Tester’s Wilderness Bill

August 28th 2009

An in-depth analysis

By Kerry White

This is a land lock-up bill, with nothing substantial given to the public in exchange for a million acres of wilderness.

Neither Montana nor the Nation needs any more wilderness. Currently there are 107 million acres of designated wilderness out of a total of 190 million acres of National Forest. That’s over 50%. Just because the Montana Wilderness Association says we haven’t had any Wilderness designations in 25 years does not mean we need more. Their arguments as to the need for this wilderness does not carry any scientific weight.

No one from the recreation, agricultural or mineral resources were allowed at the seat at the table at the development of this legislation. Tester says that this is just the beginning and would love to hear from his constituents, however he yet to respond to a single request to meet with any organization or local government official on this bill.

Field Director Jennifer Madgic and Field Representative David Fine, who work out of Tester’s Bozeman Field Office, will be available to visit with constituents. All constituents are welcome to visit with Madgic and Fine to share concerns, information and ideas and possibly open casework—just as they would at any of Tester’s eight field offices across the state. No appointments are necessary. They will be in Big Sky, Thursday, September 3rd at the Sewer and Water District office from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.

SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS RE S1470 PROVIDING REASONS TO OPPOSE THE BILL

References from S1470 by page no.

p. 4 The stewardship projects are for habitat restoration only; no goal of multiple-use, sustainable forestry (i.e. growing trees for future harvest).

p. 7 “Access road” is defined as a temporarily road that must be obliterated before completion of the project. p. 9 Restoration projects may include removal of access roads to “State, tribal, or private land”

p. 15 Proceeds from the sale of products of the stewardship projects must be reinvested only in other restoration projects in stewardship areas

p. 15 The stewardship contracts are not to EXCEED 10 years. They could be less.

p. 41 The termination of the Secretary’s authority under this bill expires after 15 years, meaning that the Wilderness and Recreation Areas are designated forever, with no continuing oversight under this bill.

p. 15 Stewardship party is to “offset the value of goods”. There is no explanation of what that means.

p. 17 “Habitat connectivity” is an undefined term specified as a criterion for prioritizing projects. Considering its implied meaning, this is a highly subjective measure.

p. 17 “Road density” (e.g. 1.5 mi/sq mi) is specified as the main criterion for prioritizing activities. “Road density” is highly subject to manipulation and should not be used.

p. 17 “Reduction in road density (that) would benefit affected wildlife” is another highly subjective, unscientific measure specified to be used to determine activities.

p. 19 The Secretary MAY develop trails. This is not required.

p. 20 In the stewardship and restoration areas NO new permanent roads are allowed

p. 21 What is the definition of “uncharacteristic” wildfires or insect infestations? Certain wildfires and certain insect infestations will be allowed, at the whim of the forest manager(s).

p. 21 Prescribed fires are to “mimic” natural fires. Could that mean a “let-burn” policy?

p. 22 Revenue can only be used for fish and wildlife habitat restoration. No general, unrestricted economic benefit from these contracts.

p. 24 Three community projects are named (Blackfoot Challenge, Blackfoot Community Project and Seeley Lake Coordinated Forest Management Project) and committee appointments are specified. These projects are not defined, and the committee appointments leave out local government.

p. 26 The stewardship projects can be appealed by anyone; meaning environmental groups could appeal and stop any given project. This makes the stewardship portion of the Act uncertain as to whether it will ever be accomplished.

p. 27 By allowing only one EIS and NO additional analyses prior to implementation of the project the Data Quality Act is violated. In other words, no one is allowed to challenge the “science” presented in the EIS.

p. 28 Changes in the EIS can be made in consultation with collaborative groups (environmental groups) only AFTER the project is underway. Implications of the last two items: A project could be started with an EIS that is acceptable to all concerned, then easily changed through “consultation” with, for example, the Montana Wilderness Association, behind closed doors.

p. 30 All consultation is with resource advisory committees (RAC) or local collaborative groups. Local government coordination, as required by NEPA, the FLPMA and NFMA are not included. This will cause a violation of these federal laws.

p. 30 “Ecological restoration” projects qualify as stewardship projects. To understand what that means, one should read a document entitled “Citizens Call for Ecological Forest Restoration” (“Call”), produced and signed by 120 environmental groups. It is a 21 page detailed blueprint for “ecological restoration” and has the goal of ZERO commercial activities on the National Forests. This document has all of the elements contained in S1470, including what a “job” means and definition of “training”. Jobs included in this kind of project include only those related to road decommissioning and forest restoration. These are temporary jobs, as the Call document strongly urges a passive approach to forest management...the sooner you can get out of the forest and not touch it again, the better.

p. 31 Partnerships are to be established with non profit youth groups to do these projects.

p. 37 Impacts of climate change are to be included in the analysis of projects

p. 41 All landscape restoration projects (stewardship portions) of this bill expire in 15 years, leaving the permanent wilderness intact.

p. 53 “adequate access to the private property to ensure the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property by the owner.” “reasonable use” is up to the agency and “enjoyment of the property by the owner” could mean “adequate access” is limited to the owner only. Implies there will be private property within the boundaries of some of the wilderness areas and this should disqualify the area from wilderness consideration.

p. 54 In Wilderness, grazing will only be permitted if it was established in a given area before Sept. 3, 1964 per section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 17 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)), subject to additional, unknown regulations adopted subsequent to the Wilderness Act.

p 54 House Report 101-405 (Feb. 21, 1990) “provide(s) for the designation of certain public lands as wilderness in the State of Arizona”; and “Subject to the conditions and policies outlined in this report, the general rule of thumb on grazing management in wilderness should be that activities or facilities established prior to the date of an area’s designation as wilderness should be allowed to remain in place and may be replaced when necessary for the permittee to properly administer the grazing program.” Does this report constitute a law or regulation that applies to Montana?

p. 56-57 Outfitter & guide permits in existence at the time of this Act will be the only ones allowed in Wilderness. No new outfitter / guide permits. p. 63 No timber harvests in Lost Creek Protection Area. p. 65 Recreation areas: prohibited activities include mining and timber harvest, off-road travel; almost managed as wilderness.

p. 64, p. 68, p. 71, p. 73 Recreation areas: “motorized travel shall be permitted within the National Recreation Area only on approved, designated trails and routes.” All snowmobiles would be restricted from use off designated trails and routes.