Left in the West - Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

Action Alert: Contact Sen Tester RE: Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

Matthew Koehler — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:04:05 GMT

Please consider contacting Senator Tester and let him know your views on the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA).

Via EMIAL: http://tester.senate.gov/Conta...

Missoula
130 W Front Street
Missoula, MT 59802
Phone: (406) 728-3003

Washington, D.C.
724 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2604
Phone: (202) 224-2644

Whoops, beyond this I meant to post to Dennis Rehberg's donation page.

(Diary corrected from copy-paste hell by Rob Kailey)

Did Sen Tester forget that he already re-introduced his logging bill?

Matthew Koehler — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:54:54 GMT

The Tuesday, February 22, 2011 edition of the Missoulian included this article, which detailed Senator Tester's talk at the annual Salish Kootenai College Career Fair in Pablo.

According to the article:

In response to other questions from the crowd, Tester also said:
• His Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will likely be re-introduced soon, probably attached as an amendment to another bill because it is Montana-specific, and Congress otherwise would not get around to considering it. "We'll drop it in very soon, probably without much fanfare," Tester said. "We've already been through that part, and had the fanfare."

It's very strange that Senator Tester would claim that his so-called Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will likely be re-introduced soon. Why? Because the truth of the matter is that Senator Tester has already, in fact, re-introduced his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

According to the official website of the Library of Congress (which tracks all federal bills), the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act was re-introduced by Senator Tester on Feb 3, 2011 (three weeks ago) and was "Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources." Tester's mandated logging bill has been given bill number "S.268," so anyone can view the bill language for themselves by visiting this site doing a search via the bill number.

It's worth pointing out that the current version of the FJRA that Senator Tester has introduced this session of Congress differs from his original bill in a number of significant ways. However, it unfortunately seems very clear that Senator Tester will not be looking to hold a Senate hearing on the new version of his bill. Nope, it seems clear that Senator Tester will again try the questionable maneuver of attaching his FJRA as a rider to a piece of unrelated, must pass legislation, such as the upcoming appropriations bills.

Perhaps this the reason why Senator Tester said he doesn't want much "fanfare" for his mandated logging bill this session of Congress? Perhaps this is why he told the folks up in Pablo that his bill wasn't re-introduced yet, when in fact it was already re-introduced on February 3, 2011? Did Senator Tester forget he already re-introduced the bill?

What hasn't change in this session of Congress are the serious, substantive concerns expressed by many Montanans - as well as Americans - with Senator Tester's FJRA. Concerns and opposition has come from not only the 50 plus conservation organizations (including 16 from Montana) that make up the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, but also conservation groups such as the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility - some of the most respected environmental groups in our nation. Concerns have also been expressed publicly from some of the former Chiefs of the Forest Service and a host of former Forest Service supervisors and district rangers.

Despite some minor changes, Senator Tester's FJRA bill would still have members of Congress mandating how and where logging takes place in our forests; would turn some of Montana's federal wildlands (including Wilderness Study Areas protected in the late 1970s by former Montana Senator Lee Metcalf) into permanent motorized recreation areas; would allow motors and other non-compatible uses in Wilderness and would cause negative impacts to the Forest Service budgets in our region.

The future of America's national forest legacy is much more important than blindly supporting some politician who apparently thinks the best way to manage America's public lands is through mandates and interference from Congress...but then forgets to tell a public gathering that the bill has already been reintroduced in Congress.

Sen Tester: "extremists are extremists and I don't really care"

Matthew Koehler — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:36:25 GMT

Wow! So now our Senator Tester is simply resorting to crass name calling instead of actually addressing any of the substantive concerns with his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Incredible!

Here are the facts of the matter. Over the past two year many Montanans – as well as Americans – have expressed serious, substantive concerns with Senator Tester's FJRA. Substantive concerns included things like the mandated logging provisions, motors in Wilderness, negative impacts to Forest Service budgets in our region and turning some wildlands into permanent motorized recreation areas.

Concerns have come from not only the 50 plus conservation organizations (including 16 Montana organizations) that make up the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, but also conservation groups such as The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Concerns have also been expressed publicly by some of the former Chiefs of the Forest Service and a host of former Forest Service supervisors, district rangers and officials with direct knowledge of forest and wilderness management.

But "extremists are extremists and I don't really care," right Senator?

Here are some other specific substantive concerns with the Tester bill. Notice how Senator Tester and bill supporters don't seem to talk very much about these specifics.

Take, for example, the 229,710 acre West Pioneers Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), which includes the 151,00 acre Metcalf Wilderness Study Area (WSA). What Sen Tester’s bill would do is turn 129,252 acres of this IRA into a permanent, motorized Recreation Management Areas (RMA). Seriously, do we really want politicians ignoring the USFS’s travel plans to just legislate where they want motorized recreation permanently permitted? Of course, our recommendation would be to designate the entire 151,000 acre Metcalf WSA as Wilderness and eliminate the permanently motorized RMA, returning the management of that area to USFS travel planning, where it belongs.

Or take, for example, what Tester’s bill would do to the West Big Hole IRA, a 213,987 acre area along the crest of the continental divide that provides linkages and connectivity between the Greater Yellowstone area and forests to the west and north. The Tester bill would turn just 44,084 acres of this IRA into two small, far-apart Wilderness Areas while turning much of the IRA into a single, large, permanent, motorized National Recreation Area (NRA) totaling 94,237 acres. The large NRA would be twice as large as the two proposed Wilderness areas together and access to these two proposed Wilderness areas would be forced to use the motorized NRA trails.

Those are just two examples contained in the bill. I can provide more examples if anyone likes. However, it's hardly an "extremist" point of view to want to protect the Wilderness Study Area legacy set aside by former Montana Senator Lee Metcalf in the late 1970s.

While Senator Tester likes to say this is a jobs bill for the timber industry, new home construction in America is down 70% and overall US wood consumption is down 50%. Just where are all these forests Senator Tester wants cut down going to end up?

And while Senator Tester says in a recent article that the Forest Service "needs some different tools," the fact is that the Forest Service ended 2009 with more timber volume already under contract to loggers and mills in our region than any point in the last decade. The Forest Service in Montana also has more logging, thinning, fuel reduction and restoration projects in the pipeline than at any point in recent memory.

Politicians and Congress stepping in to mandate more public lands logging in this context is irrational. Furthermore, Senator Tester giving the newly elected GOP majority in the US House cover to introduce their own bills mandating more logging, oil and gas development, mining and grazing on federal public lands in their own states is irresponsible and threatens America's public lands legacy.

It sure seems as if Senator Tester has decided to re-introduce his FJRA without listening to these substantive concerns and without making the required changes to his bill. If he wants to introduce a true Wilderness bill and create some recreation areas, OK. Let's start an open, inclusive and transparent process to get that done. After all, Congress is the only way to designate more Wilderness.

However, despite the rhetoric from Senator Tester and the "collaborators," the Forest Service currently has all the tools they need to complete logging, fuel reduction and restoration. That's always been the case. Ask any forest supervisor or district ranger in Montana and they will tell you the same thing. They have all the tools they need. What's missing is a market for lumber and paper products (because of the Great Recessions) and funding from Congress to complete needed restoration work (because of trillion dollar wars and tax breaks for millionaires).

Plus, didn't we just have 8 years (2001-2009) of the Forest Service under the control of former timber lobbyist Mark Rey and President George W. Bush, where at every opportunity the skids were greased for more logging? They signed into law the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, they passed executive orders for the Healthy Forest Initiative allowing categorical exclusions (less environmental review, less public input, etc) for all kinds of logging and fuel reduction projects, etc.

I'm sorry, but it's just an ignorant statement – or a bald-face lie – to tell the public that we need politicians to step in and mandate logging on America's public lands or else nothing will get done. Any look at the actual current program work of the Forest Service in Montana and our region proves this point.

Video: Tester speaks to forest bill failure

Matthew Koehler — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:42:30 GMT

The blog over at the Missoula Independent includes this post, which links to a speech Senator Tester gave this past Saturday regarding his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

One thing that stood out was Senator Tester repeating the notion that his bill was "popular with over 70% of Montanans." Here's some info which calls into question the validity of that statement.

The FJRA has been written about and debated extensively here at LiTW over the past few years. A sampling of some of these articles may be found here.

Fact Checking the FJRA Poll Numbers

Matthew Koehler — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:04:03 GMT

(Alternative title could be: "When is a Poll Not a Poll and When Do 16-Month-Old Survey Results No Longer Matter?")

FYI: This was just sent to all Montana media outlets. -mk

Hello:

Yesterday you likely received a "Fact Check" memo from Kristi Ponozzo of the Montana Wilderness Association on behalf of the Montana Forest Coalition.

The first item on that memo (pasted below) included the results of an internal messaging survey members of the Montana Forest Coalition commissioned and paid for. I would like to tell you a little more information about that messaging survey.

First, the memo you received never identified the fact that the date of the survey was August 2009, over 16 months ago. There is a reason the memo didn't include this simple fact. Over the past year and a half many Montanans have had an opportunity to read the actual language of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and, upon learning more about what the bill would actual do, many Montanans from all walks of life have expresses serious concerns and raised substantive questions about the bill.

This begs the question: Is it really accurate or honest to drag out a survey from 16 months ago in an attempt to supposedly demonstrate current public opinion? I mean, what if the Democratic Party sent you a press release today proclaiming "Poll shows Obama Approval Rating at ~~80%~~ 69%?" After all, in ~~February~~ January 2009 this was President Obama's approval rating.

Second, when the results of this survey were originally made public through a release from Montana Trout Unlimited in August 2009, Montana Outdoor Writer Bill Schneider wrote an article, Secrecy Clouds Credibility of Poll on Tester’s Wilderness Bill.

In that article Mr. Schneider stated: "I made two formal requests to coalition leaders to see the actual wording of the questions and get information about the sample polled, but they flatly refused to release anything or even talk on the record about the poll, how it was done or who paid for it. Plus, I know at least two others in the media who made similar requests."

Even more revealing, in that same article Mr. Schneider wrote:

"I know these surveys cost money and those who pay for them consider them proprietary. And I can see that some of the scientific methodology that goes into survey being proprietary, but the wording of the questions? I was told that the coalition primarily intended to use the poll internally to see what arguments against the bill might be sticking and which ones were lost in the public wind. If this is the main purpose of the poll, no problem, but that isn’t how the coalition used it. The coalition quickly sent out a press release applauding the positive results. As soon as this happened, in my mind at least, it ceased to be an internal document."

So as you can clearly see, the people who commissioned this survey openly admitted to Mr. Schneider it wasn't an objective, scientific poll of public opinion. Rather it was an internal survey to figure out which talking points worked for them or which ones didn't work quite as well.

A few months later, on October 27, 2009, Bill Schneider was finally provided the exact wording of the survey question and he wrote another article with this update:

"Question No. 7. Back on September 4, [2009] I devoted my column to the secrecy surrounding a poll conducted by the coalition of green groups and timber companies pushing Tester’s wilderness bill. I’d made several requests to have the exact wording of poll’s questions released before posting that column, but the coalition refused. Since then, after a pint of microbrew and a few more emails, Matt McKenna – who also works with former President Bill Clinton, now has his own communication firm in Bozeman called Jackson Creek and has been recently hired to speak for the coalition – decided to release the exact wording of the key question....Here’s the exact wording of question. You make your own judgment as to whether it biases the results.

Q 7. Let me briefly describe the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, which would do the following:

    * Create jobs in Montana by directing the Forest Service to use light-on-the-land logging and forest restoration projects aimed at improving forest health and reducing forest fire risk;

    * Employ forest stewardship contractors to restore Montana’s damaged streams, forest roads, campgrounds and trails;

    * Guarantee that motorized vehicles will have access to designated recreation areas;

    * Protect Montana’s wildlife habitats and watersheds by designating certain places as Wilderness areas in the Beaverhead Deer Lodge, Lolo and Kootenai National Forests.

Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act that I just described?"

Notice that when Mr. Schneider was finally provided a copy of the question, after waiting nearly two months, the question was actually identified as Question No. 7. Having been personally involved with a few of these messaging/talking points surveys over the years, I can assure you there were 6 similar questions about this issue prior to Question No. 7, and perhaps there were even a few questions, which followed Question No. 7.

This is important because apparently those who commissioned this survey liked the fact that the specific wording of Question No. 7 garnered the greatest support (73%).

Now again, that's all well and fine if the coalition wanted to use that information to form their own talking points. However, as Mr. Schneider pointed out above: "the coalition primarily intended to use the poll internally to see what arguments against the bill might be sticking and which ones were lost in the public wind. If this is the main purpose of the poll, no problem, but that isn’t how the coalition used it. The coalition quickly sent out a press release applauding the positive results."

This begs many questions. For example, did, perhaps, questions 1-6 push those surveyed to the results in Question No. 7? Were there other questions and messaging talking points similar to Question No. 7 that didn't garner as much support? And if so, why weren't those results made public?

To my knowledge, no scientific, objective poll regarding the public's support or opposition of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act has actually been conducted. And with the information presented here I hope you will see that it's less than accurate and honest for the Montana Wilderness Association and Montana Forest Coalition to send out on December 15, 2010 an August 2009 internal messaging survey to supposedly demonstrate current public support or opposition to the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Matthew Koehler

---------------------

From Kristi Ponozzo:

Regarding the popularity of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act:

According to Harstad Research, 73% of Montanans surveyed said they favored Sen. Tester’s legislation, based on a description that the legislation will:

* Create jobs in Montana by directing the Forest Service to use light-on-the-land logging and forest restoration projects aimed at improving forest health and reducing forest fire risk;

* Employ forest stewardship contractors to restore Montana’s damaged streams, forest roads, campgrounds and trails;

* Guarantee that motorized vehicles will have access to designated recreation areas;

* Protect Montana’s wildlife habitats and watersheds by designating certain places as Wilderness areas in the Beaverhead Deer Lodge, Lolo and Kootenai National Forests.

BREAKING: Dems Abruptly Drop Omnibus Spending

Matthew Koehler — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:38:58 GMT

Note: Senator Tester's mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, was attached to this massive $1.3 Trillion omnibus spending bill, which now appears dead, according to breaking news out of DC.

Democrats abruptly drop spending fight
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON | Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:24pm EST
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BD5C320101217

SNIPS: Democrats abruptly abandoned a fight over spending on Thursday and said they would instead extend government funding on a temporary basis, a move that gives Republicans a greater chance to enact the deep cuts they have promised.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said nine Republicans had agreed to back the bill, which likely would have given him enough votes to pass it. But Republican support evaporated in recent days, he said.

"In reality we only have one choice, and that's a short term" funding bill, Reid said on the Senate floor.

Get the Lowdown on Tester's Logging Bil

Matthew Koehler — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:04:05 GMT

As you may have heard, Senator's Tester's "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act" was attached to the Senate's $1.3 Trillion (and growing) omnibus spending bill.

Basically, Senator Tester has managed to attached his bill to this completely unrelated trillion-dollar-plus spending bill, which, it's my understanding, must pass by this weekend, or the federal government will shut down and you won't get your that Christmas card from Aunt Donna in Monday's mail, among other inconveniences.

By far, the most comprehensive collection of documents, releases, quotes, charts and comments related to Senator Tester's bill is at the MT Lowdown blog of John S. Adams, the Great Falls Trib's capital bureau chief. I'd encourage everyone to spend some time over there, review the information and share your opinions. This is an important issue.

My views views on this issue have been well documented over the past few years. Many Montanans have expressed serious, substantive concerns with this bill, including the mandated logging provisions, motors in Wilderness and turning some wildlands into permanent motorized recreation areas. That's a major reason why the bill never made it out of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, never made it to the floor of the US Senate and never was introduced in the US House.

Instead of honestly listening to these concerns, Senator Tester apparently decided to work behind the scenes to attach a different version of his bill to this completely unrelated $1.3 trillion spending bill that's nearly 2000 pages long. It's unfortunate that Senator Tester has chosen such a course.

Update on Sen Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

Matthew Koehler — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:32:32 GMT

This week, Senator Tester and his staff have acknowledged they are working behind the scenes in this lame-duck session of Congress to attach his mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, to a completely unrelated $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill, which is a 'must-pass' bill required to fund the US Government through September 2011.

This is despite the fact that the FJRA never made it out of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, never made it to the floor of the US Senate and never was introduced in the US House.

Many Montana's from all walks of life still have serious, substantive concerns with the FJRA.

It's unfortunate that Senator Tester is pursuing such a questionable, and some might say underhanded, tactic to pass this bill. Back in 2006, didn't state Senator Tester campaign against Senator Burns for using just these types of questionable, undemocratic tactics?

Don't forget that this past summer Senator Tester had his chance to have the FJRA approved by the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee. That version would have designated over 660,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness and would have moved some important watershed and restoration work forward.

However, Senator Tester blew that chance because he and four timber mills were completely unwilling to compromise on the mandated logging provisions and allowing motors within Wilderness.

Amazingly, to date, the Great Falls Tribune is the only newspaper in the state which feels this is a newsworthy, important development to let Montanans know about.

TAKE ACTION: Please take a moment to contact Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and ask him to NOT include Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) in the Senate's completely unrelated $1.2 Trillion omnibus spending bill. Please call (202) 224-3934 or send an email via http://inouye.senate.gov/Contact/ContactDKI.cfm.

Also, please contact Senator Tester and let him know that you strongly disapprove of his FJRA, as written, and his underhanded tactics to get it passed. The fact is that FJRA never made it out of the Senate ENR Committee, never made it to the floor of the Senate and was never even introduced in the US House. Secretly attaching it to an unrelated, must-pass $1.2 Trillion spending bill is disgraceful. Please call (202) 224-2644 or send an email via: http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/

Good News for Protecting and Recovering Bull Trout and their Habitat

Matthew Koehler — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:27:09 GMT

Threatened bull trout - and bull trout habitat - got some good news this week as the Obama Administration and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service greatly expanded protections for waterways critical to the restoration of threatened bull trout.

According to the AP:

The final rule issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service represented a major expansion of the streams, lakes and reservoirs protected as critical habitat for the fish, primarily on federal lands in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Nevada, and a reversal of Bush administration policy on endangered species.
The new ruling protects 19,000 miles of streams, which is five times more than the 2005 rule, and 490,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, which is more than three times greater than previously ordered. But the 754 miles of marine shoreline in Washington state was a reduction to make room for U.S. Navy testing grounds.
Faced with a lawsuit, Fish and Wildlife agreed last year to revise the 2005 critical habitat designation after an inspector general's report found it was among dozens of decisions improperly interfered with by former deputy assistant secretary of Interior Julie MacDonald, who resigned in 2007.

Montanans, and others, who value native fish and their habitat should celebrate this important critical habitat designation for bull trout. Much of the credit goes to two Montana-based organizations: Friends of the Wild Swan (sorry, no website) and Alliance for the Wild Rockies. A chronology of the issue from 1985 to 2009 is available here.

You can bet the lobbyists and political supporters of the timber, mining and grazing industry will blast this designation of critical habitat for the threatened bull trout. After all, now logging, mining, grazing and oil and gas development projects on public lands will now have to more fully take bull trout, their habitat and their recovery, into account.

In the coming days and weeks, it will also certainly be interesting to see if Montana Trout Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation and the Montana Wilderness Association support and celebrate the Obama Administration/USFWS's new bull trout critical habitat designations...or if these "Tester bill collaborators" will stand with their new friends in the timber industry in opposition to these new rules. Stay tuned....

UM Economic Expert: The Ongoing Troubles in the Forest Products Industry

Matthew Koehler — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:22:11 GMT

This commentary from Dr. Thomas Michael Power, Research Professor and former Chair of the Economics Department at the University of Montana, was on Montana Public Radio earlier in the week.

Dr. Power's piece is a good history lesson, as well as a lesson in Economics 101. Hopefully Senator Tester, his staff and those supporting his misguided Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (here and here) take heed.

Power's piece is below the fold...
The Ongoing Troubles in the Forest Products Industry
By Dr. Thomas Michael Power

Earlier this month, the Western Wood Products Association released the 2009 statistics on the overall economic performance of the 170 lumber mills in the Western United States. Lumber production at those mills was the lowest it has been in sixty years. Just since 2005 production has fallen by almost 50 percent, dragging total output almost 25 percent below the previous low that occurred in 1982. To compound the problems faced by lumber mills, low lumber prices led the total value of lumber production to fall even more drastically over the last five year, with almost two-thirds of the lumber value disappearing. Almost all lumber mills across the West have either shut down for periods of time, eliminated shifts, or reduced employment and payrolls in other ways.

Across much of the West the difficulties of our wood products mills have regularly been blamed on the U.S. Forest Service and the dramatic reduction in the contribution that federal lands have made to total timber supply since the early 1990s. This diagnosis of the problem has even been embodied in proposed federal legislation that would mandate that the U.S. Forest Service harvest a certain number of acres of trees each year to boost the available timber supply to feed local lumber mills. That is, the problem has been portrayed as one of inadequate timber supply due the failure of National Forests to keep timber production at the high levels of the past.

That diagnosis of the problem is clearly not accurate. In the southeastern United States where private timber lands dominate timber supply, lumber production has followed the same steep downward trend. The flow of wood products from Canada that had been effectively competing with production from Montana and other Western lumber mills has also plummeted. Of course, the dramatic decline in lumber prices clearly does not suggest a shortage of wood products but, rather, an inadequate demand relative to the capacity of our mills to produce.

A glance at housing starts across the nation tells us the real story. Five years ago over two million new homes were being built each year. In 2009 only half a million houses were built, a quarter of the previous number. The result has been a level of housing starts lower than in any year since the end of World War II. In 2005 the lumber going into residential construction was almost 28 billion board feet. In 2009 it was just over 7 billion board feet. The demand for lumber was clearly tracking the building of new homes with both plummeting to modern era lows.

This was not the first lumber market collapse in Montana and across the West. During the early 1980s, another period of deep recession, most of the nation's lumber mills also shut down as housing starts slipped dramatically. The lumber industry has always been cyclical because of its connection with the demand for new residential housing. As housing starts fluctuate, lumber prices, production at lumber mills, and employment in wood products also fluctuate. In addition, there is a much longer cycle tied to the timber industry's tendency to over-cut regional timber supplies, forcing mills in over-cut regions to shut down while new mills open up in virgin forests or in areas where second or third growth is reaching maturity. As a result, timber production has hop-scotched across North America from New England into Pennsylvania and from there into the South and then back north into the Great Lakes region and then into the Pacific Northwest including Montana and, currently, back towards the South.

On top of these short run cycles tied to cyclical fluctuations in housing and the failure of the lumber industry to operate sustainably in any particular area, there has also been a long run trend to replace workers with capital investments in machinery and expenditures on non-human energy sources. Axes, saws and horses gave way to chain saws, bulldozers, and diesel motors. Now gigantic feller-bunchers do the work of six workers with chainsaws. Lumber mills have increasingly reduced the variety of products they produce so that the mills can be automated, further reducing employment in the industry. As a result, even when production was stable, employment tended to decline.

During the early 1980s, many mill owners took advantage of the mill shutdowns to retool their mills to make them more productive and less labor intensive. Other companies built brand new large automated mills closer to population centers in the West. The huge new mills were more competitive once housing and wood products demand bounced back. Those new mills took market share from the smaller, older, mills that either did not reopen or reopened but then failed when cyclical hard times hit again in the form of low lumber prices.

The depth of the recession out of which we are trying to claw our way and the extended period that most economists expect before housing markets bounce back are likely to discourage any such confidence in lumber markets in the near future. There is not much investment taking place to upgrade the West's lumber mills. That may signal another permanent ratcheting down of the number of mills and wood products employment opportunities in the Western states. That may help lumber prices to bounce back as they seemed to be doing during the first half of this year, but will not bring back even the relatively low levels of employment in forest products that we saw before the Great Recession struck.

Like it or not, the Montana and other Western economies are going to continue to shift away from their historic land-based natural resource ties. That will renew the anxiety many Montanan's feel about ongoing economic change. But just like our grand-parents and great-grand-parents, it is highly unlikely that anyone or any public policy can freeze the economy in some imagined golden age of the past. We like our forbearers will have to adapt to a constantly changing economy whose economic base is regularly evolving in ways that are initially uncertain and not easily comprehended. Whatever our druthers, as the Chinese proverb suggests, we may be condemned to always live in "interesting" economic times.

New Report Questions Sen Tester's "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act"

Matthew Koehler — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:24:02 GMT

A new report from one of the nation's leading National Forest policy experts - Dr. Martin Nie of the University of Montana's Bolle Center for People & Forests - provides an in-depth look at some of the key policy issues and concerns associated with so-called "Place-Based Legislation" in general, and Senator Tester's "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act," specifically. The report and research was requested by the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Service.

Here's a snip from the report's conclusion (emphasis added):

...[T]here are significant problems to the place-based legislative approach to national forest management. To begin with, the historical record of place-based forest law does not lend confidence to the approach in principle. By most accounts, cases like the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Act have engendered more conflict and problems than the legislation has resolved. This is mostly because these site-specific laws must somehow be paid for and then reconciled with the cumulative body of environmental laws that govern the national forests.
These problems are not insurmountable, but Congress and the USFS should oppose forest-specific legislation until a number of more fundamental and systematic concerns are addressed. Most important are the questions of how these laws would fit into the preexisting statutory/planning framework and how they would be financed.
If replicated more broadly, place-based legislation would disunify the National Forest System and create a number of problematic precedents. Chief among these are legislated timber treatment mandates that would set the stage for future Congressional abuse. If enacted into law, these mandates would also have the unintended consequence of jeopardizing fragile agreements and negotiations going on elsewhere; as some timber interests would certainly use this precedent as new leverage in their bargaining positions. As one Congressional Staffer involved in a place-based negotiation says, if Senator Tester's timber supply mandate gets through the gate, then he expects a similar sort of demand being made by the timber interests at his table.

Western Lumber Industry had worst year on record, outlook even more dismal

Matthew Koehler — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:33:27 GMT

This week the Western Wood Products Association reported that the Western lumber industry in 2009 posted its worst year for production in modern history, and that the outlook for this year is even more dismal.

Key Findings

• Overall, U.S. demand for lumber in 2009 was less than half of what was consumed in 2005.

• The amount of lumber used for residential construction is down 76% compared to 2005.

• The lack of home building in the U.S. contributed to the historic decline. Just 554,000 houses were built in 2009, a 39 percent decline from the previous year and a staggering 75% decline from 2005.

• Low demand translated into even lower prices for Western lumber products. The estimated wholesale value of the 2009 production was $2.69 billion, down 26 percent from 2008. Five years ago, Western mills produced 19.3 billion board feet of lumber valued at $7.7 billion.

• Since 2005, output from Western lumber mills has fallen by some 46 percent.

Given the fact that overall lumber demand in the U.S. is down 50% since 2005 and housing starts are down 75% since 2005 one really has to question the motivation and economic rationale of those who are calling for Congress to step in and mandate more public lands logging.

Update on Sen Tester's FJRA from NewWest

Matthew Koehler — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:51:01 GMT

Today, NewWest.net's "Wild" Bill Schneider has an interesting article looking at the chances of a public lands omnibus bill coming out of the 111th Congress, and more specifically, what where Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act fits into that equation.

Schneider writes:

"It could be different this time around, but right now, it looks like another loss for Montana.
It all depends on Senator Jon Tester's willingness to change course on his beleaguered Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S. 1470. Tester's bill has had a hearing before the same subcommittee, back on December 17, but the bill has yet to be reported out of committee because of major disagreement among subcommittee members on parts of the bill. The subcommittee won't report it out onto the floor in its present form, so it can't get in an omnibus bill, which means it has no chance of becoming law.
It's complicated, but in short, other subcommittee members and the U.S. Forest Service don't like Tester's mandated logging provisions, nor his special intrusions on the Wilderness Act of 1964 by allowing ATVs and helicopters in certain designated Wilderness areas. The committee suggested removing these provisions from S. 1470, but Tester refused."

Sure looks like Senator Tester and the collaborators should have taken more seriously the substantive concerns expressed for over a year now from many public lands conservation organizations in Montana and around the country, as well as from the Forest Service, Obama Administration, ENR Committee and a host of retired Forest Service chiefs and officials.

Instead, we've been treated to a dumbing down of the Wilderness and forest management debate, while we all watched the collaborators spend hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on polling, messaging and the type of advertising campaign we normal only see during election cycles.

However, none of those slick ads or feel-good, flowery rhetoric could gloss over the very real substantive concerns with key provisions within the FJRA.

If this bill doesn't pass, Montanans should not forget that it was the unwillingness of Senator Tester and the Collaborators (including Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Trout Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation, RY Timber and Sun Mountain Mountain Lumber) to compromise a little bit. Over the past year they've done a fine job selling and promoting their proposal as the best thing since sliced bread through one-sided meetings and panels, but Senator Tester and the Collaborators weren't so great at working together with those who had concerns with the substantive parts of the FJRA, including the Senate's ENR Committee, the U.S. Forest Service, the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, Beaverhead County and a host of other citizens, who are equal owners of these public lands.

On the other hand, if the bill does pass, it will only be because the concerns brought up for over a year now by the likes of the U.S. Forest Service, the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, Sierra Club, NRDC and others have finally been addressed. As I've been saying all along, the ENR Committee will not let Tester's bill move forward with the mandated logging, profoundly negative budgetary implications and motors and military helicopter landings in Wilderness, among other issues.

Finally, I should point out that, in addition to protecting over 660,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness, the ENR Committee draft also establishes a "National Forest Jobs and Restoration Initiative" that would "preserve and create local jobs in rural communities...to sustain the local logging and restoration infrastructure and community capacity...to promote cooperation and collaboration...to restore or improve the ecological function of priority watersheds...to carry out collaborative projects to restore watersheds and reduce the risk of wildfires to communities." Much of this work would be carried out through stewardship contracting. The ENR Draft also adds language requiring that any project carried out under the bill must fully maintain old growth forests and retain large trees, while focus any hazardous fuel reduction efforts on small diameter trees.

That ENR Committee draft doesn't sound half-bad, eh? Too bad Senator Tester's declared it "dead on arrival."

Tester releases revised Forest Jobs and Recreation Act

The Office of Sen. Jon Tester — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:51:12 GMT

In a move thought to be unprecedented in the U.S. Senate, Senator Jon Tester has posted online his newest draft of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. He also pledged to post online any of his own future drafts of the bill.

You can read the new draft at: http://tester.senate.gov/Legis...

The draft is a revision of Title I of the legislation, written in response to a discussion draft recently put forward by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where the bill awaits a vote.

The bottom line is that under the new, made-in-Montana draft, the outcome on the ground would be the same as it would have been in the original Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The only thing different is the process involved.

Unlike the Committee's document, Tester's new draft retains the timber and restoration certainties that were proposed by the original bill, which was introduced in July of 2009. He has said he will only support a bill that contains the four carefully balanced provisions (timber, wilderness, recreation and restoration) that resulted from years of Montanans working together.

Tester's most recent proposal also creates a new national forest initiative that can apply to other forests in the country. This national framework directs the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to select several forests on which to conduct forest restoration work aimed at creating timber jobs and restoring watersheds. But through this bill, the first forests to be considered for this work will be the three Montana forests it was originally designed for: the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, the Three Rivers District of the Kootenai, and the Seeley District of the Lolo.

This discussion draft also contains new ideas Tester heard from many Montanans over the past year-from emails, phone calls, meetings and seven public, well attended and well advised listening sessions. Ideas included in the new discussion draft include:

Prioritizing Wildland Urban Interface land (land near communities at high risk of wildfire) when selecting areas for the stewardship contracts.
Expanding the area eligible for stewardship contracting in Three Rivers District of the Kootenai National Forest in order to protect grizzly bear habitat.
Adding language for "Best Value" stewardship contracting, which requires contracts to be awarded on the basis of achieving best value to the government. A variety of criteria, including weighted local preference, would be used in making the award determination.

From here, we can expect several more drafts of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act until Tester and the Committee find enough common ground to move the bill forward.

Finally, it's worth noting that the Forest Service has indicated support for the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act since its hearing last December. During a March visit to Montana, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said: "We're going to continue to work with Sen. Tester to accomplish what the bill is supposed to do... There's a tremendous opportunity here." [Montana Standard, 4-7-10] http://www.mtstandard.com/news...

MT Lowdown: Tester to unveil new forest bill draft details Thursday

Matthew Koehler — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:08:12 GMT

According to John S. Adams at Montana Lowdown:

"Sen. Jon Tester will hold a conference call with reporters tomorrow [Thursday] morning to share details of a new draft of his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. It's not yet clear whether a full version of this latest draft will be available tomorrow or not."

As it stands right now, it sure seems as if the ENR Committee's draft (PDF Link available here) is far superior to Senator Tester's FJRA as originally introduced...so it will certainly be interesting to review the new FJRA draft coming from Senator Tester's office tomorrow.

It's unfortunate that Senator Tester proclaimed the ENR Committee's draft "Dead On Arrival." In my view, the ENR Committee's draft is a giant step in the right direction and certainly worthy of consideration. The fact of the matter is that the ENR Committee's draft would protect over 660,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness, which is one of the big goals we've heard touted by the collaborators.

However, the Committee's draft would not undermine Wilderness by allowing the military helicopters to land in the Highlands Wilderness or sheep ranchers to ride their ATV's in Wilderness, as Tester's original bill allowed.

How could these not be viewed as positive steps by anyone who loves and appreciates Wilderness and understands it's unique place on the landscape? Seems that by any objective measure, when it comes to Wilderness designation that the ENR Committee draft is superior to Tester's FJRA. So I'd encourage the public to compare the positive wilderness protection steps taken in the ENR Committee's draft with what Senator Tester releases to the media tomorrow.

The ENR Committee's draft would also establish a "National Forest Jobs and Restoration Initiative" that would "preserve and create local jobs in rural communities...to sustain the local logging and restoration infrastructure and community capacity...to promote cooperation and collaboration...to restore or improve the ecological function of priority watersheds...to carry out collaborative projects to restore watersheds and reduce the risk of wildfires to communities." Much of this work would be carried out through stewardship contracting.

Again, aren't these the types of goals and restoration and fuel reduction projects to create local jobs that supporters of Tester's bill have touted? If so, why would the ENR Committee's draft be "DOA?"

If Tester's bill was never about logging anyway (as most of the supporters defensively claimed), then what does it matter if the Committee's draft drops the controversial logging mandates on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests?

After all, the head of the US Forest Service said about the logging mandates at the Senate hearing:

"The levels of mechanical treatment that are called for in S1470 are likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable...If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable."

And even The Wilderness Society, a supporter of Tester's bill, questioned the mandated logging in their official Senate testimony:

"We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent, c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not believe this approach will work on the ground....Based on consultation with NEPA experts, we do have concerns that some of the specific language in this section of S. 1470 could effectively undermine the application of NEPA and its implementing regulations."

Or how about the fact that the Committee draft drops Senator Tester's arbitrary 12-month timeline for environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act? Which, I should mention, is the same type of short-cutting of environmental review and analysis done to approve of BP's oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.

After all, even the head of the Forest Service opposed Senator Tester's NEPA timeline during the hearing:

"We'd like to urge you to amend the National Environmental Policy Act related provisions, which in our view are flawed and are legally vulnerable."

And don't forget that the ENR Committee draft dropped all the budgetary issues, which the actual language of Tester's original FJRA raised. Remember this statement from the head of the Forest Service during the hearing?

"We would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions....My concern [with FJRA] is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different Forest Service regions in the country. Those [National Forests] who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain 'haves' and 'have nots' that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."

Let's hope that Senator Tester's new draft deals with these serious financial and balkanization concerns brought up by the head of the agency and many conservation groups from Montana and the country.

The Committee's new draft also adds language requiring that any project carried out under the bill must maintain old growth forests and retain large trees, while focus any hazardous fuel reduction efforts on small diameter trees. Again, Senator Tester's original bill didn't do this, so the public should compare the ENR Draft with Sen Tester's new version when he makes it available.

The bottom line here is that, while not perfect, the revisions in the ENR Committee's draft are all steps in the right direction and therefore certainly worthy of consideration by Senator Tester and the collaborators, especially if the goal is passing a bill to protect a little Wilderness in Montana and get some watershed restoration and fuel reduction work accomplished. Let's hope Senator Tester and the collaborators gave the ENR Committee's discussion draft significantly more consideration than just proclaiming it "Dead On Arrival." I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they came up with.

Winners and losers of the draft Forest bill's opaque transparency

Jay Stevens — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:36:04 GMT

So Matt Koehler recently panned Jon Tester for not sharing a recent draft of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act with the public, which augured a lot of newsink spilled over the issue. Here, then, are the winners and losers in the controversy surrounding the unreleased recent draft of Tester's Forest bill:

Winner: John Adams. In tracking down the draft bill, Adams wrote an extremely fair post about transparency, Jon Tester, and the legislative process in the US Senate.

Did Jon's staff egregiously mislead Adams' about the existence of a draft bill? Yes. Did members of the collaborative group working on the bill see the draft? Yes. Did Jon Tester promise more transparency than we've received? Yes. But do US Senate committees typically share draft legislation with the public? No. And is the bill's semi-transparent collaborative legislative-writing process typical for Washington DC? No.

What we've got is a quasi-public process that's more open than the inside-the-Beltway gang is used to, and much less open than Montanans want. Is it Tester's fault? No. It wasn't his draft, and the other members of the committee didn't make the transparency pledges that Tester did. (Tester promised to make his changes public.) If there's fault to be put on Tester, it's that his rhetoric didn't match reality. An up-front explanation and tempering of expectations at the beginning of the process would have served him well.

Loser: Jon Tester. Not for falling short of his rhetoric, but for opposing the removal of mandated logging language from the draft:

A "discussion draft" of Tester's S. 1470 legislation started circulating last week among critics of the bill. This version did not have the requirement to log at least 10,000 acres a year in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai national forests, or the one-year limitation on U.S. Forest Service environmental reviews. It also deleted language from the wilderness sections that would have allowed military helicopter training and off-road vehicle use for livestock herding.
For his part, Tester said this week that he would not accept removing the logging mandate.
"There are a number of changes folks would like to see made to S. 1470," Tester said. "Some will be implemented, all will be considered. Make no mistake, if the timber mandates are not part of the deal, I'll pull the plug on the whole thing."

The mandate makes no sense. Sure, I get why they put it in - it's probably an end run around lawsuits against logging ventures on public lands. But...a mandate doesn't change the legal conditions around the lawsuits, and doesn't account for dropping timber prices - if the bottom falls out of the timber market...and no one wants to cut...then what?

I'm no free-market maven, but it seems...irrational...to force supply on a market without any demand.

If the timber industry wants to log public lands, they should probably work together with environmental groups to make sure they're following the law and pay attention to environmental concerns. Shoving timber on the market seems a pretty poor "compromise."

Winner: The public. Tester's forest bill has been more transparent than most, and the controversies around the draft only make the issue keener and puts more pressure on Tester to follow through on his promises of openness. Hopefully, it'll put some pressure on the Senate to make its committee-work more open. But don't hold your breath.

Losers: Conservatives. Until Dennis Rehberg starts releasing drafts of bills discussed in the House Appropriations committee, I think we can all agree that conservatives' criticism of Tester's efforts to make his committee-work open and transparent is clearly hypocritical.

New Draft of Tester Bill Put Together by Senate Committee: Will Sen Tester Let the Public See It?

Matthew Koehler — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:07:34 GMT

Yesterday, members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign called on Senator Tester to make public a new "Discussion Draft" version of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) that was put together by the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee and given to Senator Tester last month.

Since the Committee's draft includes significant new language, we believe it's in the best interest of all Montanans and Americans for Senator Tester to make a copy of the Committee's draft available for public review and input. This step will ensure transparency and give all members of the public an equal opportunity to review the new draft language.

The Committee's new draft drops the controversial mandated logging levels on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests and drops Senator Tester's 12-month timeline for environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, which the head of the Forest Service called "flawed and are legally vulnerable" during last December's Senate hearing.

The Committee's draft drops several of the controversial Wilderness provisions, including those allowing helicopter landings for military training exercises and herding livestock with ATVs in Wilderness, but other provisions that compromise the integrity of the proposed Wildernesses remain in the new draft.

Today's Great Falls Tribune contains an article , which makes it clear that Senator Tester and the Montana timber industry won't support any Wilderness bill that doesn't include logging mandates.

The article also indicates that Senator Tester has not decided to release the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's new draft re-write to the public, only to the timber industry and political insiders. Why? And how does this action jive with Senator Tester's pledge to support transparency in government?

However, what about the Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation - the conservation groups that have been among the loudest cheerleaders in support of Senator Tester's current, original bill?

Are these conservation groups seriously not in support of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's draft re-write?

After all, the ENR Committee's draft still would protect over 600,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness. Isn't that one of the big goals these groups touted over the past few years? We have to break the Montana Wilderness drought?

The ENR Committee's draft would also establish a "National Forest Jobs and Restoration Initiative" that would still "preserve and create local jobs in rural communities...to sustain the local logging and restoration infrastructure and community capacity...to promote cooperation and collaboration...to restore or improve the ecological function of priority watersheds...to carry out collaborative projects to restore watersheds and reduce the risk of wildfires to communities."

Again, aren't these the types of goals and restoration and fuel reduction projects to create local jobs that these groups touted over the past few years?

The ENR Committee's draft also eliminates many of the most controversial (and anti-environmental) aspects of Tester's current bill, which you can bet was done at the behest of the US Forest Service, Obama Administration and the Committee Chairman. So much for all those talking-points inspired letters to the editor and blog comments we've all seen over the past six months telling us that the Obama Administration, Secretary Vilsack and the US Forest Service now support or are "warming up" to Sen Tester's bill, eh?

As I mentioned previously, the Committee draft drops the mandated logging, drops the arbitrary 12-month NEPA timeline, drops military helicopters landing in Wilderness, drops motorized sheep herding in Wilderness, removes the budgetary problems currently in Tester's bill and adds some language about maintaining old-growth and retaining large trees.

Shouldn't these changes in the Committee's draft be viewed as positive steps in the right direction by the Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation? If not, why?

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't clearly point out that many in the conservation community - including members of our Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign - have been calling on just these types of changes to be made in the bill for almost a year now. The response from many of the most die-hard supporters of Tester's bill has been, at best, to ignore these concerns, or, at worst, to even go so far as to say that we were lying and making stuff up. The NewWest site is full of commentaries and comments along these lines that anyone can review for themselves. Well, apparently, if the ENR Committee's draft drops many of these concerning provisions we must have been justified and correct to bring these concerns to the public's attention, right?

If you'd like to get some answers, and if you think you should have a stake in the future of public lands management and should be able to see the ENR Committee's draft re-write of Senator Tester's bill so you can review it and provide input, please contact Senator Tester's office directly.

Send your emails at: http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

Or contact Senator Tester at his DC or Missoula office.

Washington, D.C.
724 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2604
Phone: (202) 224-2644
Fax: (202) 224-8594

Missoula
130 W Front Street
Missoula, MT 59802
Phone: (406) 728-3003
Fax: (406) 728-2193

You may also wish to share your views and get your questions answered by contacting these organizations:

Montana Wilderness Association: 406-443-7350 http://wildmontana.org
Montana Trout Unlimited: 406-543-0054 http://www.montanatu.org
National Wildlife Federation: 406-721-6705 http://www.nwf.org/northernroc...

Sen Tester's FJRA vs The Wilderness Act

Matthew Koehler — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:39:09 GMT

What follows is the official testimony from Montana's Wilderness Watch to the U.S. Senate's Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests regarding Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (S. 1470). For those who don't know, Wilderness Watch's executive director George Nickas is easily one of America's most foremost and respected experts when it comes to the Wilderness Act and Wilderness management and policy.

The following information represents an easy to understand comparison between the Wilderness Act and current Wilderness policy versus certain Wilderness provisions within the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S.1470.

In order to allow all members of the public easy access to this information, please note that the page numbers below correspond to the exact page numbers of the bill, available for download right on Senator Tester's website.

Thank you. - MK
-----------------------

January 8, 2010

U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.

Dear Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests:

This letter is Wilderness Watch's testimony on Senate Bill S 1470, the "Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009" introduced by Senator Jon Tester. Wilderness Watch is a national nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to the protection and proper stewardship of lands within the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness Watch's staff and Board of Directors include many of America's leaders and experts in Wilderness management and protection, including people who were involved in the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act and in the administration of Wilderness for more than 45 years.

Wilderness Watch is also part of the "Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign (LBPWC)," a recently launched effort to draw attention to a number of significant concerns with S. 1470. We wish to associate our testimony with the detailed analysis and testimony provided to the Subcommittee by the LBPWC.

We will confine our concerns in this letter to the provisions in Title II of S. 1470 as they relate to Wilderness and its management.

At the outset, we are concerned that S. 1470 diverges in a number of significant ways from the principles in the Wilderness Act. Allowances for military training exercises, helicopter landings, routine use of motor vehicles for livestock and wildlife management, and for access to a variety of "improvements", devolution of federal control over motorized access for search and rescue operations or emergency services, allowance for virtually unlimited habitat manipulation under the guise of fire presuppression activities or wildlife management, and other provisions in the bill make a mockery of Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act, i.e. "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man...retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements,...which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions."

Some of the greatest difficulties in protecting the wild character of lands within the National Wilderness Preservation System are the challenges posed by special provisions or non-conforming uses included in wilderness legislation. These provisions not only allow activities that are inappropriate and degrade individual areas, but more importantly the cumulative impacts from these provisions threaten to diminish the core values that distinguish Wilderness from other public lands.

Wilderness Watch urges Congress to adhere to the principle and spirit of the Wilderness Act and forego approving these non-conforming activities in Wilderness.

Sec 202(e)(2) [PAGE 52] allows for presuppression activities for fire management. Presuppression could include fuel reduction or other measures generally practiced on non-wilderness lands, but incompatible with Wilderness. This provision refers to "House Report 98-40," an outdated report designed primarily for national forest lands in southern California, conditions very different from those found in western Montana. For example H.Rpt. 98-40 states, "Due to the arid climate, high seasonal temperatures and buildup of fuel that exists in so many California roadless areas, especially in southern California." Much has been learned about fire management in the intervening 25 years, particularly in the Northern Rockies, that suggests these higher elevation roadless lands are not outside the range of natural variability in terms of fire regimes. Moreover, wilderness fire programs in the region that have emphasized a natural fire regime have shown tremendous benefits to the wilderness resource. These programs have been so successful that the lessons learned over three decades are now being applied to non-wilderness lands, at great benefit to native ecosystems and taxpayers. S. 1470 would set fire management back to an era of fiscal and environmental insanity. Further, the result of S. 1470 will be Wildernesses that highly manipulated by humans, contrary to the central ethos of the Wilderness Act.

The Wilderness Act provides ample authority to the Secretary to control fires to protect life, property, and other forest resources. S. 1470 would allow extensive habitat manipulation under the guise of fire management. The bill should be changed to be consistent with the limitations in the Wilderness Act.

Sec. 202(f), [PAGE 53] access to private property, attempts to redefine the Wilderness Act by stating the language in this section is "in accordance with section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act" when in fact it is not. The Wilderness Act provides for adequate access to private lands or, where there is a conflict between protecting the Wilderness and allowing access, the Wilderness Act allows the Secretary to offer a land exchange instead of access. It is a carefully crafted provision designed to ensure that the Wilderness would be protected from harm (for an informative analysis of this provision, see the Opinion of Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, 43 Op. Att'y Gen. 243, 269 (1980)). S. 1470 undermines this protection in two ways. First, it strips away the provision that allows the Secretary to offer an exchange. Second, it requires that the access, in addition to being "adequate," shall "ensure the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property by the owner." If the owner can make the case that her reasonable use and enjoyment requires a road to be built to the private land, then the Wildernesses in the bill could be roaded. This gives the owners of private land within Wilderness more access rights than they hold on other national forest lands. S. 1470 should be made consistent with the Wilderness Act.

Sec. 202(g) [PAGE 53] allows installation and maintenance of snow sensors and stream gauges within the areas designated as Wilderness. The Wilderness Act prohibits structures and installations unless they are necessary to manage and protect Wilderness. S. 1470 expands this narrow exception to allow for structures and installations for a variety of unnecessary purposes.

Sec. 202(h) [PAGE 53-54] creates an exception allowing military training exercises, including landing helicopters, in the proposed Highlands Wilderness. It also provides for low-level military overflights and new units of special airspace over Wilderness. While airspace over Wilderness is not controlled by land management agencies, this kind of aircraft use is inconsistent with protecting Wilderness values. S. 1470 should instruct the Department of Defense to enter into discussions with the Secretary of Agriculture to design training programs that minimize the impact of military overflights on designated Wilderness.

Since the hearing on S. 1470, Senator Tester has stated his intention to remove the proposed Highlands Wilderness from S. 1470. Given the number of non-conforming activities proposed in this area, we agree that removing it from proposed wilderness designation is the appropriate course of action. Another designation that protects the Highlands area from resource extraction and motorized recreation use should be explored.

Sec. 202(j) [PAGE 54-55] allows the Secretary to carry out a variety of fish and wildlife habitat manipulation projects that are contrary to the Wilderness Act's fundamental tenet of an area "untrammeled by man...which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions." The bill's requirement that such projects be consistent with wilderness management plans, guidelines, and policies is of little comfort or substance. Agency management plans, policies or guidelines are not legally binding. They can be and often are inconsistent with the laws they are supposed to implement. Indeed, projects based on land management plans are routinely found in court to be unlawful. S. 1470 would make such projects legal, potentially causing significant harm to Wilderness.

Sec. 202(j)(2)(b) [PAGE 55-56] would potentially grandfather currently allowed motorized recreation uses in areas designated Wilderness: "Nothing in this Act-affects access for any recreational activity allowed by any law...." This would obviously create a conflict with Wilderness protection and should be deleted.

Sec. 202(l) [PAGE 56] states that no later than 1 year after enactment of S.1470, the Secretary shall offer to enter into a memorandum of understanding with all law enforcement and emergency personnel to ensure each is authorized to enter each wilderness area to conduct emergency operations. This provision would bypass the long-established process whereby the land manager must approve any motorized use on a case-by-case basis. Local law enforcement or search and rescue organizations generally lack understanding or knowledge about protecting wilderness values. Given the proliferation of cell phone-triggered, often unnecessary search and rescue operations it is important that wilderness stewards be consulted and retain authority for authorizing motor vehicle use during these operations.

Sec. 202(m) [Page 56-57] grandfathers the terms of existing outfitter permits without further analysis. Limitations and safeguards in the Wilderness Act would not apply to these permits, further compromising wilderness management. Moreover, if any of the existing commercial uses include motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or other nonconforming uses, they would also be grandfathered into Wilderness.

Sec. 202(n) [Page 57] provides that in the proposed East Pioneers Wilderness nothing affects the right of any owner of one or more water impoundment structures to "customary and usual access" including motorized use over and along trails, and the right to operate and maintain the one or more water impoundment structures. The Wilderness Act protects private, existing rights and it permits ingress and egress to valid occupancies consistent with "other such areas similarly situated." This is the appropriate standard that should be applied to areas in S. 1470. The Forest Service should retain the authority to limit access in a way that preserves an area's wilderness character. Granting special favors to those who own water impoundment structures in the East Pioneers will lead to similar demands elsewhere, further eroding the Wilderness Act. Moreover, the provisions in S. 1470 will grant a greater and more permanent right of access to these owners that they currently enjoy with the lands under non-wilderness status.

Sec. 202(n)(2) [PAGE 57-58] states nothing affects the customary and usual access of Beaverhead County to the proposed Highlands Wilderness to operate and maintain a communications site on Table Mountain and the water supply pipeline for the City of Butte including the right to operate and maintain them. Given the push in many areas for building communication towers (such as cell towers) in Wilderness, this provision could be a very harmful precedent. As stated earlier, Wilderness Watch would prefer that rather than encumber the NWPS with a host of new special provisions, the Highlands areas should be left non-wilderness, but protected from further development and motorized recreation under a different management classification.

Sec. 202(n)(3) [PAGE 58] allows motorized access to water infrastructure constructed to protect the Ruby River and to "preserve historic access for other ranching activities and shall continue under the permit system in existence as of the date of enactment of [S. 1470]". It also allows the use of all terrain vehicles (ATVs) for trailing sheep. This language grandfathers non-conforming uses into the Snowcrest Wilderness. It represents the first time that the use of motor vehicles has been allowed for herding livestock and other routine ranching activities. Livestock operators have managed their herds for decades throughout the Wilderness system without the need for routine motorized use provided in S. 1470. If it is allowed here, it will be insisted upon elsewhere. Congress should not set this precedent.

Timber harvesting in Wilderness. [PAGE 63, 70-71,73] In several sections that deal with non-wilderness special management areas, reference is made to allowing "Timber harvesting...to the extent allowed under section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1))." Any reference to the Wilderness Act in relation to timber harvesting should be removed. Use of the term "timber harvesting" in the context of national forests connotes commercial logging. For example, Websters defines timber as "wood for use in making something," and harvest as "to gather in a crop." The Wilderness Act, in section 4(d)(1), allows for measure to control fire, insects and disease. While those "measures" may include in rare instances the cutting of trees, it was never the intent nor has it ever been interpreted that this provision would allow for "timber harvesting." Congress should not now suggest that timber harvesting is allowable in Wilderness. Any such implication in S. 1470 should be removed.

In summary, Wilderness Watch urges Congress to remove all provisions in Title II of S. 1470 that do not conform to the Wilderness Act. Such provisions will harm the areas being designated and weaken America's National Wilderness Preservation System by setting damaging precedents that erode the values the Wilderness Act was created to protect.

Other provisions:

While Wilderness Watch does not usually weigh in on which areas should be designated as Wilderness, we do oppose S. 1470's provisions that would declassify existing wilderness study area status for those areas designated by Congress as WSAs in the Montana Wilderness Study Areas Act of 1977. These are some of Montana's finest wildlands. They represent the legacy of the late-Senator Lee Metcalf, one of the most steadfast champions of Wilderness that Congress has produced. His legacy should be secured and the wilderness character of these lands should be preserved with permanent wilderness protection.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for your consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,

George Nickas
Executive Director
Wilderness Watch
http://www.wildernesswatch.org

Brandborg: Tester Logging Bill Threatens Our National Forests

Matthew Koehler — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:42:30 GMT

Stewart M. Brandborg, a fourth-generation Montanan, is a founding member of the Last Best Place Wildland Campaign. "Brandy" grew up in Montana's Bitterroot Valley, where his father served as the Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest from 1935 to 1955. Brandy spent over a decade researching wildlife in the Bob Marshall, Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness areas and he was later employed as a wildlife biologist with the Forest Service and state wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho. From 1964 to 1976, Brandborg served as executive director of The Wilderness Society. Brandborg played an instrumental roll in the passage of America's Wilderness Act in 1964 and other landmark public land legislation, including groundwork for the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. - mk

Tester Logging Bill Threatens Our National Forests
By Stewart M. Brandborg

I am a fourth-generation Montanan who grew up in a U.S. Forest Service family. Guy Brandborg, my father, served as Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest from 1935 to 1955. I still fondly remember Gifford Pinchot, during one of his last western trips, visiting my father in front of our fireplace. And, I still marvel at Bob Marshall's one-day hike from White Cap Creek on the Selway River up and over the Bitterroot Divide down Boulder Creek in time to join my family around the dining room table for supper.

After earning my Masters degree in Forestry and Wildlife Management in 1951, I worked over 12 years as a wildlife biologist with the Forest Service and state wildlife agencies in Montana and Idaho.

I was associated over 20 years with The Wilderness Society, including serving as its executive director from 1964 to 1976. In these years, I was privileged to advocate for the protection of our public lands legacy, presenting the case for wildland preservation across the nation. During my tenure, the U.S. Congress passed landmark public lands legislation, including the Wilderness Act of 1964, and laid the groundwork for the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

For 70 years now, I have been involved with public lands issues. With this background, it is with deep personal concern that I share serious reservations about Sen. Jon Tester's Logging and Recreation Bill, S. 1470.

Despite the best intentions of Senator Tester, this ill-advised measure, as written, poses a serious threat to our National Forests and other publicly-owned lands. Specifically, the logging mandated by S. 1470 is unprecedented and represents an unscientific override of current forest planning, leading the head of the Forests Service to tell the Senate Committee at last December's hearing that the logging levels in S. 1470 are unachievable and unsustainable.

I also agree with the Forest Service that unfunded mandates in this bill would result in other National Forests in Montana and the region having their funds raided to support excessive logging on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge. The Forest Service described this serious concern as "balkanization" of our national forest system.

The Tester bill is described by supporters as the product of collaborative effort that brought all stakeholders together in its drafting. In fact, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge portion of the bill was originally conceived and contrived by a few logging mills and a few conservation groups.

The initial deliberations of the Beaverhead Partnership excluded major players - the US Forest service, local county governments, watershed and irrigation interests, local and state land, wildlife, and wilderness interests, and a broad segment of other user groups - who have concern for the long-term protection of our National Forests.

Back in September, I, with a delegation including scientists and a retired Forest Service ranger, met with Senator Tester's staff in an attempt to improve the bill. While we appreciated the meeting, our suggestions and concerns have been ignored. Unfortunately, this appears to be typical treatment of those concerned about S. 1470. If you support the bill, you are welcomed into the collaboration. If you have concerns with the bill, too bad. This is not how America's public lands should be managed.

If Congress were to endorse Senator Tester's bill as written, over 100 years of federal resource protection laws, set in place through the bipartisan actions of 50 Congresses, could be overridden by any interest group that gains the ear of any Congressman or Senator. We need not open this Pandora's Box of special loopholes and subsidies for a handful of corporations. We need not forsake our remaining public wild lands heritage.

There are plenty of needed, well-paying forest jobs in road reclamation, watershed restoration and replanting with native species. These forest restoration jobs promote steady flows of pure water for improved wildlife habitat, better fishing and hunting, irrigation and community water supplies and continued sustainable harvests from our fiber producing lands. Fuels reduction projects within community protection zones will, based upon best available science, most efficiently and effectively protect homes and lives while providing even more jobs.

In years past, Congress responded to the voice of the American people and protected our public lands legacy from raids by special interest groups. I hope we can stop Senator Tester from breaking up America's National Forest system for local commercial interests.

Stewart M. Brandborg lives in the Bitterroot Valley with his wife, Anna Vee. In 2001 he received the Robert Marshall Award, - The Wilderness Society's highest honor - for his notable influence on American's Wilderness legacy.

Report: Battling forest beetles may be counter-productive

Matthew Koehler — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:18:07 GMT

Note: This new report on bark beetles is the latest research which counters much of the fear-based, unscientific rhetoric we're heard from Senator Tester and supporters of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act regarding the bark beetle issue here in Montana.

DENVER - Forest ecologists warned leaders today that plans to log beetle-killed trees in remote backcountry, instead of implementing fuel reduction efforts directly adjacent to communities, will not make people safe and will squander scarce tax dollars.

A new scientific report released today suggests that bark beetle outbreaks will not lead to greater fire risk, and that tree thinning and logging is not likely to alleviate future large-scale epidemics of bark beetle. The report's findings apply to millions of acres of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests across North America.

The report also indicates that tree cutting in designated roadless areas protected under the national 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not likely keep communities safe from wildfire, according to "Insects and Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives." The report is based on years of field research and a comprehensive scientific literature review and is available online at http://nccsp.org.

Report authors also suggest that the limited funds available to mitigate fire risk for vulnerable communities would be most effective if used to create defensible space around homes, including using flame retardant building materials and removing brush and trees within several hundred feet of homes.

Additionally, any building of temporary or permanent roads in roadless areas to combat beetle outbreaks could have substantial "short- and long-term ecological costs," the report's authors found. Those costs could include damage to wildlife and water, increased wildfire risk and the introduction of invasive species.

The National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, an Ashland, Ore.,-based nonprofit organization, is releasing the report. Its authors include professors at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo., and Clark University in Worcester, Mass., along with experts at the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, Ore., and the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy.

The report's release comes as the West continues to face the worst outbreak of beetles in centuries. In recent years, bark beetle outbreaks have killed millions of acres of lodgepole pines throughout the West with Colorado at the epicenter.

"Drought and high temperature are likely the overriding factors behind the current bark beetle epidemic in the western United States," said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and lead author of the report. "Because logging and thinning cannot effectively alleviate the overriding effects of climate, it will do little or nothing to control these outbreaks."

Insect outbreaks and fires are a natural part of the ecology of western forests. And the report found no causal link between insect outbreaks and the incidence of wildfires. It also suggests that insect outbreaks in backcountry forests and roadless areas are unlikely to heighten fire risk in adjacent communities.

"Fires in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests, such as those found in Colorado, are primarily determined by weather conditions," said Dominik Kulakowski, a professor of Geography and Biology at Clark University. "The best available science indicates that outbreaks of bark beetles in these forests have little or no effect on fire risk, and may actually reduce it in certain cases."

The report also suggests, "tree-cutting is not likely to control ongoing bark beetle outbreaks." Nor will it be "likely to alleviate future large-scale epidemics," according to the report.

The report's findings come as Colorado officials move to finalize a plan to be considered by the U.S. Forest Service that would exempt the state from the 2001 national rule. The Colorado plan, while protecting some roadless areas, would allow new road construction and timber-cutting to battle beetles and to reduce fire-risk from insect infected trees.

Colorado is one of two states that has pursued a state-based approach to protect its roadless areas. That is an option the Bush administration created in the wake of its rollback of the 2001 roadless rule, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last year. The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a separate challenge of the 2001 rule.

According to report authors, the 2001 national rule allows sufficient flexibility to protect roadless backcountry while allowing local land managers to address public health and safety concerns, including fire.

"The science is clear. Unless preventive measures are aimed at creating defensible space around homes, the federal government will be shoveling taxpayer money down a black hole," said Dominick DellaSala, a report author and president and chief scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. "Logging in the backcountry will do little to prevent insect infestations or reduce fire risks, and it will not solve Colorado's concerns over dying trees.

"Colorado's pristine roadless areas are best protected for their clean water and unbridled fish and wildlife recreational opportunities," DellaSala said.