<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:55181.wais]
FIELD HEARING ON THE TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
THE TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST ROAD CLOSURES AND THE TARGHEE NATIONAL
FOREST TRAVEL PLANS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
__________
FEBRUARY 13, 1999, REXBURG, IDAHO
__________
Serial No. 106-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-181 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania RON KIND, Wisconsin
RICK HILL, Montana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
---------- ----------
---------- ----------
Doug Crandall, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held February 13, 1999................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Simpson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 7
Statements of witnesses:
Barrett, Hon. Lenore, Idaho State Representative............. 48
Blackwell, Jack, Regional Forester, Ogden, Utah accompanied
by Jerry Reese, Forest Supervisor, Targhee National Forest. 62
Prepared statement by.................................... 100
Brown, Janice, Executive Director, Henry's Fork Foundation,
Ashton, Idaho.............................................. 56
Prepared statement by.................................... 98
Burns, John, Former Targhee National Forest Supervisor,
Carmen, Idaho.............................................. 37
Prepared statement by.................................... 96
Christiansen, Neal, County Commissioner, Ashton, Idaho....... 13
Prepared statement by.................................... 83
Cook, Adena, Public Lands Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition,
Idaho Falls, Idaho......................................... 12
Prepared statement by.................................... 81
Craig, Hon. Larry, a United States Senator in Congress from
the State of Idaho......................................... 3
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a United States Senator in Congress from
the State of Idaho......................................... 5
Gehrke, Craig, Regional Director, Idaho Wilderness Society,
Boise, Idaho............................................... 49
Prepared statement by.................................... 92
Gerber, Jim, President, Citizens for a User-Friendly Forest,
St. Anthony, Idaho......................................... 10
Prepared statement by.................................... 75
Hawkins, Hon. Stan, State Senator, Boise, Idaho.............. 9
Prepared statement by.................................... 75
Hoyt, Marv, The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho Falls,
Idaho...................................................... 21
Prepared statement by.................................... 103
Ingot, Bill, Rancher, Island Park, Idaho..................... 51
Jeppesen, Gerald, Madison County Commissioner, Rexburg, Idaho 24
Prepared statement by.................................... 115
Lyons, Hon. James R., Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared
statement of............................................... 93
Mackert, Brett, Commander, Fremont County Search and Rescue,
St. Anthony, Idaho......................................... 26
Mealey, Stephen P., Director, Idaho Fish and Game, Boise,
Idaho...................................................... 35
Prepared statement by.................................... 87
Moulton, Roy, Former County Attorney, Driggs, Idaho.......... 53
Affidavit by............................................. 128
Robson, Brent, Teton County Commissioner, Driggs, Idaho...... 55
Affidavit by............................................. 130
Ruesink, Robert, Snake River Basin Office Supervisor, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, Idaho accompanied by Michael
Donahoo, Eastern Idaho Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, Pocatello, Idaho......................... 60
Shurtleff, Bill, Commission Chairman, Bonneville County Board
of Directors, Idaho Falls, Idaho........................... 23
Prepared statement by.................................... 87
Siddoway, Jeff, Idaho Fish and Game Commission, Terreton,
Idaho...................................................... 40
Thomas, Eric, Recreationist, St. Anthony, Idaho.............. 58
Wood, Hon. JoAnn, Idaho State Representative................. 46
Additional material supplied:
Idaho Environmental Council, prepared statement of........... 147
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, prepared statement of.......... 138
FIELD HEARING ON THE TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST ROAD CLOSURES AND THE
TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST TRAVEL PLANS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
----------
FEBRUARY 13, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forest
and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Rexburg, Idaho.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in
the Rexburg Tabernacle, 51 North Center Street, Rexburg, Idaho,
Hon. Helen Chenoweth [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Subcommittee on Forest and Forest
Health will now come to order.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to thank all of you for coming out
today. And I just want to say that during this hearing, we
appreciate all of you offering each other the courtesy that is
needed for us to be able to make sure everyone on the panels
are heard and that everyone has their chance to testify and
that those of you in the audience can see those who are
testifying; so we would ask if the signs could come down. If
you wish to display them or hold them, you are welcome to stand
along the side.
So thank you all very much for attending this very
important hearing concerning road activities on the Targhee
National Forest. In my tenure as Chairman of this Subcommittee,
I have had the good fortune of being able to travel to national
forests around this great country and to see first-hand the
impact that Federal regulations and policies and laws have on
the management of our forests. Unfortunately, I have to say
that Federal forests across the country have become a political
playground for the Clinton-Gore Administration and for their
extreme environmental policies.
[Audience response.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. We will ask that the audience not clap or
cheer for anyone who is testifying, and that includes the
members of this panel. We would appreciate your courtesy.
The Forest Service mission of caring for the land and
serving people has, by administrative fiat, been changed to
locking up the land and keeping people out. This attack on
rural America is putting forests and communities at risk.
Just north of here in the Panhandle National Forest, fir
beetle outbreaks have moved local foresters to implement an
aggressive effort to harvest and remove the affected trees in
an attempt to prevent catastrophic fires in coming years.
Unfortunately, the administration, with their environmental
allies, are trying to stop this, putting their political agenda
ahead of forest health and restoration activities. But nowhere
is the administration's agenda of locking up the land and
keeping people out more evident than it is here in the Targhee.
As you are aware, last summer, the Forest Service closed
400 miles of roads on the Targhee without seeking public input
or performing an environmental analysis. The surface of some
roads was ripped to a depth of three feet to prevent motorized
access. Nearly 400 miles of roads were obliterated by placing
six to eight foot high earthen barriers in the roads. Nowhere
in America have we seen these kinds of extreme measures taken
to prevent public access. In fact, usual terms did not
adequately describe these monstrous barriers, so they have
become commonly referred to as tank traps. Only in World War II
and in the Gulf War have we seen such constructions before, and
those were built to stop the advancement of enemy tanks and
equipment during battle. One has to ask why in the world is the
Forest Service using battle tactics against the American
public. Whatever happened to the honorable calling of serving
the people and caring for the land?
It is evident that when the Forest Service dug those traps,
they buried their common sense.
The road obliterations had immediate effect on Idahoans as
access to traditional family camping sites, hunting spots and
bicycling and hiking areas was cut off. For many people,
snowfall has posed a serious safety problem for snowmobile
riders who often cannot see the tank traps. In addition,
Fremont County search and rescue personnel are unable to reach
many areas of the forest and expect their response time will be
affected by these traps.
As road closures spread to the rest of the forest off-
highway vehicle users use will be curtailed and additional
recreation and hunting spots will be eliminated. This has and
will continue to adversely affect local rural economies.
The primary reason given by the Forest Service for this
public access restriction is to protect grizzly bear and elk.
Elk populations, however, are at an all time high and are doing
terrific, according to the Idaho Fish & Game Department.
Likewise, grizzly bear are expanding outside recovery areas
into new habitat and the Federal agencies are beginning the
process of delisting.
Given that elk and grizzly bear are generally doing well in
these areas raises a question of why is the Forest Service and
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service pushing so hard to eliminate
another species, and that is people--from these very beautiful
national forests.
So in closing, at this time, I would like to take a moment
to thank everyone who helped with this hearing, and in
particular, I would like to thank Jim Gerber, Adena Cook,
especially Senator Stan Hawkins, and my colleagues in the Idaho
delegation.
I would also like to introduce our Clerk of the Committee
on the Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health, Natalie
Nelson, who will be up here working with us; and my Chief of
Staff on the Forest Subcommittee, Doug Crandall.
Also for anyone who would like to add comments to the
record, but could not testify, we have provided comment sheets
located at the back of the room. However, if it is more
convenient, please submit your written comments to the
Subcommittee within 10 working days. All of these comments will
be placed in the official record of this hearing.
And now, it is my distinct pleasure to present to you the
Chairman of the Forestry Committee in the Senate, our senior
Senator Larry Craig.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Helen, thank you very much. Let me ask
unanimous consent that my full statement be a part of the
record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Craig. Helen, let me also thank you for scheduling
and holding this hearing. As Helen mentioned, I am Chairman of
the counterpart Forestry Subcommittee on the Senate side, and
while I was contemplating a hearing, as most of you know by
watching both Senator Crapo and myself, we have been a bit
preoccupied for the last month, and that has now been resolved
and we will be on with the legislative business of our state
and nation. So I thank you, I agree with you.
So it is important that this hearing be scheduled in light
of several events that are coming together at this time for all
of us to be concerned about, and that is a new forest or road
management plan that the United States Forest Service has and
is proposing, and how it will impact all of the forests of our
nation. As you know, the Targhee was early in developing its
forest plan. As a result, when Chief Dombeck announced his road
moratorium a year or 18 months ago, the Targhee was left out
because of the stage it was in the planning process.
It was during that time that Senator Crapo and I--Mike was
then the Congressman--asked--I should not say we asked to meet,
many of you asked if you could meet with us in Idaho Falls as
it related to the Targhee forest plan, and we met. Supervisor
Jerry Reese, who is here today, attended that meeting, and
there was a great deal of concern about the character of the
plan itself, the new proposed plan, and the change of direction
that it was focusing on.
I expressed at that time my real frustration that for the
first time in the state of Idaho, we would have a forest plan
that would say that this forest is closed unless designated
open, that that was a tremendous reversal of a historic
cultural policy, if for no other reason; that we in the west
loved our public lands and wanted full access to them, but we
would accept closure when it was appropriately designated for
the right purposes. But to decide that all forests are closed
unless designated open was a rather medieval concept known as
the king's forests. All of us resented that, and certainly
serfdom of that day resented it.
As a result of that, the forest plan itself went to the
regional office where there was a review asked. And what stage
we are finally in is yet to be determined, but our concern, and
Helen said it very well, was it appeared that a plan was
beginning to be implemented prior to the plan being final.
Now there are many of you in the audience today who think
you hold a different point of view than this Congressional
delegation might hold. You might be a bit surprised if you
would just listen. The Targhee Forest, since 1984, has been
designated, at least in four areas, as grizzly bear habitat.
And that forest area has been closed, and we all know that, and
you know it. And the bears are recovering and all of us are
happy about that. In fact, I was very excited about the idea
that we had finally had an effective recovery plan where we
could prove in certain areas the Endangered Species Act could
work and we were about ready to move toward delisting.
Was the plan and closure being complied to? Well, in
looking at the statistics, there was a high level of
compliance. Was it a perfect compliance? No. There were some
folks who moved around the gated roads, but in large part, it
was complied with.
Why then are we here today? I think many of you and your
organizations would have been filing lawsuits today if the kind
of earth moving activity on the Targhee had been done by
anybody other than the Forest Service and had been done for
anything other than what you thought it was being done for that
you liked. Let me put it this way--I do not believe you can
have it both ways. Now I do not believe the Forest Service can
implement a plan as dramatic as this one is without first
bringing it to completion. They cannot do it, nor would they
allow it to be done under a draft environmental impact
statement. And yet, much of this has been done. I believe road
closures for the purpose of protecting grizzly bear is
important and it has been important on the Targhee since 1984.
And it has worked.
But you want us to play by the rules and you enforce that
through your lawsuits and your energy and your public activity.
And we do. And we want our Federal agencies to play by the
rules too. And they must. That is what this hearing is about.
How are the rules being laid out and how are they being played
by.
I believe in road closure for the purpose of protecting
unique habitat and wildlife values, when necessary and where
Idaho, Idaho Fish & Game and the U.S. Forest Service and our
citizens are in step. But I must tell you, the pictures you see
in front of you were not taken by a freelance photographer,
they were taken by me and my staff when I climbed in and out of
those tank traps that Congresswoman Chenoweth talked about. And
trees were uprooted and laying across the roads and rocks were
strewn everywhere. If that had been a logging company or a
mining company, there would have been lawsuits filed by every
environmental organization in the nation, and you all know it.
And yet you are here today defending that? I hope not. If you
are here defending the bear, that is another story. Count me
in.
And then I went down to Macks Inn. Just less than a mile
and a half off a highway in a heavily trafficked public area
where people go to fish, where this area fishes and enjoys the
recreation of this resource, I ran into more of these tank
traps. And I must tell you, I asked Supervisor Reese right
afterwards, what in the heck are they there for. It just did
not make sense. That is why we are here today. Not that we are
against the grizzly bear--we are for the proper and rightful
management and the processes of management. And that is what we
are here to seek out, because if it does not happen, we will
change the rules--because it must happen, so that we can have a
multiple use resource, so we can protect these valuable natural
resources, so we can have grizzly bear and elk, and they are
thriving on the Targhee and we are pleased about that.
But you do not continually change the rules to fit just one
side. That is unacceptable. The Forest Service has to comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act, like any other
group must that is using or utilizing the resource under the
law, and the management most especially. That is what we are
here for. That is what I am here to listen to. These kinds of
decisions do have impacts, they have impacts on the
environment, on wildlife, on the public and you all know that,
and that is why we are very concerned about it.
You have heard all you are going to hear from me, I am here
to listen. But thank you all, and I mean all of you, for coming
out today. It is an important issue. Our Forest Service is
struggling right now to find a sound management approach. We
have a lot of talented people in the Forest Service and they
are very frustrated. The Forest Service cannot be managed out
of the executive offices in Washington. Most importantly it
cannot be managed out of the Council of Environmental Quality.
It must be managed here, on the ground, by the supervisors,
using good science and not political science.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Senator Craig, thank you very
much. And now we will hear from Senator Mike Crapo.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate very much the opportunity that you have given us to
hold this hearing. Larry and I both had to jump in an airplane
last night to get out here, but it truly is much more rewarding
to be out here in Idaho working on the Idaho issues than some
of the difficult, difficult times we have had in Washington the
last month. And I say that notwithstanding the fact that it is
evident from the feelings that people have already expressed
here today that there are strong disagreements over the proper
way to manage our public lands.
It seems to me that--although I agree very strongly with
some of the concerns that have already been raised here about
the tank traps and about whether the management of the forest
system has followed the legal procedures of the land, as all
others are required to follow it, and as to whether the right
policies have been achieved in terms of assuring proper public
access to our wonderful natural resources, while maintaining
the adequate protections of our environment.
I am going to limit my comments to one issue. And this may
sound like a broken record to some of you who have talked to me
privately or been to other places where I have made comment.
But I continue to believe that we do not have to sacrifice
either our environment and our wonderful rich natural resource
heritage or our economy that is so significantly based in our
natural resources here in this region, in order to achieve
proper management.
I believe that some of the solutions to help us achieve a
fix, if you will, that will properly balance all of these
needs, may require changes in Federal law to allow more real
local management and real opportunity for people like
yourselves to impact public policy, or else we may continue to
end up with a situation in which the winner is whoever has
control or the greatest access and support at the White House
during a given administration.
But I do not think that is the right way for us to manage.
I believe that everybody in this room lives in Idaho because
they love the quality of life that we have here. And that
quality of life depends on us protecting and preserving our
wildlife, our fisheries, our natural resources, which are one
of the greatest treasures that Idaho has. Everybody also has to
have a job. And when an economy is so dependent on our natural
resources, as ours is, many, if not most, of those jobs and the
families that depend on those jobs will depend on our managing
our natural resources so that the people can have access to
those natural resources, yes, for economic activities including
tourism and recreation.
It is interesting to me--and I have said this to many of
you before--that when you hear someone from one side of the
issue talking about one of the disputes in Idaho, they will say
I believe we have got to protect the environment, but we have
got to make sure that I keep my job. And from the other
perspective, they will say I believe that we have got to make
sure we have got jobs and that we protect the economy, but I
think we have got to do such and such to protect the
environment. Everyone seems to want to have to qualify that
they are not dismissing the other side of the equation but that
they have a point of view that suggests that we have not yet
reached the proper management balance with regard to our
natural resources.
And what I am saying is that I believe those people, all of
us when we say that, are telling the truth. The vast majority
of Idahoans do not want to destroy the environment and they
want to make sure that our management policies protect and
strengthen these treasures. And the vast majority of Idahoans
do not want to eliminate jobs and restrict access to our
natural resources any more than is necessary to assure that we
protect them. And that is the balance that we have got to
reach.
Now, as I said, I have some real problems with some of the
issues that are going to be brought up here today. But I will
commit to everyone in this room, whether you are on the job
side of the equation or on the environment side of the
equation, because as I have said I believe ultimately all of us
are on the same side of the equation and that is to preserve
both, that working together to allow local input into these
decisions and then making sure that we find the common ground
where we can build forward to have reasonable management
policies that people can accept is an objective that I think we
must achieve.
I think that this hearing will give us an opportunity first
of all to let people from many different perspectives voice
their feelings, and I would encourage everyone to listen
carefully to those with whom you disagree, because they have a
point of view and they have some valid points. And if we can
look for common ground, we can find a lot of it. And that is
what I will be looking for in today's hearing, Madam Chairman.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Senator.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is certainly my pleasure to introduce no
stranger to you, my colleague and your Congressman, Mike
Simpson.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Simpson. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing here today. Senator Craig, Senator Crapo, it is nice to
have you here today, being the former Congressman from this
district.
It is my pleasure to welcome all of you that may not be
from this area to what is now my district. I have had the
opportunity to represent the State of Idaho over the past as
the Speaker of the State of Idaho and now as the Congressman
from this district. I have also operated a dental practice for
the last 22 years in Blackfoot, some 50 miles south of here. So
I and my wife have spent a great deal of time both in Boise and
in Blackfoot, but we also have a place in Driggs. And so the
Targhee Forest is something that we appreciate and enjoy and
something that is very near and dear to our hearts. That is why
it is so disheartening for me to see land managers that turn
once beautiful forests into what appear to be eyesores and
potential hazards.
Idaho's public lands are a priority to the residents of
this beautiful state. Idahoans tend to become emotional when
public access is threatened. The controversy over the
development and implementation of the Targhee Forest Plan has
escalated feelings on every side of this issue, as can be seen
here today. The failure of the Forest Service to follow the
NEPA process and their own prescribed method of road closures
only contributes to the public's distrust of those responsible
for managing public resources.
I am concerned that the Targhee Forest might be the tip of
the iceberg instead of the end of the road. We must ask the
question: Is this the beginning of an attack on the right of
citizens to enjoy the lands that are rightfully theirs. I and
many of my fellow westerners live in the west because we love
and enjoy this lifestyle. We value and nurture the way of life
and the beautiful natural resources that surround us here. I
find it disturbing that the Federal Government seems to feel it
necessary that it needs to keep the local citizens, those that
have had a way of life and stewardship on this land, off the
land. I also find it confusing that in order to protect the
forest we must deface it. I have real concerns about the
government's lack of consideration for the aesthetic value of
the Targhee Forest. Most of the people in this part of the
country would agree with me that you do not go in and put
permanent scars on the land and call it conservation. If any
Idaho citizen were to take similar action on the forest, they
would be immediately thrown in jail, as has already been
mentioned.
Though they may not agree, the individuals on these six
panels here today are both thoughtful and intelligent people,
each of whom feel passionately about the Targhee Forest, each
of whom have their own points of view. Considering the caliber
of individuals here, it is both logical and feasible that we
ought to be able to work together to develop a workable
solution to this problem.
Sports Afield recently named Driggs the best outdoor sports
town. That in itself illustrates how important the Targhee
Forest is to the residents of this area, both for their
personal enjoyment and for their economic wellbeing. To cut off
the roads to the Targhee Forest that are the lifeblood of
communities in southeast Idaho seems to be irresponsible.
I have worked and will continue to work to ensure access to
public lands for everyone. Workable solutions must involve the
community and their interests and their interests must be taken
into consideration. It is in this spirit that road closures and
their methods of implementation should be negotiated with local
interests.
Today, I am truly here to listen to you--the Federal and
state agencies, the local groups, the county commissioners,
state legislators, user groups, conservation groups and the
Idahoans that enjoy these public lands. It is my hope that at
this hearing chaired by my colleague, Congresswoman Chenoweth,
we will find the beginning of a workable solution for everyone.
I hope that everyone, as Senator Crapo said, is here to listen
to those people that they might disagree with, because everyone
does have a legitimate point of view and we can work together
and we can solve this if we do not polarize the issue.
Thank you, Congresswoman Chenoweth.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Congressman Simpson.
Now, I would like to introduce our first panel, if they
would come up to the front here and take their place behind
their name plaque. Mr. Jim Gerber, President of the Citizens
for a User-Friendly Forest; Ms. Adena Cook, Public Lands
Director for the Blue Ribbon Coalition; The Honorable Stan
Hawkins, State Senator, Boise, Idaho; Mr. Neal Christiansen,
County Commissioners, Ashton, Idaho.
As you take your place, I want to ask you to remember that
we have many witnesses that we need to hear from today. It was
important to me to be able to accommodate all of you and we
must bring the hearing to a close at 5 p.m. So, I need to ask
all of you to keep your oral remarks limited to five minutes.
You may submit your entire testimony for the record and it will
appear in the record in its entirety. And I assure you that if
you have any written additional comments, they too will appear
in the record.
I also want to explain the lights to you. You will see a
green and a yellow and a red light. The green light will be on
for four and a half minutes--and they are just like traffic
lights, you can just go for four and a half minutes and then
when the yellow light comes on, you speed up and then when the
red light comes on, it means stop.
Senator Craig. And Madam Chairman, when the red light comes
on, within half a second after it comes on, do the chairs not
eject----
Mrs. Chenoweth. They do, they fall through the floor.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. As explained before, and I think you
received some of the rules involving this, it is the intention
of the Chairman to place all outside witnesses under oath. Now
this is a formality of this Committee that is meant to assure
open and honest discussion and should not affect the testimony
given by the witnesses. Now I believe that all the witnesses
were informed of this before appearing here today and you each
have been provided a copy of the Committee rules. So if you
would please stand and raise your hand to the square, I will
administer the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. I would like to open this panel
hearing from Senator Stan Hawkins.
STATEMENT OF HON. STAN HAWKINS, STATE SENATOR, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I can assume that
the light situation here was intended to rein in the
politicians, and I will do my best to comply with the
technology.
Let me first formally welcome all of you, as our
Congressional delegation. This may be a historic moment in fact
in resource management in eastern Idaho, and I sincerely
welcome all of you here and speak on behalf of the crowd and
our constituents and the other elected officials.
I am the State Senator from the 28th legislative district
of Idaho and that includes the northern part of Bonneville
County, all of Teton County and a good part of Fremont County.
I am a native, I was born and raised here, spent all my life
here and I can tell you that this is a very diverse area and we
depend on resource-based activities to help us fund everything
from roads, bridges, schools, many of our public facilities
depend upon a healthy and a good resource policy.
For generations, our land use practices in fact have
preserved this area in a condition that now causes us to fight
about it sometimes. We want to maintain that which has been
maintained and frankly, I am amazed many times at some of the
illogical and unsupportable claims that are made on both sides,
for that matter, by those who would have you believe that we
are going to have to stop using the resources if we are ever
going to hand this area down to the next generation.
As local officials, we are charged with this funding
mechanism that relies heavily on a resource-based economy, and
frankly, panic management and emotional management simply is
not going to work, and we are seeing that in the legislature
right now. We are seeing an ag economy that is suffering, we
are seeing all kinds of problems that I think, at least in
part, has to be solved with a balanced approach to the use of
our resources.
We are told to count on the new and emerging tourism
economy to solve these problems. Frankly, it is interesting to
me that many of those people who are telling us to let tourism
pick up the slack and that there will be no impact if we do
that, they are the same ones who many times want the launches
on our rivers limited, they want the roads closed and they want
motorized vehicles banned from the public lands and from our
parks and so on.
We have people with good intentions who are decrying the
urban sprawl and the lack of control on development and tell us
that we need to protect our farm economy and then in the next
breath we hear many of the same people saying we need the water
to move fish. I just have to say we have got to find balance. I
am constantly considering these issues, and frankly, I am tired
of battling, trying to maintain the way of life that I grew up
in, enjoying those natural resources and using them as well;
and frankly, we need to get on with some sound management and
some sound decision-making.
Now many would say we have already a process to allow that
to take place and we give input, we come to the hearings.
County commissioners and sheriffs and legislators and the
emergency service providers attend hearings. We testify and we
speak as if that will make a difference. And in the end, we
become frustrated. The plans and the actions are seldom, if
ever, reflective of the comments and the wishes of the local
interests as expressed by those of us who attempt to speak for
the majorities that elect us.
Frankly, it is my hope that this hearing will move to the
questions that are raised by these pictures and get to the
bottom of the main question here of this hearing, and that is
did the Forest Service in fact follow the law when they moved
forward with these decisions. It is an important question.
Again, we are thankful that you are here, we are grateful for
you being here and we look forward to your help in resolving
this issue.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hawkins may be found the
at end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Gerber.
STATEMENT OF JIM GERBER, PRESIDENT, CITIZENS FOR A USER-
FRIENDLY FOREST, ST. ANTHONY, IDAHO
Mr. Gerber.Congresslady and Congressmen, my testimony will
address the three reasons the Targhee Forest gave us for
closing and obliterating roads on the forest. These are:
protect grizzly bear, protect elk and reduce erosion. I will
explain why we in CUFF do not believe these are valid reasons
for road closures on the Targhee. Please keep in mind as I
discuss them that the majority of the people in eastern Idaho
do not support road closures, so the pressure to close roads is
not coming from us. The question then is: Where is the pressure
to close roads coming from?
The first reason the Forest always gives for closing and
obliterating roads is to protect grizzly bear.
I have an overhead transparency of a map to discuss the
grizzly bear issue. The dark blue line is the outline of
Yellowstone National Park; the Targhee Forest lies along the
lower left boundary of the park.
The map shows the results of a ten-year radio-telemetry
study in and around Yellowstone National Park. The map is taken
from a scientific paper written by Drs. Richard Knight and Dave
Mattson, former employees of the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Committee and experts on grizzly bear behavior.
Prior to 1977, park biologists radio-collared a number of
female grizzly bears in and near the park and then released
them. For the next ten years, biologists flew over the park and
through the wizardry of radio electronics located each bear and
marked its position on a map with a black mark. At the end of
ten years, the scientists produced this map. Every bear
management unit--and there are 18 in the park--is covered with
black marks indicating the location of bears; every BMU, that
is, except one. That one is the Plateau Bear Management Unit in
the southwest corner of the park. It is absolutely white. For
ten years, while biologists were flying over the park locating
female collared bear, no bear ever walked out into the Plateau
Bear Management Unit. Congressmen, we are setting 164,000 acres
aside for the grizzly bear in an area where the bear does not
even want to be.
The second overlay is a statement taken from the same
study. The highlighted portion in yellow says ``Low densities
of telemetry locations in unroaded areas northeast of
Yellowstone and in the park's southwest corner may be a result
of poor habitat condition. . . .'' So here we have the premier
authority on grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park saying
that the Plateau Bear Management is poor habitat.
When you combine this statement with the previous map and
add the fact that the Plateau BMU is hot, dry habitat with no
water, you get a clear picture that this area is not good
grizzly bear habitat. The question then is why are the Targhee
Forest and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service pushing so hard to
emphasize grizzly bear here. We hope your hearing can shed some
light on this question.
The second reason the Forest gives to close roads is to
protect elk, but elk are doing well on the Forest, having
increased 600 percent since the 1960s. This increase occurred
at a time of heavy salvage logging and associated roadbuilding
to harvest millions of beetle-killed trees. This increase in
elk associated with more roads does not tell us roads are a
problem for elk on the forest. Again, the question is why is
the Targhee Forest pushing to close roads when the elk
population is at an all-time high and thriving, according to
the Idaho Fish & Game Department.
The third reason to close roads is to reduce erosion. This
issue revolves around ghost or two-track roads. The theory
being that since these roads are not constructed or maintained,
they must be adding large quantities of sediment to streams.
However, most of these ghost roads are located one-quarter mile
or more from a stream. These roads erode each year, but that
sediment runs into the adjacent vegetation and is captured.
Little, if any, sediment ever reaches a stream.
In summary, bears and elk are doing fine and water running
off the Targhee is clear. This does not indicate a need for the
excessive road closures proposed by the Targhee Forest. Since
the impetus to close roads is not coming from us in eastern
Idaho, we wonder where it is coming from. We hope your hearing
can shed some light on this question.
Thank you and that concludes my comments.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Gerber.The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Cook.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerber may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF ADENA COOK, PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR, BLUE RIBBON
COALITION, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
Ms. Cook. First of all, I am very proud that Idaho's entire
Congressional delegation has come here to investigate and hear
testimony on this local issue, but this is not just a local
issue. It is happening to greater or lesser degree in almost
every national forest in the country. So this is a microcosm of
what is happening everywhere else.
Thinking out of the box is a popular euphemism for creative
problem solving. Tough issues can demand unconventional ways of
thinking and processes that reach beyond established
boundaries. Nowhere is this more important than in the
management of our public lands.
When Targhee Forest planning began eight years ago, there
was promise that a new plan process would attempt new
solutions. Dr. Bill Shands, one of the nation's foremost
experts on forest planning, was put in charge of public
involvement. He advocated taking planning out of the box. This
was long before that euphemism became popular. It was hoped
that if the public were involved in each step of the process,
that consensus or maybe even comprehension would result.
Under Dr. Shands' direction, the process went very well for
the first couple of years and understanding was occurring,
maybe even a little bit of consensus. But this was not to last.
The Office of Supervisor changed--Bill Shands passed away. The
preservation direction of the Clinton Administration was
emerging and the Forest Service was being reinvented.
Out came a box with a big label--ecosystem management. Its
management criteria were slanted in a preservationist
direction. Locally based solutions and citizen involvement
became less important and polarization started to develop.
Now the Blue Ribbon Coalition has always been a strong
advocate of cooperation with land managers. They are our
partners. We have demonstrated many successes as a result of
this partnership. One of the key elements of success in this
way is constructive give and take. Another is dedication to on-
the-ground problem solving.
But the inflexible standards of the new forest plan
stimulated not this give and take that we needed, but more
polarization. For example, it mandated tough road and trail
density standards, not only in the bear management units, but
throughout the whole forest. It counted a single track trail
where motorized use was allowed as having the same impact on
wildlife as a Federal highway. And it closed--imposed a
``closed unless posted open'' fiat on most cross country
travel.
This inflexibility continued as the process moved forward.
A multiple use alternative developed by local citizens, which
was included in the Targhee draft plan, was dropped in the
final plan because it failed to conform to established
parameters.
A travel plan was issued shortly after the final forest
plan was released. This decision designated open roads and
trails and decided which trails would be closed. The regional
office received 1,276 appeals on this decision and the appeals
were upheld by the regional office because the public was not
given an opportunity to comment through site specific process.
And then finally, toward the end of last summer, nearly 400
miles of road were obliterated without site-specific
documentation. And this not only obliterated the roads, but
obliterated any public dialogue that would have examined gates
site specifically to determine if they were effective or not;
determine whether informal routes were essential and could be
traded for other routes; address concerns about winter
recreation safety; determine if the obliterations were
necessary in developed parts of Island Park.
So now, Targhee's current management is in a box that is
inflexible, inhibits on-the-ground solutions and discourages
constructive communication. The Targhee is but one example of
how thinking in a box constrains land management problem
solving.
Committed to top down mandates that come in a box, other
national forests face similar difficulties. And that is why we
are here. We need you to help us work toward solutions and help
us think out of the box.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ms. Cook.
The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Christiansen.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cook may be found at the end
of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF NEAL CHRISTIANSEN, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, ASHTON,
IDAHO
Mr. Christiansen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly
welcome this opportunity to state a few of my concerns from a
county commissioner's standpoint. Also, I am a former logger, I
have been there and watched this forest drop down to where the
jobs are pretty near non-existent in the forest.
I was elected to office in 1994 and re-elected in 1996. I
have served now for four years continuously as a county
commissioner. During that time and before, the previous four,
five, six, eight years, I worked with the Forest on some of
these issues that we are facing today, including the forest
plan revision and subsequent travel plan.
As I said before, I was for years a logging contractor and
am currently Vice President of the Associated Logging
Contractors of Idaho. We represent some 560 logging contractors
throughout the state plus their families and the jobs that they
hold. So as such, I am very familiar with the resource
utilization and the forest end of the forest management of it.
Fremont County is heavily dominated by Federal land.
Between the Targhee Forest and the Bureau of Land Management,
60 percent of our county is federally owned, most of it, of
course, is Forest Service land. As a result, Federal land
management policies have a large impact on Fremont County.
Those who use the forest also live elsewhere. Tourists are
heavily impacting us now, we have a heavy summer home
residency. I would like to interject here that this road
closure affected practically all of Fremont County, it went
from south of the river, north to the continental divide, east
to the Teton County--or south from the Teton County line to the
Clark County line on the north and on the west, I think there
is one road closed in Clark County and we were able to put a
stop to it before they hit the Teton County line, but it
completely wiped out Fremont County, two-thirds of Fremont
County, as far as access to timber extraction.
By example, I point to the loss of the 25 percent funds in
the last eight years or so. In 1991, Fremont County had
$213,000 in 25 percent resource money coming in. From then on,
it has been a steady reduction in receipts and this year, we
had a mere $48,000 in 25 percent resource money and a good
share of that was from cabin lease sites, very little from
grazing or from timber receipts. Practically all of the
reduction results in the decline of the timber receipts. The
Forest seems oblivious to this impact, even though we have
pointed out the problem many times.
So it is not surprising that we, the county commissioners,
were less than enthusiastic about the revision of the forest
plan. Still, the public involvement process is the only game in
town and hopefully in the enlightened 1990s, they will have an
open mind, but this has not happened.
To summarize, I would like you to keep in mind that Fremont
County is heavily dominated by federally-owned lands, with 60
percent in Federal ownership. It is very important, therefore,
that the Forest carefully consider the effects its actions have
on us. That has not always been the case. Since 1991, as I
explained before, our 25 percent resource money has dropped to
practically nil.
The Forest proposes major reductions in public access and
with little input from the commissioners or the public. In
addition, 380 miles of roads were obliterated this summer with
these tank traps without any public input. This action violates
both NEPA and NFMA. Since our constituents did not request the
obliterations, we wonder where the pressure to do so originated
from. We hope your hearing can shed some light on this problem.
Thank you, ma'am.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Christiansen may be found at
the end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
I want to thank the panel for their testimony and I want to
remind the members that under Rule 4(g) in our Committee Rules,
even members are limited to five minutes in their questioning.
And one thing about being Chairman, you have to wield the
gavel. So, I will closely adhere to that five-minute rule for
all of us.
The Chair would like to yield for the first set of
questions to Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I will
play by the rules.
Mr. Gerber, would you please tell us for the record what
your organization, Citizens for a User-Friendly Forest, is, why
was it formed, what kind of an organization is it?
Mr. Gerber. Citizens for a User-Friendly Forest is a group
of forest users in eastern Idaho. We consist of loggers, OHV
people, ranchers, snowmobilers, two summer home groups, three
county commissioners, a mayor and a number of small businesses
from Island Park to Idaho Falls. And we kind of grew out of a
citizens involvement group for the Targhee Forest. We could see
the forest was not headed in the same direction that we wanted
to go. So we developed our own group and developed our own
alternative and presented that to the Forest.
Basically, we believe the forest should provide a broad
range of goods and services along with the access needed to
provide those goods and services.
Senator Craig. Would you tell us about the ballot that took
place in Madison, Fremont and Teton Counties concerning your
organization's proposal?
Mr. Gerber. Yeah, in May of 1966, there was an advisory
ballot placed on six counties that touched the Targhee National
Forest, and as a result of that--and what it did was give those
who voted a chance to choose between the Forest Service's
preferred alternative and our CUFF alternative. It was
generally known that our CUFF alternative allowed more access,
more timber harvest and generally more use of the forest. And
as a result of that vote, 78 percent of those six counties
preferred our CUFF alternative, compared to 22 percent for the
Forest Service.
Senator Craig. In total numbers of participants, what does
78 percent represent, do you recall? What were the total number
of people who participated in the balloting?
Mr. Gerber. I do not recall exactly, there were probably
20,000 or 30,000 people.
Senator Craig. How many?
Mr. Gerber. Twenty or thirty thousand.
Senator Craig. Twenty or thirty thousand.
Mr. Gerber. Yeah, in all six counties.
Senator Craig. I see.
Adena, I am well aware of your organization and have worked
with your organization and taken testimony from you over the
years as it relates to public land management issues. You talk
about out of the box thinking and coming at a problem in a
different way. I was very early on watchful and hopeful that
the collaborative process that the Targhee was engaging in
would work, because it had all parties at the table, or
certainly appeared to. And then it did not work.
Would you again for the record reiterate why you think it
broke down? The players that left, was that largely the
problem?
Ms. Cook. Well, yes, it was partly a situation where key
players did leave, specifically Dr. Shands, whose ideas had
kind of held things together.
But one of the crucial things that happened just as Dr.
Shands died and just as the supervisor's position was changing
hands, was that preservationist groups filed a lawsuit on the
way grizzly bears were being managed. And that lawsuit was
settled by the Forest Service with the understanding----
Senator Craig. Out of court, right?
Ms. Cook. Yeah, it was--the lawsuit was settled.
Senator Craig. Yes.
Ms. Cook. With the understanding that the road density
would be brought way, way down in the bear management unit. Now
this was right during when the plan was going on and----
Senator Craig. Was this not also a group that had been a
participant at the table?
Ms. Cook. Yes, yes. So here we had this extra thing that
was going on outside the public process and the Forest Service
agreed that all these roads would be taken out while the
process was just sort of underway. Well, this broke down the
developing consensus, as far as I was concerned. And in fact,
those of us who really cared had to push hard to make the
Forest adhere to the NEPA process and the new plan revision as
opposed to just going out there and closing the roads right
then and there. And we were successful in doing that.
The new supervisor, Jerry Reese, did decide that the roads
would not be closed right then and there, they would be--the
question would be addressed as a part of the forest plan. But
the damage had taken place at that point as far as the
developing consensus.
Senator Craig. I see my time is up. Senator Hawkins and
Commissioner Christiansen, let me thank you both very much for
your testimony and I appreciate you being here. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Commissioner Christiansen, I want to start with you, so I
will go from the other end there. You indicated that you have
had a dramatic reduction in the 25 percent funds that the
county has received. And if I read your testimony correctly,
the reduction has been from a $213,000 level in 1991 to a
$48,000 level today.
Mr. Christiansen. Right.
Senator Crapo. So if I understand you correctly, you are
talking about more than a 75 percent reduction in funds.
Mr. Christiansen. Yes, I will say in fact that is just from
1991. In the late 1980s we were taking in upwards of $400,000 a
year.
Senator Crapo. Four hundred thousand?
Mr. Christiansen. That was the peak of the salvage
operation on the Targhee. Of course, we realized that could not
last forever.
Senator Crapo. Right, that was an unusual circumstance.
Mr. Christiansen. Yes, it was an unusual thing, but we
still maintain our forest should generate more than eight
million board feet a year.
Senator Crapo. Right. You believe though that the $48,000
level is not the proper sustainable level?
Mr. Christiansen. I might say that probably close to
$40,000 out of this comes out of cabin lease sites, which has
been that way forever.
Senator Crapo. So only about $8,000 comes from grazing a
timber?
Mr. Christiansen. From grazing and timber harvest.
Senator Crapo. Is the county in the process of seeking to
get approval of--I do not know what the right word is, but of
submitting its RS-2477 roads to the Federal Government for
approval and acceptance? Is the county doing that?
Mr. Christiansen. Yes, we are recording our RS-2477 roads
and----
Senator Crapo. How is that process proceeding?
Mr. Christiansen. How is it, you say?
Senator Crapo. In other words, I have heard----
Mr. Christiansen. It is a slow process.
Senator Crapo. That was my question. I have heard that
there is a feeling that there is not much progress being made
in resolving the RS-2477 road issues.
Mr. Christiansen. No.
Senator Crapo. Is that your experience in the county?
Mr. Christiansen. That has been our experience. We do not
agree on the methods of the Forest Service and the county
commissioners do not agree on the wording of the RS-2477 roads.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you.
Adena, I am going to move to you because I know my time is
going to turn to the yellow light here pretty quick. I was very
interested in the testimony you provided, both your written and
oral testimony, about Dr. Shands and the effort to find
consensus. And as I am sure you know, that is something that I
would hope to see us try to focus on and recreate.
One of the questions that I have with regard to the off-
road vehicle usage issue and one of the issues that has been
brought to me the most often is the question of leaving roads
or leaving trails and just going cross country where there are
no trails. Can you address your perspective? And I assume you
are speaking on behalf of your association, is that correct?
Ms. Cook. Excuse me?
Senator Crapo. Are you speaking on behalf----
Ms. Cook. Yes, I am, yes.
Senator Crapo. Would you tell me whether there is a
position with regard to how the forest roads ought to be
managed on the issue of off-road vehicle usage in terms of
leaving the trails and leaving the roads for cross country
usage.
Ms. Cook. Right. In general, we adhere to tread lightly,
which means to stay on established routes and to not cause off-
trail damage. And in fact, under the current rules, any time
the off-trail damage does occur, the Forest does have a right
to close those routes down.
Now we urge our members to adhere to these tread lightly
rules, but a lack of flexibility occurs when you only designate
those routes that can be open and everything else is closed. In
order to close a route or a trail or anything else, you should
have a good reason, just like there is a good reason to stay on
established routes.
Senator Crapo. But you are not disagreeing with the policy
that established routes should be kept to by those who are
using off-road vehicles?
Ms. Cook. I am sorry, I could not hear, we are getting an
echo here.
Senator Crapo. I understand. You are not disagreeing with
the tread lightly policy.
Ms. Cook. Oh, absolutely not. And people need to take care
of the land as they go out and enjoy and use it, no matter what
their form of transportation.
Senator Crapo. I see my time is about up. I have got a lot
more questions, but we will get to them later on. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Senator.
The Chair recognizes Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Gerber, you mentioned during your testimony that there
were three reasons given for the road closures--one was grizzly
bear habitat, the other was elk habitat and the third one was
the erosion; and that the grizzly bear seem to be doing fine
coming back, reaching the possibility of delisting; the elk
habitat seems to be fine, record numbers of elk according to
the Idaho Fish & Game; erosion does not seem to be a problem.
You said that the pressure for these road closures does not
seem to be coming from us, that it is potentially coming from
someone else. Would you care to speculate on that? Are there
other species, are there other things out there that I am not
aware of that is going on that would force the Forest Service
into this?
Mr. Gerber. I am not aware of any other species. If I was
going to speculate, I would say it is maybe an internal thing
between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, almost a mindset these days that you have to protect
everything, almost to the exclusion of human beings.
Mr. Simpson. Do you think that there is a mindset in the
Forest Service that the only way to protect habitat is to keep
people off? I remember that years ago the debate occurred on
whether the Alaskan pipeline would destroy the caribou herds,
and now you find pictures of them, that is where they care to
spend their winters, is next to the Alaskan pipeline. Is that
the kind of science we are using here?
Mr. Gerber. It seems to be. Unfortunately it just looks
really like there is almost--when you look at these pictures
down here, it looks like a big billboard that says ``human
beings stay out, you are not welcome here.''
Mr. Simpson. Adena, is it possible to alter the prescribed
road density policy for the forest plan to increase public
access and also protect and maintain the habitat for the bear
management units?
Ms. Cook. Well, we believe that there is. However, to do so
would require a forest plan amendment and we have thus far been
unsuccessful in persuading anyone that that needs to happen.
Procedurally, however, the decisions on the forest plan appeals
have not yet been resolved. The final decisions have not come
down from the Washington office. So procedurally, I do not see
how they could start a revision process until those questions
are cleared up. It has been about a year and a half and I am
not sure why a decision on those appeals has not been rendered
yet. But that is an interesting question.
Mr. Simpson. Is the concern if they were to open the forest
plan again that we would lose some things that we currently
have in the current forest plan--it might go in the wrong
direction, from your point of view?
Ms. Cook. That is always possible because--although I will
say that I do not think the whole thing has to go back to the
drawing board and we do not have--we have already made a lot of
progress. I think there is just some fine tuning that has to be
done and the densities and the questions need to be made on a
more site specific basis. I just think they were made on too
broad a basis. So I think there is some fine tuning, I do not
think you have to go back to square one.
Mr. Simpson. Commissioner Christiansen, Senator Crapo
mentioned the 2477 roads. How has the road closures affected
your process in developing those 2477 roads or declaring those
2477 roads? Has it made it more difficult?
Mr. Christiansen. How they have affected the process of the
RS-2477 roads?
Mr. Simpson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Christiansen. Well, really not that bad except that
there is a couple of roads that are within this grizzly bear
recovery zone that is probably going to be controversial,
mainly over there on the Centennials, but it does not look like
or sound like in the Clark County end of the Centennials that--
that is going along pretty fine and hopefully it does not
affect those.
Mr. Simpson. In this plan, if you declare a 2477 road and
it is accepted, does that affect the road density or does it
mean they just close other roads?
Mr. Christiansen. Well, I assume in the grizzly bear
management units, we are going to have to include it in the
density, although we should not have to.
Mr. Simpson. Do you have an answer to that, Mr. Gerber?
Mr. Gerber. I am pretty sure that it would be included
within the road density standard. You could check with Jerry
Reese when he gets up here, but I believe that would be how
they interpret it.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Congressman.
I want to turn my attention to Senator Hawkins. I know that
when you first approached us about bringing the Committee in,
you were very, very concerned about the local economies and how
they would be impacted based on these decisions on road
policies.
For the record, would you explain what your thinking was,
your concern about the local economies in your district?
Mr. Hawkins. Congresswoman Chenoweth, for the most part, we
are faced with funding many of the things that people expect
from government in this area from basically a couple of
sources--property tax predominantly is an issue, and when you
up end and essentially terminate an economy that was once based
on the resource industries, you typically remove a lot of
property tax base from the rolls and that causes a shift. And
when that shift occurs, it essentially means that the local
residents then are faced with funding the same things with less
base to spread it on.
The symptoms of that are everywhere. We just recently put
the finishing touches on a new school in Teton basin, took 20
years to pass a bond to get that school built finally. And
frankly, when that bond passed, it impacted a smaller base, to
the extent that many farmers were very adversely impacted by
that.
From a broader sense, Congressman Simpson got out of the
legislature just in time because we are now facing the specter
of the Department of Fish & Game having the biggest budget
problem that I can remember. I have been in the legislature 15
years and this is as bad as it has been. And frankly, I believe
when you close roads, there are many people who want access to
hunt and fish that essentially begin to say this is not the way
I want to do it, I cannot walk, I will not walk, I cannot
expect my young children to walk----
[Audience comment.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will the gentleman yield? I would
appreciate very much that the audience not interrupt the
testimony.
Mr. Hawkins. I am one that believes that the budget
problems of the Department of Fish & Game now face at least are
affected by the policies that we are making on public lands,
and I think that there is some resistance now and we have seen
that in the tag and license sales, we are seeing a flattening
of those purchases. I believe that is part of the mix, not all
of the mix.
So those are the things that I am concerned about.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very well.
Mr. Gerber, I wonder if we could throw the first overhead
back up on the screen there. You showed us that in the
southwest corner there, there is virtually almost no sightings
at all.
Mr. Gerber. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you point out and describe for the
record where the roads are that they are using the tank traps
in your counties?
Mr. Gerber. Okay. This is the Targhee portion of the
Plateau Bear Management Unit, this whole thing is about 455,000
acres and about 164 out here. These are the roads out here that
were tank trapped. And you can see there were no black--for
that ten year period, there were no female grizzly bear that
were in there.
Mrs. Chenoweth. For the record, so we can get it on the
record--I know what your background is, but those who read the
Congressional Record do not. Can you give us your background?
Mr. Gerber. I am a forester, I worked for the Forest
Service for 30 years, mostly in timber management and forest
planning. I retired in 1994.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Gerber, based on your background, can
you see the logic in this at all? And as a county commissioner,
were you consulted ahead of time with regards to the impact on
the county that it might have?
Mr. Gerber. I have to say that I can see no logic for what
I see out there on the ground from a biological standpoint or a
common sense standpoint.
And we certainly had no input into any of these road
closures ahead of time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And is it not true that under Idaho law,
roads that are under the county jurisdiction, you have been
granted by the state sole jurisdiction over the roads and the
activity on those roads, right?
Mr. Gerber. I am sorry, I am not quite following.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Under Idaho law, you have been granted the
authority as a county commissioner and the jurisdiction----
Mr. Gerber. Yeah.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] to handle activity on roads
under county jurisdiction, which would include RS-2477
roadways.
Mr. Gerber. Right, under state law, county commissioners do
have total control over the RS-2477 roads and I have to correct
you, I am not a county commissioner, I am a public consultant,
public land advisor to the county commissioners.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. I see my time is up, but let me
ask Mr. Christiansen very quickly, were you consulted ahead of
time as a county commissioner with regard to the activity that
took place?
Mr. Christiansen. Excuse me?
Mrs. Chenoweth. As a county commissioner, were you
consulted ahead of time with regards to the activity that you
see here in the pictures?
Mr. Christiansen. We were not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
I want to thank this panel very much for your outstanding
testimony. I know we all wish we had more time with you and we
will look forward to reviewing your entire testimony. And as I
said earlier, if you have additional comments that you would
like to enter into the record, you have ten days to do so.
Thank you very much.
And now I would like to recognize the second panel as this
panel leaves.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would like to call to the panel Mr. Marv
Hoyt, representative of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition,
Idaho Falls, Idaho; Mr. Bill Shurtleff, County Commissioner and
Chairman of the Bonneville County Board of Directors, Idaho
Falls, Idaho; Mr. Gerald Jeppesen, Madison County Commissioner,
Rexburg, Idaho and Mr. Brett Mackert, Commander, Fremont County
Search and Rescue, St. Anthony, Idaho.
Gentlemen, you have all heard me explain about the lights
and what they mean--the green light will be on for four and a
half minutes, the yellow light for 30 seconds and the red light
means stop your testimony. And also, as you know, you have
received a copy of the Committee Rules and we will be swearing
you under the oath. So I wonder if you might stand and raise
your hand to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hoyt for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARV HOYT, THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION,
IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
Mr. Hoyt. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
We know that the ostensible reason for this hearing was the
Forest's use of tank traps to discourage the illegal use of
closed roads. GYC readily concedes that tank traps may not be
the best way to keep the scofflaws off the roads. In fact, back
in 1994, when the Forest had the money and the staff, GYC and
other conservation organizations proposed that the Targhee rip
and reseed those same roads. If our proposal had been
implemented back then, it would have made the use of tank traps
unnecessary this last year.
Unfortunately, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, loggers, folks on
the Idaho Congressional delegation and county commissioners,
all came out in opposition to this proposal. We knew then and
we know now that gates have not prevented the illegal use of
roads. We also know that most of the same people who claim to
be concerned about tank traps are the very ones who did not
want the roads reclaimed.
Now, some five years later, the Forest has limited funds to
effectively close these roads; therefore, the use of tank
traps. We would like to offer a solution.
If tank traps are the real issue, then we would be more
than happy to work with the delegation, the Forest Service and
other interested parties to seek funding necessary to
obliterate and permanently put these roads to bed.
As far as scars and aesthetics go, I know that is a concern
for some folks, it is for us too, and if you want to look at
scars, look at the hundreds of thousands of acres that have
been clear cut and the thousands of miles of roads that you can
see from outer space on the Targhee--that is a scar that will
not go way for perhaps centuries.
Access management is more than just tank traps and grizzly
bears, it is about more than that, it is about protecting of a
variety and array of public resources--water quality,
fisheries, wildlife, soils and so forth. GYC believes that the
Targhee National Forest took some very positive steps in terms
of access management in the revised forest plan. The most
important step was setting road density standards for the
various management prescriptions. We also believe that the
elimination of indiscriminate and highly damaging summer time
cross country motorized travel across part of the forest was a
significant improvement.
We also think that eliminating the use of ghost roads was
an improvement, and finally the new signing system for the
roads, open roads and open trails is an improvement.
These elements should eventually solve the problems caused
by the widespread and illegal use of ghost roads.
As for grizzly bear, some have said that the Plateau is not
good grizzly bear habitat, bears do not use it. I will read
from a February 4, 1999 memo from an Interagency Grizzly Bear
Team committee member, which says, ``I think that if the Forest
Service can get their planned road reductions implemented, the
change will go a long way to improving the BMU for grizzly
bears. With the road reductions, I think most bear biologists
would consider the BMU good grizzly bear habitat. Without the
reduction, it is still bear habitat and grizzly bears do use
it. With fewer roads and less human impacts, habitat
effectiveness in this unit can only increase. If the population
is increasing and expanding, in time, grizzly bears will occupy
secure habitats available to them. Remember also that the
landscape is dynamic. Unforeseen changes within the greater
Yellowstone area may increase the relative importance of the
Plateau BMU.''
There were 169 grizzly bear sightings on the Targhee
reported to the Targhee between 1985 and 1997 and this does not
include the grizzly bear sightings, which were numerous this
past year, as we all know. There were also 44 grizzly bear
sightings in 1997 alone, within one mile of the Targhee border
inside Yellowstone National Park, in the Plateau Bear
Management Unit.
We think that the Forest Service has made some long-overdue
changes in travel management. We also believe that modifying or
abandoning these would be a bad idea.
So far, the American public has spoken convincingly in this
matter. This is not just a local issue. There have been 5,171
comments received by the Forest Service as of February 11. Of
those, 98.6 percent prefer closing roads, 95 percent of the
Idahoans have said close the roads. Idahoans who make up .06
percent of the population of the U.S. make up 15 percent of
those commenting on this forest plan and are in favor of
closing roads. I think those are some significant numbers and I
think that the delegation needs to understand and the folks in
this room, that this is a national forest, we all have a right
to say and speak about it as we wish. We all have feelings
about it and I think that many Idahoans and the American public
are in favor of road closures to protect these resources.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hoyt.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoyt. I wonder if
you might provide for the Committee copies of the surveys that
you quoted in your testimony.
Mr. Hoyt. I would be more than happy to, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bill Shurtleff.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoyt may be found at the end
of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF BILL SHURTLEFF, COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, BONNEVILLE
COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
Mr. Shurtleff. Madam Chairman, Senator Craig, Senator
Crapo, Representative Simpson, members of the panel and guests,
my name is Bill Shurtleff and I am the owner and manager of
Call Forest Products. I also fill the position of Bonneville
County Commissioner. However, today my testimony will be based
upon my 29 years of experience as a timber resource user.
Let me begin by telling you that during the 1970s and the
1980s, as the Forest Service was constructing many of the roads
we are now discussing, the constant mantra was that their roads
were the number one asset of the Forest. These were the roads
that would allow them to manage the forest into the future.
These were the roads that would allow them to fight fires, thin
trees, make inspections, open for recreation and even perhaps
allow some harvesting of trees, if needed.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been taken to the
woodshed by a sale administrator because a logging machine had
damaged a road shoulder or surface. We were also shut down if
dust reached a certain level which would cause a loss of road
surfaces. All of this was enforced in order to preserve and
maintain the number one asset of the Forest--the road.
Now all of this has been reversed. I am certain others will
talk about the process that the Forest Service went through in
order to implement their new policy, but I would like to talk
about what the long-term effect will be. By closing these roads
in a manner that will virtually stop all travel for long
periods of time, these roads will deteriorate to a point of
uselessness. The only two means that the Forest Service has at
its disposal to repair these roads is hard money, which I am
sure you are aware there is very little of, or the selling of
timber where the road construction or repair is tied to the
sale.
In the Targhee, this is very unlikely to take place. The
very small sale volume that is available on the Targhee will
not economically carry much road construction or maintenance.
It is my opinion that this entire process will basically
close off large portions of the forest to any management. What
will return is the same forest we faced in the 1950s, a forest
of lodge pole pine, old and diseased, dying and then finally
burning. We know this because we have seen it happen before.
And let me insert that I think that the Targhee right now is
basically in extremely good condition, it is primarily a young,
vibrant forest, based upon what we have done in the past. The
strange thing to me is that I thought the action we took in the
1970s and 1980s was specifically meant to avoid this happening
again.
My opinion is that roads could be closed in such a manner
as to allow inspection travel, minor maintenance travel and
still accomplish the objective of X number of miles of road per
acre. This would not stop all road deterioration, but perhaps
it could reduce it to the point that the road could be
reclaimed at some need in the future.
I know our topic today is road closure, but I cannot let
this opportunity pass without commenting on what I believe to
be the underlying design to close the entire Targhee National
Forest to any type of commercial harvesting. It is my opinion
that this is an objective of the present forest plan by the
manner in which it is being carried out. I will say no more on
this subject, but would love to discuss this topic further at
your convenience.
In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I have great respect for the job you
are both performing--all four of you, I should say. I have some
feeling for the difficulty involved.
I thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Commissioner.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Madison County
Commissioner Gerald Jeppesen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shurtleff may be found at
the end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF GERALD JEPPESEN, MADISON COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
REXBURG, IDAHO
Mr. Jeppesen. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
Committee. It is an honor for me to be here to talk to you
today. I represent the fourth generation of a farm community
and farm family that live in close proximity to the Targhee
Forest and have recreated and used those resources through the
last four generations to build homes and to recreate and do all
the things that people in this area enjoy doing in the forest.
In the very beginnings of the forest plan, I was a member
of the citizens committee and did follow that process as a
member of the Soil & Water Conservation District in Madison
County, and then later represented Madison County Commission on
that same council. I do concur with what the conclusion was.
We went through that process and everybody seemed to agree
and it was a very workable process. But things seemed to change
with the changing of the road density in the bear management
units. Everyone on that committee had agreed to a certain
number of roads and then we were told we could not do that
because of an agreement with Fish & Wildlife Service, and then
the next thing we knew was when the open road plan came out,
the same agreement that we had agreed to on the bear management
unit, the primary one, was asserted to all the other areas of
the forest. That was very, very disturbing to us because that
was never mentioned until that final plan did come before us as
county commissioners or as residents.
At that point, we became very involved in the 2477 process
and before you, you have a map of Madison County's assertions.
What we have done is we have taken the roads that are
recognized by the Forest Service on their plan, those are in
yellow. The ones that are in purple are the ones that are
designated by our county and the county commission as
designated 2477s and those that do overlap have kind of a
yellow-purple color. So if you would like to review that with
me later, I would be glad to go over that map with you.
We did submit this to the Forest Service, they did come out
with their second DIS on open roads. We found quite a bit of
confusion on their maps. They have designated some of our roads
that were designated as 2477s as closed, others were listed for
decommission and we were very upset by the prospects of that. I
do have in your file though a letter from Jerry Reese that did
come forward after the plan was submitted and said that no
action would be taken on those roads without consultation with
county commissioners in Madison County, and we do agree with
that proposed approach on these roads. We believe that no
designation can be made on them until some kind of an agreement
is made between the county commissioners and the Forest Service
on those roads. We have also asked that those roads be
eliminated from the forest plan process because we do believe
that counties do have the authority over those roads and they
should not be included in the forest plan to begin with because
those are county roads.
One of the great diversities of this is two years ago, the
Forest Service approached us to actually take over ownership of
many of the roads we have listed as 2477s. We did at that time
take over approximately eight to ten miles of those roads, we
have maintained those for the last two years, but because of
paperwork with the Forest Service we have not received title
for those, so there is no way for the state to pay us for those
roads, for the upkeep that we have been doing on them.
We believe that roads, if maintained properly, do not have
any effect upon the environment or upon streams or anything in
the area, and we have been doing our part to maintain those
roads.
We are very concerned about closure of ghost roads. Most of
those roads are a quarter of a mile to half a mile in length.
The primary use of these roads is for the public to get off the
main road to camp and enjoy the surroundings of the forest
without having someone drive through camp every 15 or 20
minutes. Most of the local residents have used these camping
sites for many years with little or no effect on the forest.
Closure of these roads would force campers into organized
campgrounds that are already crowded or force them to camp on
both sides of the roads that are heavily trafficked. This in
turn will force the public out of the forest putting undue
pressure on private landowners.
This is not the forest experience that most of us have
grown up with and we would ask for your support in this
investigation to help make these roads be open because they do
provide a valuable part of the culture and nature of Madison
County and the surrounding areas.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Commissioner.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And now we will hear from Commander Brett
Mackert of the Fremont County Search and Rescue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jeppesen may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF BRETT MACKERT, COMMANDER, FREMONT COUNTY SEARCH
AND RESCUE, ST. ANTHONY, IDAHO
Mr. Mackert. Thank you, Madam Chairman and fellow
supporters.
This summer--first of all, I bring to you a story of how I
was exposed to this road closure issue. I work at a
correctional facility in the state of Idaho and in that
correctional facility, we take youth to the forest and we do
service projects for the Forest. Our service project chosen for
the day was to scout areas to put trees, a very worthy project,
I would say, a very worthy project, to go in and actually put
trees into the forest. That is the idea of forest management.
When we get on site that morning, we have to go through a
locked green gate, as all of you are probably aware of what
they look like. There was no traffic behind that gate or there
had been none. We drive down the road for about a mile and a
half to two miles, we come to another locked green gate. Still
no traffic on the road, still none. Immediately behind the
second locked green gate is where the tank trap started--one,
two, three. Evidently they did not feel like the gates was
working in that area. They were, they were working very well.
There was absolutely no way anyone could get around the gates
where they were located.
Not only were there tank traps, there were large rocks
rolled onto the road and then I would think that the thing that
appalled me more than anything else at that point was a tree, a
single tree, broken off about 15 feet in the air, 10 to 12
inches in diameter, toppled in amongst these tank traps. For
someone who is supposed to manage the forest and take care of
the trees, it appalled me. I said little about it, you know, at
that point, the damage had already been done.
I was called to Island Park to look at another situation. I
was asked to go and look at the Flat Rock Road in Island Park,
a popular road in the summer time for people who ride four-
wheelers. It is a flat area, there is no hills, the road is
just entirely flat. On that road, the tank traps started and
approximately every 75 yards there was another one and another
one and another one. Well we had walked down the road a short
distance and my young son, who is seven years old, he says to
me, he says, ``Dad, what does the sign say?'' And there a sign
next to a tree said the following, in essence it was this is a
forest test plot, damage to this area is something to the
nature of imprisonment in law, enforceable by the Forest
Supervisor. Piled at the base of this sign is the branches off
the tree where the excavator had scraped them off approximately
15 feet in the air.
That day, we walked past 14 tank traps. We did not go to
the end of the road, that was as far as we made it, was 14 of
them. Fifty trees had the bark and branches scraped off of one
side of them, six trees were busted off and tipped over and 14
tank traps. I am sorry, that is significant, that is not taking
care of the resource, that is destruction of a resource.
One of the three reasons that Mr. Gerber spoke of was
erosion. I wonder how those 14 tank traps that we walked past
are going to look come spring time, and where that dirt and
that erosion is going to head to. It is a sad, sad thing in
this world that we can destroy this and say it is for the
betterment of the forest. There has got to be a better method--
there has to be.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Mackert.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Senator Crapo for
questioning.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Marv, I would like to direct my first few questions to you.
It seems to me that one of the issues with regard to the tank
traps is whether the gates actually work, and if I understood
your testimony, you do not believe the gates do work to keep
the traffic off the roads.
Mr. Hoyt. That is correct. I think that from my own
personal experience they do not work; for many people I have
talked to, they do not work; and from a project called the Road
Scholar Project where a group of young folks monitored those
gate closures and the effectiveness of them over a two year
period on the bear management units and found--and I do not
have the exact percentage, but a high percentage, well over 50
percent, were not effective at all. Partially effective, there
was a percentage and so forth. So no, it is not only my opinion
and my thought, it is--I think it is pretty well substantiated.
Senator Crapo. What did you think of the suggestion by Mr.
Shurtleff that--I think it was Mr. Shurtleff--that--I hate to
characterize other people's testimony for them, but I think
what he was saying is that he thought we could find a way to
monitor it effectively, but that we should keep the roads
available for potential future use, just stop their usage now.
Is that fair, Mr. Shurtleff, as a restatement?
Mr. Shurtleff. [Nods head.]
Senator Crapo. What do you think of that idea both in terms
of if it could be achieved, would that be an acceptable
solution, and do you think it could be achieved?
Mr. Hoyt. I think that it could be an acceptable solution.
Keep in mind that the areas where most of those roads go were
lodge pole clear cuts, it is going to be 60, 80, 100 years from
now before those trees are available for harvest. And I think
the other thing to keep in mind is that since the road closures
have not been effective and unless there is a significant
increase in the Forest Service's budget for law enforcement to
make sure that the roads stay close and those closures are
effective, it simply will not meet the requirements of the
biological opinion.
Senator Crapo. What is the road density now in the Targhee
and what is the level of road density which is acceptable from
your point of view for proper management?
Mr. Hoyt. Well, I think that each of the management
prescriptions, each has its own road density. In grizzly bears,
it is .06 miles per square mile, I believe. In the core areas,
it is 0 miles per square mile. For elk, it is other densities.
So each area of the forest--there is not a blanket prescription
that covers the entire forest. And all of those were calculated
to protect not just grizzly bear and elk, but water quality,
cutthroat trout spawning and so forth. And I think that they
are a key component and a key element of the forest plan. And
for folks to say that we could change that without doing a
significant plan amendment or without involving the public or
taking a lot of time, are simply fooling theirselves. If the
entire forest plan is based on road density standards, which it
is, to protect those resources, we would be looking at a
significant amount of time, significant amount of money and I
do not think that the outcome would be any different than what
we are looking at today. And I do not think the American people
or the people of Idaho or the Forest Service or anybody else is
really interested in jumping back into that after spending the
last eight years doing that.
Senator Crapo. You know, one of the things that I think is
a core issue that a lot of these other issues relate to is the
question of whether the forest is open except when designated
closed or closed except when designated open. I think that gets
to sort of what I think Senator Craig referenced as the culture
of our usage of the forest historically here in this area. I
know that is my cultural experience here. And I come to it from
an approach of supporting open unless designated closed, but
supporting reasonable management for making sure that we close
those areas that need to be adequately protected.
You gave some numbers in your testimony about the support
for closing the roads.
Mr. Hoyt. Yes.
Senator Crapo. Were those numbers directed at supporting an
open versus closed--excuse me, a closed unless designated open
policy or were they a tabulation of those who supported one or
another version of closing roads?
Mr. Hoyt. I believe that virtually--I would say that over
90 percent, maybe 98 percent of the figure that I gave you
favor road closures and each of those, what they say is--and I
think you have seen some of these postcards with comments that
have come in on, they say keep the ghost roads closed, keep the
road density standards and keep the signed open, otherwise
closed part of the forest plan. And I think that the important
thing to remember on that particular issue is it directly
relates to the issue of road density standards.
In the past, for many people, virtually anybody that has
spent any time on our national forests, when you see a road
closed sign, it is almost always full of holes, laying face
down in the mud with motorized tracks beyond it. And that is
why it is important to have it signed open. People are not
going to tear those signs down then, you will have plenty of
people that will try to violate that, but it will be a blatant
violation, and I think it is the way to prevent those signs
from being torn down.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Marv, let me ask you, do you agree with the statements that
were made that the grizzly bear were doing fine and coming back
and that the elk herds were doing--are doing fine?
Mr. Hoyt. I think since the Forest Service began better
enforcement on some of its road closures and so forth, that the
elk populations have increased. That is a layman's observation
and I would certainly defer to Fish & Game, and I think that
anybody that really wants to get at the answer to that question
ought to be talking to the biologists that work for Fish & Game
in this region. They are the only ones that I believe can
answer that clearly and effectively and accurately.
Mr. Simpson. I will ask the Forest Service and those people
and I will ask those individuals at the proper time too.
If it is true that they are coming back, then what are we
protecting, if--by going in and doing the tank traps? I mean
apparently the gates, even though some people were going around
them, were doing the job they were intended to do.
Mr. Hoyt. Again, I cannot answer specifically, I am not a
biologist, all I can say is that the gate closures have helped
that problem. However, I believe it was prior to 1990 or so,
and I am probably not exactly accurate on that, there used to
be--actually it was prior to that, back in the 1970s, that area
had I think a 30 or so day any elk season. That was cut down to
a five day spike only hunt in the 1980s because of the amount
of roads and habitat alteration. I think over time the elk
numbers have come back. I do not know the exact figures.
For grizzly bears, I think that the Interagency Grizzly
Bear Team that I quoted from the memo stated it correctly,
grizzly bears do not--will use the BMU if the roads are
effectively closed. And that is the issue, it is not just
closed, not just gated, but effectively closed. And they have
used it more often in the last few years, notwithstanding the
ancient research that Mr. Gerber's slide was based on. There is
much, much more recent data that shows the exact opposite. So
again, I would defer to biologists to answer that question.
Mr. Simpson. Let me ask just a general question and any of
you might want to answer it, if you can. It is a rather naive
question on my part, I guess. It seems like environmental
questions are the ones that seem to divide us the most, are the
most politically sensitive that we get, as we have out here,
people on both sides of the issue very emotional about it. I
think an overwhelming majority of people, whichever side of the
issue you are on here about closing these roads, agree with
saving grizzly bear habitat, elk habitat, stopping erosion in
the forest and so forth. Most people do not want clear cuts.
There are people on both sides, there are people on one side
who feel that any human being in a forest is an intrusion and
should not be there. There are people on the other side who
feel that any clear cut tree was meant to cut. But an
overwhelming majority of people are environmentally sensitive
people that want to take care of our national forests. How do
we resolve this problem that seems to divide us so much
politically?
Mr. Hoyt. You know, if I had the answer to that, man, I
would be a millionaire consultant. There is not an easy answer
to that question. I think a lot of people look at things
differently and that is the problem. I think that the Forest
Service has actually made a pretty good attempt. There were, by
some calculations as many as 3,300 miles of open roads or roads
that were built on the Targhee and were there ten years ago.
There are now, if this forest plan and this travel plan, which
we hope to see implemented, there will be about 1,600 and some
miles of roads, about half. To me, that seems to be striking a
balance. And I think that is what we are really talking about,
is balance. We are not in favor of closing all the roads or all
the trails. We would like to see a balance, a balance that
effectively promotes wildlife protections, allows those of us
who like and prefer non-motorized muscle powered recreation to
be able to do that without having to walk or run into a
motorized vehicle, but also allowing the folks that like
motorized vehicles to have their place in the forest too. I
cannot imagine with 2,200 miles of open roads and trails still
open that people say there is no access. That is enough to
stretch from Chicago to Seattle. That is how many will be left
open after this travel plan is implemented. It is not denying
anybody access, just maybe not to a specific place and every
place by motor.
Mr. Simpson. Anybody else care to----
[Applause.]
Mr. Jeppesen. Really quickly, from the standpoint base as a
farmer and a land manager, we would like to see the forest
managed. What we see happening is everything ceasing to exist
and no management at all happening. There has to be a mix here
where there is good management of the forest. That has to be
done in many, many different ways. There has to be some grazing
and there has to be some forest cutting and there has to be
recreation. All those things are important components of the
forest and they have to be there or we go back to that
philosophy that the only way to manage something is for nobody
to be there at all. I do not think we can live with that kind
of explanation in this time and age.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. I notice that Commissioner Shurtleff was
wanting to respond. Go ahead and respond and then I will ask my
questions.
Mr. Shurtleff. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Craig.
What I wanted to respond to is I want to kind of preface
the fact we say everybody is for grizzly bear habitat and want
to preserve that, and I do too. But I want to specifically make
sure it is habitat before I try to preserve it. I do not want
to just preserve it because it is a piece of ground.
[Applause.]
Mr. Shurtleff. The other thing that I wanted to respond to
there was we talk about the amount of roads that we will be
able to use will be cut in half. And I have no problem with
that, to be very honest with you. What I want to make sure that
the other half that we block off are still available to us,
because let us go back to the original reason we built these
roads in the first place. We built these because the Targhee
was a dead, dying forest and we had to do something about it to
revive it and bring it back into operation. If we wipe out half
those roads, we will be exactly in the same place somewhere
down the road because we will have half the amount of roads.
What I am saying is that if we need to block them off for
certain periods of time, let us keep them blocked off to where
they can be reopened, they can be revitalized if needed at some
point in the operation. To block them off now, they are gone.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair really does appreciate--and I
would like to stop the time for the Senator, your applause, but
the fact is that we must conduct this hearing and be finished
by 5 p.m. So I would ask from this point in time on that you
restrain from applauding. Thank you very much.
Now we will start the clock again.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have always
said as I have chaired committees applause is not recorded for
the record. And we do appreciate it, but it will eat into time
and I think the testimony and the questions that go into the
record are more important.
Mr. Hoyt, a couple of questions of you. I have I guess in
the course of the last 17 years attended over 200 hearings on
resource management. Almost all of them have been polarized
with conflict. I am very concerned about that. I have not been
at all excited about the conflict in the end. I do not know how
to express it otherwise. I have seen communities divided, I
have seen anger result in physical violence.
And it largely began when we decided that we would start
managing our resources from the top down. We would decide
national schemes, force them into local or regional areas with
little domestic or local input. I understand why that happened,
it was to build a greater environmental ethic than existed at
the time. I think that this country has come a long way in a
positive sense in the last 20 years in the growth of a positive
environmental ethic. I think it is reflected in this room
today. I think it is reflected from both sides.
There is no question what we think about our environment
today. Everybody wants to be an environmentalist. I do not know
of a politician this year who ran on an anti-environmental
platform. Everybody is for clean air and clean water and
quality habitat for wildlife. But the conflict still goes on.
It is people versus no people in some instances.
I have just completed two and a half years of hearings with
everybody at the table including every environmental group that
wanted to come, to try to find a way around the conflict, to
look at new decision-making processes that would result in less
conflict. We have examined one that seems to work a bit, it is
called the community collaborative process, with all parties at
the table equally represented.
That is why I watched the Targhee so closely. It seemed to
be working for a time until a group spun off and filed a
lawsuit. I do not recall now who that group was. Were you
involved in that?
Mr. Hoyt. That lawsuit was filed by the Idaho Conservation
League, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Wilderness
Society and a variety of other groups, several of whom were
participating in----
Senator Craig. But not at the table?
Mr. Hoyt. No, that is incorrect.
Senator Craig. Did those environmental groups have
representation at the table of negotiation?
Mr. Hoyt. Absolutely. Lynn Kincannon, who you well know, I
believe----
Senator Craig. Yeah, I know her well.
Mr. Hoyt. [continuing] worked for the Idaho Conservation
League and was attending those meetings until she was
threatened.
Senator Craig. Threatened?
Mr. Hoyt. Yes.
Senator Craig. I see.
Mr. Hoyt. She said that she was threatened and intimidated
and that happened in about 1994 or 1995 and she said she would
not go back.
Senator Craig. Okay. Well, the reason I asked that
question--because obviously it broke down for some reason. A
lawsuit was filed, the Forest Service would not fight it, they
negotiated it out of court, settled it and we have the conflict
we have today based on road density, I do believe.
Mr. Hoyt. That lawsuit only applied to the Plateau Bear
Management Unit on the Targhee, it did not apply to the entire
forest.
Senator Craig. That is correct. But it did apply to the
road density in that area, did it not?
Mr. Hoyt. It applied the road density standards that the
science said were needed to protect grizzly bears and the
reason the Targhee and the Forest Service settled in court--not
out of court--they settled that----
Senator Craig. It was in court?
Mr. Hoyt. It was settled in court. That lawsuit is still
valid and can be re-activated at any time.
Senator Craig. Oh, I know it is, that is why the Forest
Service is making the decisions it is making, I understand.
Mr. Hoyt. But that lawsuit, the decision was--their
solicitors, their biologists looked at it and realized that
they had in fact ignored the Endangered Species Act, and to be
in compliance with that law, they felt that they had no
recourse.
Senator Craig. Where is the science of road density? Who
determines what is the right density?
Mr. Hoyt. That is based on research by various grizzly bear
biologists that has taken place for many years. Some of those
are parts--part of that research has been conducted in Idaho
and around the west, and Idaho scientists have been involved
with that.
Senator Craig. Okay. Well, the reason I bring this point up
is because the negotiations failed or at least certain groups
felt it was failing and they spun away and filed a lawsuit.
I am trying to craft a law that would allow full
representation at the table and once a community collaborative
process was decided, while people could spin out and file in
court who think they could win a better position in court, it
would hopefully result in less conflict. And in areas where it
has been effectively used, it appears less conflict is
occurring. Somehow, we have got to get there and bring local
communities of interest back into the process.
So I just want to make that statement for the record
because I was hopeful it would work here. It has not worked,
largely because the formal structure did not exist and certain
groups were not willing to play within the range of that
structure, Madam Chairman.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Mackert, you--did you wish to comment to that?
Mr. Mackert. You know, we have been around Fremont County
for years taking care of the people in Fremont County that get
lost. For years and years we have done this, I have been
involved in this since I was 18 years old and I am now 39. I
have been the commander of our rescue unit for seven years. And
when I asked our people how many roads were being breached,
they come up with five--five.
We have the authority to open those gates and go and help
find people. Inevitably what we find as soon as we open the
gate is trees that are tipped over, nature taking its course to
reclaim the road. And most of the time that stops us. The
destruction that has went on in this forest is--I just cannot
bring words to describe it, it is sad.
I pose the question to you, if you have a flat tire, do you
send your car to the crusher to fix it? If the gate did not
work, move the gate a little bit or put a little bit more of a
barricade around the gate. Do not do the destruction to the
forest that was done, please. It is sad.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Mackert.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Sorry, no applause, please.
I would ask that all signs be held down, as I did at the
beginning of the hearing, so those behind you can see. Thank
you very much.
I would like to ask Mr. Shurtleff what would you consider
to be the reasonable timber sale level for the Targhee
considering growth rates, in a forest that is predominantly
lodge pole pine with very little Doug fir or whatever other
species in it? What would you consider to be the reasonable
timber sale level and the volume estimates?
Mr. Shurtleff. From my experience, Madam Chairman, it would
be somewhere around 20 million board feet I think this Forest
Service could handle, but let me tell you, I am not too
concerned about the level that we start as long as we are on an
approach. What concerns me most of all is the fact that now
that we have established an annual sale quantity of
approximately eight million feet, of which my understanding is
they will only accomplish about half of that if they are lucky.
That means they are going to actually sell about four million
feet. Of that four million feet, it will be predominantly Doug
fir. My opinion is that what they are doing basically is
driving those who have situated themselves to be lodge pole
pines--and to be honest with you, we thought we were basically
a conservation type outfit. In other words, we stuck around and
were going to try and stay here so that we could help preserve,
because we do think it takes some tree thinning, some
harvesting to make a forest survive. What I am concerned about
is the fact that now the plan that they have in place is going
to be predominantly Doug fir, so therefore, lodge pole pine
users or people who can use that and put a product to it will
all be gone when the Doug fir runs out because 20 years ago, we
thought that Doug fir was basically gone out of the Targhee. So
that is my big concern, is the way they are interpreting and
using the plan is basically going to take all the resource
users out of the business. Then at some point in time when they
say well gosh, we could sell some lodge pole pine now, they
will say but there is nobody here to buy it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Shurtleff.
I wanted to ask Mr. Hoyt. I have reviewed the testimony of
Mr. John Burns and also of Steve Mealey, and we will be hearing
from them on the next panel, but I am going to let you have a
peek at their testimony in my question, because Mr. Burns says
that the elk herd has grown from 800 to 4,000, and as you know,
even Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and many other people
have testified too and stated that the grizzly bear population
is growing, to the point now where the grizzly bear may even be
delisted. And what we are hearing now from Fish & Wildlife
Service and so forth is that it may take more money and more
space for the grizzly bear. So we have a growing population of
grizzly bear that is expanding out. What happens when it
expands clear into areas such as this? I mean, it is not
impossible to think that could happen. Do we just move the
people out?
Mr. Hoyt. Well, I guess my answer to that is that the
grizzly bear has been here long before people and probably may
well be here long after people have lived in this area. It just
so happens for the last 100 or so years, we have managed to
kill most of them off. I think that I would certainly hope that
the director and one of the commissioners who may speak from
Fish & Game do not refute the last eight years of what their
staff biologists have been saying about grizzly bears and about
elk on the Targhee National Forest. That would certainly be a
shame and it would certainly cause me to question whether those
are political statements or whether they are reflecting the
views of those dedicated wildlife biologists that work for that
agency.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Hoyt, as the grizzly bear population
expands, as their sightings expand, is it the vision of the
Greater Yellowstone Coalition to be able to close the roads
wherever the grizzly bear population expands?
Mr. Hoyt. No, that has never been our position. Right now,
while we do not believe the sort of boundaries of the recovery
area are probably adequate to sustain grizzly population, a
recovered grizzly population, frankly we do not have a
recovered grizzly population and currently there is no intent
on anybody's part that I know of, except for some who believe
that the U.N. is flying around in black helicopters trying to
do this sort of thing, that that would ever take place.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hoyt.
I want to thank this panel for their outstanding testimony.
I think we are just about on time and we will call the next
panel. I will call Mr. Steve Mealey, Director of Idaho Fish &
Game, accompanied by Mr. Jeff Siddoway, Idaho Fish & Game
Commission. Mr. Siddoway is from Terreton, Idaho, Mr. Mealey
from Boise, Idaho. Mr. Mealey is also accompanied by Mr. Fred
Wood, Idaho Fish & Game Commission from Burley, Idaho.
Also, the second member of the panel is Mr. John Burns,
former Targhee National Forest Supervisor, now residing in
Carmen, Idaho.
We would ask that the hearing room come to order please. I
would ask that the panel, anyone who is going to be giving a
statement for the record, please stand and raise your hand to
the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mealey.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MEALEY, DIRECTOR, IDAHO FISH AND GAME,
BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. Mealey. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be here. I am
Steve Mealey, Director, Idaho Department of Fish and Game and
pleased to be here with Commissioners Burns and Siddoway.
I want to begin my statement very briefly, and the longer
statement is submitted for the record, but just a brief
summary.
I would like to clarify, first of all, the road status that
would result from implementation of the proposed action inside
the grizzly bear management units and outside those units.
Accompanying my testimony are some pie charts that show
those numbers, but simply, they show that inside the bear
management units, some 38 percent of roads are left open and 62
percent are decommissioned or have some motorized restrictions.
I want to also make clear that Fish and Game was not a part of
the consultation process and had no jurisdiction in the
decision.
Outside the BMUs, the situation is reversed, with 65
percent of the roads remaining open and 35 percent
decommissioned or restricted.
The Fish and Game Department worked with the Targhee Forest
in developing travel management planning outside the BMUs. We
developed criteria that were necessary to meet department goals
for hunting and fishing opportunity for the sports men and
women of the state. Elk and cutthroat, that is Yellowstone
cutthroat, were the key species of concern. Let me speak about
each briefly.
Yellowstone cutthroat have been petitioned for listing
under the Endangered Species Act, as I am sure you know. Some
road closures on the Targhee were implemented to address
Yellowstone cutthroat needs, especially those related to 303d
listed streams related to sedimentation and other impacts to
Yellowstone cutthroat. Maintaining and improving habitat is
essential to keep the species off the list and retaining state
control over management.
Let me turn briefly to elk, and I have a map attached to my
testimony that will illustrate this. For the Island Park Zone,
which makes up a number of elk management units, big game
management units, our post-season elk population goal is for
some 1,800 cow elk, some 575 bull elk and up to 350 adult
bulls. We also would like to have a 35 bull per 100 cow ratio
and some 22 adult bulls per 100 cows in this area.
The elk hunting goal is to provide as much general season
hunting as possible and minimize the use of restrictive
controlled hunting. Our purpose is to maximize hunter freedom
and to maximize hunter opportunity.
Currently our elk population goals in the area are being
met. I also want to say that our hunting opportunity goals are
not. And the reason for that is that we simply have more
controlled hunting opportunities than we would like. Basically
there are two strategies available to the department and the
commission to deal with this.
As elk hunting demand increases, we only have two
strategies to respond. We can either meet our elk population
goals through restricted hunting opportunity through controlled
hunts with minimal travel restrictions, or we can provide
general hunting opportunity with some restricted access. Based
on some extensive public input, the Commission, with the
Department's recommendation, has chosen the option which
maximizes general hunting opportunity, minimizes controlled
hunts and provides that through some limited access management.
And as I said, outside the bear management units, that has
resulted in about two-thirds of the roads remaining open.
If there are questions that relate to the logic for why
these are needed to provide for quality herds, that is
appropriate ratios of bulls to cows, I will be happy to address
that in a question, but I will not burden you with the details
of that, it is in my testimony right now.
Again, I want to repeat the situation for us with elk.
Generally the public has told us that they prefer general
hunting opportunity on the Targhee National Forest with some
travel restrictions as opposed to more controlled hunts, the
loss of general hunting opportunity and fewer travel
restrictions. We are about to engage in our annual series of
public hearings before our 1999 big game seasons and if our
assumption is not the case, then folks need to come to these
meetings and let us know. I certainly urge strong public
participation in the process so we can make, in our final
recommendations to the Commission, those that best reflect the
feelings of our strongest constituents, those people who hunt
and fish.
Let me close by saying that we have recently revised our
elk and deer plans for this area and we will also soon be
inviting Forest Service planners to sit down with us to make
sure that our earlier planning criteria remain valid.
I will be very happy to answer any questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Director Mealey.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. John Burns.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mealey may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF JOHN BURNS, FORMER TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST
SUPERVISOR, CARMEN, IDAHO
Mr. Burns. Madam Chairman, Congressman, Senators, thank you
for the opportunity to speak today.
I have been a member of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission
since 1996. Prior to that, I retired as supervisor of the
Salmon Forest in 1994. From 1980 to 1989, I was supervisor of
the Targhee. The Targhee Land Management Plan was developed and
implemented during that period.
My purpose today is to provide some historical perspective
which may be of value to the Subcommittee and you as you
examine the question of roads and wildlife on the Targhee.
Indeed, those very questions were central to us as we developed
the original Targhee Land Management Plan and implemented the
salvage program in the 1980s.
By 1980, an epidemic of pine bark beetle had killed several
hundred thousand acres of lodge pole in the Island Park and
surrounding plateau areas. Those who did not see the forest as
it was then, now have a very difficult time imagining the
devastation that was present at that time. Lodgepole is
particularly adapted to regeneration. The tree has cones which
remain closed until the tree dies and heat causes the cones to
open, releasing the seed. This combination of factors, vast
insects killed pine stands and the reproductive characteristics
of the tree, led us to devise a strategy to reforest most of
the Island Park and plateau area. It would also salvage most of
the useable wood. At the same time, road construction and
logging disturbance would be held to a minimum on the 1.8
million acre forest.
Our plan was intended to replicate the effect of natural
fire, but without the damaging effects of wildfire. The trees
were cut in large blocks, clear cuts, removing the logs and
letting the sun dry out the cones on the scattered slash and
the treetops.
Two other major considerations--much of the area in
question was classified as grizzly bear habitat under the
Yellowstone guidelines. We received a section 7 finding of ``no
jeopardy'' from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service due to the
fact that the salvage program would focus mostly in Situation
II habitat and in non-grizzly habitat. In other words, that
area of the Targhee, the plateau country and most of Island
Park, were actually considered incapable of supporting a
resident grizzly population.
Concurrently, the Targhee was involved in shifting sheep
grazing to avoid sheep/bear incidents. Typically grizzlies
would move out of the park in early fall and take sheep prior
to winter hibernation. Also, an intensive campaign was launched
to eliminate bear attractants such as open dumps which were
associated with the human population in Island Park. In
addition, improved cleanup of highway killed deer, elk and
moose was accomplished. The net effect, of course, was that the
major elements of food for grizzlies in that locality--
livestock, garbage and road kills--was significantly reduced or
eliminated. If bear use and sightings have since declined, it
should not surprise anyone.
The second additional factor shaping the salvage program
was elk. Most of the Island Park and plateau area was not prime
elk habitat. The Douglas fir breaks on the sides of the buttes
and plateaus was considered good habitat, but the lodgepole
country had little undergrowth and little surface water and was
not. Elk typically migrated across the area to their winter
range in the junipers and sandhills country west of St. Anthony
in just a matter of a few days.
The principal concern relating to elk was increased
vulnerability to hunter harvest as a result of more roads and
less hiding cover. This question was examined in great detail
considering such things as the acreage to be treated each year,
the road miles to be built and the speed of reforestation and
tree growth. Our analyses indicated that the planned program
would not adversely affect the elk population goals, but we did
recognize that hunting limitations might be necessary in order
to achieve other goals.
A major additional benefit was realized as much of the
acreage that was cut actually grew back in species other than
lodgepole--aspen, for example, and other shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation. This helped the wildlife.
In any case, it soon became obvious that hiding cover was
rapidly reestablishing itself in the treated areas. The new
stands were capable of concealing an elk quite quickly and they
now provide very challenging hunting. They are dense and thick
and it is hard to hunt.
The bitter lesson of ignoring habitat management now faces
the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in the Clearwater country of
northern Idaho. What was once the finest elk herd in Idaho has
crashed due in large part to predators and the inexorable
decline in habitat capacity for big game when the forest closes
in with maturity. Unfortunately, the need for active forest
management is all too often ignored or even denigrated until
disaster--be it insects, fire or declining big game herds--
faces us. We need to keep in mind that we have to manage the
forests for the type of future desired.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Burns.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Simpson for the first line of
questioning.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Mealey, I have got the Fish and Wildlife guys here now.
It has been mentioned that the grizzly bear habitat or the
grizzly bear population is increasing, is on the increase, and
that the elk population is on the increase. Is that accurate or
inaccurate?
Mr. Mealey. Senator, I am sorry that I did not hear.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Mealey, it has been mentioned that----
Mr. Mealey. Congressman--excuse me.
Mr. Simpson. [continuing] the grizzly bear are on the
increase and that the elk population are on the increase. Is
that accurate or inaccurate?
Mr. Mealey. That is accurate.
Mr. Simpson. If those are in fact on the increase and we
are closing roads in order to protect their habitat, is that
not sort of evidence that the road closures before the gatings
were in fact being effective and that the tank traps were not
necessary?
Mr. Mealey. Madam Chair, Congressman, let me separate that
question into two pieces.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. Mealey. Because you have asked me the question that I
said I would defer until you asked me a question. It is clear
that the elk herd in this part of the world has expanded from a
handful of elk in the 1930s to approximately 4,000 now. And you
can tell by my response I am referring to an area that is
larger now than the Island Park Zone. This herd expanded in the
presence of a lot of human activity, including road
construction, timber harvest, livestock grazing and lots and
lots of activities, including general hunting.
So it is fairly easy to say, goodness, there is no problem.
But in fact, there is a very serious problem. And that is that
unrestricted access resulted in harvest of the bull segment of
the herd to the extent that in the late 1970s, hunters were so
effective that they were literally killing all the spike bulls.
So the question was not so much the total number of elk as
the quality and the composition of the herd. And without
getting too detailed here, you do recall that I mentioned some
parameters for the herd that included wanting some 25 adult
bulls per 100 cows. The reason for that is to assure that
breeding occurs at the appropriate time in the season and adult
bulls will do that in September, the first time that the cows
cycle, assuring that calves are born around the first of June
and obtain a weight that allows them to get through the winter.
If you lose that segment of the herd and breeding occurs by the
younger segment, sometimes the cows do not bear until late
June, as a result of late breeding. That has implications for
calf survival.
So what was important was that we restrict the harvest so
that we could retain a good quality of herd composition. So it
is more than just having 4,000 elk, it is having the right kind
of elk. And that is why I mentioned the herd objective.
Now there were two ways that we could obtain the proper
herd objective; either through controlled hunting with
relatively liberal road access management, or the other option
that I mentioned was general hunting opportunity with some
route restrictions. We opted for the latter course and the
proposed Targhee plan does include that set of criteria, in
order that we could maximize hunting opportunity and freedom
for our sportsmen.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Mealey. You did ask me about grizzly bears and I gave
too long an answer to the first one, but I have an idea someone
is going to ask me that question as well.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
Without objection, I would like to ask for unanimous
consent to ask Mr. Siddoway, before I call on Senator Craig, if
you have comments. I know that you were here accompanying Mr.
Mealey, but if you have comments, I and the rest of the panel
would love to hear from you, Mr. Siddoway.
STATEMENT OF JEFF SIDDOWAY, IDAHO FISH AND GAME COMMISSION,
TERRETON, IDAHO
Mr. Siddoway. Thank you, Madam Chair. My comments will be
brief.
I tried to get a hold of Doug Crandall, who was setting up
this panel, and he and I never did actually connect. I wanted
to know if I should provide written testimony and he said no,
do not worry about it, you will just be accompanying Director
Mealey. But then since you swore us in and put us under threat
of perjury, I have been sitting over here real concerned about
how I could confess having sex with a grizzly bear. So it is
all about sex and if I say something that someone challenges,
they cannot throw me in jail.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Siddoway. I do have quite a history with the Targhee
Forest. I grew up in St. Anthony, just north of here. A large
segment of the elk winter range for the Island Park or the Sand
Creek herd includes our private land. I do not mean to be
repetitious of what John Burns said, but the elk do migrate
from Harriman State Park--or did migrate from Harriman State
Park and from Yellowstone Park to the Big Junipers where they
had a sanctuary. A lot of that was just because of the way the
hunting seasons were structured and they would make that run in
about a 24-hour time. There was not a lot of cover left up on
the forest and the hunting became an absolute nightmare. When
we would be tending our sheep out there on the junipers,
towards the fall, the hunters would come in and it was just
party hunting, shooting the animals out of the backs of pickups
and runs, and it was just a nightmare. And they did pretty well
eliminate all of the bulls in the herd and that is what caused
the restrictions.
I guess as far as the Department comes from and as far as
Jeff Siddoway, the old redneck sheep herder that used the
Targhee for managing sheep and recreation and breaking colts,
versus what is Fish and Game, there are probably two different
answers. But since I am accompanying Director Mealey and here
as a commissioner, we can control the quality and the quantity
of this herd two ways--we can either have a restrictive access
or we can have a restrictive hunting season. And the Fish and
Game obligation is to give as much opportunity while protecting
the habitat as we can. And pretty well, that has boiled down to
try to give the longest seasons. Since 1991, we have been in a
spike only. That caused a lot of hunters to move out of the
area, about 60 percent of the hunters left the area because of
the spike only. That put us into the controlled hunts for the
big bulls.
Since then--I did not call any politicians, but I did call
our regional supervisor and got several sheets of paper over
the last few days in preparation for this--we do have our
objective management that the whole department, all the
biologists, put together and goes through it. It states
specific numbers of animals for specific units and areas. Our
Island Park area, we have an objective of 1,500 cows, 575 bulls
I believe, and 300 of those mature bulls. Currently we have
about 975 bulls, almost 50 percent more. We have about 500 plus
mature bulls and we have I think around 2,200 mature cows. So
we are well above our objectives right now.
The object here is to give more hunter opportunity in the
future. We will be going out to our scoping meetings, as was
mentioned here, this month and hopefully we can give that
opportunity.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Siddoway, Commissioner, for
that very interesting testimony.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Do not worry about your oath and your
personal activities.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. We took care of that yesterday.
Mr. Burns, you said something that I think is tremendously
valuable to repeat. And I say so because there are a good many
people in this audience that are now defending a Targhee that
is not a Targhee that was.
As a young person, I camped with my parents in the Targhee
that was and I know why you made the decisions you made and the
Targhee was logged, it was a climax forest and it died. It died
very dramatically. It was sitting there waiting for a big burn,
but somebody like you got in in front of it and stopped it.
What would have happened to the Targhee that was if changes
had not been made and the Yellowstone fire in 1988 had come up
against it?
Mr. Burns. Senator, my view is that a tremendous amount of
the Island Park country would have burned in one of the three
runs that the Yellowstone fires made to the westward, when we
had the dramatic wind shifts that would suddenly reverse the
situation.
Senator Craig. In fact, it did break into the forest.
Mr. Burns. Oh, yes, in places. But what we found was that
the young growth--it was relatively easy to control the fire
because the younger trees would not burn with that intensity of
the mixed dead and dying older timber. So we fortunately had
the best of all worlds in controlling that fire situation.
Frankly, the Targhee was the only forest in the Yellowstone
complex where that fire season was actually managed and
controlled.
Senator Craig. And that is the rest of the story. And I
appreciate you saying that because I am very frustrated at this
moment by people who think that they are defending something
that is static.
I appreciate the need for road closure because the roads
that are there now were placed there to change the character of
the climax forest you described. And everybody knew it would
not last, that once those dead and dying trees were taken out,
it was going to be over with, or at least a large portion of it
would be. And that is true and there has been mill closures in
the area simply because there was no supply left. Nobody
really--everybody was concerned about the loss of jobs, but
they understood the supply was gone.
I guess my frustration today is that obliterating roads
versus closing roads and making sure they are kept closed for
some future management use, does not make a lot of sense.
Director Mealey, what I cannot understand, and I know you
have been intimately involved in this because I first got to
know you when you were known as a biologist, a bear biologist,
a grizzly bear biologist, and not a--well, I guess then it was
the Boise Forest and now Idaho Fish and Game. But you were very
much involved in putting a plan together to manage bear in the
Yellowstone and in the Yellowstone region. Did you ever believe
that the amount of road closure that is now being recommended
in current forest plans was necessary?
Mr. Mealey. Senator Craig, the short----
Senator Craig. Maybe I ought to reword that, road closure
existed, it was recommended and it happened. Road closure
versus what is currently going on today in the ratio of roads
and the road density--did you ever envision that in your
initial studies as a necessary tool?
Mr. Mealey. Senator, let me answer that in the context of
the grizzly bear management guidelines, of which Mr. Hoyt notes
that I am somewhat dated now because I did leave Yellowstone
some years ago, but I was the author of the guidelines that as
I understand is still a part of the forest plan.
Senator Craig. I believe those are still the operating
rules, are they not?
Mr. Mealey. Yes, sir. Now I need to answer the question in
the context of those management guidelines. And let me say
that, for those that may not know, there were three
management--actually five management situations in them. Of
course, the I being an area where the bear is the primary use
and habitat centers and components make the area necessary for
its needs and survival. Management Situation II is an area
where habitat components are present but population centers do
not generally exist. Well, given that stratification system,
the Plateau Bear Management Unit was classified as a Situation
II area. So in a Management Situation II area, and I will not
go through the details of those directions, but in a Management
Situation II, if push comes to shove, by definition, the
grizzly is accommodated but not to the extent that it excludes
other uses. And if the area is so important that the bear
requires that consideration, then the area should be
reclassified from II to I. Now that is what the guidelines
still say.
So in the construction of those guidelines, you asked me a
question and I will answer it directly. In Management Situation
II, no, I did not, as author and as we discussed those,
anticipate road densities that we currently see. Now again,
that was related to the first question, I think, and that is
what is the habitat quality of the Plateau Unit. And I think
that might have been what Congressman Simpson was getting at,
that the Plateau Unit has relatively low habitat quality.
Senator Craig. In fact, when you talk about the Plateau
Unit, was there not a discussion in time that it might be
considered for being taken out of the mix because it just did
not work?
Mr. Mealey. No, Senator, I do not recall that, but I do
know and much of my life was related to this question, and that
is that years ago in my thesis and later others have documented
the relatively low habitat quality of that area, and it has to
do with the fact that the soils are rhyolitic, relatively
infertile and porous, not normally accumulations of sedimentary
soil that make it rich. And as a result, the vegetation is
lodge pole pine and pine grass and low huckleberry, with the
exception of some micro-sites that are quite rich, but they are
widely dispersed. As a result, habitat quality is not high and
inherently does not have a high quality for bears to live
there.
Recognizing that, it was designated a Situation II. We
always recognized the Plateau Unit as uncertain in terms of its
overall quality and when we constructed the recovery
requirements; that is, the standards for recovery, we
identified that there would be 16 or 18 bear management units
where bears could be on a six-year average, and we did that
mostly because of the uncertainty of the Henry's Lake and the
Plateau Bear Management Unit. But the short answer, I did not
anticipate densities that low there, simply because it was not
assumed that bears would be there in that density.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Senator Crapo.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Mealey, I was going to ask you to follow up on the bear
part of Representative Simpson's question, but I think you may
have just done that. Do you want to add anything to that
answer?
Mr. Mealey. I do want to say something about uncertainty.
There is no question about the fact that we all want a
recovered population. I do recall telling Chuck Lodell, when he
was still the state supervisor, that I frankly disagreed with
the anticipated road standards in the Plateau Unit, and I did
so because they did not appear to be consistent with the
direction for the unit on the Situation II area in the Plateau.
Now when I say they did not appear to be necessary, let me
tell you why I said that. And this is not a rhetorical issue,
it is a structured, logical issue. If something is necessary,
it is necessary to meet the requirements for recovery, which
were the four recovery standards, and that is that there would
be at least 15 females with cubs a year on a six year average,
that there would be a target number mortality of no more than
8.8 per year, that there would be a female mortality per year
of less than 2.6, and that there would be bears, females and
young, documented in 16 of the 18 bear management units on a
running average. Now the point is that at that point all those
criteria had been met with the exception of the female
mortality. And it was unclear to me why those standards were
necessary in light of its classification. If it was changed to
I, then I can certainly agree that it would be. The biology has
not supported it being moved.
Now the habitat effectiveness standard that is currently
being tested there assumes that with lower human activity,
perhaps bears will occupy the area to a greater extent than
they currently do, and I think that is probably a reasonable
hypothesis to test and I will be interested to see the outcome.
That is the current Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee's
position, to do that test and that is what is going on.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I have no further questions,
Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Senator.
I wanted to continue along that line of questioning, so I
am going to interrupt your drink of water. I wonder if we might
throw Mr. Gerber's first slide up on the screen again, and
while we are doing that, I want to re-ask a question or a
statement that was touched upon. The Yellowstone grizzly bear
management guidelines, are they widely used today, and who are
they used by?
Mr. Mealey. Madam Chairman, it is my understanding, and I
have been out of the Forest Service for some time and my
information gets rapidly dated, but I do understand that the
guidelines are still a part of the Targhee Forest plan. So I
guess in terms of their use, they are certainly still a part of
the forest planning process, is my understanding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you authored those?
Mr. Mealey. Yes, ma'am, I did.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And did you author them as part of a
research project for your masters, or what? How did this
happen?
Mr. Mealey. Well, not directly. I was the first graduate
student for the Interagency Study Team after the Craigheads
left the park and my thesis, which I finished in 1975, was
grizzly bear food habits in the Yellowstone ecosystem, which I
completed, and that reflected some understanding of habitat
quality and food habits. And based on that work then, I as a
wildlife biologist on the Shoshone Forest in 1977 and 1979 then
finally completed the guidelines based on that information that
was available at the time, and I think it is still fairly
recognized as reasonably valid.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Director Mealey, what I would like you to
do is to point out to us on the map where the Plateau Unit is
and then explain for the record what constitutes good grizzly
bear habitat and what kind of habitat you find there.
Mr. Mealey. Well, the Plateau Unit is the area denoted in
red, and I might point out that when I refer to that as a
relatively infertile area, it refers to the fact that the
Yellowstone caldera is here, of course, and that great eruption
resulted in the dispersal of what is referred to as rhyolitic
soil, pumicy, sandy soil that resulted in a plateau inside the
park, and that extends out on that large outflow. So what you
have--when I referred to it in my thesis, and I think the
current research still recognizes that that is inherently low-
productivity, it is not rich soil, it is porous, the water goes
right through. So you get vegetation that is a cold desert, if
you will, plants that do not require a lot of water live there.
And so it is inherently low productivity compared to a high
quality area which might be Hayden Valley, for example, in the
Park, which was an old lake bed that has hugely deep deposited
sediments that are very rich in all forms of life, which is
where the highest concentrations of grizzlies occur, of course.
Any species is going to be where the food is, where the table
is set closely.
Out on the Pittstone Plateau, it is probably one of the--
and this map accurately shows sightings--grizzlies avoid the
area because it is not a pleasant place to be if you are
looking for food and you are a bear. The habitat quality is
somewhat better as you go west, but not significantly better.
Now the supposition is, and I think the data that I looked
at showed that there has been one sighting in the last six
years in the area on the Plateau Unit on the Targhee and I
believe that was 1994 for a female with cubs.
The thing that was interesting to me when I was doing my
work in the park was that even though the roads were present on
the Targhee in great numbers, you still did not see bears in
the park in the same ecosystem where there were no roads. So I
was convinced at that time that it was probably more a function
of the inherent productivity of the habitat than it was the
presence of roads. The current test, however, is that perhaps
road density is a deterrent and that is the logic for the test
and that is currently ongoing with the supposition that reduced
roads could make the area somewhat more attractive. I think
there would be some inherent limitations on the extent to which
it would be attractive.
Mrs. Chenoweth. If Siddoway is not grazing sheep up there
and the bears are not able to feed on the sheep, what other
natural food substance does the bear look for that is not
present there?
Mr. Mealey. Well there are micro-sites that--when I say a
micro-site, I mean a relatively small place that in many places
provide very rich arrays of foods, they are just widely
distributed. So if the density in other parts of the park
become great, bears can be forced to the margin and this is a
place where they could well go, and that has already been
acknowledged by Mr. Hoyt and others today, and that is a
reasonable point. But there are some places, Robinson Creek and
others, that have some fairly rich foods, but they are widely
distributed and they are not highly abundant. So in that sense
there are some foods that could be available.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Are white pine--is white bark pine a food
source for the bear?
Mr. Mealey. They are very important, white bark pine is not
as abundant in this part of the area as it is in other parts of
the park.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So can one conclude that even if we close
all the roads in that area, because of the natural habitat or
lack of habitat, it will not increase the bear density?
Mr. Mealey. I think the supposition is that question should
be tested. One of the things--and I want to go back to what I
said earlier, when we constructed the criteria for recovery, we
said there is 18 bear management units and it says that 16 of
them should be occupied on a running six-year average. The
reason for that, it recognized the uncertainty about the
Plateau and the Henry's Lake BMUs. We were not certain, and so
we left some slack in the system and I think that that is yet
to be resolved. Right now, we recognize that bears may not
occur there and biology and ecology are very uncertain things.
It is clear that as populations expand, this is a place where
they could go. There are probably real limitations on how many
can be there.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is it wrong to conclude, Director Mealey,
when you say they could go, that they would likely be passing
through, or is this a place where they would settle? I mean,
you have just testified to the fact that it does not yield a
food source.
Mr. Mealey. Right. Well, Madam Chair, it is my personal
belief from a biological-ecological standpoint, that it is
certainly true that the area currently lacks distinct
population centers. I do not believe that it ever will have
population centers, just because of the inherent limitations of
the habitat. I do not think there are many ecologists that
disagree, I certainly spoke with Mark Harrelson and others,
who--Tom Puchler and others, who are very knowledgeable--feel
that the area's quality as grizzly habitat could be enhanced
with reduced presence of humans and I think that that is a
reasonable question to ask and a reasonable thing to test. But
my sense is that the likelihood of that occurring is quite low
and that is a function of the ceiling set by the inherent
quality of the area.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Director Mealey, and I
thank my colleagues for their indulgence, my light has been on
for quite some time.
I want to thank this panel for your very fine testimony. I
do want you to know that we have other questions that we would
like to submit to you and we will do so in writing right away
and would appreciate your response at your earliest
convenience.
And again, I do want to say should you wish to add any
remarks to your testimony, you may do so within ten days. Thank
you.
I would like to call on the next panel. We will hear from
the Honorable Lenore Barrett, who will be accompanied by the
Honorable JoAnn Wood, both Representatives in the Idaho State
Legislature; Mr. Craig Gehrke, Regional Director, Idaho
Wilderness Society from Boise; Mr. Bill Ingot, Rancher from
Island Park, Idaho; and Mr. Roy Moulton, former County
Attorney, Driggs, Idaho.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The hearing will come to order, please, and
I would like to ask the panel members to please stand and raise
your hand to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would like to first state that
Representative JoAnn Wood also was--initially had contacted us
about this situation and so I would like to open this panel by
asking Representative Wood if she has any comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOANN WOOD, IDAHO STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Ms. Wood. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am Representative JoAnn Wood, District 26 encompassing
four Idaho counties, and I do wish to acknowledge my Senators
and my Representative and thank you for being here to hear our
testimony.
I am presently the Vice Chairman of the Idaho House
Transportation Committee and an Executive Board member of the
MHTA, Multi-State Highway Transportation Agreement, for 11 of
our western states of the United States.
I am here to testify on behalf of the people of District 26
who would not be in attendance here to give testimony, but who
have contacted me requesting that I do something in their
behalf to protest the actions of the Forest Service in the
Targhee National Forest surrounding our communities.
In 1993, our state grappled with the preemptive actions of
the Federal Government in regards to the inherent rights of
passage upon the land of her citizens that is guaranteed under
the revised statute 2477, codified as 43 United States Code
932. May I read the legislative intent of House Bill 388?
``Section 1, Statement of Legislative Intent. The State of
Idaho recognizes that existing Federal land rights of way are
extremely important to all Idaho citizens. Two-thirds of
Idaho's land is under control of the Federal Government and
access to such Federal lands is integral to public use. The
Idaho State Legislature recognizes the necessity for
establishing a procedure for identifying and confirming the
existence of previously established Federal rights of way to
protect those rights previously granted to and vested in the
citizens of Idaho.''
The citizens of Idaho's concerns were also addressed in
1993 by the Idaho Senate in Senate Bill 1108. To emphasize just
how important these rights are to the Idahoans who are enclosed
by the federally managed lands, we sent a memorial to Congress,
House Joint Memorial 10, and may I quote from that, Madam
Chair?
``We as memorialists, the House of Representatives and the
Senate of the State of Idaho, assembled in the Second Regular
Session of the 54th Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully
represent that whereas on January 22, 1998, U.S. Forest Service
Chief, Michael Dombeck, proposed a major overhaul of the forest
road system, including a proposal to halt all road construction
in wilderness areas of national forests; and whereas, forest
roads are an integral part of maintaining forest health, and as
well as integral part of its socio-economic base that would
short-change rural counties of millions in revenue for having
Federal forests within their boundaries; and whereas, a road
moratorium would preempt all state and local laws and
regulations; now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of
the Second Regular Session of the 54th Idaho Legislature, the
House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein,
that the Congress of the United States is urged to recognize
state and county rights of way under Revised Statute 2477 and
take appropriate action to invalidate the proposed policy
changes for forest wilderness areas; and be it further resolved
that the Congress of the United States be urged to do all
within its statutory authority to deny funding for the
implementation of the proposed policy change by administrative
fiat.''
And Madam Chairman, this is really the information that I
would like to submit to you in the attachments to my testimony,
if I might; and tell you that we feel that the Federal
Government has ignored the specific requirements for
cooperative consultations with the local and state government
officials required in the NEPA process; we feel that they have
not considered both the state government and her citizens in
preparing a forest management plan that puts the main
consideration of the planning and management of unsubstantiated
threatened or endangered species of animals that is not
compatible with the habitat, let alone the culture and economic
wellbeing of Idaho's people that are occupants of the adjacent
communities, farms and ranches.
We spent considerable time, the State of Idaho did, in with
11 western states in trying to influence the ISTEA
reauthorization T-21, to help us be able to afford to maintain
our roads to the national forests and parks and scenic byways.
That state tax money that went into those roads is really
important for us. We feel like the Federal Government stepped
up to that and did offer to help us in that we are a very low
population state and we have many, many miles of road to
maintain. We do not want to be shut off from that, Madam
Chairman. Our people do not want to be shut out from passage
across these lands and to be able to live and enjoy the lands
that they love here.
So we are asking you with my testimony here that you might
again take into consideration the preparations that the state
has made and the petitions that we have made to the Congress to
take into account our concerns in the State of Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just want to say for the record how much
I appreciate and I know all of us do, the Idaho delegation,
your leadership on this issue. And without objection, all of
your documents will be entered as a part of the record, and I
thank you so much.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Lenore Barrett.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wood may be found at the end
of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF HON. LENORE BARRETT, IDAHO STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Ms. Barrett. I am Lenore Barrett, Idaho State
Representative for Legislative District 26, Custer, Lemhi,
Clark and Jefferson Counties.
Here it is, Madam Chairman. Yesterday's Statesman, ``Feds
Ban Road Building on Forest Lands, the first step to closing
off forest lands.''
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Okay, now we are even, please no more
applause.
Ms. Barrett. Add to that the decommissioning of roads that
is currently going on in areas other than just the Targhee,
incidentally, but you add that and you have got a runaway train
that is not going to stop until it crashes into the station. So
where does that leave us? We can jump off the train and not
hang around the station, I guess.
Madam Chairman, I do thank you and the distinguished
Committee for allowing us to speak here today. And I did just
point out that the road closure is not new, it is merely being
accomplished on a larger, more accelerated scale.
In the Post Register, Madam Chairman, you were quoted as
wanting to know what the U.S. Forest Service thinking was
behind their road decommissioning activity. The answer is
simple--when roads are gone, people are gone except for the
elitist few who boot up for a walk on the wild side of nature.
[Applause.]
Ms. Barrett. The question is not why do they do it, but why
are they allowed to do it. The Federal Government claims
sovereignty over a third of the United States, most of that
being in the west. The equal footing doctrine says that public
lands automatically become state lands upon statehood and the
Federal Government does not have the constitutional right to
require forfeiture of land as a condition of statehood. Ergo,
the underlying issue in road decommission is jurisdiction. In
the organic act that created the Forest Service, we read ``The
state wherein any such national forest is situated shall not,
by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its
jurisdiction.'' Federal land managers do not possess police
powers unless it is obtained from the state through specific
legislation. In Idaho, no such legislation exists.
Thus, the county has jurisdiction over the roads. Idaho
Code 31-805, 40-107, 42-048 and 40-604. Not only does the
Federal Government habitually violate state sovereignty, it
does not even subscribe to its own Federal statutes, including
but not limited to, Organic Act, Administrative Procedure Act,
Americans with Disabilities Act, Sustained Yield Act, General
Mining Law of 1872, RS-2477, Endangered Species Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, Forest Management Act, et cetera, et
cetera--and also the Federal Ethics Code.
Clinton's budget proposes spending $359 million, a 28
percent increase over current spending, to maintain and close
forest roads aimed at protecting grizzly bear habitat. Idaho
does not support this. Idaho opposes grizzly reintroduction and
the decommission of existing roads. Idaho opposition is a
legislative policy statement recorded in House Joint Memorials
2 and 6 and House Joint Memorial 10. And Mr. Speaker, now Mr.
Congressman, was co-sponsor with Representative Wood and myself
on House Joint Memorial 10.
Most of the Federal schemes designed to depopulate the
west, such as wolves, grizzlies, Federal reserved water rights,
wilderness designation, ad nauseam are formalized under the
Endangered Species Act. Why does Congress allow us to suffer at
the hands of this unconstitutional Frankenstein's monster. The
ESA is not pursuant to the Constitution and it is a flagrant
violation of the 10th Amendment. It is technically invalid and
should be repealed.
So what is the thinking behind closing forest roads? Listen
to the following: ``Fifty years ago, environmentalist Aldo
Leopold wrote his seminal work, A Sand Country Almanac. In it,
Leopold spoke of his personal land ethic and the need for land
managers to extend their own ecological conscience to resource
decisions. In 50 years, we will not be remembered for the
resources we developed, we will be thankful for those we
maintained and restored for future generations. Thanks for your
hard work. Mike Dombeck, Chief''
Madam Chairman, mankind cannot exist without access to and
productive use of our God-given natural resources. Man must
produce or die. If we do not produce, there will be no future
generations.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Representative
Barrett.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Craig Gehrke for testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barrett may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF CRAIG GEHRKE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, IDAHO WILDERNESS
SOCIETY, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. Gehrke. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity
to testify regarding the draft environmental impact statement
for the motorized road and travel plan for the Targhee Forest.
The Wilderness Society has been involved for a very long time
in management issues on the Targhee and other forests within
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
We support the efforts of the Targhee Forest to develop a
plan for motorized road and trail travel. The growing off-road
and off-highway vehicle use is having an impact on natural
resources on the Targhee and the Forest Service is to be
commended for taking this issue on and trying to put together a
plan to deal with those impacts. While we do not support the
preferred alternative, we do support several concepts within
that preferred alternative and we will be making
recommendations during this comment period of what we would
like to see improved in the draft alternative.
The issue of motorized travel management on the Targhee
often gets characterized as grizzly bears versus everything
else. I do not believe that is a correct characterization. We
believe that the Forest Service does need to take steps on the
Targhee to enhance and recover the grizzly bear and comply with
a biological opinion issued by the Fish & Wildlife Service, but
motorized travel issues go far beyond just grizzly bears.
The final EIS for the revised Targhee travel plan was clear
in its assessment that off-road vehicle use and roads are among
the primary causes of impacts to soils, to water quality and to
aquatic habitats on the Targhee. And my written statement has
several citations in the final environmental impact statement.
Management of roads and motorized trails is not only about
grizzly bears, but also about clean water, about fish, elk and
other forest resources.
The Wilderness Society supports the initiative by the
Forest Service, as set forth by this travel plan, to eliminate
indiscriminate cross-country use across parts of the Targhee
National Forest. Again, as the final EIS for the forest plan
made clear, this type of use is causing damage to soil, it is
causing water quality and fish and wildlife habitat impacts.
Taking actions to address this type of use is a significant
step forward to better protect the resources on the Targhee.
We also support the efforts to reverse the long-standing
system of signing trails or roads as open or closed to
motorized use. By only signing closed trails, the Forest
Service was inadvertently providing an incentive to tearing
down or vandalizing such signs with the offenders later
claiming that they did not know about the closure. Signing
trails as open would remove the incentive to remove those
signs. My experience as a Forest Service employee years ago
included replacing many bullet-riddled signs and finding them
thrown off in the ditch and putting them back up again.
I think what is important to keep in mind here while we
talk about this travel plan is that several of the actions that
are proposed here were determined through the Targhee forest
plan, not necessarily this travel plan. We believe that some of
the actions like the road density standards can only be
addressed by going back and amending or revising the Targhee
forest plan, not this draft travel plan.
Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the Forest Service is
under an obligation to reduce road densities in the grizzly
bear management units in order to comply with the biological
opinion issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on their
revised forest plan. If we stop those efforts, we are going to
have to go back and get a new biological opinion and basically
open up the forest planning process again.
The conservation groups were part of the 1994 court action
on the grizzly management on the Targhee and are not going to
tolerate very much of a delay in getting these road density
standards in place. The 1994 court settlement between the
Forest Service and the conservation groups resulted in a
commitment from the agency that it would address the
deficiencies in the prior forest plan relating to the Plateau,
Madison and Bechler-Teton bear management units. Later, the
Forest Service decided to take those deficiencies and rectify
them through the forest revision process rather than to address
each management unit separately.
We believe that the proposed road and trail travel plan for
the Targhee National Forest is a step forward in addressing
some of the resource impacts that are being caused by off-road
and off-highway vehicle use on the forest. Further actions
beyond those proposed in the draft travel plan, such as
specific actions to reduce impacts to Yellowstone cutthroat
trout and its habitat, should be incorporated in the final
travel plan.
I did want to make a point to reiterate a point Marv Hoyt
mentioned regarding the Plateau Bear Management Unit, that
again a document from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Team dated
1999 says that there is still bear habitat in the Plateau Bear
Management Unit and the bears do use it. His statement was that
with fewer roads and less human impacts, habitat effectiveness
in this unit can only increase.
I would urge the Committee to very carefully look at this,
this is not ten years old like the information we were seeing
on the screen a little bit ago, this is from 1999, this is
talking about people who are managing the bears today, with on-
the-ground conditions today and bears are on the ground today,
not in 1977, not in 1987--1999.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Gehrke.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Mr.--the Chair
will interrupt the hearing to say once more please no applause.
We are going to have to ask security to ask you to leave if you
continue this. I do not want to have to do that. Thank you very
much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bill Ingot.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gehrke may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF BILL INGOT, RANCHER, ISLAND PARK, IDAHO
Mr. Ingot. I do not have a speech written up. I never got
my letter from you until a couple of days ago. I am a rancher
in Island Park and I also own a lodge up there. My dad came
there in 1898, so I have just about been there that long
myself--I might not look like it, but I have.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ingot. I have seen the roads go from trails up there
before, then they logged the country, then we had the roads up
there and it has went on like that for 25 years since they have
logged up there. Now all at once this year before they done
their plan, EPA, they come in and started dozing the road up. I
was probably the first one to know about it because it happened
on a weekday, I seen the person who was going up to flag the
roads. I asked them what they were doing and they said they
were going up to flag some more roads to be closed. I said you
have got them all closed now, you know, the Meadow Creek Road
there. And they said no, we are going to close some more.
Well, immediately when I found out what they was closing, I
went down to Jerry Reese--they was closing one right into my
ranch and I own 1,600 acres of land there, to our south fence.
So I went down to Jerry and I says they are going to close this
road, and Jerry says where is this at. Well, he showed me on
the map and I said I can't tell on the map, but I can tell you
where it is at. He said I do not know which one it means, but
anyway, I finally got through to Jerry, he said okay, I will
take care of that, there will not be a problem. I have got to
finish this story before I go on with the rest of the deal.
But anyway, that night when I come back, my neighbor up
there, they had went up and closed a road to what they call
Garner Canyon. They had the road closed up the mountain, we
have used that for 50 years, we pull our sheep gear up there,
but they closed another road that takes off to the left and
goes over about a mile to a head gate out of a creek and there
is a widow up there, so she could not get up to her head gate.
So I called Jerry again. They had already closed that road,
so he had to come back down after he got the tractor out of a
mudhole up on what they call Two Top up there. I went up to get
a picture of that, they had the cat buried and had another cat
in there to get it out, pull it out. I did not get a picture of
it, I was too late. But anyway, they went up to re-open that
road.
Well, it was stuff like that. Then I went up to see what
they were doing, and I could not believe it. I mean, I have
been there all my life, and the damage they done up there now,
it will be 100 years--well, we will never be around to see it
unless somebody lets me take a cat and go up there and smooth
them out again, but it is ridiculous the way they done this.
Some of these roads are 50 yards long, they made a dike 15
feet high, but you can drive out around it if you wanted to. I
mean there was no planning in it at all and yet it cost the
taxpayers about $300,000 to do this. We are broke anyway, the
Forest Service is broke.
But like I said, as far as the bear management, they need
all these road closures for the bear. I have been there since
day one on the bear, since the grizzly bear came into Island
Park, when they quit feeding them in Yellowstone. They fed them
there for 100 years, then they took the bear off of the garbage
and sent him out onto the public. Well, when he come out in the
public, he did not have anything to eat, so he started on
cattle, sheep, people or whatever he wants to eat. He is the
boss, I guarantee you.
And I had my sheep, I run my sheep on Two Top for 65 years.
Well, a bear got into my sheep up there, took the range away
from me, moved me to another allotment. That was supposed to be
counted permanent and now I understand that there is nothing
permanent any more.
I did not think that yellow light would ever go on, but
anyway, I just do not like the way they closed the roads, I do
not think there is any sense of it. As far as the bear needing
that much density, he comes right to our lodge, he comes on our
porch, he crosses the road right by our house, he has been
around there the last 20 years. And the elk population, we have
got a bigger elk population than we ever had in the history of
Idaho.
When my dad come to the country in 1898, there was not an
elk in the country and now we have got over 4,000 head. We
winter a lot of them out on the Jeff Siddoway range, there is
land out there we winter the elk on. But we are at about
capacity of all the elk we can winter. So as far as that goes,
I have no idea why they want all these roads closed for the
grizzly bear, because the grizzly bear is going to go where he
wants to go. And we have got enough population to pretty well
back up anything, I am sure. They cannot count every bear and
they have already got the population way above where it was to
start with that they wanted.
The red light is on. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Ingot.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Moulton for testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROY MOULTON, FORMER COUNTY ATTORNEY, DRIGGS, IDAHO
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Ms. Chairman, Honorable Senators
Craig and Crapo and Congressman Simpson. I truly appreciate you
being here and indulging us in this opportunity to speak with
you today. I think it shows us a lot about your commitment to
Idaho and we appreciate you being here.
I am sorry that you have to do this every day and I am not
sure what motivates you, but I appreciate the effort you put
out on our behalf.
I was interested earlier in your statement, Senator Craig,
when you said that despite all of our efforts, there seems to
be a lot of acrimony when it comes to this business of making
public land management decisions that we can all live with. And
I think you even focused a question to Mr. Hoyt to see what he
thought about how that could be resolved. I happen to have an
opinion about that, not that I expect that if it is a good one
anybody will give me any money like Mr. Hoyt thought.
But I can remember when we first started studying the
impact of NEPA and specifically this phenomenon of what I will
refer to as a private attorney general or the standing of
individuals to sue about land management decisions. It was
quite a phenomenon and we discussed the implications of that in
public land law in school. We even speculated about where it
would go and whether it would be wise and if it would create a
flood of litigation.
I think history has now told us that that phenomenon, that
little part of this arguably laudable legislation, is something
that as a nation we need to go back and look at. I think this
business of if I do not like the decision, I am going to take
my ball and go home or I am going to go to court, more
accurately, actually increases the potential for acrimony
greater than any other thing we could have going on in our
system.
Now I think historically, the left wing of the
environmental community was quickest to get funded and quickest
to see the biggest advantage of not in the public process but
through the courts. Now, after--you know, a lot of us farmers
are a little slow to learn, but we finally have started to
learn that if we are going to have influence, we had better get
our war chest and our lawyers. CUFF got its act together
finally and we were able to stop some of the behavior that we
are here--at least temporarily that we are here in this hearing
about.
I do not think that answer is right either. What we have
effectively done is abdicated a legislative and executive
process to the judiciary. It is expensive, it is time
consuming, it breeds acrimony and I have to question, as a
citizen, as long as we have it whether we are going to be
making informed decisions.
If we go back to the objective of NEPA, it was that we
would make informed, science-based decisions about our public
land use. Now I participated, for all of my adult life, in
these kind of hearings. I have never seen my interests, and I
think I have been there with a majority of community voicing
similar interests--I have never seen in this last 15-20 years,
those interests recognized in the management decisions that
were ultimately made. If I can, I want to real quick give you
an example.
Recently I have proposed on behalf of a client an exchange.
I think it could be defended--and I see the yellow light is on,
so I do not have time to tell you all the details, but I think
it could be defended as one of probably the few best exchanges
that could ever be proposed to the Forest Service. The client
wants to take the land that he would get in exchange, take it
out of the public domain, manage it for elk habitat, put a
permanent easement on it so that he could increase the public
values; and the land that he is proposing to give, trade into
the public domain, is land on the Fall River that has been
identified by the environmental communities as having extremely
high public value for winter range and so forth.
Recently I wrote a letter suggesting that exchange and I
got a letter back from the Forest Service basically saying
well, we might do it, but be advised it will be two to three
years at a minimum. Now having been a little more involved than
what I am able to tell you here, I honestly believe that even
though the Forest Service would like to recommend that
exchange, they are so gun shy about exchanges because of the
whipping they have taken in the legal--in the courts, once they
have recommended exchanges or land use decisions, whatever they
are, that I think they are so gun shy, they do not even dare
participate or be part of an exchange that would probably be in
the interest of all sides.
So I really think--and this is the substance of my
testimony, that we really need to go back to NEPA and visit
this notion that people should have influence in the public
process, vis-a-vis the courts. I think that was a dangerous
thing to do in the first place and I do not think it is
something that serves either side of the debate even now. And
it is terribly expensive.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moulton may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Moulton.
I want to say that the delegation unanimously feels that
our first responsibility is to be here to listen and so because
we have two more panels, we are going to forego asking oral
questions unless
one of you have a burning desire to ask a question. We will
submit our questions in writing.
And the second thing I want you to know, Mr. Moulton, I
think I can speak for my colleagues, is yes we do sit through
hearings, but it is wholly different to be here in Rexburg,
Idaho and being able to listen to all of you. Thank you very
much for your time.
I will recognize the next panel as they come up. Mr. Brent
Robson, Teton County Commissioner, Driggs, Idaho; Ms. Jan
Brown, Executive Director, Henry's Fork Foundation, Ashton,
Idaho and Mr. Eric Thomas, Recreationist, St. Anthony, Idaho.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will come to order please.
Ms. Brown, Mr. Robson, I wonder if you might stand and
raise your hand to the square, and Mr. Thomas, will you join us
and raise your hand to the square please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Robson
for testimony.
STATEMENT OF BRENT ROBSON, TETON COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DRIGGS,
IDAHO
Mr. Robson. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Craig,
Senator Crapo, Representative Simpson. I consider it an honor
to be here today. It hurts me to be here; the sun is shining
outside and it hurts me to sit on a hard bench for a long time
too, but I appreciate your indulgence and your willingness to
come and listen to us.
I have be a county commissioner in Teton County for--I am
working on my third term, so as you can see, I may have a
mental deficiency. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here.
I want to tell you just a few things about a personal encounter
that I had with a tank trap but before I do that, I want to
tell you a little bit about where I come from.
My grandfather came to Teton Basin when he was 16 years old
on a train from New York, without any accompaniment. He came
out and homesteaded there in Teton Valley. My other grandfather
operated a fishing lodge on the Teton River for many years; in
fact, was honored by the California legislature in a resolution
into his activities in being a person that worked well with
people.
I had the opportunity when I was a little guy growing up of
spending some time with both of those great men. They taught me
an ethic and something from a personal encounter that you can
only gain from being there. I had the opportunity of being
there with them in this national forest that we are talking
about. We spent a lot of time out there walking those woods,
learning how to hunt, how to fish, how to trap, how to enjoy
the outdoors. One of the most outstanding things I remember
from those two men was both of their reverence for the land and
the importance that I had as a little guy growing up to learn
how it was important to them to take care of that land that
they used--and I want to emphasize that they used.
I had an unfortunate experience while traveling on the
Targhee Forest of encountering a tank trap in the winter on a
snowmobile. I suffered an injury to my back and have since then
had considerable discomfort as a direct result of that injury.
I was out there doing what I like to do in the winter time and
that is ride a snowmobile. I was not aware of the condition
that I was about to come on and encountered it and suffered the
consequence.
I think I learned from that incident the importance and
responsibility that I had as a person to take what action that
I could to influence any process that would allow an
obstruction like that on the public domain that might be
injurious to the traveling public.
I do not want to elaborate any more on that situation, it
was important to me, it affected me and had some basis in my
actions as an elected official, as a county commissioner, in
trying to influence the Forest Service to stop the obliteration
in Teton County, to sit down with us and see if we might be
able to come to a more reasonable way that we could carry out
road closures without doing such an unsightly and unsafe and
destructive process to our national forests. And that is what
prompted us as a county commission to attempt to bring the
Forest Service to the table with us to discuss this problem
before it continued to occur in Teton County. We were able to
do that, had some meetings with them and it has brought us to
this position that we are today. We are waiting to further meet
with the Forest Service to see if we might be able to go out
and come to a better resolution of how we could deal with our
little part of the problem on the Driggs District of the
Targhee National Forest.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robson may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. I would like to ask the members
here--I would like to go out of order and just--with unanimous
consent--and just ask you for the record specifically if you
can just tell us maybe in 30 seconds, what was your encounter
and what was the consequences you referred to.
Mr. Robson. Boy, that is a fast one, 30 seconds.
I was on a snowmobile outing and ran into a tank trap that
had been constructed, to my best knowledge, about three years
ago. It was much smaller than those tank traps that have been
constructed of late. However, it was devastating to me. I just
basically ran into it, it threw me up into the air and off the
machine. I lit on the ground and had a broken back as a result
of it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Where did the break occur, in the lower
back, the upper back?
Mr. Robson. Yes, in the lower back.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Robson. Sure.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown.
STATEMENT OF JANICE BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HENRY'S FORK
FOUNDATION, ASHTON, IDAHO
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Craig,
Senator Crapo, Congressman Simpson, all staff.
It is wonderful that you are here on a bright sunny day
rather than the blizzards we have been having lately. I
appreciate your coming and spending all this time.
The Henry's Fork Foundation--and I am the Executive
Director--the Henry's Fork Foundation is a non-profit
organization based in Ashton. I personally am a resident of
Island Park and have lived there 16 years as a full time
resident and for 10 of those years as a business owner. The
Henry's Fork Foundation's mission is to understand, restore and
protect the fishery, wildlife and unique aesthetic qualities of
the Henry's Fork Basin. That includes some 3,000 miles of
streams, of rivers, of irrigation canals throughout 1.7 million
acres in the Henry's Fork Basin. That includes Madison, Teton,
Fremont Counties and of course half of that, or the headwaters
anyway, are in the Targhee Forest. So it is very important--and
I am going to basically use my time to talk about the
importance of the headwater streams.
Interestingly, if you look at the EIS on the Targhee, there
are identified 4,248 stream crossings in the road system, so we
are talking about those crossings as being the most vulnerable
part of the road system to erosion and then to immediate
sedimentation into the streams. The most conservative, or you
might say the most encouraging alternative allows for 1,260 of
those road crossings to be obliterated or removed through
culvert removal or other means of stabilization. And so even if
we had the best situation, we would be looking at still several
thousand stream crossings that are to remain. It is our primary
concern about watershed health.
Let me quote from a report that goes back to 1966, a noted
forester and research hydrologist named Walt Megahan was up on
the Moose Creek Plateau and wrote these words: ``I had only a
few hours observation on the Moose Creek Plateau; however,
these were enough to provide some distinct observations that
are worthy of mention. I felt that many of the soils and
subsoils that were encountered along the roads on the Moose
Creek Plateau are among the most erodible I have seen in the
[Intermountain] Region. This is to be expected, considering the
nature of many of the parent materials described earlier in
this report.
``Wherever erosion hazards in the area are high due to
steeper slopes developed by road construction, increased runoff
due to road construction, et cetera, the actual erosion rates
are high. The roads appeared to be causing most of the damage;
there appeared to be little problem on the existing clearcut
areas.''
Indeed, if you look back at the report, the DEIS talks in
terms of 85-90 percent of all the sediment in streams on the
Targhee are from roads, not the clearcuts themselves. I will go
back to the quote:
``Presently, the eroded material is being carried down to
intermittent stream channels and being deposited. Flows in
these channels could carry this material downstream and
possibly to the perennial streams. An unusual climatic event or
increased flows due to timber cutting or both could cause such
flows. It is even possible that such flows occur commonly on a
yearly basis.
Actually, the nature of the country on the Moose Creek
Plateau is such that roads could be fitted to the terrain quite
effectively and thereby reduce much of their impact. This has
not been done for the most part on the existing roads.''
So I think it is very important to recognize that whether
or not we had the money or the engineering capability or
whatever to build this large road system over the 25 years on
the Targhee, that we know we still have problems. I am not
saying they are extensive, but we have enough road crossings,
you know, stream crossings that we need to be concerned.
Our three recommendations are as follows, to the Forest
Service:
1. To properly inventory those roads that require
stabilization or obliteration. That means let us take a careful
look, not just at road miles but those places where we are most
vulnerable to erosion problems.
2. To implement adequate stream monitoring. Right now, the
Forest Service has very little money to do proper stream
monitoring so we know what progress we can make.
3. To provide adequate funding for the enforcement of
travel restrictions. I might mention that, yes, it is probably
a small minority of people who do go around gates and violate
road closures, but until we are able to apprehend them and
basically give them a consequence, we will not be able to get
the message out that going by these gates and going on closed
roads is illegal. And we need to basically punish those as an
example to others. It is just like any other types of law
enforcement in this country, let us make sure that those who
violate the law receive a consequence.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ms. Brown, for that very
constructive testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thomas.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF ERIC THOMAS, RECREATIONIST, ST. ANTHONY, IDAHO
Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am a lifetime Fremont County resident, I was born there
and raised there. Except for the two years I spent in Boise
going to school, I have been there my whole life.
I am a volunteer for the local search and rescue unit, I
was past commander for two years. I camp, I hunt, I fish, I own
and operate a Honda ATV, I drive a modified four wheel drive
GMC pickup.
One of my most favorite activities is to drive in the
backroads of the forest and the desert. Seventeen years ago, I
was hit by a car while riding my bicycle on a rural road
between St. Anthony and Parker. The accident left me with a
severed spinal cord and confined to a wheelchair as a
quadriplegic for the remainder of my life.
I have a few concerns on the road obliteration as a search
and rescue volunteer and as a sportsman and as an outdoor
enthusiast, but what concerns me the most is the handicap
access to the public lands. Three years ago, I took my younger
brother hunting, it was his first year of being able to hunt
deer. We went up to Island Park and around the Red Rock Road
there is a dirt road that went off there to the west. We went
back towards the foothills. My little brother harvested his
first deer back there and I was really saddened to find out
that that road has been tank trapped and that I will not be
able to take my youngest brother to the same spot to hunt.
Most of the tank traps that I have encountered, I do not
see a way for handicap access. They talk about the forest,
being able to still enjoy it, you may have to walk or ride a
horse or a snow machine. I do not do any of them. I have a hard
time seeing what the Forest Service, the people who made the
choices to tank trap the roads, had in mind for the handicapped
individuals. I guess if you are not in a wheelchair, you do not
really think about it too much. Even the building here, whoever
set it up, luckily we had three strong gentlemen that carried
me up the stairs so that I could give my testimony today.
I am not a handicapped access activist. I would not expect
wheelchair accessible trails throughout the wilderness areas. I
would like to be able to experience the public lands though the
same as everyone else. I am not against closing roads, I just
do not believe that obliterating the roads is the answer.
I live in Fremont County because of the diversity of the
outdoor activities available there and I really enjoy the
people who live there. That is part of the reason I went into
search and rescue, so that I could help people in need. I would
hate to see the forest access restricted to the main highways.
Backroads are the only way that people like me can
independently experience the whole forest.
In closing, these tank traps and the way that they are
talking of closing the roads, I am afraid that before it is all
said and done and when my children are my age, the forest will
be restricted only to the main byways.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Thomas, and I cannot help
but comment that while your spinal cord injury impaired your
ability to use your arms and legs, it certainly did not affect
your courage and your perseverance and you are an example to
all of us. Thank you very much for being here today.
We will excuse this panel now unless any of the members
have any particular questions. Do you?
Senator Craig. I do. Just one, and I will be very brief.
Jan, I am struggling with the very thing you are struggling
with about existing roads and sedimentation and erosion coming
from existing roads versus obliteration or changing those road
structures, and the ability to treat those existing roads
lightly, seedings and that type of thing.
What I saw was tremendously disturbing and what I also saw
was that they did not come right in behind it and smooth it out
and seed it and prepare it in a way that it would stop the
erosion. I can appreciate the need to take out some roads, I
can also appreciate the need once a road stabilizes in place,
to close it for certain reasons and leave it alone, or to at
least try to rehab it in a way that it would create a low
maintenance environment and create minimal erosion.
Has there been any discussion about doing that instead of
what appears to be a very disturbing activity now?
Ms. Brown. Our organization--Madam Chairman, Senator Craig,
our organization has not been involved in a detailed study, but
you know, we would like to be. I think everyone recognizes that
the Forest Service is limited on resources right now, but I
think it is the kind of project that could actually build the
kind of community effort that Senator Crapo would like to see
and that is an identification of those areas that are the most
serious, maybe some of these tank traps on some steep slopes
are causing problems, I am not saying they are not.
Senator Craig. Yes.
Ms. Brown. But let us identify those that will be effective
in closures, let us identify those in meadows perhaps that are
not going to do any good, and let us be precise about it and
then go about rehabilitating those roads that simply are not
going to be needed for future timber sales. We should be doing
this in a very methodological--whatever--situation. Let us be
ordered about it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Well, thank you. That is what frustrates me
too because I know they have spent a lot of money doing what
they are doing.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Crapo, do you have any questions?
Senator Crapo. No.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Simpson, do you have any questions?
Mr. Simpson. No.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank the panel very much for your
testimony and for your time, and you do have ten days to
supplement your testimony should you wish.
The Chair will call forth the last panel. Mr. Robert
Ruesink, who is the Snake River Basin Office Supervisor for the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Idaho. He will be accompanied
by Mr. Michael Donahoo, Eastern Idaho Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service in Pocatello. We will also hear from
Mr. Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, Ogden, Utah accompanied
by Mr. Jerry Reese, Forest Supervisor, Targhee National Forest.
Now that you have gotten yourselves seated, would you
please stand and raise your hand to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. I will call first on Mr.
Ruesink.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RUESINK, SNAKE RIVER BASIN OFFICE
SUPERVISOR, U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, IDAHO ACCOMPANIED BY
MICHAEL DONAHOO, EASTERN IDAHO FIELD SUPERVISOR, U.S. FISH &
WILDLIFE SERVICE, POCATELLO, IDAHO
Mr. Ruesink. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity
to participate in this oversight hearing on Targhee National
Forest road closures. My name is Robert Ruesink, I am
Supervisor of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Snake River
Basin Office in Boise, Idaho.
In that capacity, I signed a biological opinion dated March
31, 1997, which addressed the effects of the Targhee National
Forest plan revision, including the site specific travel plan,
on the grizzly bear, listed as a threatened species under
authority of the Endangered Species Act. That biological
opinion represented compliance with Section 7 of the Act and
associated regulations at 40 CFR 402. It is that opinion and
the recommendations contained therein that form the basis of my
statement to the Committee today. I would like to submit for
the record a complete copy of the biological opinion and a copy
of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Task Force Report on
grizzly bears and motorized access management.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Ruesink. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been
working with the Forest Service during this forest plan
revision as required under Section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act. Those sections of the Act specify the
responsibilities of all Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by
carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species and also to ensure that any action that they
authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species.
In developing the alternatives, the Forest Service held
many public and agency meetings and the Fish & Wildlife Service
was a participant in many of those and helped to provide input
regarding effects of different alternatives and some of the
considerations on listed species on the Targhee.
Formal consultation was initiated in November of 1996. The
biological opinion addressed only the potential effects of the
revision on the grizzly bear. Other species were considered,
such as the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Ute Ladies' tresses,
which is a native orchid, and the gray wolf, and it was
determined that the revision and the travel plan would not
affect those species.
The Targhee National Forest forms part of the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem, one of six grizzly bear recovery areas,
and contains three bear management units, two of those have
been further subdivided--Henry's Lake 1 and 2, Plateau 1 and 2
and Bechler-Teton.
I will skip over several references and documents to past
consultations and get right to the heart of the matter in this
consultation.
In the forest plan revision, the Forest Service defined the
goals and objectives in grizzly bear habitat as follows:
1. Habitat conditions will be sufficient to sustain a
recovered population of grizzly bears.
2. Allow for unhindered movement of bears (continuity with
Yellowstone National Park and adjacent bear management
units).The four objectives to support those goals were:
1. Meet recovery criteria in the grizzly bear recovery
plan.
2. Implement guidelines developed by the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee.
3. Provide safe, secure sites for relocation of nuisance
bears.
4. And implement the road density standards in the BMUs
within three years of signing the Record of Decision.
The environmental baseline that the Fish & Wildlife Service
considered in preparing this biological opinion noted that it
had changed considerably since the 1985 forest plan was
prepared. Management activities, including timber harvest and
road construction, reduced vegetative cover, lowered food
values and created a vast road network. We believe that those
baseline conditions increased the risk of direct mortality to
grizzly bears because of the high road densities; increased the
risk of habituation of grizzly bears to human activities along
the roads; displaced grizzly bears from critical and important
feeding sites, (i.e. spring and fall ranges); led to increased
habitat fragmentation and the loss of habitat needed for
security.
I will move quickly to the biological opinion and some of
the recommendations in that opinion.
We recommended that the Targhee implement and complete an
open and total motorized route management program for roads and
trails on the forest by the end of calendar year 1999 that
would contribute to the conservation, survival and recovery of
the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
One of the key points of that route management program was
to have in place standards which set open motorized route
standards not to exceed .6 miles per square mile and not more
than a total route density of one mile per square mile. And
those are consistent with Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee
access management guidelines.
I see that my time is up. Just two more points very quickly
if I may, Madam Chairman.
Roads constructed or reconstructed for timber sale purposes
should be single purpose roads according to the IGBC
guidelines. New roads or road reconstruction should be of
minimum design specifications and placed on the landscape to
reduce costs and facilitate reclamation of the roads after the
timber sale is completed.
In summary, the Fish & Wildlife Service believes that the
Targhee National Forest plan revision if implemented as
proposed will provide habitat necessary for grizzly bear
recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. It is an
essential part of the conservation strategy currently under
development, which is designed to be the management guidance
for a delisted population of grizzly bears in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Ruesink.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Blackwell.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruesink may be found at end
of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF JACK BLACKWELL, REGIONAL FORESTER, OGDEN, UTAH
ACCOMPANIED BY JERRY REESE, FOREST SUPERVISOR, TARGHEE NATIONAL
FOREST
Mr. Blackwell. Madam Chairman, Senator Craig, Congressman
Simpson, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am
accompanied by Jerry Reese, Forest Supervisor of the Targhee
Forest.
The Targhee Forest personnel have worked hard on a travel
management plan for the entire forest based on their revised
forest plan. The extensive forest road system, constructed
primarily to harvest timber, has served its purpose and is
larger than what is feasible to safely maintain and what we can
afford today. Poorly located and maintained roads reduce water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat and soil stability.
Some key points regarding the Targhee travel management
planning process. First, the revised forest plan.
The Forest Service completed the revised forest plan in
April 1997 after seven years of hard work and with extensive
public involvement. The revision addressed the extensive road
system the Targhee built in the 1970s and 1980s, much of which
has served its purpose and is no longer needed for timber
harvest. Therefore, the issue became how much of the road
system should be maintained for other uses.
Because the public identified access as a major issue, the
Forest Service developed a specific travel plan to accompany
each of the seven alternatives considered in the revised forest
plan EIS. The revised forest plan established motorized road
and trail density standards for each management prescription
area and also designated areas open for cross country motorized
use.
Balancing motorized access and other key resource concerns,
particularly wildlife and fish, was the major focus for the
revision of the Targhee Forest plan. To reach that balance, the
Forest Service addressed these four concerns:
1. The need to develop a comprehensive grizzly bear habitat
management strategy in response to the settlement of a 1994
lawsuit regarding roading and logging in the grizzly bear
recovery area.
2. The need to meet the Idaho Department of Fish and Game
elk vulnerability goals that we heard earlier.
3. The need to improve water quality to reduce the
likelihood the Yellowstone Cutthroat trout would be listed as
an endangered species.
4. The desire to produce a travel management plan to
provide a reasonable mix of motorized and non-motorized
recreation opportunities while meeting the habitat needs of
grizzly bear, elk and other species.
Next, I would like to discuss the remand decision.
The Forest Supervisor signed the Record of Decision for the
travel plan, implementing direction for the revised forest plan
on August 15, 1997. Citizens for a User Friendly Forest and the
Blue Ribbon Coalition appealed the decision and the deciding
officer partially remanded the decision to the Forest
Supervisor in January 1998.
The remand directed the Forest Supervisor:
to keep the revised forest plan direction, including
road density and cross country motorized use standards,
that guide the travel plan;
to implement the winter travel plan;
to prepare a new analysis of roads and trails open to
summer motorized access;
to address RS-2477 assertions made by several counties;
and
finally to get more public involvement and analyze the
site-specific effects of individual roads and trails.
After working with the counties on the RS-2477 issue and
reviewing all comments regarding specific roads and trails, the
Forest Supervisor released a new travel plan DEIS in late
November 1998. The supervisor analyzed four alternative
networks of roads and trails open to summer motorized use. The
Forest also held public meetings and the comment period is open
until March 5. I expect that final EIS on the travel plan to be
done in June 1999.
Now I would like to mention briefly the relation of road
closures to the biological opinion on the revised forest plan.
Effective road closures in the grizzly bear recovery area
relate directly to the forest plan biological opinion provided
by the Fish & Wildlife Service. This requires the Forest
Supervisor to achieve the revised forest plan road density
standards within the grizzly bear recovery area by the end of
calendar year 1999.
I want to point out though that these revised plan
standards were developed jointly, and this is not something
that the Fish & Wildlife Service forced down the throats of the
U.S. Forest Service. We worked collaboratively together on
these.
In the remand of the travel plan, the Forest Supervisor had
the opportunity to issue an interim closure order in the BMUs
to comply with the density standards in the revised forest plan
and the time frames established by the biological opinion, and
did so on March 24, 1998. Last summer, forest personnel began
to close roads within the BMUs to comply with the biological
opinion. The work was completed quicker than we thought it
would take.
Finally, I would like to mention briefly the method of road
closure.
Much of the controversy which developed this past year
relates to the method the Forest used to close the roads in the
bear management units. In most cases, the Forest used large
earth berms, the most effective way of closing roads to meet
grizzly bear habitat standards. However, some forest users have
told us the berms also limit other recreation activities.
Snowmobilers in particular have expressed concern that these
berms could affect their safety.
To address these concerns, forest personnel have worked
extensively this fall and winter with the Idaho Snowmachine
Association and local snowmachine organizations to provide
signing and other information to alert snowmobilers. As a
result, forest personnel have modified some berms in key
snowmobile areas in the Situation III area next Macks Inn,
while still meeting the objective of restricting summer
motorized access. Outside the BMUs, the Forest has more options
on how to close roads and we will continue to work with
interested citizens to address the least disruptive ways to
close roads.
Madam Chairman, that concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell may be found at
the end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Blackwell.
The Chair recognizes Senator Craig for questions.
Senator Craig. Mr. Ruesink, I have spent as much time as I
could studying the science of road density and where you all
get your figures and therefore make your determinations as to
what is the preferred road density per square mile. Could you
briefly walk us through the science of road density and how we
arrive at that as a tool to determine the viability of a unit
for, in this case, grizzly bear habitat?
Mr. Ruesink. Senator Craig, in responding to that, I would
like to state right up front that unlike Director Mealey, I
have not done research on grizzly bears and certainly do not
consider myself an expert on grizzly bear biology. This forces
me to rely on information that is provided by researchers and
that is reviewed and analyzed by the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Committee and then accepted by that group, which includes
representatives from the Forest Service, Park Service, the
State fish and game agencies, Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau
of Land Management, as the best science available.
Mr. Donahoo, who is with me, is the person that has done
most of the work in preparing this biological opinion. He may
be able to give you a better answer than I, but I am not able
to address that point.
Senator Craig. If he could, I would appreciate it, thank
you.
Mr. Donahoo. Thank you.
In answer to your question of where do we come--I believe
your question is where do we come up with the .6 mile per
square mile and the one mile----
Senator Craig. That is correct.
Mr. Donahoo. [continuing] per square mile total densities.
This is based on information that has been obtained from
biologists, as Mr. Ruesink pointed out. It has been modified
somewhat and applied to the situation here on the Targhee
Forest in order to address the specific needs and habitat
requirements of the grizzly bear on this particular forest. And
that was developed jointly with the Forest Service biologists
to come up with those densities.
Senator Craig. Yeah. I understand how you got to where you
got or how you come up with it. I guess what I have tried to
find out over the last couple of years is where has the science
been done, how were the studies laid out, how did we determine
that a certain volume of roads created certain activity among
certain wildlife populations. And I will be honest with you, it
looks like we have made some interesting guesses because I have
not really found the science.
Mr. Donahoo. Biology sometimes appears to be guesses, just
because of the biological nature of the animals that we deal
with. The thing I would say here is that there have been
studies done throughout the Yellowstone Ecosystem, throughout
the Cabinet-Yack Ecosystem and I have quite an extensive
library, if you will, of references that I would be glad to
share with you. I really would not want to foist that off on
you, quite frankly, but----
Senator Craig. No, I would not want you to either. But I
guess what my concern is and my red light is on and I will
quit--because of the character of the law, we are almost
subject to the science of the biologist, period, end of
statement. There is very little challenge, very little ability
to modify, and certain groups have found that out and if you do
attempt to modify it, boom, you have got a lawsuit on your
hands. And therefore, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Forest
Service and in this instance I think it is quite clear, err on
the side of no conflict or err on the side of not arriving at a
conflict environment where the ultimate test of the science
could occur. You just simply err on the side of a biologist's
opinion, no matter what the conflict is and then you work the
conflict out in rooms like this. That is terribly frustrating
to those of us who seek public policy that create stability
instead of instability.
I guess that is my frustration. I have tried to find out
how you got to those decisions and now I find out that if there
is any risk--or at least I am being told if there is any risk
of reopening the plan, that somebody may threaten the listing
of bull trout. I call that blackmail.
Again, does the science, or do you believe the science of
the current road density, as is now being implemented in the
plan, solve the problem that you believe may exist as it
relates to the Yellowstone Cutthroat? Is the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service in that position now?
Mr. Donahoo. Sir, it is only one part of the problem, as
has been expressed before. Road densities, road standards are
not the only aspect that we need to address with any given
species. And as has been pointed out with the grizzly bear as
well, road density standards are not the only problem.
Senator Craig. I appreciate that.
Mr. Donahoo. There are such other things as cover, et
cetera. The same types of issues can and probably will be
addressed with respect to the Yellowstone Cutthroat trout. I
have a prepared statement concerning the status of the
Yellowstone Cutthroat trout and the actions that are being
taken by Idaho Fish and Game, the Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management and others, to address potential issues with
the petition of----
Senator Craig. Do you have the statement with you?
Mr. Donahoo. I do, sir.
Senator Craig. If you would submit that for the record, I
would enjoy reading it. Thank you.
Mr. Donahoo. I would be glad to, thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Senator. Senator Crapo.
[The information referred to may be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Blackwell, I will address this question to you, but I
would encourage you to refer the questions I have to whoever
has the information that I am asking for, if you feel there is
someone there who has a closer feel for this.
One of the issues that has come up in the hearing today
that I do not think has been answered and I suppose we will
need more time than even in this hearing to answer it, is
whether the gates really work and if so, how well. I do not
think anybody has said they are 100 percent effective, but it
seems to me that there has been some question raised as to
whether they are largely effective or whether they are largely
ineffective. Do you have an opinion on that, and is there any
objective information that you have to support your approach to
this?
Mr. Blackwell. Well, generally, we think they have had
their problems and several things, a predator project report,
our own monitoring and so forth and monitoring trips with other
folks have found tracks around gates, you know, those kinds of
things.
Senator Crapo. Can I interject here just for a second? I do
not want to stop your full answer, but one of the questions I
have had even with regard to the tank traps is can people not
just drive around the tank traps?
Mr. Blackwell. I might just mention how they were sort of
put together on the ground. What our folks tried to do was go
to--well, maybe I will go back just a little bit and talk about
the whole thing because I think it is kind of important to
understand. The basic option in the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Access Management Report to meet the total motorized access
route density standard of one mile per square mile is basically
to obliterate the road.
Senator Crapo. Right.
Mr. Blackwell. And reclaim it. That is pretty expensive and
a lot of these roads have been in place for awhile and the cut
and fill slopes are fairly stable and we did not think that was
probably totally necessary. So we worked with Fish & Wildlife
Service and others and generally tried to just deal with the
terminus of the road. And our folks would generally go in and
try and find a point where they could make an effective closure
and then kind of work back out to the terminus. Some have very
few, because they got a good place, so to speak, to make the
closure; some have quite a few.
Senator Crapo. So when you said that you felt--back to the
question on gates, when you felt the gates were not as
effective as possible, do you have any idea as to how effective
that is? Are they stopping half the traffic or 90 percent of
the traffic?
Mr. Blackwell. I cannot give you a percentage number but
what they did when they went on the ground to design these is
actually looked for evidence that the gates were being violated
and that sort of thing, and tried to find the places where they
were being violated and to shut those off. And we found an
awful lot of that.
Senator Crapo. I see my time is about up and I have a
number of questions which I will submit for the record, but one
I wanted to ask here, which is really core to the issue for me.
And again, Mr. Blackwell, you may choose yourself or ask
someone else to follow up on this, but the real core question
to me here is whether we should have the forest closed unless
designated open, or open unless designated closed. Is there a
rationale that you could explain as to why it is that you have
selected the approach of closed unless designated open?
Mr. Blackwell. There is not an easy answer, it has been
tried both ways in many parts of the country. I think the first
round of forest planning, you saw national forests all over the
country doing it either way.
The consensus seems to be that most of us would prefer open
unless posted closed. That is not working very well, for some
of the reasons you heard today--the signs get torn down,
disappear and then it does not work.
It is hard on us to have to propose that and we do it with
great reluctance. And I am not sure the final chapter is
written yet, but that is where it seems to be heading, Senator.
Senator Crapo. Madam Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent
to ask one follow-up question on that?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Crapo. It seems to me that your answer is
consistent with what I have been hearing and that is that the
rationale for changing to a closed unless designated open
system is based on the inability to enforce the other system.
Jan Brown has suggested that we need additional resources into
enforcement.
If we went to a system that was sort of like it is for
hunting areas, if you are going to go hunting, you have to know
what is open and what is closed and when--if that type of a
system were in place so that we did not have to worry about
whether the signs were up or not and so forth, but people were
required to know what is open and what is closed, and if we had
adequate enforcement, do you feel that that would be a better
way to approach the issue rather than closing the forest unless
it is designated open?
Mr. Blackwell. Yes, I do.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes Mr. Simpson for
questions.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Blackwell, I get very concerned when I start reading in
the paper about activities that create such hostility on both
sides of the issue that you start, for lack of a better term,
finding bombs on the outside of Forest Service buildings and
those kinds of things. I think we have created an environment
that is totally unacceptable, that we have got to change
somehow. I know that is a concern to you and it is a concern to
every Forest Service employee.
What sort of public input did you receive before you did
this and did you adequately inform the public, in your opinion,
before you did this of what you were going to do when you did
the tank traps and, in retrospect, how would you have done it
differently?
Mr. Blackwell. Congressman, can I ask Forest Supervisor
Reese to answer that?
Mr. Simpson. Sure.
Mr. Reese. Well, actually, we have been at this for quite
awhile, as has been mentioned. We have been working through the
forest plan for a number of years, we actually produced maps
for every alternative in the forest plan and went through a
number of public meetings on that. We have identified in the
forest plan EIS even the number of miles that we would probably
obliterate if given alternatives were selected; that sort of
thing.
When the remand decision came down, we sent out news
releases detailing how we were going to deal with the remand,
work our way through that, through the new EIS, issue the
closure orders, that sort of thing. And we felt like we had
provided information of the direction we were going. Perhaps we
could have spent more time right about that time and in very
great detail said what obliteration means, that sort of thing,
maybe we did not do enough of that.
The only other thing I could say is trying to find some way
to both be effective, be somewhat cost-effective in how you do
it, and achieve the objectives in the time frame. You know, it
is kind of a conundrum.
Mr. Simpson. Well, just to follow up on that. Did you
inform the local officials that you were going to do this?
Because I understand some of the problem that is created here
is the distrust that the local officials have, that they are
hearing one thing from, particularly you, they were meeting
with you at one time, and you were telling them one thing when
exactly the opposite was happening out in the forest.
Mr. Reese. Well, I am not sure what you are referring to
there. I tried to be upfront with everyone.
Mr. Simpson. Did you inform the local officials that this
was going to go on, beforehand?
Mr. Reese. Well, I know the Fremont County officials were
involved with this when we were doing the bidders tours and so
forth to set up the contracts. We notified Teton County in
advance. So I think so.
Mr. Simpson. I guess one of my great concerns is that the
public--I like to consider myself a fairly informed individual,
I read several different newspapers and obviously having been
the Speaker of the House, I get news releases all the time. The
first time I heard about this was when local officials started
to call me and say do you know what they are doing in the
Targhee Forest. And started to send me pictures and actually
took me out there to show me what was going on. I had no
knowledge of it beforehand, the Forest Service did not seem to
go out of their way to try to inform people that they were
going to do any of this, and obviously it does not take a
scientist to figure out that this was going to be relatively
controversial.
Mr. Reese. Well, I think we have recognized that basically
through the forest plan process and we have had a number of
public meetings, various ways of notifying the public through
that process, and maybe we misread this tail end thing, but I
think we made a major effort through the whole thing to keep
people involved, and some stay involved and some do not. But
you know, I do not know how much--we tried anyway, I will say
we did our best.
Mr. Simpson. Well, let me just suggest that we try better
in the future and maybe we can avoid some of the controversy at
least before we get into it, or at least address some of it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
I have here some pictures of road number 469 at the
Squirrel Creek area. The first picture was taken September 29,
1998 and the same identical location, a picture was taken 10/1/
98. And I also have here two pictures of road number 469 at
Jackass Loop Road. The upper picture taken September 29 and the
lower picture at the same location taken October 1. And without
objection, I would like to enter these into the record. I would
also like for the other members to view them because what you
see there and what you see in the pictures here goes far
beyond, Mr. Reese, far beyond what Congress ever intended in
terms of what we appropriated money for road closures of ghost
roads and in fact, purchaser road credit closure was led by me
in the House in cooperation with Senator Craig. This goes far
beyond it and it defies common sense.
I want to know, Mr. Reese or Mr. Blackwell, where does the
buck stop. Who made this decision to build the tank traps? Who
is responsible?
Mr. Reese. I am.
[The material referred to may be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. How much money was involved in this
project? We have heard figures of $300,000, we have heard
figures of $600,000.
Mr. Reese. Originally when we first looked at this, when we
thought we would probably be looking at obliterating the roads
completely, we estimated it would be about $600,000 for the
BMUs or about $1,500 a mile. This entire, the 400 miles that we
have done so far, which is 85 percent of the total, cost about
$107,000 and that includes the modifications we made to some of
them. And so we were able to do it for about 20 percent of what
we originally estimated, by focusing on the terminus, trying to
do the minimum amount of disturbance. Even though they are
hefty, we tried to minimize actually the amount of disturbance
we covered on the ground, and in fact only disturbed a total of
about 150 acres in an area of about 450,000 acres.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Reese, did you consult with Mr.
Blackwell about your decision?
Mr. Reese. About----
Mrs. Chenoweth. To build tank traps.
Mr. Reese. To do the road obliteration work and----
Mrs. Chenoweth. No, specifically to build tank traps, did
you consult with Mr. Blackwell?
Mr. Reese. We consult--do you want to answer that?
Mr. Blackwell. No, go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Reese. We consulted regularly through this process on
what, you know----
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to know this, did you consult with
Mr. Blackwell about building tank traps----
Mr. Reese. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] and did he authorize this?
Mr. Reese. I----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Blackwell, do you care to answer the
question?
Mr. Blackwell. I concurred with what the Forest was doing
and I would like to take a stab to correct the misimpression
that tank traps have not been used before. So-called tank traps
have been used for a long time. The pictures and the magnitude
here in the instance we are talking about today are the
greatest magnitude I have ever seen, but I stand behind Mr.
Reese in being aware of what was going on here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So for the record, your testimony is that
you were specifically consulted about the tank trap project and
you personally okayed it. Is that your testimony?
Mr. Blackwell. My testimony is that I was aware of it in
advance, I did not know the specifics, Madam Chairman, of size,
but I was consulted in advance and I did know about it.
[Comment from the audience.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would ask that the audience remain quiet
until we are finished.
[Comment from the audience.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. We will have to ask security to ask you to
leave, we are just about through with the hearing.
Mr. Reese, why did the Forest Service not do a site-
specific NEPA study and an analysis as required by the law
before you engaged in building and constructing the tank traps?
Mr. Reese. We believe we did. If you follow the sequence of
NEPA documents, the forest plan EIS, the travel plan EIS, the
remand decision. In the remand decision, it says--it
specifically asked me to consider the appropriateness of a
closure order to implement the biological opinion, the density
standards in the biological opinion, and I did that. And part
of implementing the density standards in the biological opinion
is to reach those road density standards according to the
Interagency Grizzly Bear guidelines by the end of calendar year
1999.
Now we started into this looking at obliterating the entire
road prism. We felt we would be very lucky to get half of it
done in one summer, and therefore needed at least two field
seasons to do it. And so we issued the order, began the work;
because of the way we were able to negotiate to do it, we were
able to do it much more rapidly and much more economically than
we estimated. We are quite a bit farther along than we thought.
So I believe the answer to that question is we did the
NEPA, we got the biological opinion and implemented the
biological opinion.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Reese, did you take into consideration
the potential of human harm?
Mr. Reese. Pardon?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Did you take into consideration the
potential of human harm and harm to the wildlife in your
analysis and did you publish the analysis before you embarked
on the work?
Mr. Reese. Specifically about the tank traps, you mean?
Mrs. Chenoweth. About the tank traps.
Mr. Reese. Not specifically about the tank traps, but we
did in the EIS identify the impacts of obliterating roads and
that sort of thing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But not involving your decision to build
the tank traps?
Mr. Reese. Well, I see that as an implementing decision.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is not, it is different. Now what I am
asking you is, Mr. Reese--what I am asking you is this: Before
you made the decision to build the tank traps, did you analyze
the impact on human safety, did you analyze the impact on the
environment with regard to erosion and sediment load and did
you publish--did you publish that analysis specifically?
Mr. Blackwell. Madam Chairman, you are not going to like
this, but I do not think it is appropriate for us to answer
that since we are in the middle of a lawsuit on the NEPA issue
of the closures.
[Applause.]
Mr. Blackwell. I just am advised constantly in lawsuits not
to get into a public discussion of the merits of a lawsuit when
they are active, and where this discussion is going right now
is right smack to the merits of that lawsuit.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, Mr. Blackwell, you are not in a
public discussion, you are in an official Congressional
hearing, but I am aware of your concerns. I do want to say for
the record that this was a bad decision, this was never
envisioned by Congress. You have gone over the pale, pushed the
envelope too far, and I have--I know at least one of you on the
panel fairly well and have great respect for you, but this has
got to stop. Or we will have to make sure that there is a
reaction in the budget.
We cannot see this----
[Audience response.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will the hearing please come to order?
We cannot see this continue.
[Audience response.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think you know how strongly I feel about
that. And with that, I want to thank you very much for your
testimony.
You have ten days to add to your testimony, should you
wish, and we all have a lot more questions we would like to ask
you and we will submit them in writing.
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes?
Senator Craig. There is another piece of information that
frustrates me that I would like to see if you could provide for
the record. I have traveled the Targhee and I have seen the
closed gates and this is a rancher that has built a lot of
gates over time and know when gates work and when gates do not
work and when gates are violated. And I must be honest with
you, I did not see a lot of destruction, I saw very little. I
saw some gates that had been poorly maintained, but not torn
down, not fences run over and I did not see a lot of tracks
around the gates. I got out and walked around them, through the
grass. There were not trafficked areas. The roads that I saw
beyond the gates did not appear to be heavily or at all
trafficked in some instances, and yet we hear that the tank
trapping and the road obliteration is a result of needing to
stop trafficking activities, as one item, amongst others.
Mr. Hoyt said there was information, new information. I
would like to know if studies were done, if there was a person
out there on the Targhee that kept those gates maintained and
fences built, or if a downed fence, as I know, having been a
rancher, invites activity if it is down and not properly
maintained.
I must tell you that once you have made that kind of an
investment--I do not know how many Powder River gates you have
got spread across the Targhee, but a sizable number and wing
fences along those gates, but once they are up, proper
maintenance is relatively low in cost and maintenance invites
discipline on the part of the public. Yes, I have seen signs
torn down and signs shot up and because I have seen them in the
past and spent all of my life traveling on Forest Service lands
here in Idaho, I looked for that specifically because I had
been told that was the logic for what you did, or one of the
logics. And I must tell you I did not see much of it, if any.
I would like to know the evidence, the research that was
done, if it was done; the studies that were made, the surveys
that indicated that there was a great violation of that,
because Senator Crapo mentioned something very interesting, I
can get around those tank traps in a heck of a good four wheel
drive vehicle if I want to. My dirt bike can certainly get
around them, if I wanted to. But if I knew there was somebody
out there enforcing it and there was as strong likelihood that
I might get caught, there is less likelihood that I would want
to do it.
Those are the kinds of human chemistries that we get
involved in as our relationship to the public on these public
lands. That is what frustrates me, that we have gone now to a
three or four hundred thousand dollar expense, you are going to
have to go in, I hope, and seed these tank traps and make them
acceptable. After one year of erosion, you will go in and
disturb the ground and incur some more erosion. It is those
kinds of things--I saw a job half done when I was up there this
fall and that means it has gone through a winter cycle and it
is going to have to, in many instances, be redisturbed and
reshaped again. That is, you know, a bit frustrating.
But anyway, I am sorry, Madam Chairman, you have been kind
to indulge me. I would like to know how you arrived at that
decision because I did not see gates torn down and I saw
reasonable maintenance, but some that needed more, and I just
did not see those smashed down grassy areas and trafficked
areas around those gates and I must have viewed at least 10 or
12 gates.
Thank you. You do not need to respond. If you have got the
science, information, the studies that indicate that you came
to a decision based on needing to do it because it was being
accessed, that is what I need to know and I believe the Greater
Yellowstone Coalition said they had information in that area.
That would help me fill out at least my mind's record of this
issue.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to ask Mr. Crapo or Mr. Simpson
if you have any closing comments.
Senator Crapo. We have a joint question.
Mr. Simpson. What is the penalty now if someone goes around
a gated road and someone from the Forest Service catches them?
And what is the likelihood of it being imposed?
Mr. Reese. It was just increased, I believe in Idaho, and
do not quote me but I think it is about $500.
Mr. Simpson. How often--any idea how many of those
violations have actually been assessed?
Mr. Reese. In an average year, you mean?
Mr. Simpson. On the Targhee.
Mr. Reese. Probably about ten. I would agree that
enforcement is going to be a key part of the picture because
there is nothing that is absolutely effective without
enforcement.
Mr. Simpson. Just in closing, I would like to say that I do
appreciate you coming and answering the questions. We were not
trying to grill you, but I was trying--I did want to have some
answers to some of the questions.
[Audience comment.]
Mr. Simpson. Wait just a minute. I am here to find out
information and if you cannot respect that, then why are you
here?
[Audience comment.]
Mr. Simpson. Well, I am sorry, but we have another thing at
5 p.m., but there is--as the Chairman mentioned earlier, the
record will be open for your comments to put in and I guarantee
you, I will read those comments.
[Audience comment.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will the hearing please come to order.
Mr. Simpson. But I do appreciate you coming. I am not
trying to intimidate or threaten or anything else any of you. I
did want to find out what is going on because I want to try and
reduce the controversy and reduce this animosity between the
sides so that we do not end up one day with the type of thing
that happened at the Forest Service door in reality.
[Audience comment.]
Mr. Simpson. So I appreciate you coming and I appreciate
everyone else that testified today. There are people on both
sides of this issue that I agree with and I look forward to
working with.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
I just want to say in closing that I think that our
concerns are that we diminish the controversy. There has been a
lot of ill will, there has been a lot of damage out there to
the roads and the environment. I think there is a way we do not
have to live with this forever and one thing I would like to
see is Mr. Blackwell, Mr. Reese, Mr. Ruesink, Mr. Donahoo, if
all of you would work with our county commissioners and be very
straightforward with them. I do not ever again want to hear
about them being told one thing and something else happening.
[Audience disruption.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And so if you would please work with our
county commissioners.
[Loud audience disruption.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. If you would please work with our county
commissioners to try to restore this. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Jerry Jayne may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. Stan Hawkins, District 28, Bonneville, Fremont &
Teton Counties
Congressman Chenoweth, Congressman Simpson and others:
Welcome to Eastern Idaho! We are glad you are here.
I'm the State Senator from the 28th legislative district of
Idaho. The 28th District and all of eastern Idaho is a diverse
area that has for many years been reliant on resource based
activities. Farming, ranching, timber and even the INEEL depend
on our natural resources. Land, forests, rivers, lakes,
underground water, open spaces and wildlife are all part of our
heritage and our lives. For generations, our land use practices
have preserved this area in a condition that now causes all
resources users to activate and mobilize in what has evolved
into a constant battle over how our resources should be used.
Frankly, I'm amazed at the illogical and the unsupportable
claims made by many who would have you believe that we could
hand this area to the next generation if we could just keep the
current generation from using it.
As local officials who are charged with funding schools,
roads and all other public services in a state that is
predominantly publicly-owned, we simply must have a reasonable
policy of use for natural resources.
Panic management is wrong. Those who complained bitterly
about the salvage harvests of our mature trees on the Targhee
some years back are the same ones who now fight to keep harvest
levels so low that we will likely see a forest in the same over
mature condition that required extreme harvest levels to allow
utilization of the resource. We are told to count on a new and
emerging tourism economy. Those who extol the benefits of
tourism are the ones who want to close the roads to our forests
and want limits on boat launches on our rivers and want
snowmobiles and recreational vehicles banned from public lands
and parks. We have people who decry urban sprawl and the lack
of controls that allow farm land to be gobbled up. In the next
breath, they advocate that water, currently used on farms,
should be sent downstream in hopes that fish will benefit.
Frankly, I'm tired of constantly battling to maintain the
way of life I have known and my constituents have known. We
have tried to use the appropriate avenues to achieve balance.
We attend water planning hearings, big game plan hearings,
forest plan hearings, forest travel plan hearings and on and
on.
We give input. County commissioners, mayors, sheriffs,
emergency service providers and all of us testify. We speak for
the local interests. We speak as if what we say will make a
difference. And, in the end, we are frustrated. The plans and
the action are seldom, if ever, reflective of the comments and
the wishes of the local interests as expressed by those
officials who are repeatedly elected by the majorities they
speak for. As local officials, we watch the fog set in.
Decision-making is done without accountability--without any
concern for the local public interest. Federal land managers
blame the state Fish and Game agency for management
initiatives. When that doesn't work, we face the specter of one
Federal agency threatening judicial interventions against
another; that is, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forces our
decisions. As the fog gets thicker, ``budgetary constraints''
can be used to excuse any action or inaction. I have heard
public land officials say ``we can't maintain roads on this
tight budget''--and yet it seems like staffing levels are
higher than they were when logging, grazing, road building and
other activities were at levels that far exceed the level of
activity we see today.
Today we are here to talk about road closures. Actually, we
are talking about extreme measures being leveled at the
topography on roads that were recognized, in some cases, to be
open for seasonal use. The measures I'm talking about led to
litigation that has resulted in the Forest Service agreeing to
at least modify the dangerous and destructive impediments that
were constructed. Public notice, public participation and
public involvement were not adequately provided for in this
decision. Has the law of the land been violated? It's an
important question we hope this hearing will answer. For that
reason, I say again, ``Thank you.'' Thank you, Representative
Chenoweth, for providing this important chance for us to be
heard. Thank you, Senator Craig, for already starting
legislation that could serve to insure that local concerns are
considered in the future.
Our local economy is on the line. Our way of life is on the
line.
------
Statement of Jim Gerber, President, CUFF
INTRODUCTION
My testimony will address the three reasons the Targhee
Forest gave us for closing and obliterating roads on the
Forest. These are: (1) protect grizzly bear, (2) protect elk,
and (3) reduce erosion. I will explain why we in CUFF do not
believe these are valid reasons for road closures. Please keep
in mind, as I discuss them, that the majority of people in
eastern Idaho do not support road closures, so the pressure to
close roads is not coming from us. The question is ``Where is
the pressure to close roads coming from?''
GRIZZLY BEAR
The first reason the Forest always gives for closing and
obliterating roads is to protect grizzly bear.
I have an overhead transparency of a map to discuss the
grizzly bear issue (also Appendix A). The dark blue line is the
outline of Yellowstone N.P.; the Targhee Forest is along the
lower left boundary of the Park.
The map shows the results of a ten-year radio-telemetry
study (1977-1986) in and around Yellowstone N.P. The map is
taken from a scientific paper written by Doctors Richard Knight
and Dave Mattson, former employees of the Interagency Grizzly
Bear Committee and experts on grizzly bear behavior.
Prior to 1977 park biologists radio-collared a number of
female grizzly bears in and near the Park and then released
them. For the next 10 years biologists flew over the Park and,
through the wizardry of radio electronics, located each bear
and marked its position on a map with a black mark. At the end
of 10 years the scientists produced this map. Every bear
management unit (BMW) in the Park (there are 18 of them) is
covered with black marks, indicating the location of bears.
Every BMU, that is, except one. That one is the Plateau BMU in
the southwest corner of the Park. It is absolutely white. For
10 years, while biologists were flying over the Park locating
female collared bears, no bear ever walked out into the Plateau
BMU. Congressmen, we are setting 164,000 acres aside for a
grizzly bear sanctuary in an area where the bear does not even
want to be!!!
The second overlay is a statement taken from the same
study. The highlighted portion says ``Low densities of
telemetry locations in unroaded areas northeast of YNP and in
the Park's southwest corner may be a result of poor habitat
condition . . .'' So here we have the premier authority of
grizzly bear in YNP saying the Plateau BMU is poor habitat.
When you combine this statement with the previous map and
add the fact the Plateau BMU is hot, dry habitat with no water,
you get a clear picture that this area is not good grizzly bear
habitat. The question then is ``Why are the Targhee Forest and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pushing so hard to emphasize
grizzly bear here?'' We hope your hearing can shed some light
on this question.
ELK
The second reason the Forest gives to close roads is to
protect elk. But elk are doing well on the Forest, having
increased 600 percent since the 1960's. This increase occurred
at a time of heavy salvage logging and associated road building
to harvest millions of beetle-killed trees. This increase in
elk, associated with more roads, does not tell us roads are a
problem for elk on the forest. Again the question is ``Why is
the Targhee Forest pushing to close roads when the elk
population is at an all-time high and ``thriving'' according to
the Idaho Fish and Game Department?''
REDUCE EROSION
The third reason to close roads is to reduce erosion. This
issue revolves around ``ghost'' or two-track roads. The theory
being that since these roads are not constructed or maintained,
they must be adding large quantities of sediment to streams.
However, most of these ``ghost'' roads are located 1/4 mile, or
more, from a stream. These roads erode each year, but that
sediment runs into the adjacent vegetation and is captured.
Little, if any, sediment ever reaches a stream. In fact, the
water running off the forest is clean and clear. This does not
tell us roads are contributing large amount of sediment to
streams in our area.
In summary, bears and elk are doing fine and water running
off the Targhee is clear. This does not indicate a need for the
excessive road closures proposed by the Targhee Forest. Since
the impetus to close roads is not coming from us in eastern
Idaho, we wonder where it is coming from. We hope your hearing
can shed some light on this question.
Thank you and that concludes my comments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5181.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5181.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5181.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5181.004
Statement of Adena Cook, Public Lands Director, BlueRibbon Coalition
THINKING IN THE BOX: FOREST PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ON THE
TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST
INTRODUCTION
``Thinking out of the box'' is a popular euphemism for
creative problem solving. Tough issues can demand
unconventional ways of thinking and processes that reach beyond
past methods. Nowhere is this approach more needed than in
national forest planning and management.
TARGHEE PLANNING BACKGROUND
When Targhee forest planning began eight years ago, there
was promise that the new plan process would attempt new
solutions. The supervisor at that time, Jim Caswell, engaged
one of the foremost experts in the country on forest planning
and public involvement, Dr. Bill Shands, to direct the public
involvement part of the plan revision.
I had followed Dr. Shand's work, and attended his lectures
on several previous occasions. He favored complete public
involvement in every step of the planning process. He wanted to
take forest planning ``out of the box'' and bring it to the
people (this was long before the euphemism ``thinking out of
the box'' came in vogue). I admired his thesis. He theorized
that if publics were involved through each step of the process,
that consensus, or at least comprehension, would result.
Under Dr. Shand's direction, the first couple of years went
well with the Citizen's Involvement Group (CIG). Everyone
learned much about the Targhee, what decisions had to be made,
and why. We knew that it would get more difficult as we got
closer to actual on the ground allocations, but many felt that
the continuity, relationships, and trust built up over the past
two years would help the CIG achieve an unprecedented consensus
on many issues.
In 1993, events beyond anyone's control broke this fragile
consensus building. Jim Caswell was transferred. Bill Shands
passed away. The preservationist direction of the Clinton
Administration was gathering steam. The Forest Service was
being ``reinvented.''
Yet much information, hard data, and public input had been
gathered over the past three years. These would form the basis
of Draft Standards and Guidelines, and Management
Prescriptions. The general direction of the future of the
Targhee would take shape. Members of the CIG wondered how the
next crucial step would proceed.
THE BOX REPLACES CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING AND CONSENSUS
They were dismayed when out came the box that they had
hoped Bill Shands had banished forever. But he was dead. The
Forest Service had been reinvented, and there was a big label
``Ecosystem Management'' on the box and its management criteria
were blatantly preservation oriented.
Locally based solutions and citizen involvement were
unimportant. Once the premises from which the box is
constructed are accepted, as they are within the Forest Service
from the top down, then all answers lie within.
Polarization replaced developing consensus. The public was
back where they started from five years ago, though much wiser!
The BlueRibbon Coalition has always been a strong advocate
of cooperation with land managers. They are our partners. We
work in many ways to assist them in protecting the resource
while promoting balanced recreation use and public access. Our
success stories in achieving this are many, and we have a long
history of success stories on the Targhee.
One of the key elements of this success is constructive
give and take. Another is a real dedication to on-the-ground
problem solving.
Very little can be achieved by talking at each other with
broad brush platitudes like, ``The Targhee has several thousand
miles of road open under our new plan. Doesn't that sound like
a lot? Isn't that enough?'' And conversely, ``You've closed
enough roads already. We don't need any more closures!''
INFLEXIBLE NEW PLAN STIMULATED POLARIZATION
Yet the inflexible standards of the new forest plan
stimulated this polarization, and discouraged on-the-ground
give and take. Most traditional multiple uses had such
standards applied. Motorized recreation and general forest
access were especially affected. These inflexible sideboards
give very little latitude for on-the-ground solutions. For
example, the new forest plan:
<bullet> mandated tough road and trail density standards, not
only in the Bear Management Units, but throughout the whole
forest.
<bullet> counted a single track trail where motorized use was
allowed as having the same impact on wildlife as a Federal
highway.
<bullet> imposed a ``closed unless posted open'' fiat on most
summer motorized forest access.
UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK TOWARD LOCAL SOLUTION EMERGES
This inflexibility and unwillingness to work for on-the-ground
answers manifested itself in other ways as the process moved forward:
<bullet> A multiple use alternative developed by local
citizens, included in the draft plan and strongly supported by
the surrounding communities, was dropped in the final because,
we were told, it failed to sufficiently conform to established
parameters.
<bullet> A travel plan environmental assessment (EA) and
decision was issued shortly after the final forest plan was
released. This decision designated open roads and trails on the
forest, and decided which would be closed to motorized use. The
regional office received 1,276 appeals on this decision. These
appeals were upheld because the public was not given an
opportunity through a site-specific process to comment on
individual roads and trails. Targhee officials were directed by
the regional office to go through another Travel Plan NEPA
process that afforded the public opportunity to comment on
site-specific roads and trails.
<bullet> It became apparent to citizens and organizations
interested in forest access that the new plan was inflexible
and therefore unworkable. Together with local elected officials
and members of Idaho's congressional delegation, they urged
Supervisor Reese to adjust the plan through an amendment. I
attempted to persuade him that addressing access would not
constitute a whole new plan revision, but he stated that it
would. He refused these requests.
<bullet> Supervisor Reese issued a closure order closing the
entire forest to cross-country motorized use, effectively
implementing that portion of the forest plan in advance of the
regional-mandated travel plan process. While this action could
be considered reasonable in bear management units, it pre-
empted the process for the whole forest.
It was explained that this action would enable the public to
get used to the idea, and demonstrate how ``closed unless
posted open'' would work on the ground. Yet little public
information was distributed, and no signs were posted informing
the public.
OVER 400 MILES OF ROAD OBLITERATED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC DOCUMENTATION
The cavalier attitude toward public involvement culminated in the
obliteration of over 400 miles of road in the bear management units of
Fremont County. I realized that additional roads would be closed in
this area, and that this closure could proceed in advance of the travel
plan process to accommodate the grizzly bear management strategy. Many
of the roads in this area were already securely gated.
However. I was appalled at the discovery that these closures would
be accomplished by a massive obliteration effort. As BlueRibbon and
Citizens for a User Friendly Forest (CUFF) were preparing to file suit
over this lapse of NEPA, the bulldozers apparently were urged to go
faster.
Supervisor Reese stated that this action was necessary because
current closures were not effective, and that he was mandated to reduce
the road density in two years. We were unable to engage in a productive
dialogue thot would:
<bullet> Examine gates site specifically and determine whether
they were effective or not. That all of them were being
systematically violated is not true.
<bullet> Determine what additional means were needed to make
them effective.
<bullet> Detemmine whether informal routes were essential (like
Schoolhouse Draw, site of our October rally) and could be
traded for other routes.
<bullet> Resolve and address concerns about winter travel
safety.
<bullet> Determine the impact on the non-motorized
recreationist.
<bullet> Determine if obliterations were necessary in the
developed portions of Island Park, where the closures would not
contribute to grizzly bear security.
Teton County passed an emergency ordinance that temporarily stopped
the earth moving equipment from completing the obliteration in that
County. About 22 roads remained to be obliterated. Because our suit was
pending, and because the season was advancing, the forest service
agreed to stop the work for the season.
At a Teton County Commissioners' meeting that preceded this
decision, Commissioner Brent Robson showed a video demonstrating that
several of the roads on the obliteration list had open and unsecured
gates. The question was asked, ``How could the forest claim trespass if
the gates were not secured?''
In the ensuing discussion about securing roads with minimum impact,
Ranger Patty Bates estimated that 25 percent of the current closures
are effective. The group agreed that closures should be effected by the
minimum means, not maximum.This meeting was not a part of a NEPA
process, but it demonstrated that give and take could still occur. This
is increasingly rare, however.
CONCLUSION
Targhee's current management attitude can be characterized by:
<bullet> Inflexibility.
<bullet> Unwillingness to seek on-the-ground solutions.
<bullet> Breakdown in constructive communication.
We do not accept excuses such as, ``We're mandated by the
Endangered Species Act. We'll get sued if we don't.'' These scapegoats
represent avoidance of problems, not a commitment to solutions.
The Targhee is but one example of how ``thinking in the box''
constrains land management problem solving. Committed to top-down
mandates that come in a box, other national forest units face similar
difficulties.
That's why we are here. We need our Members of Congress to help us
toward creative solutions, to help us ``think out of the box'' to plan
the management of our public lands.
______
Statement of Neal Christiansen, Chairman, Fremont County Commissioners
Congressmen and Distinguished Guests:
My name is Neal Christiansen and I am Chairman of the
County Commissioners in Fremont County. I was elected to office
in 1994 and reelected in 1996 and have served continuously for
4 years now. During that time I have worked closely with the
Targhee Forest on several issues, including the revised Forest
Plan and subsequent Travel Plan.
Prior to becoming a county commissioner I was a logger on
the Targhee for years and am currently Vice-President of the
Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho, representing some 560
logging contractors. As such I am very familiar with the
resource utilization end of forest management.
Fremont County is heavily dominated by Federal land.
Between the Targhee Forest and Bureau of Land Management, 60
percent of our county is federally owned, mostly Forest Service
land. As a result, Federal land management policies have a
large impact on Fremont County and those who use the forest but
live elsewhere (tourists and summer home residents). Any effort
by the Targhee Forest to reduce resource development or access
to the forest can have a big impact on county government.
By way of example, I point to the loss of 25 percent funds
in the last 8 years or so. In 1991 Fremont County received
$213,000 in 25 percent funds. From then on there was a steady
reduction in receipts, culminating in a mere $48,000 in 1998.
The revenue is generated through cabin site leases, grazing
fees, and timber sales. Since the cabin site fees are fairly
stable, the 25 percent receipts fluctuate largely according to
timber prices. Therefore almost all of the reduction results
from a decline in the amount of timber offered by the Targhee
Forest. The Forest seems oblivious to this impact, even though
we have pointed out the problem many times.
So it is not surprising that we, the county commissioners,
were less than enthusiastic about revision of the Forest Plan.
Still, the public involvement process is the only game in town,
and we were hopeful that in the enlightened 90's the Forest
would keep an open mind. It was not long, however, before we
could see the Forest had a different agenda than most of our
constituents. The final Forest Plan reduced the allowable
timber harvest from 80 million board feet (MMBF) to 8 MMBF, a
90 percent reduction. The new Plan also eliminated 11 livestock
allotments. Even worse, when the proposed Travel Plan was
announced it closed most of the Forest to summer cross country
motorized use, eliminated all ``ghost'' roads, and proposed to
close many roads and motorized trails. We did not know at the
time that ``closed'' meant a series of 8-foot high tank traps,
one after another on a road. We were soon to find out.
In June of last year I received a report the Targhee was
tearing up roads on the forest. Not wanting to believe the
report, I drove to the location and found huge tank traps in
several roads, larger than I had ever encountered in my years
of logging. There was no advance public discussion of the
obliterations in the final EIS of the Forest Plan. The Forest
simply began tearing up roads!! When confronted, the Forest
indicated the obliterations would soon stop. They gave no
indication of what was to come next.
Two months later, in August, I received a bid solicitation
for road closure on the Targhee Forest. I received the offer
because I am still on the Forest's bidders list. Being curious,
I went to the pre-work conference to find out what the work
entailed. It was only then I learned of the plan to rip the
surface of roads and place tank traps in over 400 miles of
roads on the Targhee. Even then I had no idea how pervasive the
traps would be. And still there was no public discussion or
warning of the obliterations to come.
Soon after the pre-bid meeting a contract was awarded and
the work began. It was only then that most people learned of
the Forest's plans, and by then it was too late. In a month's
time the Forest and contractor flew around the Ashton and
Island Park Districts obliterating about 380 miles of road.
Many people requested, almost pleaded, with the Forest to stop,
but to no avail. Finally, on the 26th of September, as the
equipment was about to leave the Ashton R.D. and head to the
Teton Basin R.D. I called Brent Robson, county commissioner in
Teton County, and warned him of the onslaught was headed his
way. Brent immediately placed a weight limit on all roads
crossing Teton County roads to the Forest, effectively
prohibitinq contractor's equipment from getting to the Forest.
At the same time Citizens For A User Friendly Forest and Blue
Ribbon Coalition filed suit in Federal court in Boise to stop
the work until the parties of the lawsuit had time to address
the issues. As a result of these two actions the Forest finally
stopped the road obliteration work for the year. We are
presently in a stand off until next summer.
We have had unprecedented support from political leaders in
our fight against the road closures. Both senators and then
congressman, Mike Crapo, wrote letters opposing the closures
and met with Forest Supervisor Jerry Reese several times to let
Jerry know of their disapproval. All of the state legislators
from eastern Idaho signed a letter opposing the closures. The
county commissioners of the six counties that touch the Targhee
Forest took the unusual step of including an advisory ballot on
the May 1996 primary ballot, allowing people to choose between
CUFF's alternative and the Forest Service preferred alternative
(people supported CUFF Alt. by 78 percent). The people of
eastern Idaho filed 1,272 appeals of the first Travel Plan, an
exceptional number of appeals. Yet here we are today, back at
the same place we were 12 months ago when the first Travel Plan
was remanded by the Regional Forester. The Targhee Forest has
not learned a thing and is about to repeat the same mistake
they made the first time around.
Given all of the public and political opposition to the
Targhee Forest's Travel Plan, we do not understand where the
pressure is coming from to force these road closures down our
throats. We hope your hearing can shed some light on this
question.
Thank you. That concludes my comments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5181.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5181.006
Statement of Bill Shurtleff, Commission Chairman, Bonneville County
Board of Directors, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Representative Chenoweth, Representative Simpson, members
of the Panel, and guests, my name is Bill K. Shurtleff and I am
the owner and manager of Call Forest Products. I, also, fill
the position of Bonneville County Commissioner. However, today
my testimony will be based upon my twenty-nine (29) years of
experience as a timber resource user. Let me begin by telling
you that during the 1970s and 1980s, as the Forest Service was
constructing many of the roads we are now discussing, the
constant mantra was that their roads were the number one asset
of the Forest. These were the roads that would allow them to
manage the forest into the future. These were the roads that
would allow them to fight fires, thin trees, make inspections,
and even perhaps allow some harvesting of trees if needed.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been taken to the
woodshed by a sale administrator because a logging machine had
damaged a road shoulder or surface. We were, also, shut down if
dust reached a certain level which would cause the loss of road
surfaces. All this was enforced so as to preserve and maintain
the number one asset of the Forest Service, the road.
Now, all of this has been reversed. I am certain others
will talk about the process that the Forest Service went
through in order to implement their new policy, but I would
like to talk about what the effect will be. By closing these
roads in a manner that virtually stops all travel for long
periods of time, these roads will deteriorate to a point of
uselessness. The only means that the Forest Service has at its
disposal to repair these roads is hard money, which I'm told is
in short supply, and the selling of timber where the road
construction or repair is tied to the sale.
In the Targhee, this is very unlikely. The very small sale
volume that is available on the Targhee will not economically
carry much road construction or maintenance.
It is my opinion that their entire process will basically
close off large portions of the forest to any management. What
will return is the same forest we faced in the 1950s. A forest
of lodge pole pine, old and diseased, dying and then finally
burning. We know this because we have seen it happen. The
strange thing to me is that I thought the action we took in the
1970s and 1980s was specifically to avoid it happening again.
My opinion is that roads could be closed in such a manner
as to allow inspection travel, minor maintenance travel, and
still accomplish the objective of so many miles of roads per
acre. This would not stop all road deterioration, but perhaps
it could reduce it to the point that the road could be
reclaimed in the future.
I know our topic today is road closure, but I cannot let
this opportunity pass without commenting on what I believe is
the designed method of closing the entire Targhee National
Forest to any type of commercial harvesting. It is my opinion
that this is an objective of the present Forest Plan in the
manner that it is being carried out. I will say no more on this
subject, but would love to discuss it further at your
convenience.
In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I have great respect for job you are
both performing, and I have some feeling for the difficulty it
holds.
Thank you again, and I would be happy to respond to any
questions you might have.
------
Statement of Stephen P. Mealey, Director, Idaho Department of Fish and
Game
Madame Chairman:
I am Steve Mealey, Director, Idaho Department of Fish and
Game. I am pleased to be here today with Commissioners Burns,
Siddoway and Wood to present Fish and Game's perspective on the
Open Road and Motorized Trail Analysis Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the Targhee National
Forest.
Let me begin by clarifying the road status that would
result from implementation of the Proposed Action inside the
Targhee National Forest Grizzly Bear Management Units (BMUs)
and outside those units. I have illustrated this by means of
pie charts. They show that inside the BMUs 38 percent of the
roads are left open and 62 percent are decommissioned or have
motorized restrictions. Road management decisions within BMUs
reflect completion of the Endangered Species Act consultation
process related to grizzly bears prescribed by Federal law,
between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest
Service. Fish and Game was not part of this consultation
process and had no jurisdiction in the decision.
Outside the BMUs the situation is reversed, with 65 percent
of the roads left open and 35 percent decommissioned or
restricted. Fish and Game worked with the Targhee National
Forest planning team regarding travel management outside BMUs.
In the Targhee Forest planning process, Fish and Game personnel
provided the Forest Service planning team with criteria
necessary to achieve Department goals for hunting and fishing
opportunity and for fish and wildlife populations, as specified
in our species management plans. Elk and Yellowstone cutthroat
trout are the key species of concern.
While Fish and Game criteria cannot be cited as the sole
reason for any particular road restriction, these criteria,
along with many other multiple-use considerations, clearly were
responsible for many restrictions outside BMUs. I'd like to
take a few moments to discuss Department rationale for elk and
cutthroat trout road management criteria.
Yellowstone cutthroat trout were regarded as a sensitive
species in the forest planning process. They have recently been
petitioned for listing under the ESA. Yellowstone cutthroat are
an extremely important recreational resource on the Targhee
National Forest supporting a world class fishery in the Snake
River. Some of the road closures on the Targhee National Forest
were implemented to address water quality issues associated
with 303d listed streams and to reduce sedimentation and other
impacts to Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Maintaining and
improving habitat for Yellowstone cutthroat is essential to
keeping the species off the endangered species list and
retaining state control over their management.
The Commission has adopted hunting and population goals for
all elk management zones in Idaho. For example in the Island
Park Zone, the post-season elk population goal is 1,200-1,800
cows, 400-575 bulls and 250-350 adult bulls. The plan calls for
30-35 bulls per 100 cows and 18-22 adult bulls per 100 cows.
The elk hunting goal is to provide as much general season
hunting as possible and minimize the use of restrictive
controlled hunts. Under the current spike bull general hunt and
controlled hunt permit system for bulls other than spikes, all
the elk population goals are being met. The hunting goals are
not being met because we have many controlled hunts for bulls.
As the demand for elk increases, only two management strategies
can meet elk population goals: restricted hunting opportunity
through controlled hunts with minimal travel restrictions, or
general hunting opportunity with restricted access. Based on
extensive public input, the Commission has chosen the option
which maximizes general hunting and minimizes controlled hunts,
through access management.
The challenge is to maximize general elk hunting in Idaho
to preserve freedom of choice for hunters. Access management as
proposed in the DEIS for areas outside BMUs is the best
alternative for retaining quality elk herds without losing
hunting opportunity to controlled hunts. This conclusion is
based on numerous studies conducted in several intermountain
states over the last 20 years.
In Idaho, Fish and Game elk researchers have investigated
the impacts of forest roads on elk. In highly roaded areas of
the Clearwater and Coeur d'Alene River drainages, nearly two
out of every three bulls were harvested each year during the
hunting season. In the more heavily roaded portions of the
Island Park zone, nearly 90 percent of the bulls were harvested
in a five day season. In contrast, mortality rates in low-road-
density areas were half of those in highly roaded areas.
This demonstrates the effectiveness of road management
restrictions in reducing bull mortality rates without
shortening elk seasons or implementing controlled hunts.
Proposed road restrictions outside BMUs provide adequate
security for elk and, therefore, provide needed herd quality
while retaining general hunting opportunity and avoiding more
controlled hunts. Most roads can be open most of the year,
providing access for hunters, woodcutters, berry pickers,
fishermen, and other users including timber harvest.
The mission of Fish and Game is to preserve, protect,
perpetuate and manage all wildlife for the citizens of the
state for continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.
Our first mandate is to maintain viable wildlife populations.
After this obligation is fulfilled, remaining surpluses can be
offered for hunting and fishing opportunity. General hunts (as
opposed to controlled hunts) provide Idahoans the maximum
hunting opportunity with the fewest restrictions.
In 1976, Director Joe Greenley implemented a ``bulls only''
management strategy which triggered an impressive increase of
elk across the state. Record elk numbers resulted from
protection of cows. Hunter demand, hunter density, hunter
access and use of ATVs, timber harvest and roads all increased
as elk numbers increased. The irony is that as we reached
record elk numbers, we also discovered a serious problem: our
herd quality was suffering--we didn't have enough adult bulls.
Unfortunately, on the Targhee National Forest, bull elk became
highly vulnerable to hunters as habitat security decreased and
access increased. The resulting ratio of bulls to cows reached
a low ebb and became biologically and sociologically
unacceptable to the hunting public. As I said, we had large elk
herds without enough bulls.
By 1991, the health of the Targhee National Forest elk herd
reached a point that action was necessary. The Commission faced
shortening the existing five-day season, but that was not
acceptable to hunters and it would not have helped the
situation. Other options included either closing the general
season and implementing controlled hunts or retaining the
general season but restricting harvest. The Commission chose to
restrict harvest by limiting all general hunts to spikes-only.
Hunting of bulls other than spikes was limited to controlled
hunts. This was an unpopular but necessary action to preserve
some general elk hunting while avoiding the extremely
restrictive alternative of making all elk hunting controlled
hunts. Let me make this point clear: the hunters didn't like
the spikes-only season and the Department didn't like it but in
the end we all realized there was no other choice.
The result of the spike-only season was a biological
success: in just one year, the bull:cow ratio went from less
than 20 bulls per 100 cows to over 50 bulls per 100 cows.
Equally important, the five-day elk wars became a thing of the
past, and some controlled, any-bull hunts are now being offered
that provide a highly desirable quality hunting experience,
including mature (trophy) bulls. In eight years, we have gone
from providing only five days of hunting to now offering 14
days of general spike hunting, 32 days of general archery
hunting, and 29 days of general muzzleloader spike and
antlerless hunting. It is important to remember that hunters
paid a high price for this success: they lost their general
season opportunity to hunt bulls other than spikes and this
sacrifice resulted in 60 percent of the Island Park hunters
leaving the area to hunt elk in other units. Fish and Game
wants to correct the remaining declines in ratios of mature
bulls to cows that still occurs in some management units in the
Targhee National Forest without causing a shift in hunting
pressure to other places that could deplete other herds
currently in good shape.
In 1998, after considering a full range of options, the A-B
zone tag concept was chosen as the way to do the most to
improve elk herds, while retaining the most hunting
opportunity. With this strategy, we have approached our
management goals for the Targhee National Forest. Future travel
management outside BMUs will be important for Fish and Game to
continue this progress towards providing more general elk
hunting in the Targhee National Forest.
By itself, the big game season setting process is complex
and very often emotionally charged. This becomes even more
intense when compounded with the issues of access management.
We recognize there are many sides to these issues and we need
to hear from you. The Department will be conducting our usual
series of public hearings before setting the 1999 big game
seasons. The public has told us they prefer general hunting
opportunity on the Targhee National Forest, with some travel
restrictions, as opposed to more controlled hunts, the loss of
general hunting opportunity, and fewer travel restrictions. If
this isn't the case, folks need to come and tell us. I urge
strong public participation in this process so all points of
view are considered in the final Department recommendation to
the Commission.
Since we have recently revised our elk and deer plans, we
will also be inviting Forest Service planners to sit down with
us to make certain our earlier planning criteria are still
valid.
Thank you, Madame Chairman, for this opportunity. I will
now stand for any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5181.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5181.008
Statement of Craig Gehrke, Regional Director, Idaho Office, The
Wilderness Society
Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding the
draft environmental impact statement for the motorized road and
trail travel plan for the Targhee National Forest. The
Wilderness Society has been long involved in forest management
issues on the Targhee and the other National Forests which
comprise the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We are striving to
insure that these National Forests and others across the nation
are managed primarily for values and resources that are not
ordinarily available or protected on private land, including
clean water, backcountry recreation, wilderness, wildlife
habitat, roadless areas, biological diversity, nature
education, and scenic beauty.
The Wilderness Society supports the efforts of the Targhee
National Forest to develop a plan for motorized road and trail
travel. Growing off-road and off-highway vehicle use is having
an impact on the natural resources on the Targhee, and the
Forest Service is to be commended for developing a plan which
begins to deal with these impacts. While the Society does not
support the preferred alternative in the draft environmental
impact statement in its entirety, we do support several of the
concepts within the draft plan. We will be urging that the
Forest Service take steps beyond those outlined in the
preferred alternative to better address the complete range of
issues involved in travel planning on the National Forests.
The issue of motorized travel management on the Targhee has
unfortunately been characterized by many as grizzly bears
versus everything else. That is an incorrect characterization.
While the Forest Service does need to take certain steps on the
Targhee to enhance the recovery of the grizzly bear and comply
with a biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the motorized travel management issues goes far beyond
just grizzly bears.
The final environmental impact statement for the revised
Targhee National Forest management plan was clear in its
assessment that off-highway vehicle use and roads are among the
primary causes of impacts to soils, water quality, and aquatic
habitats on the Targhee (FEIS pgs. III-18, III-l9,III-26,III-
73, III-75, IV-12 for a few examples). Management of roads and
motorized trails is not only about grizzly bears but about
clean water, fish, elk, and other forest resources.
The Wilderness Society supports the initiative of the
Forest Service, as set forth by the forest management plan, to
eliminate indiscriminate cross-country motorized travel across
much of the Targhee National Forest. Again, as the final EIS
made clear, this type of use damages soils, water quality and
fish and wildlife habitat. Taking actions to address cross-
country motorized travel is significant step forward to better
protect the resources of the Targhee.
The Wilderness Society also supports the Targhee's efforts
to essentially reverse the long-standing system for signing
trails and roads as open or closed to motorized use. By only
signing ``closed'' trails, the Forest Service was inadvertently
providing an incentive for the tearing down or vandalizing of
such signs, with the offenders later claiming ignorance of the
closure. Signing trails as ``open'' will remove the incentive
to remove the signs and hopefully lead to better travel
management.
The restrictions on cross-country motorized travel and the
new signing system are components of the Targhee motorized
trail and travel plan that The Wilderness Society will support
for adoption on other National Forests in Region Four. These
types of management actions are much needed, for example, on
the Salmon-Challis, Sawtooth, and Boise National Forests.
It is important to keep in mind that these management
actions were determined through the Targhee Forest management
plan, not the draft travel plan. Changing these actions can
only be done through the forest plan amendment process, and not
by changes in the draft travel plan. Furthermore, as stated
earlier, the Forest Service is under an obligation to reduce
road densities in the grizzly bear management units on the
Targhee to comply with a biological opinion issued by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for the revised forest plan. To stop
these efforts would likely require a new biological opinion
from the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as a forest
management plan amendment.
Conservation groups will not tolerate significant delays in
meeting the road density standards that resulted from the
biological opinion for the revised Targhee forest plan. In 1994
a court settlement agreement between the Forest Service and
conservation groups resulted in a commitment from the agency
that it would address deficiencies in the prior forest
management plan relating to management of the Plateau, Madison
and Bechler-Teton bear management units. Later, the Forest
Service decided to address these deficiencies through the
forest plan revision process, rather than address each bear
management unit separately.
The preferred alternative in the draft travel plan for the
Targhee, while taking positive steps in motorized travel
management, does need to be strengthened in several key areas.
One critical issue that the draft travel plan does not deal
well with is the impact of off-road and off-highway vehicles
and road management on the Yellowstone cutthroat trout.
A petition has been filed to list the Yellowstone cutthroat
trout under the Endangered Species Act. The Targhee Forest
travel plan does not adequately address declining populations
of Yellowstone cutthroat trout across the forest, despite
numerous references in the final EIS for the forest management
plan that off-high vehicle use and roads are the primary causes
of impacts to soils, water quality, and aquatic habitats.
Stream crossings and roads and motorized trails within aquatic
influence zones of Yellowstone cutthroat need to be
decommissioned to reverse the declining population trends for
the Yellowstone cutthroat.
It is particularly important that the travel plan address
impacts to Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat from motorized
use within the South Fork Snake River drainage. The Snake River
system is the only major river drainage, outside Yellowstone
National Park, that has a relatively healthy Yellowstone
cutthroat population. Protecting cutthroat habitat in the
tributary streams of the South Fork is critical to the species'
long-term survival.
The Forest Service has an opportunity through the Targhee
Forest travel plan to demonstrate that, in the case of the
Yellowstone cutthroat, it can take the necessary steps to
reverse the decline of a species and not wait for the species
to be listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The Wilderness Society also urges the draft travel plan to
include closures of recommended wilderness areas, such as the
Palisades roadless area, to motorized use to protect the
wilderness characteristics of these areas as prescribed by the
revised forest plan.
The Targhee travel plan should not address RS-2477 claims.
In December 1997 the Chief's Office directed Regional Foresters
to defer from processing RS-2477 claims except in cases where
there is a demonstrated, compelling and immediate need to do
so. No such needs have been demonstrated on the Targhee
National Forest.
The Targhee travel plan should distinguish between single
and two-track OHV trails. To not do so would allow the gradual
conversion, through use and deliberate construction, of single-
track trails open to motorized use to two-track trails and thus
to de facto permanent motorized trails.
The Targhee travel plan should not allow wheeled vehicles
on groomed snowmobile trails. Other national forests, like the
Boise, Caribou and Clearwater National Forests, do not defined
wheeled vehicles as over-the-snow vehicles. Despite the fact
that the Targhee Forest management plan found that off-highway
vehicle use is one of the leading contributors to soil loss and
water quality impacts, the Targhee is proposing to allow
wheeled vehicles to use snowmobile routes in late fall and
early spring--times when resource damage from rutting and
erosion are most likely to occur.
In summary, the proposed motorized road and trail travel
plan for the Targhee National Forest is a positive step towards
addressing the resource impacts caused by roads and off-road
and off-highway vehicles on this forest. Further actions beyond
those proposed in the draft travel plan, such as specific
actions to reduce impacts to the Yellowstone cutthroat trout
and its habitat, will need to be incorporated in the final
travel management plan.
------
Statement of Hon. James R. Lyons, Under Secretary, Natural Resources
and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Madam Chairman, Congressman Smith, Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Forest Service's proposed budget for
Fiscal Year 2000.
I would like to present a brief overview of our budget
request and highlight some of the priorities we've identified
in terms of three broad areas. Chief Dombeck will address these
and other areas in greater detail. The three areas I want to
highlight are; (1) the priorities of the President and the
Department of Agriculture in managing the rich natural
resources of this nation's forest and range lands; (2) the
Forest Service priorities under the leadership of Chief Dombeck
to implement the service's Natural Resource Agenda; and (3) the
emphasis being placed on the Forest Service to be accountable
to Congress and the American people for its performance and use
of Federal funds.
Last year when I testified before several committees,
including this one, I stated that despite the contentious
debates on several Forest Service management issues, Congress
and the Administration have more agreement than we do
disagreement. Despite the differences regarding budget
priorities and several environmental riders which were part of
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations debate, we worked together
and developed a bill which helped the Forest Service move
forward towards improved forest and ecological health and
sustainability. I continue to believe we have common interests,
and greater agreement than disagreement, although I'm sure we
will be involved in tough debate again over this year's budget.
First, a brief overview. This budget proposes an overall
increase in discretionary appropriations of 6.5 percent. The
budget includes a healthy emphasis on the basic programs
necessary for managing the agency's 192 million acres, which
include a $30 billion infrastructure, 383,000 miles of road,
74,000 authorized land uses, 23,000 developed recreation sites,
and uncounted dispersed recreation sites. In addition, the
budget proposes a substantial increase of $37.2 million to
enhance the agency's leading role in forest and rangeland
research. Finally, the budget proposes major increases in State
and Private Forestry programs, which is a key element of the
President's initiatives.
President and Department Priorities
Let me turn now to the important priorities of this
Administration. As you know, the President has proposed several
initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 budget including two that
were first initiated as part of the fiscal year 1999 budget.
Principally, the President's goal in fiscal year 2000 is to
develop Forest Service programs that help assure that all the
nation's lands, not just National Forest lands, provide clean
water for the taps of faucets, open spaces and expanded
recreation opportunities for rural and urban residents alike,
and improved sustainability of products, wildlife, and
biodiversity on healthy public and private lands.
Thus, the President has proposed the Lands Legacy
Initiative, the largest one year investment ever in the
preservation of America's lands, and the continuation of the
Clean Water Action plan to continue to focus on priority
watersheds where protection and improvement programs are so
desperately needed.
Madam Chairman, I believe the Lands Legacy Initiative is
bold and essential for America as we enter the new millennium.
This $1 billion program, which includes $217.6 million in
Forest Service funding, will focus on working with states,
tribes, local governments, and willing private partners to
protect great places, conserve open space for recreation and
wildlife, and to preserve forests, farmlands, and coastal
areas. Currently, 30 million people live within an hour drive
of national forest land. As the President noted in his State of
the Union address, 7,000 acres of farmland and open space are
lost every day. The number of tracts of forestland of 50 acres
or less doubled from 1978 to 1994 as our landscape was carved
into smaller pieces. Access to, and the health of, these lands
is diminishing as a result of this fragmentation. To address
these serious concerns, the President's budget proposes to
significantly increase funding of the agency's State and
Private Forestry Programs, with an increase of $80 million or
48 percent over fiscal year 1999. With this increase we will
focus on promoting the retention of open space and smart growth
that will provide conservation opportunities and experiences
for many additional millions of Americans.
The Forest Service is the national expert at providing
recreation to the public through family oriented recreation
such the Sunday drive, weekend camping trip, short family hike,
or week long backpack or rafting trips. The Lands Legacy
initiative, through emphasis on State and Private Programs and
increased Land Acquisitions promotes this type of recreational
access as well promoting the availability of clean water,
healthy watersheds, and open space. The national forests are
the watersheds for more than 902 communities in 33 states. Many
millions of additional people depend on water provided from
other forested lands. Through emphasis on state and private
partnerships, which promote smart growth acquisitions and
easements, more Americans will be assured of long term access
to public land and the clean water it provides.
The fiscal year 2000 budget contains several additional
initiatives that are important to note.
As was proposed last year, the Administration again intends
to forward legislation that will stabilize payments to states.
I believe it is essential to provide these payments through a
process that does not link the output of forest products to the
education of our rural school children or the quality of the
roads used by their parents. If enacted, the legislation will
result in long term predictability of payments that the states
and counties of America need.
Other legislative initiatives are important aspects of this
budget, including proposals to maximize return to the
government for authorized uses of national forest land to
improve forest visitor experiences. The President also will
propose legislation which requires purchasers who harvest
timber and special forest products from national forests, pay
fair market value for these products and a greater share of the
costs of managing these programs, thus reducing the use of
appropriations.
Natural Resource Agenda
The President's initiatives are fully compatible with the
aggressive program initiated by Chief Dombeck last March which
established the Natural Resource Agenda. I am proud to support
this four point program which focuses agency attention on
watershed protection and restoration, sustainable forest
management, the forest service road system, and the critical
recreation program.
This budget strongly supports the Natural Resource Agenda
with significant funding increases. Wildlife, grazing, fire,
fisheries, and other programs increase by $48.6 million to
support watershed health and restoration. Increased funding
contained in this budget is essential for restoring and
protecting watershed health.
A second element of the agenda promotes sustainable forest
management. With proposed budget increases of $113.2 million,
programs such as Forest and Rangeland Research, in addition to
the State and Private programs I have already mentioned, will
engage coalitions among communities, conservationists,
industry, and all levels of government to collaborate and
integrate management of national forest lands with those
practices on state, tribal, local and non-industrial private
lands in order to promote long term land health.
Management of the national forest road system is a third
component of the Natural Resource Agenda. With a funding
increase of $22.6 million, this road system, which is expansive
enough to circle the globe more than 15 times, will receive
critically needed funds for maintenance.
As you know, Secretary Glickman recently announced a new
interim rule for road management. While this issue is very
contentious, all of us can agree that the national forest road
system is critical to land health and is essential to meet the
recreation and livelihood of millions of Americans. Simply put,
I strongly support Chief Dombeck in his effort to significantly
reduce new road building until we are better able to manage the
road system we presently have. The President's budget will
provide increased funds for road maintenance and allow the
Forest Service to implement road management plans for America's
long term access and land health needs.
Lastly, as part of the Natural Resource Agenda, the
President's budget continues to provide strong emphasis on
recreation. The Forest Service is the largest supplier of
recreation in the United States. We are pleased with the
emphasis Congress has also shown in promoting recreation. The
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program is one such example, and a
resounding success. Through this program, we have improved
facilities and the visitor's experiences at fee sites. However,
I want to emphasize that 95 percent of recreational experiences
on the national forests involve use of non-fee dispersed sites.
The President's budget continues to emphasize this area of
recreational use through appropriated funds. I strongly
encourage your continued support of these appropriations in
order to continue quality experiences for those who use the
forests for highly dispersed activities, and who are either
unable to pay for use of these sites, are not close to fee
sites, or who desire to recreate in the undeveloped non-fee
areas of the national forests.
Also in support of the Natural Resource Agenda, I want to
note that the Committee of Scientists, commissioned by the
Secretary to review land and resource management planning
processes, are soon to release their landmark report. Shortly
thereafter the Forest Service will complete preparation of
proposed land management planning regulations which will guide
future revisions to land management plans. These regulations
are long overdue. I am confident when implemented these
regulations will result in a long-range planning framework
suited to accomplish sound resource management in accordance
with environmental laws and the mission of the Forest Service.
Forest Service Accountability
The success of the Natural Resource Agenda and the
initiatives proposed by the President are critical to long term
health and conservation of the national forests and the
nation's state, local, and non-industrial private lands.
Effective Forest Service leadership is what will facilitate
these long term successes. However, leadership will not be
successful if the Forest Service does not aggressively address
what can only be described as severe lapses in its financial
management and overall performance accountability. As you know,
the agency's financial health, decision making, and overall
accountability has been scrutinized and extensively criticized
in more than 20 studies initiated by Congress, the Department,
and internally.
Let me say, I have no doubt the Forest Service has got the
message! Through reorganization and placement of professionals
in top leadership positions, the agency has placed the
financial management role in a position that assures attention
and oversight in equal stature and priority to its natural
resources management agenda. While I believe it is important
for Congress to actively perform its oversight of the agency's
financial condition, I believe it is also important to ask for
some degree of patience. The agency's books and records took a
decade or more to turn sour. It will take at least the rest of
fiscal year 1999 to implement a new general ledger and at least
through fiscal year 2000 to receive a clean financial opinion.
Meanwhile, it is clear the Forest Service is taking action
to improve. This includes paying detailed attention to
management of indirect costs, restructuring the process for
charging overhead to permanent and trust funds, and actively
working on implementing performance measures consistent with
the Results Act, which should ultimately lead to proposals for
a revised budget structure that reflects the integrated nature
of work it accomplishes on the ground.
Madam Chairman, in my testimony today I have discussed
important Presidential initiatives, the Natural Resource
Agenda, and progress being made to improve agency
accountability in relation to the fiscal year 2000 budget.
These three areas represent important areas of change for the
Forest Service as we approach the next century. I am confident
that with your support we can work together to build a Forest
Service program that accomplishes long term land health
objectives, delivers clean water, provides quality access,
assures diverse recreational opportunities for greater numbers
of Americans, and continues providing strong livelihoods for
communities for generations to come.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
------
Statement of John E. Burns, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture
Madam Chairman, members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
the opportunity to speak today. My name is John Burns. I reside
in Carmen, Idaho and have been a member of the Idaho Fish &
Game Commission since 1996. Following a 33 year career with the
U.S. Forest Service I retired as Forest Supervisor of the
Salmon National Forest in 1994. From 1980 to 1989 I was Forest
Supervisor of the Targhee National Forest. The Targhee Land
Management Plan was developed and implemented during that
period.
My purpose today is to provide some historical perspective
which may be of value to the Subcommittee as you examine the
questions of roads and wildlife on the Targhee. Indeed, those
very questions were central to us when the Targhee LMP was
prepared and we proceeded with the intensive lodgepole pine
salvage program in the 1980's.
First, a few words about the forest situation that existed
when I was assigned to the Forest.
An epidemic of pine bark beetles had killed several hundred
thousand acres of lodgepole in the Island Park and surrounding
plateau areas. The percentage of dead or dying trees exceeded
80 percent in many localities, and the epidemic had not run its
course. Those who did not see the forest as it was then can now
hardly imagine the devastation.
The lodgepole commonly grew in almost pure stands, and
typically the trees were of similar size and age. This is a
characteristic of lodgepole, which is particularly adapted to
regeneration after fire. The tree has cones which remain closed
until the tree is killed and heat causes them to open releasing
seeds. As a result, fires which do not consume the tops and
cones often result in a new forest of lodgepole.
Also, in the Island Park and plateau areas the lodgepole
stands do not normally give way to Douglas fir. Forest
succession is arrested at the lodgepole seral stage due to a
lack of cold air drainage in deep winter. Young Douglas fir are
simply freeze dried--desiccated.
This combination of factors--vast insect killed pine stands
and the reproductive characteristics of the tree--led us to
devise and propose a strategy that would reforest most of the
Island Park and plateau area. It would also salvage most of the
usable wood in its ``shelf life'' of ten to fifteen years
before the dead trees fell over. At the same time, road
construction and logging disturbance would be limited to a
relatively small part of the 1.8 million acre Forest.
Aside from the strategy of concentrating activity, we would
replicate the effect of natural fire but without the damaging
characteristics of wildfire. This would be done by cutting the
trees in large blocks or clearcuts, removing the logs and
letting the sun dry out the cones in the scattered tops or
slash. Then using dozers with brush rakes to pile the slash
while simultaneously scarifying the soil surface to expose
mineral soil for the seed to germinate.
Two other major considerations were involved. Much of the
area in question was classified as grizzly bear habitat under
the Yellowstone Guidelines, adopted without modification in the
Forest plan. Most of the plateau country was Situation II due
to the very scattered and scarce habitat components that
support grizzlies. Some Situation III habitat was found in the
northwestern part of Island Park, and a block of Situation I
lay north and east of Henry's Lake.
An intensive review of the Forest Plan, containing the
roading and salvage logging plans, was conducted by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service. This resulted in a Section 7 finding
of ``no jeopardy.'' In-large part this was due to the fact that
the salvage program would focus in Situation II, and that area
of the Targhee (the plateau country) was not considered capable
of actually supporting resident grizzlies.
Concurrently, the Targhee was involved in shifting sheep
grazing out of the Situation I areas to avoid sheep-bear
incidents. Typically, grizzlies would move out of the Park in
early fall and take sheep prior to winter hibernation. Also, an
intensive campaign was launched to eliminate bear attractants
such as open dumps, associated with the large human population
of Island Park. In addition, improved cleanup of highway killed
deer, elk, and moose was accomplished. The net effect, of
course, was that the major elements of food for grizzlies in
the locality--livestock, garbage, and road kills--was
eliminated. If bear use and sightings have since declined it
should not be surprising.
The second additional factor shaping the salvage and road
program was elk. Most of the Island Park and plateau area was
not elk habitat--summer or winter. The breaks of the plateaus
and buttes, country dominated by Douglas fir, was good habitat,
but the lodgepole country with little undergrowth and little
surface water flow was not. Elk typically migrated across the
area to their winter range in the Junipers and sandhills
country west of St. Anthony quite rapidly, a matter of a few
days.
The principal concern relating to elk was increased
vulnerability to hunter harvest as a result of more roads and
less hiding cover. This question was examined in great detail
considering such things as the acreage to be treated each year,
the road miles to be built per year, and the speed of
reforestation and tree growth. Our analyses indicated that the
planned program would not adversely affect the elk population
goals, but we did recognize that hunting limitations might be
necessary to achieve other non-biological elk objectives such
as numbers of mature bulls, etc.
It should be noted that the large proportion of roads built
would be closed by gates as soon as salvage activity was
completed at the entry point. This was done, and incorporated a
special informational signing program as to the reasons and
benefits. The road system was designed such that periodic use
for thinning and future harvests could be accomplished.
A major additional benefit was realized as the lodgepole
stands were treated. As much as 25 percent of the acreage
contained not only new pines, but a flush of aspen growth due
to the stimulation of dormant aspen clones under the lodgepole
canopy. Other shrubby and herbacious species responded
vigorously as well and the result was a much more diverse
vegetative community. In turn, the wildlife responded and
during the 1980 to 1989 period our monitoring found significant
increases in populations.
The elk herd wintering west of St. Anthony during that
period increased by half, exceeding the target size of the
herd. Moose and deer responded in similar fashion.
It soon became obvious that hiding cover was rapidly
reestablishing itself in the treated areas. In fact, the new
stands of trees quickly were capable of concealing an elk and
providing extremely challenging, if not almost impossible,
hunting conditions.
I am not informed on current forest analyses, but if the
rate of growth in the 1990's approximates that of the 1980's
the Island Park and plateau areas contain huge amounts of
effective hiding cover as well as greatly improved vegetative
diversity and production of desirable species for wildlife
food.
I would note that the bitter lesson of ignoring habitat
management now faces the Idaho Fish & Game Commission in the
Clearwater country in northern Idaho. What was once the finest
elk herd in the State has crashed due in large part to
predators and the inexorable decline in habitat capacity for
big game when forests close in with maturity. Unfortunately,
the need for active management is all too often ignored or even
denigrated until disaster--be it insects, fire, or declining
game herds--faces us.
The Targhee program replaced a dead and dying forest with a
new and vigorous vegetative community. It supports an equally
vigorous wildlife community and can no doubt do so for several
more decades before drastic action is once again required. In
the meantime, experience suggests the means to manage the
forest on a continuing basis should be carefully maintained and
utilized.
The Idaho Fish & Game Department has recently developed a
new generation of elk and deer management plans which address
all aspects of our herd objectives. I am sure Department
personnel would be happy to work with the Federal agencies to
evaluate the effects of any specific planned forest management
actions in relation to those objectives.
That concludes my comments. I will be happy to respond to
any questions you may have. Thank you.
References: I suggest the Subcommittee obtain and examine
the following document and detailed large-scale map packet.
The Greater Yellowstone Area An Aggregation of Natl. Park
and Natl. Forest Mgt. Plans Coordinated by Targhee National
Forest Planning Staff Published 1987
------
Statement of Janice M. Brown, Executive Director, Henry's Fork
Foundation
Honorable Congressman Chenoweth, Committee members and
other elected officials.
My name is Janice Brown, and I am testifying on behalf of
the Henry's Fork Foundation, a nonprofit conservation
organization based in Ashton, Idaho. Our mission is to
``understand, restore and protect the unique fishery, wildlife
and aesthetic qualities of the Henry's Fork of the Snake
River.'' The Henry's Fork watershed comprises 1.7 million acres
in Idaho's Fremont, Teton and Madison counties, plus that
portion of Wyoming's Teton County on the west slope of the
Tetons and the southeast corner of Yellowstone National Park.
According to Idaho's Comprehensive State Water Plan for the
Henry's Fork Basin (1992), there are over 3,000 miles of
rivers, streams and irrigation canals in this watershed, with
almost all originating on National Forest land administered by
the Targhee National Forest. Approximately half of the entire
basin is publicly owned land, with a full 70 percent in Fremont
County where our office is located.
The Henry's Fork Foundation was formed in 1984 by Idaho
anglers concerned with the apparent decline of the Henry's Fork
wild rainbow trout fishery. Since then the organization has
expanded to 1,700 members in 48 states and six countries who
support the collaborative, scientific approach for which the
Foundation has become known. Our program of integrated
research, restoration and stewardship has resulted in a number
of habitat improvements within the watershed and increasing
trout populations. Our commitment to education and public
outreach is reflected in five years of cofacilitating the
Henry's Fork Watershed Council in conjunction with the farmers
of the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District. We firmly believe
that local, participatory forums such as the Watershed Council
can constructively involve all citizens, scientists and
government agencies while honoring the environmental laws and
regulations so necessary to sustainable resource management.
I wish to focus my testimony on the relationship between
road access and fisheries, water quality and stream channel
morphology within and downstream of the Targhee National
Forest. But before our concerns are detailed, it is important
to present the larger, historical context of this issue.
Interestingly, prior to 1960 there were relatively few
roads on the Forest and the off-road vehicles so common today
were not widely available for recreation purposes. Prior to the
1960s, most of the recreation in the Island Park area was
focused on fishing and had been so since the late 1800s when
the native Yellowstone cutthroat trout was commercially
harvested in Henry's Lake and the vicinity. In order to protect
the native fish from exploitation, the new Idaho Fish and Game
placed their first conservation officer in Island Park near the
turn of the century. Rainbow trout were introduced for both
commercial and sport fishing, with several entrepreneurs
engaged in trout farming using the rich, natural springs so
characteristic of the area. In the early 1900s, several fishing
clubs were established along the Upper Henry's Fork, and many
descendants of the earliest club members are active with the
Foundation today. The famous Railroad Ranch--now Harriman State
Park--had been purchased as a fishing and hunting reserve by a
consortium of investors prior to 1900, including three
Guggenheim brothers, and the Harrimans of Union Pacific
railroad fame became involved in 1906.
Enlargement of Henry's Lake in 1925 and construction of the
Island Park Reservoir in the late 1930s created important
irrigation storage for downstream farmers, but also enhanced
the Island Park fisheries. A mixing of waters occurs in these
reservoirs, combining the nutrient-rich waters running off the
Henry's Lake and Centennial mountains with the pure spring
waters emerging beneath the volcanic plateaus to the east. The
result is a diverse and abundant aquatic insect community,
which is a rich food source for trout and accounts for the
enormous size of fish in the Island Park area. Although there
has been much controversy in recent years about how to best
manage these trout populations and the nature of fishing
regulations, there is little question that high quality habitat
and the connectivity of tributary streams to the main stem
rivers is essential to maintain the Henry's Fork status as a
world-class trout fishery.
The summer recreational economy in Island Park is directly
dependent on these outstanding angling opportunities, as a 1996
study conducted by Weber State University illustrates. Over 300
bait and fly anglers were interviewed throughout Island Park to
determine their recreation and expenditure patterns. The study
estimated the value of a day's fishing between $200 and $300
per person, and that the average group travels 560 miles each
way to Island Park. Previous studies of those using outfitter
services indicate even higher expenditures. There has been a
marked rise in construction of recreational summer homes in
Island Park since 1992, with $151 million invested in home
construction in 1998 alone.
Because the rivers and streams of the Targhee National
Forest are so vital to the economy and well being of those
living and recreating in the Henry's Fork watershed, it is
incumbent on the Forest Service to invest more time and money
in protecting these valuable resources. We are generally
pleased that protection of aquatic influence zones and native
fishes received increased attention in the revised Forest Plan,
as HFF participated in the public involvement process and
submitted comments on the draft plan. However, we are concerned
that the issue of access management has focused on human
recreational desires and conflicts rather than the essential
issue of soil stability and watershed health. Although the
Targhee has not experienced the severe landslides and mass
movement characteristic of North Idaho and the Cascades, it
would be erroneous to assume that there are few erosion
problems on the Targhee road system.
In a 1966 report, the well-respected Forest Service
research hydrologist Walt Megahan notes his concerns about the
road building that was underway to accommodate the huge Moose
Creek salvage sale that would support the St. Anthony stud mill
for 25 years to come. Although he was asked to estimate changes
in water yields that might occur from such widespread
clearcutting on the Moose Creek Plateau, he also commented on
the evidence he observed of stream sedimentation caused by
roads:
I had only a few hours observation on the Moose Creek
Plateau; however, these were enough to provide some distinct
observations that are worthy of mention. I felt that many of
the soils and subsoils that were encountered along the roads on
the Moose Creek Plateau are among the most erodible I have seen
in the [Intermountain] Region. This is to be expected,
considering the nature of many of the parent materials
described earlier in this report.
Wherever erosion hazards in the area are high due to steeper
slopes developed by road construction, increased runoff due to
road construction etc, the actual erosion rates are high. The
roads appeared to be causing most of the damage; there appeared
to be little problem on the existing clearcut areas.
Presently, the eroded material is being carried down to
intermittent stream channels and being deposited. Flows in
these channels could carry this material downstream and
possibly to the perennial streams. An unusual climatic event or
increased flows due to timber cutting or both could cause such
flows. It is even possible that such flows occur commonly on a
yearly basis.
Actually, the nature of the country on the Moose Creek
Plateau is such that roads could be fitted to the terrain quite
effectively and thereby reduce much of their impact. This has
not been done for the most part on the existing roads.
Evidence of the poor road conditions became apparent following the
1988 fire season when a 17,000-acre ``slop-over'' from the North Fork
Fire burned the upper watershed of Moose and Chick creeks. A northern
segment of the Fish Creek Road and the entire Black Canyon loop road
were long closed to travel because of the damage caused to roads during
spring runoff and thunderstorm events.
With the advent of access management on the Targhee came the
welcome prospect of road decommissioning and obliteration to eliminate
logging roads no longer needed for accessing timber. It was clear to
Fish and Game officials that the reduced forest cover had affected elk
hunting opportunity on the Targhee and that grizzly bear habitat was
also marginalized. Few had anticipated the boom in off-road vehicle use
that would result in a backlash from those who over the past two
decades had become accustomed to using old logging roads and traveling
cross-country across public lands. Almost lost in the debate between
wildlife habitat needs and demand for access was the lingering problem
with road cuts, eroding road beds and poorly maintained stream
crossings.
The recent listing petition for Yellowstone cutthroat has brought
the issue of road impacts to streams back to the forefront, as has the
recent completion of the native trout inventory cooperatively conducted
by the Henry's Fork Foundation and Targhee National Forest. Of the 112
streams surveyed on the Dubois, Island Park Ashton and Teton districts
of the Targhee, ten streams hold only Yellowstone Cutthroat trout and
23 streams held cutthroat in addition to other salmonid species. These
23 are in danger of losing their cutthroat component given the observed
trend for nonnative brook and rainbow to outcompete the native species.
The ten streams that hold only cutthroat should be isolated from future
timber sales and human access to reduce the risk of sedimentation, with
road obliteration a high priority (unless the barrier protecting the
population is itself a road crossing).
Because the Foundation's interest lies in restoring watersheds to
health wherever possible, we support Alternative 3M- in the DEIS and
urge Congress to make funding for the following recommendations among
your highest priorities for the U.S. Forest Service budget:
1. Properly inventory those roads that require stabilization or
obliteration. The Travel Plan DEIS as presented is only an access
management plan and does not consider long-term stability of the road
system. It does not analyze alternatives of partial or complete
obliteration that may be needed in some locations to adequately protect
aquatic ecosystems and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout. Use of gates or
tank traps to limit human access do little to resolve erosional
problems and may in some cases exacerbate current instability. It
appears that the application of scientific expertise to the problem of
road erosion has been limited thus far on the Targhee, and we recommend
that a greater effort be made. The HFF is also willing to assist in
restoration planning and implementation. In addition, the Forest has
not satisfactorily distinguished those system roads needed for future
timber sales from those roads that should be decommissioned with
partial or full obliteration.
2. Implement an adequate stream monitoring program for those
streams most vulnerable to erosion or other human impacts. Most forests
have few resources to engage in long-term monitoring to assess the
results of their activities. States are required to keep tabs on stream
health according to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, and the
Forest Service should assist state officials by monitoring those
streams originating on public land. It will be especially important to
monitor those streams with Yellowstone cutthroat that may play a role
in providing transplants to fishless streams.
3. Provide adequate funding for enforcement of travel restrictions.
Few of the agreed-upon road closures will ultimately succeed without
sufficient enforcement actions that convey the seriousness of access
management. It will be critical that those who choose to violate road
or area closures be apprehended and held accountable for their illegal
actions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of those HFF
members who consider an angling experience on the Henry's Fork to be
among the most important recreational experiences provided by our
National Forest system.
______
Statement of Jack A. Blackwell, Regional Forester, Intermountain
Region, USDA Forest Service
MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today to discuss
travel management on the Targhee National Forest.
The recent actions on the Targhee National Forest to close roads
with earth berms within grizzly bear management units (BMUs) have
generated considerable public interest. The Forest Service constructed
these closures to meet requirements set forth in the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service biological opinion for the Revised Forest Plan and did
so only after long intensive public involvement.
While addressing immediate needs in the BMUs, forest personnel
continue to work on a travel management plan for the entire forest
based on the Revised Forest Plan. The extensive forest road system
constructed primarily to extract timber has served its purpose and is
larger than what is feasible to safely maintain. Poorly located and
maintained roads reduce water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and
soil stability. Through travel management planning, forest personnel
are working to identify a safe maintainable road system that continues
to provide access for a wide variety of activities such as recreation,
grazing, and timber harvest while improving habitat conditions for
grizzly bears, elk, and cutthroat trout.
I will summarize some key points regarding the Targhee travel
management planning process and then would be happy to answer your
questions.
Targhee Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)
The Forest Service completed the Revised Forest Plan in April 1997
after 7 years of hard work and with extensive public involvement. The
revision addressed the extensive road system the Targhee built in the
1970s and 1980s, much of which has served its purpose and is no longer
needed for timber harvest. Therefore, the issue became how much of the
road system should be maintained for other uses.
Because the public identified access as a major issue, the Forest
Service developed a specific travel plan to accompany each of the seven
alternatives considered in the Revised Forest Plan Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The Revised Forest Plan established motorized road and
trail density standards for each management prescription area and also
designated areas open for cross country motorized use.
Balancing motorized access and other key resource concerns,
particularly wildlife and fish, was the major focus for the revision of
the Targhee Forest Plan; to reach that balance, the Forest Service
addressed these concerns:
(1) The need to develop a comprehensive grizzly bear habitat
management strategy in response to the settlement of a 1994
lawsuit regarding roading and logging in the grizzly bear
recovery area;
(2) The need to meet the Idaho Department of Fish and Game elk
vulnerability goals by improving elk security and reducing
vulnerability of mature bull elk;
(3) The need to improve water quality to reduce the likelihood
the Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout would be listed as endangered
species; and
(4) The desire to produce a travel management plan to provide a
reasonable mix of motorized and non-motorized recreation
opportunities while meeting the habitat needs of grizzly bears,
elk, and other species.
Targhee Travel Plan Decision and Remand on Appeal
The Forest Supervisor signed the Record of Decision for the travel
plan, implementing direction from the Revised Forest Plan, on August
15, 1997. Citizens for a User Friendly Forest (CUFF) and the Blue
Ribbon Coalition (BRC) appealed the decision and the deciding officer
partially remanded the decision to the Forest Supervisor in January
1998.
The remand directed the Supervisor:
to keep the Revised Forest Plan direction, including road
density and cross country motorized use standards, that guide
the travel plan;
to implement the winter travel plan;
to prepare a new analysis of roads and trails open to summer
motorized access;
to address RS 2477 assertions made by several counties; and
to get more public involvement and analyze the site-specific
effects of individual roads and trails.
After working with the counties on the RS 2477 issue and reviewing
all comments regarding specific roads and trails, the Forest Supervisor
released a new Travel Plan Draft EIS in late November, 1998. The
supervisor analyzed four alternative networks of roads and trails open
to summer motorized use. The Forest also held several public meetings
and the comment period on the draft EIS was extended to March 5, 1999.
The Forest Service expects to complete the final EIS and travel plan in
June, 1999.
The preferred alternative in the forest travel management plan
draft EIS would provide 1,672 miles of road and 536 miles of trails
open to summer motorized use and 862 miles of trails to foot and horse
travel. By the end of 1999, the forest would close a total of 939 miles
of roads, 466 miles inside grizzly BMUs, of which 398 miles were closed
in 1998, and 473 miles would be closed outside the BMUs.
While continuing to provide a good mix of recreation opportunities,
the Forest also plans to improve management of the road system by:
(1) reducing maintenance needs thus focusing its limited
maintenance and reconstruction dollars on the higher
priorities;
(2) restoring soils and water quality that poorly located and
maintained roads and trails cause;
(3) providing secure habitat for recovery of the grizzly bear
by implementing the travel plan in concert with other forest
plan standards and guidelines;
(4) restoring the habitat in cutthroat trout watersheds to help
prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act;
(5) providing flexibility to choose management options, such as
timber sales, to meet vegetation objectives within the BMUs;
and
(6) meeting the elk vulnerability goals of the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game.
Relation of Road Closures to the Biological Opinion on the Revised
Forest Plan
Effective road closures in the grizzly bear recovery area relate
directly to the Forest Plan Biological Opinion provided by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This requires the Forest Supervisor to
achieve the Revised Forest Plan road density standards within the
grizzly bear recovery area by the end of calendar year 1999.
To meet those goals, the following standards developed in
accordance with the definitions in the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Committee (IGBC) Task Force Report on Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access
Management apply to each BMU, except the developed area around Macks
Inn in Grizzly Bear Management Situation 3:
(1) no more than 0.6 miles of roads and trails will be open to
motorized use per square mile of land in each BMU; and
(2) the combination of open roads, trails, and restricted
routes--such as gated roads--may not be more than 1.0 mile per
square mile.
Compliance with the second standard will require the Forest Service
to effectively close some routes, not just gating them.
In the remand of the travel plan, the Forest Supervisor had the
option to issue an interim closure order in the BMUs to comply with the
density standards in the Revised Forest Plan and the time frames
established by the Biological Opinion and did so on March 24, 1998.
Last summer forest personnel began to close roads, within the BMUs,
necessary to comply with the biological opinion. Closures were started
in 1998 to ensure that they would be completed by the end of the
calendar year 1999. While the majority of these routes were already
closed to motorized use by gates, gates alone do not assure that they
will no longer be used. The Forest may make some minor adjustments as a
result of the new travel plan EIS, but it must meet the open road
density standards in grizzly BMUs.
Method of Road Closure
Much of the controversy, which developed this past year, relates to
the method the Forest used to close the roads in the BMUs. In most
cases, the Forest used large earth berms, the most effective way of
closing roads to meet grizzly bear habitat standards.
However, some forest users have told us that the berms also limit
other recreation activities. Snowmobilers, in particular, have
expressed concerns that these berms could affect their safety. To
address these concerns, forest personnel have worked extensively this
fall and winter with the Idaho Snowmachine Association and local
snowmachine organizations to provide signing and other information to
alert snowmobilers. As a result, forest personnel have modified some
berms in key snowmobile areas in the situation 3 area near Macks Inn,
while still meeting the objective of restricting summer motorized
access. Outside the BMUs the Forest has more options on how to close
roads, and we will continue to work with interested citizens to address
the least disruptive ways to close roads.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to
answer questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55181.066