed piece of legislation by this subcommittee and the full House. 

Thank I<>U, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. Either 

I or Bart Koehler of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, here today, would be happy to answer questions. [Prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL D. ScO'IT REPRESENTING THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY AND 

THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE CoALITION BEFORE THE NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITl'EE ON ·NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PuBLIC LANDS ON H.R. 873, "THE 

GALLATIN RANGE CoNSOLIDATION AND PRCYI'ECTION ACT OF 1993", MARcH 23, 1993 

Good morning Chairman Vento, Congressman Williams and members of the subcommittee. My name is Michael Scott. I am the Northern Rockies Regional Director 

for The Wilderness Society, based in Bozeman, Montana. I am here today representing both The Wilderness Society and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. The Wilder- ness Society is a 55 year-old national conservation organization dedicated to the con- servation of America's _public lands with 300,000 members nationwide and some 2,500 members in the Northern Rockies. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition is a ten 

year old regional organization dedicated to P.reserving and protectin~ the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem and the quality of life it sustains. The Coalition has 100 

local, regional and national member groups as well as 4,000 individual members. 

I am pleased to be here today to offer the enthusiastic support of our two organizations for Representative Pat Williams' H.R. 873, "The Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 1993". This important piece of legislation culminates 65 

years of work by Montanans to resolve a troublesome checkerboard land ownership 

problem on the Gallatin National Forest. H.R. 873 is identical to Sections 14-17 in 

last rear's Montana wilderneBB bill which passed the full House. 

H.R. 873 represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Mr. Chairman, there are many to thank for this legislation. You gave our efforts an immeasurable boost in 

1987 when, after Plum Creek bulldozed a road into the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo 

Horn WSA, you requested the company and the Forest Service to develop a land 

exchange which would remove the checkerboard from the Gallatin Range. Representative Williams deserves praise for helping shepherd through the intense negotiations last fall between Big Sky Lumber (the current owners of the land) and local 

interests. Tim Blixseth, the co-owner of Big Sky Lumber also should receive kudos 

for his recognition of the valuable public resource he owns and his interest in seeking a solution that would transfer these lands to public ownership. 

We would also like to extend a special thanks to the Montana chapter of The Nature Conservancy. The Conservancy stepped forward to secure the option of the purchase of the Porcupine drainage. This option made it possible to craft H.R. 873 in 

a balanced manner. Finally, those Montanans that have stood up in support of this legislation deserve 

to be recognized. It is not often that a piece of legislation receives such a wide range 

of support as H.R. 873. Among those that support this bill are Senators Max Baucus 

and Conrad Burns, Montana's Governor Marc Racicot, Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, the Gallatin County Commissioners, the City of Bozeman, the 

Montana chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Sacajawea Audubon, Gallatin Outfit-
55 

t.ers Association, Concerned Citizens for Cottonwood, Gallatin Wildlife Association, 

Valley of the Flowers Cha,Pt.er of the Native Plant Societyt..Montana WildemeSB Association, Madiaon-Gallatin Alliance.,_ Montana Wildlife nderation, Madison-Gallatin Trout Unlimit.ed, Great Bear 1roundation, Bozeman Viewahed Council, Bear 

Creek Property Owners Association, Black Ram Bowmen, Citizens to Save the Gallatin Face, Public Lande Acceee Association, Montana Bowhunt.era Association, Big 

Sky Owners Association and eeveral local etat.e legielators. It is imj>O~t to not.e that this le,islation is before you with a great senee of 

urpmcy. Quit.e literally, we have run out of time and o_ptions in our search to find 

aolutiona to the checkerboard land pattern on the Gallatin. Past efforts to trade 

lands while Plum Creek still owned them failed. Efforts by the Nature Conservancy, which we supported, to purchase the lands also failed. Now we face a June 1 deadline for winning approval of this legielation. After that dat.e the options obtained by the Nature Coneervancy eXP,ire and this whole _proposal could collapse like a house 

of cards. H.R. 873 ia a t.errific solution to the Gallatin'a checkerboard problem and 

repreeenta our last and only chance before the checkerboard lands in the wildliferich Porcupine and Taylor Fork drainages are lost and the wild core of the Gallatin . Range ia logged, sold and subdivided. 

ELEMENTS OF H.R. 873 

H.R. 873 consolidat.ea the checkerboard land pattern in the Gallatin Range and 

the lower half of the Madison Range. The legislation assures that over 3001000 acres of public lands will stay public and the interspersed checkboard will not oe subject 

to subdivision or other development. H.R. 873 accomplished this in four separate 

eectiona. First, the legislation authorizes the Unit.ed States to purchaee the checkerboard 

lands optioned by The Nature Conservancy in the Porcupine drainage-the heart of 

the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buft'alo Hom WSA. Thia important area ia the winter home 

to a large part of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd and ia important grizzly bear 

country. Second, the bill authorizes the Unit.ed Stat.ea to eecure lands in the Taylor ForkBuck Creek Divide area through purchase or exchange. Thia area is an important elk migration and wintering area 88 well 88 habitat for grizzly bear and moose. It 

ia used by anowmobilers aa a play area. The Taylor Fork is one of the most significant tributaries of the Gallatin river, considered a blue river fishery, and where the 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has recently reintroduced fluvial 

grll)'ling, a species almost extinct in the lower 48 states. Third, H.R. 873 consummates the Gallatin Exchange in which Mr. Chairma~~ 88 

I mentioned above, you have such a significant role. Thia exchange secures au of 

Big Sky Lumber's roadleSB lande inside the Hyalit.e-Porcupine Buffalo Hom WSA 

and ,eta the •~e fo:r:J>Ot.ential future wildemeSB designation. Finally, the bill calla on the Forest Service and Big Sk,Y Lumber to figure out a way, through_purchaae or exchange, to secure the remainmg checkerboard lands in 

the north Gallatin Range and the Gallatin Face, outside of the WSA. These lands 

include important wildlife lands 88 well as the backdrop to the Gallatin Valley. All told, H.R. 873 would add some 81,000 critical acres to the public domain. In 

exchange, the public would give up 3,650 acres of current public land in the north 

part of the Bridger RanJe, two sections in the Bangtaila and several sections of na- tional forest inhol~p m the Lolo and Flathead National Foresta, as well as paying Big Sky Lumber a $3.4 million differential. As a aide note, this bill also secures the 

last remaining section of private land within the Bob Marshall WildemeBB complex. When complet.ed, the four-stage package would: (1) resolve potentially serious 

land management conflicts engendered by the largest checkerboard ownership in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; (2) eliminate the threat of residential subdivision 

and other inappropriat.e development in critical wat.ersheds and wildlife habitat; (3) secure a 40-mile-long unbroken habitat link for grizzl;y bears and other species between Yellowstone National Park and the outskirts of Bozeman; and (4) ensure con- tinued high-quality public recreational opportunities in the Gallatin Range. 

IMPORTANCE OF H.R. 873 TO THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM 

The Gallatin and Madison Ranges comprise a vecy important piece of the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecoayat.em. The Great.er Yellowstone Ecosyat.em ia the largest, essen- tially intact, functioninJ ecoayat.em in the temperate zones of the world. Thia legislation will maure that a good p_art of the ecoayat.em's processes stay intact. Many of the species that summer in Yellowstone National Park, including elk, moose and bison, move onto the Gallatin and Madison Ranges during winter or use them aa migration corridors. Development of the interspersed checkerboard would 
56 

inhibit, or stop, these migrations resulting in a significant reduction in Yellowstone's 

wildlife. 

Large parts of the Madison and Gallatin Ranges are home to the threatened griz- zly bear. Protecting the integrity of these ranges is crucial if we hope to recover the 

grizzly bear to sufficient population levels. 

Juat u important is the role thie legislation plays in _protecting Yellowstone's 

world-renowned geysers, hot springs and fumaroles. Mr. Chairman, you will have 

before you legislation later this year introduced by Representative Williams designed to protect Yellowstone from the threat of external ~eothermal development. 

This subcommittee considered and pasaed the same legislation last congress. 

Much of the private checkerboard that would be traded or purchased as part of 

this legislation lies within the 15-mile geothermal area-of-concern adjacent to the 

park. H.R. 873 will transfer these checkerboard parcels to the United States, thus 

eliminating the prospect that these private lands might be developed for geothermal 

energy and thereby threaten Yellowstone's hydrothermal systems. 

THE PROPOSED BRANO-S LAND EXCHANGE SHOULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO H.R. 873 

The Brand-S Lumber Company is currently developing a land exchange involving 

lands on the Deerlodge National Forest and the Gallatin National Forest which it 

would like to attach to H.R. 873. The congress should not include the Brand-S proposal in this legislation. 

It may well be that the Brand-S exchange will be a good exchange, one that our organizations can support. But we do not yet know enough about it to have formed a position. There is no appraisal yet done on the subject properties. The public has 

not yet had a chance to review the proposal and the congress has never had a hearing on the proposed exchange. Clearly, the Brand-S exchange is going to take time to finalize. H.R. 873 does not 

have time to wait. We must pass this legislation through both houses of congress 

and send it to the president's desk by June 1, otherwise we may lose the great opportunity before us. Don't slow down H.R. 873 by waiting for the Brand-S exchange. If the Brand-S 

proposal is finalized, we urge you to deal with it on its own merits and on its own legislative track. 

H.R. 873 WILL FACILITATE FUTURE WILDERNESS DESIGNATION FOR THE HYALITE· 

PORCUPINE-BUFFALO HORN WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

The consolidation of the checkerboard in the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn WilderneBB Study Area within the Gallatin Range sets the stage for future consideration of the WSA and surrounding lands for wilderness. This WSA has existed since 

the late Senator Lee Metcalf included it in his Montana Wilderness Study Act in 

1977. It is the largest roadleBB area in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem not cur- rently designated wilderness. In addition to protecting the values mentioned above, 

it would provide an unbroken wilderness from just south of Bozeman to Yellowstone 

National Park. 

H.R. 873 WILL BENEFIT LOCAL ECONOMIES 

A recent publication of The Wilderness Society, ''The Wealth of Nature", documented the role public land amenities paly in local economies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Virtually all of the job and income growth in Yellowstone counties over the last ten years, including Gallatin County, has come from small entrepreneurial enterprises that locate and stay in the region, in part, because of its won- derful outdoor resources. Since H.R. 873 will help protect our land, water and wildlife it will also help insure a vibrant future economy. 

Consolidation of these checkerboard lands will also help protect a specific part of our local economy. Sixty of Montana's outfitters work on the Gallatin National Forest, many of them in areas affected by this legislation. The Gallatin Outfitters Association estimates that its members contribute $20 million to the economies Gallatin 

and Park Counties. 

CONSIDER FUTURE BRIDGER RANGE WILDERNESS DESIGNATION 

As mentioned above, approximately 3,500 acres of lands in the northern part of 

the Bridger Range, juat south of Flathead Pass, will be traded to Big Sky Lumber 

Company. About 2,500 acres of this total are within the 47,000 acre Bridger Range 

roadless area. 
57 

The Bridger Range is a very important local roadies& resource. It is well-known 

and well-liked by Gallatin and Park County ·residents. It is also a range under 

threat. In addition to losing 2,500 acres of its roadless base in this exchange, there 

is a proposed mlljor new development at Bridger Bowl, a local ski area. Several ~ tracte of land adjacent to the roadle11 area are for sale, presumably to be subdiVIded. 

To offset the impacte of the Gallatin land exchange and to provide some assurance that the roadlea1 base of the range will not be compromised in the future, we urge 

Representative William•, and thi1 1ubcommittee, to support de1ignation of the re- maining Bridger Range roadless area as wilderness in our Montana congressman'• 

forthcoming wilderness bill. 

THE GALLATIN EXCHANGE IS SUPPORTED BY CITIZENS IN NORTHWEST MONTANA 

There have been some who claim that citizens in northwest Montana get nothing 

in return for the land• on the Lolo and Flathead National Forests which would be 

traded to Big Sky Lumber. 

Montanans care about Montana. We realize that proposals such as H.R. 873 mu•t 

be viewed in the larger context. We have attached a copy of a statement from the 

Flathead Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association to our testimony. It states 

clearly th~t conservationists in the Flathead Valley are fully in support of H.R. 873. 

As Ro11 Titu•, the chapter chair 1tates, "In terms of environmental value, there's no comparison with the outstanding elk winter range that would be acquired in the 

Gallatin Range. All things considered, this exchange is clearly in the public intereat." 

ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO H.R. 873 

The Coalition and The Society offer two additional s~gested changes to the bill. 

We have a clear undel'lltanding that the private lands within the Hyalite-Porcupine 

Buffalo Hom WSA, which would be added to the public domain, will be managed u part of the WSA pUl'lluant to PL 915-150. However, to make certain this happens we urge you to add language directing the Secretary to manage the lands to be ac- quired within the WSA in accordance with PL 915-150. 

In addition we suggest the addition of language making it clear that the checkerboard lands which will be added to the Gallatin National Forest will be the subject 

of a fore1t plan amendment to determine how they will be managed. The addition 

of this language gives Montanans the as1urance that they will have a hand in help- ing decide how the acquired land1 will be managed. 

SUBSURFACE MINERAL ESTATE 

Meridian Mineral Company own• the subsurface estate of the lands involved in 

H.R. 873. Much of this estate will be traded as a result of the Gallatin Range ex- change portion of H.R. 873. But, Meridian will continue to own the subsurface on land1 in the Porcupine, Taylor Fork and Gallatin Roaded portions of H.R. 873. 

We undel'lltand that the Forest Service and Meridian Minerals have developed an amendment to H.R. 873 to deal with this problem. We support this amendment. The 

amendment allows Meridian to sell its right of access to its oil, gas and geothermal 

interests and sell entirely its hardrock mineral interests to the United States. While we would rather that Meridian sold its entire mineral interests to the United State,, the Forest Service stat.es its proposed amendment will ~ve it effective 

control over any potential mineral development on the lands in question. 

CONCLUSION 

H.R. 873 is an historic opportunity to finally correct land ownership patterns on the Gallatin National Forest disrupted by decades of checkerboard ownership. Montanans have worked for ye81'11 toward this worthy goal. 

But, we are out of options and almost out of time. H.R. 873 represents our last, 

and beat, chance for checkerboard consolidation. We urge speedy approval of this vitall__y needed piece of legi1lation by this subcommittee and the full House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to offer the views of The Wilder- ness Society and the Great.er Yellowstone Coalition on H.R. 873. Either Bart 

Koehler, representing the Great.er Yellowstone Coalition, or I would be happy to an- swer questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 
58 

Bart's testimony, I notice, is attached, so that will become part of the record, and we appreciate your emphasis and input on this. 

So that will all be part of the record, and we would be happy to 

greet him later. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Koehler follows: 
59 

~ Greater Yellowstone Coalition 

3/23/93 

TESTIMONY OF nm GREATER YELLOWSfONE COALrl1ON RE: HR 873 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-Committee on Public Lands: 

My name is Bart Koehler, and I am presenting testimony on behalf of The Greater 

Yellowstone Coalition. For the record, I am an Associate Program Director for GYC 

with an M.S. degree in Natural Resource Management and Planning, .μid 20 years of 

experience working with grassroots conservation groups in defense of wildlife 

habitat and wild country. (Both in the hinterlands and here in D.C.) 

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition strongly supports Congressman Pat Williams' 

HR 873 - The Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act - and urges you to 

do everything you can to secure its speedy passage. HR 873 is identical to the land 

exchange sections (Sections 14-17) that the House of Representatives approved last 

year, as part of the Vento-Williams version of the Montana Wilderness Bill. 

(Senators Baucus and Burns have co-sponsored this bill in the Senate - S 489.) 

For your review, I have included a detailed background statement which 

underscores the importance of this issue, and includes hard-hitting reasons why you 

should approve HR 873 and bring over 80,000 acres into the public domain. 

Passage of this legislation will safeguard some of the finest wildlife habitat and 

wildlands on the North American Continent. The lands involved are crucial 

habitat for large elk herds, many grizzly bears, and thriving populations of bighorn 

sheep, moose and deer - plus pristine watersheds and productive fisheries the 

Federal Government has been trying to place into public ownership since 1925. 

These lands include the biological heart of the S.393 Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn 

Wilderness Study Area (155,000 acres; established 16 years ago) which stretches 

almost 30 miles from Hyalite Peak to Yellowstone National Park. 

HR 873 directs a land exchange in the Wild Gallatin Range; it authorizes and directs 

the acquisition of all lands in the ·Porcupine watershed and lands in S.Cottonwood 

Canyon; it authorizes and directs the acquisition of lands in Ute Taylor Fork 

drainage; (the Gallatin exchange shall not be consummated until the Porcupine and 

Taylor Fork are secured) and it authorizes the Secretary to provide to Congress 

(within 3 years) recommendations aimed at acquiring N.W. Gallatin Range and 

Gallatin Face lands. (See following maps/ detailed explanation.) 

We have a clear understanding that the private lands which would go into public 

ownership and are located within the Gallatin Range WSA boundary will be 

managed as part of the WSA under Public Law 95-150. However, in order to make 

(i) 

P.O. &>x 1&74 • !lor.eman, Monian.. 59i7 1 • (-106) 586-1~93 • FAX (406) 586-0!51 
60 

certain that this happens, we urge you to add language which would direct the 

Secretary to manage these lands in accordance with P.L. 95-150. Furthermore, 

language should be added to make it clear that the new national forest lands should 

be subject to a Forest Plan amendment - so the public can help determine their 

highest and best use. This would also allow the possibility of adding some of these 

sections to the existing Lee Metcalf Wildemess, .sometime in the future. 

We can't tum back the clock. We're running out of time and we've run out of 

options. The owner of the private land has given a June 1 deadline for winning 

approval of the land exchange. After that date, the stop-gap option agreements 

obtained by the Nature Conservancy will expire. We are convinced that without 

Congressional action, these lands will be roaded, logged and subdivided. In other 

words, the incredible wildlife and wildland values of the Porcupine, Gallatin Range, 

S. Cottonwood Canyon, and Taylor Fork areas will fall victim to an irreversible 

calamity. Tragically, the wild heart of the Porcupine-Gallatin Range WSA will be 

lost forever. 

While we don't want to lose any roadless lands in our region, we feel that it is in the 

larger public interest to secure a net gain of 70.000 acres of some of the finest wildlife 

habitat in the West, (including 37,000 roadless acres in the WSA & 4,000 roadless 

acres in Taylor Fork and South Cottonwood), and let timber harvest proceed in 2,500 

acres of roadless land .in the North Bridger Range - which would be traded to the 

landowner, but are already planned for logging and roads, under the Gallatin Forest 

Plan. 

The legislative struggle to secure these lands started over 10 years ago. Support from 

Montanans for this legislation runs wide and deep. Groups lining up in support so 

far include: the Madison-Gallatin Alliance, Gallatin Wildlife Association, 

Concerned Citizens for Cottonwood, Citizens to Save the Gallatin Valley Face, the 

Bozeman Viewshed Council, Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Wildlife 

Federation, Madison-Gallatin Trout Unlimited, Sacajawea Audubon Society, and 

the Great Bear Foundation. Many local government officials, including the Gallatin 

County Commissioners, support this measure. The Forest Service, the Montana 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks Dept., and Montana's Governor Marc Racicot also strongly 

support it. 

Congress has only 25 voting days left before June 1st. There is so much to gain if this 

bill succeeds - and way too much to lose, if it fails. 

Today, we must find the will and f':1.e way to get this bill passed and signed into law --

without any delay. 
61 

THE LAND EXCHANGE 

The public would realize a net pin of70,000 acres ofmaani,ficent land in the trade, while Bliueth's 

Bie Sky Lumber would receive cash, and 5,700 acrea of federal land in Iha North Bridpr and Bangtail mountains near Bozeman, Mont., pl111 6,600 acrea of acattered timberland in Northwest Montana national 

forests. The national forest lands BSL would pt an already planned for loain, and roads under existine forest plans. 

Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act 

GALLATIN CREST: Bie Sky Lu41ber pves up 37,752 acres in the Gallatin Ranp and in proposed 

additions to the Absaroka-Beartooth Wildemeu. In return it pts $3.4 million in cash and 12,414 acres 

of timberland, about half of which is in the North Bridprs and J3anetails. The rest is in scattered parcels 

in Flathead and Lolo national forests in Northwest Montana. 

PORCUPINE: The Nature Conservancy will pt a two-year contract to purchase 6,162 acres in this 

critical wildlife drain.qe, 1,577 more in South Cottonwood Canyon near Bozeman and 320 acres in Taylor 

Fork. The Nature Conservancy would sell it to the pernment. 

TAYLOR FORK: The Nature Conservancy would acquire a three-year option on 11,200 acres of BSL 

land and sell it to the eovernment. 

NORTH GALLATIN: The Forest Service would have three years to purchase or trade for BSL's 

24,000 acres here, includine lands alone the Gallatin Face. 

IIOIND 

• llglky_..., 

•--

• 01w-... 

IIOIND 

• 1111ay_..., 

•-- .... ._ ... law_ 

• 01w-i..m -~- --
62 

"""""" HEARING Sf A TEMENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION'"'"""'" .... , .. ' 

SECURING A WORLD a.ASS WILDLIFE RESOURCE 

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is on record as strongly 

supporting this legislation. The Department's wildlife and biological analyis clearly 

showed the vital importance of securing private lands in the Porcupine, Gallatin 

Range and Taylor Fork areas into public ownership. U this bill is signed into law, 

the new National Forest lands would include: 

>Areas which are extremely important to the recovery of the Grizzly Bear in Greater 

Yellowstone - including currently occupied Grizzly habitat in the Porcupine, Big 

Creek and Taylor Fork drainages which are classed as Situatiol_l_ I and IL 

> Critical winter range for up to 70% of the Gallatin elk herd. The Porcupine 

drainage has the highest concentration of wintering elk in the Upper Gallatin area. 

>Critical winter range for the highest concentration of wintering moose in the 

Gallatin and Madison Mountain Ranges-particularly in Porcupine and Taylor Fork. 

The Upper Gallatin is one of the top three areas in Montana to find moose. 

>A primary migration route for 2,500 elk that winter in the Madison Range through 

Taylor Fork. These elk winter in Bear Creek Wildlife Mgt. Area &: Indian Creek area. 

>Important year-round range for a native bighorn sheep population. There are only 

a few bighorn sheep populations in the West that are considered truly native. 

>Important spring/summer/fall range for elk, moose, and mule deer. 

>Important habitat for mountain lions, wolverines, plus other furbearers. 

>Important habitat for bald eagles, golden eagles and peregrine falcons - plus a wide 

variety of hawks and owls. 

>Headwaters of 14 tributaries of the Gallatin and Yellowstone Rivers - important to 

cutthroat trout survival. The Gallatin and Yellowstone Rivers are both classified as 

Blue Ribbon trout fisheries. 

>Tributaries important for grayling recovery in Upper Gallatin drainage. 

LONG HISTORY OF EFFORTS TO SAFEGUARD WILDLIFE HABITAT 

Over the years, the Forest Service, the State of Montana and the Congress of the 

United States have taken a great interest in safeguarding key wildlife habitat areas 

-many of which are located on the private lands involved in this exchange. 

Forest Service 

>In 1909, Chief Pinchot was petitioned to establish a game preserve adjacent to 

Yellowstone National Park. Pinchot agreed as long as it would be established by the 

State or Congress. 

>In 1911, Montana's State legislature established the preserve. 

>In 1909, the USPS closed lands south of Tepee/Buffalo Hom Divide and Taylor 

Fork/Sage Creek Divide and Shedhom Mtn. to livestock grazing. 
63 

>Since 1920, all USFS land from the Porcupine Drainage southward along the east 

side of the Gallatin River has been closed to livestock grazing. 

>In 1933, Northern Pacific Railroad dedicated over 23,000 acres of their holdings east 

of the Gallatin River for elk grazing. 

State of Montana 

>In 1945, Mt.Dept.of Fish,Wildlife and Parks purchased all lands south of Porcupine 

Creek to Yellowstone National Park, from Burlington Northern. 

>In 1954, the Dept. acquired the Bear Creek Wildlife Management Area - which is 

located just west of Taylor Fork. 

>In 1968, the Dept. began leasing much of the private lands in Porcupine drainage to 

provide forage for wintering elk. 

>In 1977, the Dept. noted that" The management of the Gallatin elk herd has been 

one of the primary conerns of the Montana Fish Game Dept. for the past 50 years. 

More time, effort and money has been devoted to this elk herd than to any other in 

the State." 

U.S. Congress 

>In 1977, the Congress passed legislation ,which was signed into law, to establish the 

Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Hom Wilderness Study Area - as part of S.393. 

>Since 1977 this area - which includes the private lands in the Porcupine drainage 

and private lands along the backbone of the wild Gallatin Range - has been 

managed to protect its wilderness characteristics. This WSA is the largest chunk of 

roadless country in Greater Yellowstone which is not designated Wilderness. 

>In 1989, the Congress appropriated one million dollars (LWCF) to the Forest 

Service to help purchase 4 sections of private land in South Cottonwood Canyon --

which is known locally as Bozeman's "vest pocket wilderness". 2 1/2 sections of 

South Cottonwood Canyon are part of the Porcupine acquistion, and 3 sections are 

part of the lands which would become public as a result of the Gallatin Exchange. 

HEARINGS AND PUBUC INVOLVEMENT 

Many people believe that the Porcupine/Gallatin area would already be lost to the 

public if we had not come up with an 11th hour stop-gap solution late last year. 

Despite overwhelming public support, a handful of folks still want more public 

involvement. Normally, we would gladly support more field hearings and 

meetings. However, we are in an extremely difficult situation with a very short 

timeline. Malce no bones about it - the cries for more hearings are really cries for 

delay, and these calculated cries are aimed at trying to delay and kill this bill. 

There have been seven Congressional Hearings since 1987 which have been the 

official forums for discussing Montana Wilderness and this critically important land 

exchange. (Contrary to allegations that the North Bridger swaps are new, the 

Gallatin Exchange has included the North Bridgers from the outset - only the 
64 

private landowners have changed.) 

The House and Senate held field hearings in Montana during 1987 and 1988 

respectively. Land exchanges in the Porcupine-Gallatin areas were integral parts of 

the House and Senate bills. · Both houses of Congress held Committee hearings in 

Washington, D.C. during those years as well. The land exchanges passed both the 

House and Senate, and were part of the Montana Wilderness Bill which was vetoed 

by President Reagan. The most recent round of the Montana Wilderness debate 

(1991-92) included extensive discussions of the land exchanges. The Senate held 

hearings in 1991. The House of Representatives held two Committee hearings in 

'92. Both House and Senate approved the land exchange for the Gallatin-Porcupine 

Areas. A final House-Senate measure failed to gain approval during the last hours 

of the Congress in late 1992 In 1993, the House and Senate are holding hearings 

before acting on the land exchange. 

(None of the above discusses the earlier public workshops the USFS held regarding 

the management of the S.393-WSA in the Gallatin Range .... Workshops were held in 

1979, and meetings in 1985. Land exchange issues were a major topic of discussion.) 

Furthermore, there was one public meeting held on this issue last year, and this year 

there have have been at least 4 public meetings held in Gallatin County on the 

exchanges. 

ALTERNATIVES-NO MORE OPTIONS, NO MORE TIME 

Some local citizens have asked why more alternatives haven't surfaced at this time. 

One of the most difficult things to understand about land exchanges/purchases is 

that they only can be oonsummated if there is an agreement between the landowner 

and the Federal Government. Some folks have proposed that the Congress simply 

buy all of the private lands in the Gallatin-Porcupine-Taylor Fork areas. 

Unfortunately, this won't work for two reasons: 1) Congress is very unlikely to 

allocate such a large level of funding and 2) The current owner wants land and 

money in exchange for his lands - not just money. Without his agreement, the 

land exchange legislation will fail. Furthermore, the idea of eminent domain 

proceedings simply will not fly. 

Each component of this land exchange hangs together. We cannot separate 

Porcupine and Taylor Fork from the Gallatin Exchange. Frankly, if BSL does not get 

the other NF lands u a result of the Gallatin Exchange - we don't get Porcupine, 

Taylor Fork, nor the chance to protect the rest of the Gallatin Range WSA. 

We would have loved to have had The Nature Conservancy buy all this land last 

year - but sadly, that outcome was simply not in the cards. The harsh reality we had 

to wrestle with and we continue to face is that we offered up a large number of 

alternatives, but ran out of options that were agreeable to the current landowner. 

We tried to change the exchanges so the lands in the North Bridgers and Bangtails 
65 

were not included; we tried to get the owner to accept more money in substitution 

for these lands aruJ/ or accept alternate lands. We tried any number of these 

approaches u well u urging the new owner to conduct sustainable forestry practices 

on his acquired lands aruJ to work in harmony with his neighbors. The 

fundamental problem with land exchange legislation is that unless the landowner 

agrees with the language, the most enlightened proposal in the world will not get to 

first base. 

One of the most difficult things to understand about land exchanges is that they can 

only - and I repeat only - be consummated if there is an agreement between the 

landowner and the Federal Government. 

Nevertheless ..... this exchange is clearly aruJ overwhelmingly in the public interest. 

EXOfANGE WILL Nor RESULT IN SACRIFICE OF 1HE BRIDGER RANGE 

There are roughly 60,000 acres of National Forest land in the Bridger Range today. 

Contrary to some reports, the exchanges will not result in a dramatic "shifting" of 

logging, roading aruJ subdivision problems from the Gallatin to the Bridgers: 

•F'll'St, the 3,500 acres oi National Forest lands in the Flathead Pus/North 

Bridgers which would go to Tim Blixaeth and Big Sky Lumber are currendy 

scheduled for logging and roadbuildlng under the Gallatin Forest Plan. 

•Second, Blixseth should comply with Best Management Practices, and 

would have to operate under the Montana Streamside Management z.one law. (The 

purpose of the law is to "protect the public interest in the quality and quantity of 

forest waters and conserve the integrity of streamside management mnes".) 

•Third, pouible problems caUled by increased logging truck traffic in Bridger 

Canyon could be avoided by re-routing logging trucks via alternate routes - such as 

via Wilsall, aruJ subdivision problems could be resolved by local planning district 

efforts, covenants, euement agreements 

•The latest charge is that this exchange will someliow result in "de-watering" 

Flathead Creek. Beyond the protections found in the Streamside Management Z.One 

law, you should know that there are 13 major tributaries of Flathead Creek. Only 5 

tributaries would be Impacted by this exchange. The majority oi tributaries would 

not be impacted. so the flows in Flathead Creek should not be dramatically changed. 

CONCERNS OVER IMPACTS IN N.W. MONTANA 

Some folb have made 10me far-fetched claims that turning national forest lands in 

northwest Montana over to BSL would result in an ecological disaster. One claim 

went so far u to say that-the dtiz.ens of Big Fork would be viewing a "moonscape" 

caused by BSL from downtown Big Fork. 

The facts are u follows: 

>The closest Impacted section of land near Big Fork is over 13 miles due west -

across Flathead Lake, up and over a ridgdine and down the other side. The lands 
66 

are surrounded by logging and roads. These lands are not visible from Big Fork. 

>With few exceptions, the lands exchanged to BSL have been roaded and logged, 

and are surrounded by roads and logging on other private lands. 

Contrary to these claims, this exchange will not be a disaster. From an ecological 

standpoint, the lands to be granted to BSL are not as valuable as the lands that 

would go public within the Porcupine/Gallatin Range and Taylor Fork areas. 

People also fail to recogniz.e that if this exchange gets approved, then the last section 

of private land in the Scapegoat Wilderness - along the North Fork of the Blackfoot 

River (part of the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex) will be placed into public 

ownership. 

WILDLANDS AND POTENTIAL WILDERNESS-WHATS REALLY AT STAKE? 

Minor Impacts to the Bridgen if Thia Bil Succeeds 

Some folks claim that the entire Bridger Range roadless area is terribly threatened by 

this land exchange. These claims are dead wrong: 

• If the land exchange is passed then only 2,500 acres along the edge of the 47,497 acre 

area will be impacted, or 5-., ol the roadleu area. 

"The Bridger Range roadlesa area which will remain will still function as a 

biological corridor ...... and should be designated as Wlldemeu in separate legislation. 

Huge Impacts to Gallatin Wllclemell Study Area if Thia Bil Fails 

Consider what is at stake with the proposed exchange. If the exchange is not 

approved then almost 30" of the existing 155,000 aae Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo 

Hom Wilderness Study Area ( or 17 times more wild acres than in the affected 

roadless land in the Bridgers) plus 1,600 roadlesl acres in South Cottonwood 

Canyon, will be loet - the wild heart of the Porcupine-Gallatin Range will be gone 

forever. (This percentage ia bued on 37,000 acres of BSL lands and 6,700 acres of 

other private land in WSA. If the BSL lands are loet, then the other private lands 

are functionally Jolt u far u the WSA goes.) 

Look at Potential Wlldemea 

If the exchanp doa not get approved we will lose 43,000 acres of roadless private 

land (BSL and other private) In the Porcupine/Gallatin Range WSA and 2,300 

roadless aaes in the Taylor Fork and 1,600 roadless acres in South Cottonwood .. 

(These roadless lands that would be loet by failing to pus the exchange amount to 

almost 20 times more acres than in the affected 2,500 acres of roadless lands in the 

Bridgers) 
67 

If the Exchange Falla - then Kiu the WSA Good-bye 

If the exchange falls, we'll lose much, much more than the 43,000 acres in the heart 

of the Porcupine/Gallatin WSA because just about every other section of the 

155,000 aae WSA is private land (in a swiss-cheese or checkerboard pattern). If we 

lose the heart then we've basically lost the entire WSA - which was established by 

Congress 16 years ago. If the exchange fails, then the resultant habitat fragmentation 

will be devastating. Remember that the Porcupine/Gallatin, Taylor Fork & 

S.Cottonwood wildlands are aucial habitat for large elk herds, numerous grizzly 

bears, and healthy populations of bighorn sheep, moose and deer, plus pristine 

watersheds that Federal Government has been trying to place into public ownership 

since 1925. These wildlands include some of the most important wildlife/biological 

corridors in the West. These values will be destroyed if this land exchange fails. 

Rock-Hard Reality . 

The rock-hard reality is this: if this bill fails because of opposition to logging a tiny 

percentage of the Bridgers -then the calls for saving the Bridgers will be responsible 

for the tragic sacrifice of the Taylor Fork, S.Cottonwood areas and the 

Porcupine/Gallatin Range Wilderness Study Area. 

THESE EXCHANGFJPURCHASES DO NOT REQUIRE A LEGISLATIVE EIS 

Some people claim that a legislative EIS is required before the Gallatin Land 

Exchange can be approved by Congress - they are dead wrong. Again, as in the case 

of the cries for more public hearings; some folks are trying to use this EIS claim as a 

ploy to trip up, delay and kill this bill Here are the facts: 

•If Congress legislates/directs an exchange, NEPA is not required. . • If Congress authorizes (or gives the FS the authority) to work out an exchange, but 

does not direct or legislate the exchange, then the agency needs to bring their 

proposal to Congress with a legislative EIS. That's when an EIS is required. Then 

the proposal goes thru appr021iations or implementation legislation. 

•Purchases do not~..._, • The Gallatin ~la~ an. agency proposal TO Congress ...... it is clearly a 

proposal FROM AND BY~ 

~ongress can do wllatinw ~ wants. . . •Montana dtiz.eN put dds-CUlft!ftt package together. The Forest Service only drew 

up the maps after it was formulated. 

~ongress passes wildemas legislation, all the time - without EISs. 

•NEPA applies to Federal Agendes ...... not the Congress. 

~e original Gallatin Exchange was requested by Sen. Max ~~cus and Rep. Bruce 

Vento. The Porcupine exchange was requested by Rep. Pat Williams & Sen. Baucus. 
68 

HOW WE VIEW THE PROPOSED BRAND-S EXCHANGE IDEA 

We understand the concerns about the land exchange idea that's being proposed by 

Brand S. So far, the Forest Service has not agreed to any specific proposal, and the 

agency has not finished the required appraisal work and value-for-value test. 

Frankly the idea is still in the formative stages and is far from being a real-life 

proposal. 

If and when the Brand S idea becomes a viable proposal, then we will take a hard 

and honest look at it. If it makes sense and solves problems, that's one thing - but if 

it doesn't make sense and causes new problems, then we'll have to fight it. One 

major concern is that the proposal must meet the standard value-for-value test; we 

will also be keeping a eagle-eye out to make sure it will not cause a negative impact 

on the overall integrity of the existing Gallatin Range Wilderness Study Area. 

You are also aware that we are opposed to linking the Brand S proposal to S. 489. 

We are concerned that potential deliberations over the Brand S proposal could 

easily delay and ultimately de-rail quick passage of S.489 - so that the June 1 

deadline is not met. Since the Senate only has 23 voting days prior to June 1st, (the 

House has 25 voting days) we firmly believe that the Brand S proposal should be 

handled on its own legislative track. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr. Chairman, rm sure that you can recall the agonizing attempts Alaskans made 

to get Admiralty Island's Lake Florence watershed placed into public ownership and 

designated as wilderness. We failed, (in spite of putting forth every effort possible 

over a period of many years) and the most popular lake on Admiralty Island has 

now been ravaged by private timber harvest activities. All this because people 

could not or would not agree on a resolution. This proposed legislation is of equal 

or greater importance - we simply cannot fail with this effort. 

Twenty years ago this month, was the first time I'd ever testified before a 

Congressional Committee on behalf of a grassroots conservation group and in 

defense of the wildlife habitat and wild country. (My testimony was before this 

Committee ia this hearing room.) Over that span of time, rve learned some very 

hard le580Ia about land exchanges. This time around, we must succeed. 

Mr. Chairman, today we must find the will and the way to get this exchange signed 

into law. 

/O~rl~ 

. ~- '""'""'""""END"'""" '"'" '""""'" 
69 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Blixseth. 

STATEMENT OF TIM BLIXSETH 

Mr. BLIXSETH. Mr. Chairman, committee members, my name is 

Tim Blixseth. I represent the owners of this property, Big Sky 

Lumber Company, and I think probably what we have here is really a unique opportunity to do something that hasn't been done between the timber industry and the conservation community, and 

those that know me know how I feel; I have always been on the 

other side of the aisle, fighting the conservationists until this issue. 

When we first bought this property, we were vehemently against this exchange. We felt that it was lopsided financially, that we 

were getting the bad end of the stick, so to speak, and through a 

lot of efforts by people like Michael Scott and Bart Koehler and 

other people involved in the area, they basically ~ot our way of 

thinking around to the point where we agreed that 1t was probably 

an equitable thing to do, not so much from a financial standpoint 

but from being the right thing to do. It is kind of a pain to have your ownership intermingled with the 

U.S. Government. If you have ever owned a couple of sections of 

land, you know that it is tough because of rights-of-way and easements. So we still feel that the Federal Government is getting the 

better end of the bargain financialll. 

I wanted to address Mr. Thomas s questions earlier about the ap- praisals. Certainly the market has gone up on the value of both 

pieces of property dramatically since the inception of this idea. Certainly today, if we didn't do this trade with the Forest Service, we 

would make a lot more money. There is a tremendous demand for 

these properties. There seems to be a big flock of people to the 

State of Montana just to buy a piece of the wilderness. 

We are committed to do this exchange. We have signed up to 

June 1, and we would like to see it get done. We think this can 

possibly be the flagship between industry and the conservation 

community for future negotiations, future dealings on properties 

that are problem laden, as ours are. So we support this bill, and we will do everything we can to 

make it happen. Thank you. Position statement of Big Sky Lumber Company follows:] 
70 

POSITION STATEMENT 

HR-873 and S-489 

Notwithstanding our vested interest, Big Sky Lumber Co. (BSL) is 

committed, supports and unequivocally endorses HR 873 and S-489 for reasons 

other than its vested interest. 

The passage of this Legislation will safeguard for future generations the 

finest wildlife habitat and most pristine wild lands on the North American 

continent. The lands involved are crucial habitat for the largest elk herd in North 

America, the threatened grizzly bear and thriving populations of big horn sheep, 

moose and deer. Future generations will secure an interest in upwards of 70,000 

acres of unparalleled scenic beauty and vast recreational opportunities. These 

values will be lost forever if the Legislation is not adopted into law. 

The lands involved include the heart of S393, the Hyalite-PorcupineBuffalo Horn Wilderness Study Area, which was established 16 years ago and 

which stretches from Hyalite Peak south to Yellowstone National park. The 

private land that will be acquired from BSL exists in a checkerboard pattern 

surrounded by public land administered by the Untted States Forest Service. The 

Legislation will, wtthout question, enhance management potential and efficiency 

of operation of a major portion of the Gallatin National Forest. 

There is clearly overwhelming support for the Legislation. Individuals and 

organized groups who, in the past, opposed or had mixed emotions relative to 

the wilderness legislation support this Legislation . Conservation and 

environmental groups who have expressed affirmative support include: The 

Madison-Gallatin Alliance, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Concerned Citizens for 

Cottonwood, Cttizens to Save the Gallatin Valley Face, The Bozeman View Shed 

Council, Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Wildlife Federation, and The 

Great Bear Foundation. Legislation is supported by local and state officials, the 

Forest Service and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

BSL recognizes that it has a unique opportunity with the aid and 

assistance of Congress to create in perpetutty a legacy that will be a benefit to 

the human and natural environment. Addttionally, the passage of this Legislation 

will grant and give to the Nature Conservancy a period of upwards of two years to 

purchase approximately 6,182 acres in the Porcupine Drainage of the Gallatin 

Canyon and upwards of three years to purchase approximately 11, 200 acres in 

the Taylor Fork area. The long sought after Porcupine and Taylor Fork lands will 

be conveyed to the Untied States Forest Service once acquired by the 

Conservancy. 

225 "&a.st ~ 9oounuu,,, ?'l1onuuu,, 59715 /406) 587-7004 ';la,,(406) 587-7005 

111, S.'W. 2,uJ,,51(.,,,,,,,, f/J<»ila,ui, <(a,,90,. 97204 /503) 223-9088 "Ja.,,,/503! 223-9086 
71 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Blixseth. 

Finally on this panel we have Mike Atwood of the Brand S Corporation. 

Welcome, Mike. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE ATWOOD 

Mr. ATWOOD. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Williams, and members of the 

committee, my name is Mike Atwood, and I want to thank you for 

the chance to share my thoughts with you about H.R. 873, the Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act. 

I work with about 250 other people at a small lumber mill called 

Brand S Lumber in Livingston, Montana. Our mill is near by the 

Gallatin Range, and we are affected by this proposed legislation. One of our major competitors will be the beneficiary of this land 

exchange. They will receive National Forest land that has been 

identified in the Gallatin Forest Plan as land that will support major timber sales available to all bidders. If this land exchange 

occurs, we will not have the chance to bid on the timber on those 

lands, nor will other small operators in our area, and, as you know, 

the timber supply is very critical to our continued existence. 

We have searched for ways, however, to level the playing field. 

We studied the findings in section 2 of H.R. 873, and there are four 

findinis. They apply equally to the lands that we own along the 

Gallatin Range north of Yellowstone Park. Everything that can be 

said about Big Sky lumber .lands that are part of H.R. 873 can be 

said of ours. I will go through those. 

Number one, we own seven sections of land that bisect the Gallatin Range, five of which are within the Hyalite--PorcupineBuffalohorn Wilderness Study Area. In fact, they effectively separate the Federal lands to the north end of the study area from 

lands to the southern part of the study area. 

Number two, these lands possess outstanding natural characteristics and wildlife habitat which give them high value, and these 

lands should be added to the National Forest System. 

Number three, although these lands have remained pristine up till now, failure to consolidate at this time will in the near future 

lead to fragmentation and development. 

Finally, number four, the Federal Government has already invested a great deal in keeping the lands along the Gallatin Range protected from excess development. 

We propose to add an exchange of our lands to this legislation 

so the convoluted land ownership pattern along the Gallatin Crest 

can be solved with one piece of legislation so we can maintain some 

sort of fairness in our working circle. 

We propose to exchange seven sections of land that we own along 

the Gallatin Range for checkerboard lands-lands that are in a 

checkerboard pattern and isolated-with other lands of ours. In addition, we would exchange the Lost Creek Reserve on the 

Deerlodge Forest for some isolated tracts on both the Gallatin and 

the Deerlodge National Forest. The Lost Creek Reserve would be 

an extraordinary addition to the National Forest System. 

We made this proposal to the Forest Service about two months 

!l_go, and we have been working hard on the proposal since then. 

We should close on the proposal in the next few weeks. We have 
72 

discussed our proposal with all members of the Montana congres- sional delegation, and I do have some maps with me that would 

hel_p illustrate the exchange if you want to discuss that further. 

The lands that we have offered are wanted by the Forest Service 

and environmental groups. The lands that we have selected are 

scattered, isolated, checkerboard tracts that are difficult and, in 

many cases, unavailable for the public to use and enjoy. 

We have agreed with the Forest Service to trade lands on an 

equal basis. All lands have been appraised by a Forest Service appraiser or are in the process of being appraised, and we have 

agreed to pay half of the Forest Service appraiser's wages for the 

time he put in on this project in order to expedite things. 

We have also agreed to place easements on certain lands that we 

own now and would retain as well as those we would acquire to 

require the best of forestry practices and to restrict subdivision in 

order to protect the outstanding resource values in the Gallatin 

Range. We would also donate those easements to the Nature Conservancy. 

Mr. Chairman, this land exchange that we propose is in the best 

interest of all concerned. It is a win/win situation for everyone, and 

it is also endorsed by the Governor of Montana and many environmental organizations and sportsmen's groups. We have met with 

several informed citizens groups and have received pretty good acceptance to it, and while it would stand on its own, we ask that 

it be added to this legislation. Time is of the essence for us, as apparently it is for the private 

proponent of the present H.R. 873. The administrative process for 

land exchange is terribly time consuming. This legislation that we 

discuss today is much more efficient. 

Adding the additional land exchange or adjustment I propose today will permit the consolidation of the Hyalite--Porcupine-- Buffalohorn Wilderness Study Area and ensure public ownership of 

the Lost Creek Reserve. In addition, the lands that we off er will 

greatly improve public access to public lands. 

We will have the necessary work done in time, so this legislation will not be held up. Adding our proposal to H.R. 873 would be the 

right thing to do. 

I thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Atwood, for your testimony. 

Our concern is, we don't know as much about the proposal that 

you are making. The Forest Service hasn't done the preliminary 

work, nor has there been very much dialogue, apparently, between 

the constituencies that would be affected, which apparently is 

something that the Forest Service has at least explored more extensively with regard to the other land exchanges that are embraced by the delegation bill from Montana. That is principally the 

concern. 

You had an opportunity, or others had had an opportunity, to 

have some dialogue on these exchanges that are in the bill before 

us that you are testifying on. Is that correct. 

Mr. ATWOOD. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So I think what they are trying to do is afford everyone the same opportunity. I wouldn't completely write this off. I 

don't know as much about it as I would like to know, so I have an 
73 

open mind with regard to it, but we are under a time line with regard to this other measure, to try to hold all the parties in agreement so we can give the Forest Service the direction that they need 

here. 

So I am open-minded, as I said, about the other proposals that 

you have made and understand that you are affected or impacted by the loss of some, at least insofar as it is not wilderness study, 

but you can't bid on it, so you would like to, obviously, try to rationalize or bring some other consideration to facilitate orderly utilization of wood fiber by your mills and so forth. I understand that. 

So we will certainly look at that. I don't know what the possibilities 

are, but we will explore it through staff and see what we can do. 

Obviously we are under a short time frame, and there won't be 

more information forthcoming, but we will act as deliberately as 

possible if, in fact, there is a~eement. 

I have a number of questions. First of all, Congressman Hefley 

was quoting from the financial report of the Nature Conservancy in talking about the amount of money that they had expended. I 

think that is where he was getting the number from. But he point- ed out that they had expended $90 million but the cost of the land 

sold was $87 million and the cost of selling it was over $3 million, 

so they lost money, and they, of course, donated land to the extent 

of $18.5 million. 

But let me just put the entire article in the record from the Januarr,/February Nature Conservancy. It is the 1992 financial report. 

I will put the entire article in the record, without objection, so everybody can study that more carefully. [The article follows:) 
74 

The recent environmental challenges 1 9 9 2 facing The Nature Conservancy have 

been extraordinary, and the o,;ganizations response has placed unusual pressures on its 

FINANCIAL REPORT resources. Restoring those resources while continuing to respond to habitat protection needs 

was therefore a high priority during the 1992 fiscal year. ~ Despite a recession, the 

Conservancy increased its revenue from dues, 

contributions and grants by 15 percent-a tribute 

to both diligent fund-raising and increased public 

recognition of the importance of the 

Conservancy's mission and the organ ization's 

effectiveness in pursuing it. A strategic decision to 

transfer $11 . 7 million into the Land Preservation 

Fund-the revolving account that bankrolls 

critical land acquisitions-is largely responsible 

for this year's apparent deficit. 

The organiza tion also adopted improved 

accounting methods in fisca l 1992. These 

changes, reviewed and approved by external 

SOURCE OF FUNDS (Beforcscilno/ COll5CrYlltion land) 

"--- Gifts/Contributions 85.4% 

Investment Incomt: 10.8% 

Merchandising. 

Least:s, Ft:t:s, Otht:r 3.8% 

auditors, will allow 

the Conservancy to 

track its financial 

status more accurately and efficiently in 

the future . One 

important outgrowth of lhese new 

auditing procedures 

is that membership 

developm ent 

expenses were 

discovered to be far 

lower than figures 

stated in previous 

years. 

Another change 

for fJSCal 1992 ~ the 

rise in spending 

on conservauon science 

and land 

management. 

This reflects the 

Conservancy's 

increasing 

emphasis on 

studying and 

managing entire ecosystems (a lso known as 

PARTNERSHIPS WlTH GOVERNMENT 

gove rnment bodies and 

other conservation 

agencies. The va lue of 

land sold a~iiiDliiM 

to govemmt-QI and orb;;: 

conservation agenci,es..y,'as 

more than $ J 09 mijlion. 

in cernm the g,pgmization r,.crivcd appeie-. ~ieili $90. 1 million.., ~lt ough this work 

with partner organizations 

results in a net financial 

loss for the Conservancy, 

it is vitally imponam. The 

task of conservation is too 

large for any single entity, 

and the Conservancy 

believes it is critical that 

bioreserves)-a key component of ilS ~Last Great 

Places" iniliative 

The Conservancy cannot continue to meet the 

growing environmental challenges worldwide 

without the continued generosity of individuals, 

corporattons and 

fo undations. Therefore, USE OF FUNDS 

the organization is seeking Program Expenses/ 

to enlarge its base of Capital Allocations 87.7% 

members 3nd supponers, Grneral & Administrativt: 5.6% and asks for your 

assistance in lhis 

imponam e_ndeavor. • 

Fund-raising 4.5% 

Membership Development 2.2% 

JANUARY/FEB RUARY 1993 · NATURE CONSERVANCY 33 
75 

Mr. VENTO. We appreciate Mr. Hefley bringing this article to our 

attention, because it does demonstrate the bargain the National 

Government received for the activities of the Nature Conservancy, 

I think about 25 percent greater value than what would be expended, to say nothing about some of the administrative red tape 

that the Forest Service sometimes gets involved with in terms of 

trying to facilitate land purchases and/or the other land management agencies. They simply don't have the flexibility, because of 

the discussion that Mr. Atwood and I just had, that the Nature 

Conservancy or private sector might have to make purchases of 

land. 

But hopefully this can be an orderly process, one in which there 

is an enlightened view and recognition of a responsible action on 

the part of the land management agencies and the conservation 

groups that are involved in it. 

I hope we can move ahead with this agreement. I think we need 

more cooperation such as has become evident here in order to rationally manage lands and not have everything explode into a polarized type of conflict before the committee. It seems the resources 

here are outstanding: The Greater Yellowstone Coalition and others involved, I think, are to be commended as well as the other individuals-Mr. Blixseth and others-involved in the agreement. I 

think it does give reason for new hopes. 

Just a couple of questions. For Mr. Graham: What would be the 

consequences to the wildlife resources if these lands are developed? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think the grizzly bear situation is 

probably the most critical in the sense that it is an endangered species and recovery of that species requires some fairly large tracts 

of land. I think that by blocking it up throughout that range we 

would have a better chance to see recovery and a spread for that 

grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone. 

It depends on what would be the fate of the lands. If they were 

subdivided, for example, we would very likely have human/grizzly 

bear conflicts in that area that would certainly create problems for 

recovery. 

The same thing, I think, with the elk migrations, depending on 

what was happening to those lands. If it would disrupt the migration of those elk herds, property damage could result as well. 

The fisheries values are probably a little bit more difficult, to 

quantify what those impacts would be, but I think it primarily 

would be with the elk and grizzly bear, bighorn sheep, and the wintering. 

Mr. VENTO. How are the grayling doing in this area? In this 

basin you have reintroduced the grayling you mentioned in your 

testimony. How are they doing? 

Mr. GRAHAM. We have just started. We haven't had a chance to 

evaluate that. 

Mr. VENTO. But nobody is allowed to go fishing for them, I guess. 

Is that right? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Not yet. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, let me know when it is appropriate. 

I guess you have some other slots in Montana where you can 

catch grayling. Were they reintroduced in these other locations in 
76 

Montana as well, or have they been naturally occurring there without interruption? 

Mr. GRAHAM. We have lake-dwelling grayling in Montana in a 

number of locations. The Upper Big Hole River Drainage is the last 

place in the Lower 48 States where we have stream-dwelling Arctic 

grayling. 

Mr. VENTO. And that is an uninterrupted presence there. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct, as far as we know. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, if they would quit introducing all those brook 

trout-I didn't know that "brook trout" was a dirty word until I 

went to Montana, the eastern brook trout, but I found out that 

there had been a plethora of individuals. Obviously, we would take 

any we of trout we could get in Minnesota. We haven't been able 

to quite take that elitist attitude with regard to the relative desirability of various types of trout. 

Mr. Blixseth, I was impressed with lour statement, and obviously it reflects real progress in terms o the dialogue that is going 

on in Montana. Hopefully it will lead to more agreement on issues 

than what has occurred. 

Obviously, we are talking about vetoed wilderness bills and so 

forth. That is a ~retty unusual circumstance. By the time they get 

to the Presidents desk, we normally don't have that problem, but 

we did in this case, and I am hopeful that we can get this important measure passed and . will be able to work on the other issues 

with dispatch as well. 

Obviously, if this agreement doesn't go forth you would be left 

with little alternative but to develop the lands. Would that be correct? 

Mr. BLIXSETH. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Why is it so important that we have this June deadline in this instance to you? It is important to you, I assume. 

Mr. BLIXSETH. For a couple of different reasons. Number one, we 

sold the manufacturing facility that we acquired in the acquisition 

to Louisiana Pacific who employ 100 or so people in the Belgrade 

area, which is just outside of Bozeman. As part of that agreement, 

we promised to deliver x amount of board feet of timber to them 

over a five-year period, and they have a UCC filing, if you will, on 

our timber lands, and they have the right to enter on those lands 

if we don't and harvest the timber to keep that mill running and 

employ those people. 

So basically we reached agreement with LP that last year we had 

given the legislation until 12/31/92 to pass, and, as we all know, 

the wilderness bill failed, and so the Nature Conservancy talked us 

into going to June 1, which is six additional months, and because 

of the supply of timber that is available about that date, June 1 

is the date that we going to have to kind of start looking ahead to 

see where those people who work in that mill are going to get wood 

to keep running. 

The second concern, of course, is the financial concern. We paid 

a certain amount of money for this property and expect to receive 

a certain amount of return on our investment, and we can't wait 

indefinitely for something to happen, so that is our reason. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 
77 

Mr. Thomas, shall we defer to Mr. Williams here and let him ask 

questions first, or do you wish to go ahead? 

Mr. THOMAS. If I might, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VENTO. All right. Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THOMAS. Very briefly. 

Mr. Scott, I thought I heard you say that there was a net increase in private ownership as a result of this? 

Mr. ScOTT. No, no. In public ownership. 

Mr. THOMAS. Public ownership, okay. And fairly substantialmaybe 69,000 acres? 

Mr. ScOTT. Roughly 70,000 acres. Mr. THOMAS. Okay. 

Mr. Graham, is there no one that has any misgiving about this? 

All the testimony we have had has been positive. I guess that 

means no one questions it. Is that right? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Congressman, I would never speak for everyone. I 

am not aware of opposition. 

Mr. THOMAS. Okay. That is interesting. Mr. Blixseth, will you acquire some other timber lands in this exchange? 

Mr. BLIXSETH. I don't think I quite understand your question. 

You mean, are we going to acquire timberland back from the Federal Government? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. 

Mr. BLIXSETH. Yes, I think there are 6,700 acres, more or less, 

over in the Lolo and the Flathead National Forests, isolated timber 

land, that would come back to our company, and there are also 

other timberlands which are intermingled with the Forest Service 

in nonstrategic environmental areas that we are negotiating with 

the Forest Service currently to try and consolidate the balance of 

our ownership. 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, there are 12,000 acres here in exchange. Is 

that to your company? 

Mr. BLIXSETH. That is to our company. 

Mr. THOMAS. I see. 

Mr. BLIXSETH. We think ultimately it will be a greater number 

than that. 

Mr. THOMAS. But it hasn't been settled, has it? As I read through 

this, there are several things here in Porcupine Creek and Taylor 

Fork, roaded lands that are not settled. Mr. BLIXSETH. Well, it is actually a four-pronged agreement with 

the Nature Conservancy. Number one is what we refer to as the 

Gallatin exchange; that is set and locked. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. 

Mr. BLIXSETH. Number two would be the Porcupine Drainag~, 

which has about 7,000 acres in it. They have the right to buy it 

for money or trade. Number three would be the Taylor Fork Area, 

which has 11,000 add acres. ~ain, they have a right-meaning the 

Nature Conservancy-the right to check; and the last is about 

24,000 or 25,000 acres, which would be the balance of the Gallatin 

National Forest. Mr. THOMAS. So you will pick Up 12,000 acres and $3.5 million. 

Mr. BLIXSETH. On phase one. 
78 

Mr. THOMAS. Okay. Again, my concern basically is that we seem 

always in these exchanges-I am for exchanges. I wonder why 

there couldn't be some other property exchanges. I know we will 

argue, well, we can't do it on Forest Service lands, and frankly I 

don't know quite why BLM and others can't participate as well. At any rate, thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield, I think one of the difficulties frequently that creeps into this, and it persisted in the 

eighties when there was obviously a very dedicated group. In fact, 

providing for exchanges is not use of LWCF money or purchase, 

whether through Nature Conservancy or others. It is simply that 

the fungibility of trying to arrange land exchanges interstate-or 

intrastate-interstate, we got involved in a few of them-is just 

very difficult to do. Obviously, establishing a value just is a more 

efficient way of doing it. 

I know the gentleman's concern, and for those of us that come 

from large public land States, like Montana and Minnesota or Wyoming, it is a real concern. Obviously, we don't compare with the 

types of problems that they have in your States but there is large 

public ownership in my State. 

In any case, it is just the fungibility and the practicability of 

doing this. Where it is readily workable, you do it; where it isn't, 

you obviously, in order to facilitate this, need to have the Land and 

Water Conservation or Nature Conservancy and others involved. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if I could point out one thing on the 

public/private debate. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, Mr. Scott. Mr. SCQTT. I think it is important to note, as the witnesses have 

testified here today, that the lands to be acquired by the United 

States, these roughly net 70,000 acres, are extremely high in terms 

of their wildlife and wilderness values, and when you look at a forest like the Gallatin Forest that has such high amenity values, 

there just isn't that much around to give up to go the other way. 

I think the feeling among the people that participated in this is 

that we wanted to protect as much as possible those high-value 

lands for the grizzly bears and the spawning cutthroat trout and 

the other things, and where we could find lands that didn't have 

the high environmental values, as Mr. Blixseth pointed out, we 

would trade those, but we would use cash for the differential. I 

think that that was sort of the theme that we were operating 

under. Mr. THOMAS. I understand that: I do understand, first of all, that 

forest lands were generally withdrawn for a purpose. So therefore 

it is hard to find some that many would agree are no longer necessary, but there are also millions of acres in Montana of other 

larids that were simply there because no one took them up and 

they have no particular value. I am suggesting that we ought to 

broaden our scope when it comes to exchanges and not hold it within a very small area. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the issue, Mr. Blixseth will probably tell you, 

is that there are other millions of acres in Montana in public ownership, but it may not be acreage that he is particularly interested 

in. This is the problem you get into. 

Mr. THOMAS. But there are other people who are interested in it. 

Mr. VENTO. No, no. I understand. 
79 

Mr. THOMAS. You ta~k about the complication. You know, it becomes complicated if you don't want to do it, but if you want to do 

it you can find a way. 

Mr. VENTO. I'm not trying to be argumentative with the gentleman but just want to point out that I think all these lands have 

different values, I would say, not no value, and I am sure the gen- tleman would agree with that; I think he misspoke. 

Mr. Williams, thank you for your patience. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It appears that although support for this trade is not totally 

unanimous either on this committee or, frankly, in Montana, but 

there is significant support for it and widespread understanding of 

the importance of going ahead with it. 

We have heard, somewhat to my surprise, by the way, no opposition being expressed to the trade by any of the witnesses today, so 

let me focus on the one matter which still seems to be in contention, and that is whether or not to add Brand S and their potential 

trade to this legislation before we move it. 

Mr. Graham, you spoke about the national significance of going 

ahead with this trade. If trying to work out the difficulties of the 

Brand S trade ended up in the demise of the trade now before us, 

do you think Montana would be well served, or the Nation? 

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Have you worked at all with the various agencies 

or parties involved in either the trade before us or the Brand S 

trade? Have you worked with any of them, Mr. Graham? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Have you worked with any of them with regard 

to the trades themselves? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Just in reviewing the information, briefing our 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission about these issues, but not 

in any negotiations. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You are familiar, because of your current work 

and your past work as well, with the difficulty in trying to arrive 

at a negotiated trade, are you not? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I am. · Mr. WILLIAMS. And you do know that it will take most likely 

months, if not longer, to finalize the proposed Brand S trade, do 

you not? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Generally the negotiations we have with the Department usually take quite a bit of time. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And you have heard the witnesses before us talk 

about June as an end date for moving this legislation. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Correct. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Scott, first, thank you for your long involvement, many hours and days of work on the trade that was agreed 

to in the Gallatin with the other parties involved. 

With regard to attaching the Brand S trade to this one, being as 

you personally sat at the table, personally walked the land, and are 

aware of the difficulties inherent in trying to put the trade now before us together, do you think there is time to delay this trade in 

the hopes of including the Brand S trade with it? 

Mr. ScO'I"r. I don't think so, Congressman Williams. The problem 

we face, as Mr. Graham pointed out, is that we are somewhat in 
80 

the infancy of looking at the Brand S trade, and I think that maybe 

Mr. Atwood misspoke for a moment when he said that there was 

significant support in the environmental community for the Brand 

S trade. 

I don't think the environmental community has yet had an opportunity to take a position on the Brand S exchange because we 

don't yet have the appraisals back, which I understand will bethey are imminent, within a week or so or even less, but we 

haven't had the public forums that we have had over this exchange and haven't crystalized the public sentiment on that exchange, and 

I am not trying to say that 1t would potentially be a bad exchange, 

nor am I saying that it is a good exchange, we don't know yet, and 

in not knowing is the risk that we run with this particular piece of legislation, with your legislation, H.R. 873, because we do know 

the values in this one and we do know the time deadline that we 

are under, and we know how quickly we have to move it. 

So our concern, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Wilderness Society's concern, is that we don't want to do anything that 

would potentially jeopardize this legislation, not trying to rain on 

Brand S's parade on this one, it is just that this needs to move. 

If the Brand S exchange is meritorious when it comes out and pub- lic support comes out in favor of it, it deserves to move, and we 

would be one that would come to you and ask you for your support. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Mr. Blixseth, I also want to thank you. You described yourself as 

one who sat on the other side of the table from the environmentalists sometimes-quite often, in fact, I guess-in an odd positions, 

given positions, but nonetheless you and they were able to get on 

the same side of the table, and you were willing to listen and consider, and I think the public ought to be appreciative of that. 

If we get :past whatever a magic date might be, but it appears 

to be some time in early June now-if we get past that date with 

no light at the end of the tunnel, very little legislative movement, 

what are your next steps with regard to your property in the Gallatin? 

Mr. BLIXSETH. If that scenario materializes, we will start selling 

some of the properties. We have numerous inquiries and offers on 

the table currently, and we will manage the timber and log some 

of the timber into the mill at Louisiana Pacific and subdivide some 

of the properties. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Atwood, thank you for being here with us 

today. 

I note from your testimony that you have generously not opposed 

the legislation but hope, understandably, to be a part of it, to have 

the trade that you and others at Brand S are diligently working 

on included as part of this legislation. I understand that you are 

trying to identify lands in the Deerlodge Forest for possible trade 

to Brand S, and in an effort, myself, to determine how far along all of you are in your trade as I consider whether or not to link 

it to this bill, I have been in touch with some folks in the various 

areas that you are considering. The first indication that I get from talking to folks in the Skyline 

Sportsmen's Group with regard to the Deerlodge exchange is that 

they are opposed to it. Have you visited with them, or do you have 
81 

any understanding of where the local sportsmen may be with regard to that part of the exchange? 

Mr. ATWOOD. You are referring to the isolated tracts? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Mr. ATWOOD. Okay. We have had some informal meetings with 

the Skyline sportsmen's groups. To this date, actually, we haven't 

heard any major objections. That is news to me. 

I think the ments of the Anaconda Butte people getting Lost 

Creek Reserve far outweigh these isolated tracts that were submitted to us by the Forest Service for acquirement. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think your company is to be commended for 

their diligence in traveling the State and seeking support from the 

various recreation and sportsmen's groups. I have a number of 

them call me and my staff and tell me that Brand S was by or 

Brand S has been on the phone. Have you found any of the recreation groups or conservation groups that are supportive of your 

specific proposals? 

Mr. ATWOOD. Yes. I have been lookin~ for the opportunity to say this, in that the Nature Conservancy-it was actually one of their 

ideas that in order to avoid the potential impacts on Brand S, realizing that we are a viable employer in the area, they came to us 

and said, "Look, the eight-mile area has been previously released; 

maybe we can do something over there for you guys," and, in fact, 

an environmental ~oup actually initiated the idea. 

I would have a httle bit of difference of opinion that there aren't 

any environmental groups in favor of this. They are also concerned 

that we would be an anchor on this bill, and we realize that we 

can't hold it up, and there is some risk, I think, in being very specific about your exchange. Whereas our exchange is very specific, 

we feel very confident in having those things worked out. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If waiting to include the Brand S exchange on 

this bill would mean that this bill would be delayed past the time 

when Big Sky Lumber would have to go ahead with their development plans, would your position of support for this le¢slation at 

that time time? Would you be for killing it by having the delay go 

ahead, or do you think that this exchange standin~ alone without 

Brand S in it is of enough regional and national significance that 

it ought to go ahead? 

Mr. ATWOOD. It is difficult for me to respond to that until we see 

the appraisal. At this point, I think we are dealing with some pretty old appraisal sort of values for timber, and it is hard for us, but 

generally we think it is probably a good deal. 

We, too, are under the gun, so to speak, on our Lost Creek plans. 

We are going to have to do something with that this spring, and 

as the chairman asked me, why were we not so active previously? 

we didn't have Lost Creek to offer. This is a 15,000-acre piece of 

property. It is the Porcupine of that area. It has national significance for big horn sheep and other wildlife. 

We are not going to aggressivelr. oppose it. We have always had 

concerns with the effects to our mill. There are two planned timber 

sales that are virtually taken out of that. But we realize that some 

value has to be traded there for what the Government will obtain. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Atwood, what I am going to encourage the 

committee to do is to proceed ahead with our schedule, which was 
82 

not easily reached, the chairman has been very kind to schedule 

both hearing and markup, and the full committee chairman has 

been very kind as well to place us on his schedule. I want to go 

ahead with that while, at the same time, monitoring the progress 

of your trade for consideration of possibly attaching that trade at 

some point on the bill. 

But I want you to understand fully that for my part-and I have 

got a lot of colleagues here I have to satisfy in order to move this 

legislation-but I want you and Brand S and the company to understand that, for my part, I don't want to lose this bill on this 

trade. I want it to keep moving. I don't want anything to jeopardize 

it. 

From 1925 to now is a long time. The door is about to close on 

the possibility of consolidating these lands, and it may well be that 

we can find another vehicle-for example, the Montana wilderness 

bill-to delay until we can see if your trade can be culminated and 

then put the authorization for your trade in the Montana wilderness bill, and then of course we would have the support for the first 

time of Brand S of a Montana wilderness bill, so we would be killing all the birds with the same stone, and that might be a worthy 

goal and objective. 

Mr. ATWOOD. That's very comforting. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. It gets a little complicated, is right. 

I was just looking at Taylor Creek here. The Forest Service puts 

out terrific photographs of the Gallatin National Forest area. Obviously, after looking over the information and background, I figure 

I can review the scenic qualities without being biased after looking 

over the facts, so I am looking at the photographs now. The whole issue that occurred to me is that-if Taylor Creek gets 

subdivided, of course, I would like my piece of it-but the very 

problem of trying to possess wilderness is elusive in the sense that 

m subdividing it you destroy that which you want to preserve and 

that which you enjoy. So this gives us an opportunity to do that 

in a holistic manner, and we hope that we have that option, and 

we appreciate the cooperation of all involved, and the advocacy of 

the gentleman from Montana and his hard work, and the delegation's hard work, and the principles, in bringing this about. 

I have no further questions, but I have been listening to the exchange between Mr. Atwood and Mr. Williams with regard to the 

Brand S issue, and we will devote staff effort toward it. If it is 

something that is workable, we will do it as a vehicle presents itself, whether it is this bill or at a later date. I think you have made 

your point, Mr. Atwood and others on this panel. 

Thank you. The meeting stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

MARCH 23, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

Senator Conrad Burns' 

Statement before the National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands Subcommittee 

March 23, 1993 

Mr . Chairman, I would like to first take this opportunity to thank you and the other subcommittee members for holding this 

hearing today. The bill currently before you, H.R. 873, the 

Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act is important to my home state of Montana, and I hope the bill may be acted upon 

before the June 1 deadline. 

I am a co-sponsor of the Senate companion bill, S. 489. These 

bills, s. 489 and H.R. 873, will eliminate some of the 

controversies surrounding land management decisions. The 

checkerboard ownership of this Range has caused land management 

problems in the past for both private property owners and the 

Forest Service . Over the years, the parties have worked to develop a plan to consolidate their respective lands. This 

exchange has been around for sometime and deserves to be seen to completion. 

I do not want anything to slow down the movement of this bill . 

Many people in the Gallatin area have waited long enough for this 

exchange to be completed . I would like to ask that a number of 

items be considered in the debate, however. 

First, people in the Wilsall area have concerns over water quality. There are approxi mate ly 17 ranches which could 

be a f fected by logging along a stretch of land between Flathead 

Pass and Ferry lake, on the east side of the Bridger Mountains . In addition, they are concerned that this land may be sub-divided 

in the future. I would like to see this concerns addressed 

before this bill is enacted into law. 

In addition, I would like to explore the possibility of an amendment being added that will ensure jobs will not be lost in 

Livingston. Currently, the Forest Service is working out final 

details of a possible land trade evolving the Lost Creek area that will protect jobs at the Brand-Slumber mill in Livingston, 

Montana and provide protection for wildlife habitat. It is my 

understanding that the Forest Service will be completing the 

appraisal this week. This exchange will protect prime Mountain 

Sheep habitat on the Deerlodge National Forest and ensure work at the sawmill in Livingston will continue . This trade appears 

to be in the public interest, and I am hopeful that it might be 

considered as well in this bill. 

Last, I hope we will be able to consider a small land transfer in 

Lincoln County, Montana. This transfer of only 340 acres is 

important to the County because they currently rely on special use permits. The areas include a graveyard, landfill, and school 

ground. This land is used in the day-to-day functions of the 

(83) 
84 

local community, and it seem that this, too, would be in the 

public's best interest . I have introduced, and Senator Baucus is a co-sponsor of, S. 528 which would accomplish this transfer. 

Consideration of adding this bill as amendment might be 

appropriate at this time. 

Having said all this, I would like to stress that I do not want anything to slow the process of the Gallatin bill. As we all 

know, stand-alone land exchange and transfers do not move quickly 

in Congress. If this vehicle is moving, I think we should 

consider adding these transfers and exchange. 

I am ready to work with my colleagues from Montana, as well as the committee, to achieve our common goal of having the 

consolidation completed. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. 
WILLIAMM. 

MERCER 

INCOA:POAATfO 

March 15, 1993 

The Honorable George Miller 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

85 

David P Carlin 

Managing Director 

Re: HR873 - GaUatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 19932 

Dear Representative Miller: 

I am a real estate owner in the Gallatin Range area of Montana. I am writing to urge 

your support of HR873, the Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 1993. 

With this Act's passage, over 80,000 acres of critical wildlife habitat so important to 

Yellowstone National Park will be protected in perpetuity. Failure to pass this Act 

would severely impact the wildlife values of the ares, of Yellowstone National Park, 

and the regional economy, which is based on tourism, hunting, and recreation. 

There is so much to gain: the protection of one of our nation's largest elk herds, 

endangered species like the Grizzly bear, and tens of thousands or acres of wild lands 

which should have been protected long ago. After over 60 years of attempts by the 

U.S. government to acquire these properties, and millions of dollars spent in federal 

funds, this is our last opportunity. Act now! 

Please make this letter part of the official hearing record at the appropriate time. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Managing Director 

DPC:pg 

One Columbus Suite 1100 

10 West Broad Street 

Columbus OH 43215-3475 

614 227 5511 

Fax 614 224 7676 

A Marsh & Mcl ennan Company 
86 

Statement for the Record 

Meridian Oil Inc. and Meridian Minerals Company 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests & Public Lands 

Hearing of March 23, 1993 on HR 873 

Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 1993 

SUMMARY 

Meridian Oil and Meridian Minerals (henceforth the Meridian 

Companies) support HR 873, the Gallatin Range Consolidation and 

Protection Act of 1993, as introduced by Rep. Pat Williams (D-MT). 

We own severed mineral interests in each area addressed by the bill 

and have participated in efforts over the years to rationalize the 

checkerboard pattern of ownership in sensitive areas in the Gallatin 

Range. The Meridian Companies stand ready to offer their ownership 

to complete the Plum Creek Gallatin (Section 3) and Porcupine 

(Section 4) Exchanges as negotiated in 1988. However, if the US 

Forest Service (USFS) chooses the purchase option for the lands in 

Section 4, then we will agree to sell our non-oil and gas mineral 

interests and surface access rights but will retain our oil, gas and 

geothermal ownership. In the Taylor Fork area addressed in Section 

5, we will agree to sell our surface access rights but retain our oil and 

gas ownership . The Meridian Companies have not been approached 

about exchanging or selling their oil, gas, geothermal or mineral 

ownership under the lands described in Section 6, but would 

consider any proposals. 

BACXGROUND 

The Meridian Companies are subsidiaries of Burlington Resources Inc. 

and are the successors to the land grant interests of the Burlington 

Northern Railroad Company (BNRR). As such, they have an 

ownership interest in the checkerboard lands scattered around the 

Gallatin Range and elsewhere in Montana. At the present time as a 

result of corporate restructuring during the last five years, Meridian 

Oil is the owner of all the former BNRR severed oil and gas interests 

in Montana. Meridian Minerals is the owner of the other non-oil and 

gas severed mineral interests in many tracts of the checkerboard 

lands in the Gallatin area in Montana. There is no longer any 

corporate affiliation between the Meridian Companies and their 
87 

previous affiliates, BNRR or Plum Creek Timber Company, LP (Plum 

Creek). 

During the 1980's, the Meridian Companies participated in the 

negotiations with the Congress and the USFS to arrive at land 

consolidations in expectation of enactment of legislation designating 

certain USFS areas in Montana as wilderness. We worked together 

with Plum Creek, then a sister company, to develop the Plum Creek 

Gallatin Exchange and the Porcupine Exchange. As part of those 

negotiations, we executed an inter-company agreement between 

Plum Creek and the Meriditn Companies in which the Meridian 

Companies agreed to give up all of their mineral interests (including 

oil and gas) to the USPS in etcliange for all the federal mineral 

interests underlying the larids Plum Creek would receive elsewhere. 

When Plum Creek subsequently sold their interests in the subject 

lands to Big Sky Lumber ~on\pany (Big Sky), we agreed to the 

assignment of Plum Creek's interest in the inter-company agreement 

to Big Sky. Therefore, the Meridilln Companies are prepared to 

proceed with the Plum Creek Gallatin :8xchange and the Porcupine 

Exchange as proposed in 1988 even though Big Sky now owns Plum 

Creek's interests. 

In 1988, the Meridian Cofflpanies also worked directly with the USFS 

and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop an exchange 

for our severed mineral interests (including oil and gas) underlying 

USFS surface in the Clearwatet-Monture, Hyalite and Tom Miner 

Basin areas. The Meridian Companies own about 10,945 acres of 

severed mineral interests (including oil, gas and geothermal rights) 

in the ClearWater-Monture area; 8340 acres in the Hyalite Canyon 

area; and 2159 acres fo the T6in Miner Basin area. In this proposal 

(which has subsequently betn named the ·"severed minerals 

exchange"), we agreed to give up all out mineral interests to the USFS 

in exchange for severed ·federal mi'nera1 ifltetests elsewhere in 

Montana to be designated late't. 1'his exchange provision was agreed 

to by all affected parties, has been iiltiuded in each wilderness bill 

since 1988, and is contained in S 489, the Senate companion bill to 

HR 873. 

CURRENTPOSmoN 

Section 3. Plum Creek lana Exchanee--GaUatin Area: This section 

authorizes what we call the Plum Creek Gallatin Exchange. The 

2 
88 

Meridian Companies own all of the oil, gas, geothermal and other 

mineral interests (37,752 acres) under the surface lands owned by 

Big Sky and designated to be exchanged to the USFS in this section. 

There has been no oil, gas, geothermal or other mineral exploration 

or development on these lands, and therefore, the development 

potential of our ownership is unknown at this time. As stated above, 

we support this exchange and are ready to proceed with it as 

originally proposed 

Section 4. Land Consolidation--Porcupine Area: This section 

authorizes the exchange or sale of lands currently held by Big Sky in 

the Porcupine and Cottonwood areas. The Meridian Companies own 

all of the oil, gas, geothermal and other mineral interests (8,131 

acres) under certain surface lands owned by Big Sky and designated 

to be exchanged or purchased by this provision. The development 

potential of our ownership is unknown at this time. In so far as this 

section would authorize what we call the Porcupine Exchange, we 

support this exchange and are ready to proceed with it as originally 

proposed. However, this section also would authorize purchasing the 

Porcupine lands instead of an exchange. Meridian Minerals is 

prepared to sell its severed mineral interests other than geothermal 

rights in this area and will begin appraising its interests 

immediately. They will not require surface disturbing activities to 

complete the valuation of these non-oil and gas minerals. 

Meridian Oil is not interested in selling the oil, gas and geothermal 

interests in this area for several reasons. First, obtaining fair market 

value for severed oil, gas and geothermal interests of unknown value 

is obviously difficult, if not impossible. Determining their value 

generally requires prospecting and drilling activities which involve 

surface disturbance. Not only is it almost impossible to get access to 

conduct these activities in such sensitive areas, but these activities 

would not be compatible with the stated objective of preserving the 

Porcupine and Cottonwood lands' environmental values. Then, as to 

such data as may be available on the oil; gas and geothermal 

potential, there is seldom agreement on how much oil, gas and 

geothermal potential the data actually show and on how much value 

to attach to that potential. Finally, if the above disagreements can be 

resolved, it may tum -out that arriving at a value for sales purposes 

costs more than the price to be received for the oil, gas and 

geothermal rights. In addition and of major concern to Meridian Oil, 

it may tum out in 10, 20, or more years from now that exceedingly 

valuable oil, gas and geothermal have been sold at a nominal price 

3 
89 

because of our inability to identify their value from available 

information and our willingness to accommodate the political process. 

In lieu of selling its interests, Meridian Oil is negotiating an 

agreement to sell all of their rights to use the surface of these lands 

for exploration and development of their oil, gas and geothermal 

interests. Specifically, this agreement would provide that Meridian 

Oil would continue to own the oil, gas and geothermal interests in 

perpetuity, but would sell and convey their surface rights for their 

present value which is nominal. By law, these surface rights are a 

part of the severed mineral interests and provide access to so much 

of the surface as is necessary to extract any minerals. This approach 

avoids the costs associated with attempting to determine and 

negotiate fair market value, and removes the uncertainties 

associated with giving up a property of unknown value. It enhances 

the public interest by: 

- securing the critical property interest (the right to use the 

surface) necessary to protect the environmental values; 

avoiding the need for surface disturbing activities to appraise 

the value of the oil, gas and geothermal interests; and 

- reducing both the administrative and acquisition cost to the 

government of securing this protection. 

Meridian Oil is prepared to take this step recognizing fully that 

unless circumstances change sufficiently to cause the government to 

allow surface access to their oil, gas and geothermal rights, Meridian 

Oil's ability to produce any oil, gas or geothermal energy that may be 

present is prevented unless it can be extracted from surface locations 

outside the Porcupine area. Meridian Oil will expressly give up all its 

access rights under state and federal law including Section 1323 (a) 

of the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

3210(a)). No constitutional taking would be involved here, however, 

since the legislation facilitates but does not require the purchase of 

the various rights in the affected lands. Meridian Oil's decision to sell 

the surface access rights in this situation would be fully discretionary 

and they would receive full compensation for them. 

Section 5. Land Consolidation--Taylor Fork Area: This section 

authorizes a purchase or exchange of the lands currently held by Big 

Sky in the Taylor Fork area. Meridian Oil owns all of the oil and gas 

4 
90 

interests (11,205 acres) un4er certain surface lands owned by Big 

Sky and designated to be purchased or exchanged in this section. 

Meridian Minerals no loqger owns any mineral interests under these 

lands as they were sol<I to Plwn Cr~k in late 1992. The 

development potential of the Med~ian Oil ownership is unknown at 

this time. Meridian Oil is not in.t~rei;~ \P selling or consummating 

an exchange for iJS interests in t)le T4ylor Fork, but they are 

negotiating with the Nature Con~rv,-ncy to sell to that organization 

their surface access rig~t,s ~ e~plain~ -1,ove. 

Section 6, Land Cmw>lill&P.Qll--Q,Ullqll ~r.p: This s~tiQn authorizes 

the purchase or exchange yf laJ!_ds cqrr~IJ.tly owned by Big Sky south 

of Gallatin Gateway, lyt!)g between th~ Gll}atin and Yellowstone 

R~rs, and not already com,nitte<I to otf!~ lJ!anSfctioμs. Tbe 

Mendian Companies oy,,p all of ~ oil, a-. aqd nearly fll of the other 

minerals (23,628 acres) q~ tbe surface langs owiied by Big Sky 

and designated to be pQrc~,~ Qr ~x~bpged in the section. The 

development potential of our ownersbip is u!)known at this time. As 

is apparent from above, we have alwt ys be¢n willing to consider 

proposals to rationalize our ownership. IJowever, at the present time 

the Meridian Companies h3ve not beep app101ched al)out 

consummating an exchange or ~9llini their interests in these parcels, 

and we have not inclu4ed these lands in qpy negotiations to sell 

either our surface acceJS righJS as to oU, g2's qr geothermal interests, 

or our other mineraf"i nterests. 

Additional Section: S 489, the Sen3te co~p31tion to HR 873, 

contained upon intrc;xh,1ction as Secti9n 8 tile severed mineral 

exchange provision addresstni our severed 11_1jneral interests in the 

Clearwater-Monture, Hyalite and Tol}l 1\-finer areas. As explained 

above, this severed min.era_l exchange provision has been agreed to 

by all affected parties since 1988, and removes the threat of mineral 

extraction from three highly sensitive areas. The Meridian 

Companies would support the inclusion Qf this provision in ijR 873. 

ffiNCllJSION 

The Meridian Companies appreciate the iq~erest if the Natural 

Resources Committee in r~solvjng these loni-sta ding efforts to 

rationalize the checkerboard Ian~ patterμ iμ the allatin area. We 

are ready to assist and answer apy qμ.(}~tioQs tile Committee may 

have. 

5 
91 

R~~itiJ;-~a~rre\v~ri~"o\·_~.c:~"i~n ----,~~Q-~~-;~;Mi"~f,t,itli e/Q""Jim-"1Siadliiy.-.;~~--;.>;["4-~~ ;.~~:~'~I~ 

Sub<:oninittee ·on National Parks, -~·ote!lts and rubHc. La."ld• ·: :c_,:;.)£ 

Committlie 'On Natural )Hourc:es <-:: . . . . . . '·:-:"'; ·_(;.;~:'. :·.;)/· . ··;_;:,y;;:: 

U.S. Houae of Repreaentat.iv.e1.1 .. . . . . , . --- '--..; 

WdF.htngton P,C. ?.0515 

Dear Hr. Van~o: 

I am wrHing to i;\11:xnit oftici"itl testimony ,for t,he record rel-;,_ting 

tu H.R. 873, .:ho .G<t:. latin-Bridger ·roadlas:.1 l,rnd exchange bill ·. -.,· .-

introduced b:1 Mor,~.:uu(Rep. · Pat WillilllllD, As prc.sident. of the.• .. 

Alliance . for, the W:.ld Rockies, . ai;d a strong advocate for ecol'lystem 

protection i:1 tt·,e form o~ the Northern l{uc.:k i e11 Eco:;yi,tP.m I'=otectj on 

Act (NP.EPA), :!: want to point _out several defic:iendc.:::; with· t:i.e bill 

The Forest Survi<:e h~• p1epo.:red no environm&ntal · au .. lysis, no 

EIS, tha_t di.~cl :,sea · the . benohtt; 1l11d costs of t.h-. propooal Lo the 

public. Ne,i:i.::>nal Environmental Policy A.ct (NEPA) ·regulation 

.includes •pro~osal:s for leylilletion• (S l506. 8). By fo1iling to 

disc.:.ose t!1e enviroiullental, i1:1pac.:ts ilnd · economic cost• · to the:, pubic 

in a timely fashiqn, the For~ul Service h~o deliberately P.Xcluded_ 

t he ::;nwlic trom 1:he decision··making pr-octtaa, o. pl"o!':eGs that ha11 led 

directly to the pr,,posed legislation ·now bei ng coiuidered by the:, · Subco11111i t t-ae . · · · · 

l{ei;. Pat Willia."l'.s he) d no public _fi•li:l hc1tringa on the b:J l. •ven t -hou-;,h it· s i ,dnHi-: ,,!'ltly · affects -th+ee- m1Licna:l tore11ts · in Montana . . 

Last )'ear, a simila r !and exchange w1111 only ,a small ~art of varous 

state-wide •wilderness• bi! lti .,- In the pa.llt, hea.ringc have never focused priu:ar_i}y on the _·11i·gnificant iaaues surrour,ding the 

,:;allatin-Bi;idger ·land exchange. · 

,iit.mifican·~ quest ions hav* been ra:.ilcd · bl( _th~ publj C t:h<lt ho.vc 

.:ot . been addres·sed by Rep. Willilllll1.1 u.r: the ,Foreut Service.· These. que0d.on11 11r~, · · . · 

l.) . Whera J.l!i ~he_ bill .lllllguage ·tha.t pr9tect• •priut in"• Go1Uatin 

~!lng2 lands? Wh11 not one acr•. ot deaignatttd wpdernei11l'.? · 2. I . Wh·o c,le :~ided that Rridger kange roadfesa lanclil_ were suitable 

-t:;r ·tro1de? ·,n,ae :c :: i::e-ria was u111Ki? Wiil Lh.., 11.:une crit:eria· b• u11e<l 

~gaini ~cl. 11;;1ai11- in future ,exc::han~H aooociated wilh this bill? 

3. J WhY ilas no c(irwidf!rati<m been given to NRl':'PA • 11 no1ndlir.g of 

:hese illpo'rt.-nt roadlesa are11s? . . Isn't purchase with· no• t-.xdw.nge 11 

viable alt.ouiali11• that protects both rangfl!!? . . 4 . ) ~ - !fpecifi:;al.1-y preventt; _Lhe ·rareat Serv_ic e from destroying 

the wilderness . chiJracteriat ica found Lod1t)' <:.n· .Gallat.i n -roo.dlco:; 

lands · after the bi.l l . is i;:,,na«t? 'lan '. t ·this p,i1u.rily a . 

·tilllber-•~i,ply bill w~th li.Lt.le or rio C9f""itme~t to · 

·roadles.s/,..'ildern••• protection? · · : · . · . .. . . 5 . ) . Will future Gall,atin land ·exchal')gN: includ• 11n open public 

proeen .;,,. NliPA and !ield hearings - "it · Lhe· )>ill'..• appropriation 

o.i.:t-h::irizu,ic-n• for acquillition ·arc _ not. 1,1£·antec;l? ·~t J,iinda; o.1·e · 

-being considered for future Lradaia_ if apprcjpri:oted 4ollan c:an't .be, · fQund? . . · . . . · . - . .· ... · ·· . ~ · · . . . 

IL) What . timbflr righto· .(d~J, if o.ny, a:.:e held by _Louiido.na 

Pacific?. ' 
92 

Page 2 of '- · 

7,l Wbat is in the · agreement bet~een l'li.g Sky Wmhf,r·· ~d -Nature 

Conserv.,,ncy,· J:: N!lture .Conservancy is. 301 (cJ t3l; .md t-hc Forect 

service is :;:,ublic; why is the .i,yreement · •prival•" information being 

wi.thheld frorn the inter,::iGted public. ·. . · . . · . · · 8.) · How will the uubcomrnittee determine that this ·bill 111 in the 

public"s best interest with no EIS o·r documentation of the boneflts 

and costs. l:l:1d nc, · environmental impact.II ·ailsessmcnc? 

Protectio::. l ot11guage should be addod. Ari .imendmcnt is needed t.~ 

st.re!lgther, the bill to 11ec .. re . tl1e {mbic::' • priml:lry ,intercs.t in thi3 

~:r.ch,u;ge, wildEo;=ness · designat_ion. 

AccordinJ to a l ,)c.,,l ·:i:·ancher ,. Big Sky r.umber 'a own~r l'im 1.11 i xseth· 

Zilloedgedly defaulted on $10 mil.I.ion ·;n govorrum;ml .timber cOnl.rncts• 

in Oregon in the 1,ut. Many local residenl.u think Blixueth ia 

simply extorting the ·goverruilent for DlllXimum profit with no 

intention of· cons1imating a aeries of •t:riendly.• . dcab lhat ti.net.it 

the public. · · · 

Wildlife habiL"t dama11c will be extensive in the Brii:i9•r· Range 

roadle11s area being triided to Sig Sky .J.uml:>•r. ·Water users, ranchftrs 

with irregated 1,tasslands anu ll vestock, loci,t.ed downstream 1u:e ·. wcr:::-i~d about.dewat:ering Flathead Cruc,k. lf deforcst1tt.ion continues 

to spread, and 1:. -...-i:!.l. · · 

And finally, wha.: protection ci,n you quarantffe A;iainst lo1;ing· the 

iti;;h::-Y.ile drainage in th<' , ... !latin N.an<Je l:o an amendment by 

Scne.ter Con1·ad Burts In the Senal.t'!? Burn• wil.l try to 4ttach · 

another · l!>nd er.r;;1ar:g6' to the Wi.lliams ))ill l.o secure ti.mber for 

:aran:1-.S Lu1ube1· C,: . il-i · Li vingatcm, Mont.aria. · 

H.;t . . 873 looks g.:,od fr0J11 one ·p•ra~•ctive . onJy; ~e timber:·L~ the 

lor.al H.wmi-11&. Than: is- not. a single i:hred of wi.lderness · protect ion for pllblic · roadlesN .. lands .in either· Lt,e c-.. !lllatin ur 

Ad.dger RonQ••· . Il. will• eo!lt. . thfl .public· mill ions ot dollarg -,- no 

total dollar ·amo:unta have Jll!t bee::i !llllde public - · imd "adly, there 

ia no ·cer-1:ainty f _:ir cuduring wi!derr1efis protection ln the CalJ _.,tir. 

Range · or w:h4t ~ill be laft of the Bridger .H .. nge. · Thank you for 

c::nsidering .this. i°nfor?Mtion . · 

(406) 58E~ill8.0 

0 

ISBN 0-16-040858-X 

90000