[Senate Hearing 106-785] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 106-785 THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE: TAKING A CHAIN SAW TO SMALL BUSINESS ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ OCTOBER 4, 2000 Printed for the Committee on Small Business ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 68-240 WASHINGTON : 2001 _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Office U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS ......................................................... ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS ---------- CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri, Chairman CONRAD BURNS, Montana JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah CARL LEVIN, Michigan OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine TOM HARKIN, Iowa MICHAEL ENZI, Wyoming JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota MIKE CRAPO, Idaho MAX CLELAND, Georgia GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MARY LANDRIEU, Louisiana SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina VACANCY Emilia DiSanto, Staff Director Paul Cooksey, Chief Counsel Patricia R. Forbes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Opening Statements Page Enzi, The Honorable Michael B., a United States Senator from Wyoming........................................................ 1 Crapo, The Honorable Michael D., a United States Senator from Idaho.......................................................... 9 Burns, The Honorable Conrad, a United States Senator from Montana 20 Witness Testimony Thomas, The Honorable Craig, a United States Senator from Wyoming 24 Craig, The Honorable Larry, a United States Senator from Idaho... 26 Hurst, Jim, President, Owens & Hurst Lumber, Co., Inc., Eureka, Montana........................................................ 28 Bousman, Joel E., Cattle Rancher, Boulder, Wyoming, and Regional Vice President, Wyoming Stockgrowers Association, Casper, Wyoming........................................................ 36 Tinsley, Del, Owner/Publisher, Wyoming Livestock Roundup, Casper, Wyoming, and Member, Advisory Board, University of Wyoming College of Agriculture, Laramie, Wyoming....................... 48 Bukowsky, Al, Owner/Operator, Solitude River Trips, Salmon, Idaho 159 Van Tassell, Larry W., Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho........................................... 182 McKillop, William, Professor Emeritus, College of Natural Resources, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, California..................................................... 190 Furnish, James R., Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C....... 201 Alphabetical Listing and Appendix Material Submitted Bousman, Joel E. Testimony.................................................... 36 Prepared statement........................................... 38 Bukowsky, Al Testimony.................................................... 159 Prepared statement........................................... 165 Burns, The Honorable Conrad Opening statement............................................ 20 Prepared statement........................................... 22 Craig, The Honorable Larry Testimony.................................................... 26 Crapo, The Honorable Michael D. Opening statement............................................ 9 Prepared statement and attachment............................ 11 Post-hearing questions posed to Mr. Furnish.................. 212 Enzi, The Honorable Michael B. Opening statement............................................ 1 Prepared statement........................................... 4 Post-hearing questions posed to Mr. Dombeck.................. 210 Furnish, James R. Testimony.................................................... 201 Prepared statement........................................... 203 Hurst, Jim Testimony.................................................... 8 Subsequent submission for the record......................... 35 McKillop, William Testimony.................................................... 190 Prepared statement........................................... 197 Thomas, The Honorable Craig Testimony.................................................... 24 Tinsley, Del Testimony.................................................... 48 Prepared statement and attachment............................ 54 Van Tassell, Larry W. Testimony.................................................... 182 Prepared statement........................................... 185 Comments for the Record Cook, Adena, Public Lands Director, Blue Ribbon Coalition Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho, letter..................................... 216 Eaton, The Honorable Craig D., Mayor, Town of Eureka, Montana, letter......................................................... 220 Finch, Wayne, Rexford, Montana, letter........................... 222 Johnson, Shirley May, Fortine, Montana, letter................... 224 Kvenild, J.R., Broker, Western Land Service, Casper, Wyoming, letter......................................................... 229 Marvel, The Honorable Bill F., Mayor, Town of Rexford, Montana, letter......................................................... 230 Panek, Jerry, Owner, Predator 4WD, LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado, statement............................................ 231 Radish, Danny, Eureka, Montana, letter........................... 236 Thoman, Mary E., Thoman Ranch--Southwestern Wyoming Ranchers, Kemmerer, Wyoming, statement................................... 237 Safari Club International, Herndon, Virginia, statement.......... 238 Taylor, David T., and Roger H. Coupal, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, statement and attachment....................................... 242 West, Rosetta, Eureka, Montana, letter........................... 250 THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE: TAKING A CHAIN SAW TO SMALL BUSINESS ---------- WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2000 United States Senate, Committee on Small Business, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room SR-428A, Russell Senate Office Building, the Honorable Michael Enzi presiding. Present: Senators Burns, Enzi, and Crapo. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL B. ENZI, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM WYOMING Senator Enzi. I will call to order this meeting of the United States Senate Committee on Small Business. The topic today is the U.S. Forest Service: Taking a Chain Saw to Small Business. I would like to thank Chairman Bond and his staff for their tremendous help in making this hearing possible. Through his Committee's leadership we hopefully will be able to shed new light on the workings of the U.S. Forest Service and will be able to begin the necessary steps to increase the agency's accountability to American small businesses. I am looking forward to hearing what the participants will have to say today. I feel they have important stories that for far too long have been pushed aside in the rush by many national organizations to dominate public policy on Federal Public Lands. As a former small business owner myself, I can personally attest to the huge impact the Forest Service can have on the economies of Wyoming and on other western communities--on our homes, our schools, the communities that are built in and around the forest. Our income often depends on being able to access these lands in order to harvest trees, minerals, natural gas, and other important resources. We use the forests to heat our homes, to graze our sheep and cattle, and for visitors. At the same time, one of our Nation's best resources for restoring forest health, the private small business sector, has been effectively shut out and denied access to their own public lands. Over the last decade Federal timber harvests nationwide have decreased by 75 percent. Now I hear the statistics about how much money comes in from recreation and how much less the money is that comes in from timber. We used to do both of those. We used to get the revenue from both of those, but there has been a 75-percent decrease in one of them. Because most of the larger, more successful forest products companies rely on their own private source of timber, the decrease in timber sales has directly impacted small, family-owned and operated companies. And while this important source of timber has consistently dwindled, the demand for wood in the United States has continued to increase. The near elimination of Federal timber harvest in the West has created a void in the market that has been filled by two main sources: timber harvested on private lands in the Southeast United States and lumber imported from Canada and other foreign countries. We are probably eliminating some important animals in other countries. As a result of this trend, private landowners in the Southeast are now overharvesting in order to meet the current demand for wood products, and imports from Canada now exceed 35 percent of our domestic lumber supply. Once again it is the small logging, hauling and sawing companies that have not been able to involve themselves in these new market sources. The same effect can be felt in other industries as the Forest Service continues to substitute paperwork for land management. Ranchers who lose vital grazing leases find themselves with no remaining recourse but to subdivide and sell their third-generation ranches to developers so that urban sprawl has taken the place of elk and antelope. Other witnesses will discuss the impact on recreation and how the Forest Service is shutting down outfitters and guides. We will even hear how this agency has impacted the publishing industry by forcing the price of paper to jump dramatically in just the past year. Could all of these threats have been avoided? No. There are always risks in any business, but while most businesses have control over at least some of the elements of their success or failure, those small businesses that are forced to work with the U.S. Forest Service too often have found themselves on the outside of any planning process that could affect their future. One prime example that I believe demonstrates the Forest Service's serious neglect of small business involvement can be found in the way the agency has painfully avoided complying with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA, in the development of its Proposed National Forest System Land and Resources Management Plan, the Forest Transportation System Administration, and in Roadless Area Conservation regulations. Over the past several years the General Accounting Office and the Forest Service have worked to assess the Forest Service's inefficiencies and lack of accountability as it manages our National Forests. Together, these agencies have identified a weak decisionmaking process and failure by the Forest Service to develop the strategic long-term goals. One would think that an agency, struggling like the Forest Service is to develop an adequate planning process and to increase its accountability and performance, would embrace a statute like the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The RFA clearly lays out an analytical process for determining how to best achieve public policy objectives without unduly burdening small businesses. The Forest Service, however, has gone out of its way and has performed all sorts of regulatory gymnastics to keep small businesses out of its decisionmaking process. I believe the Forest Service has attempted to twist the law and to abdicate its responsibilities under RFA by dividing or bifurcating its rulemaking process so that its rules fall within two allowable exceptions to completing a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. It was not the intention of Congress to allow Federal agencies to use bureaucratic rulemaking equivocation to circumvent its duties to small business. When Congress established the RFA, it did so with the goal that small businesses have a voice in the rulemaking process so that those who could least afford the layer upon layer of regulatory burdens could help find a less onerous method of accomplishing the agency's goals. I will not place all of the blame for this situation on this agency, but must state that if the agency is operating within its legal bounds to twist the process so that it can ignore its small business constituents, then I believe Congress should step forward to amend the RFA to close any loophole that may exist. It was not our intention for the Forest Service to be unaccountable and we must ensure that this situation is corrected. I would argue, however, that the U.S. Forest Service is accountable and that the agency is failing in its statutory duties under the RFA to consult with small businesses in the development of its rules and regulations, and that the Forest Service has failed to further comply with the statute by failing to develop less onerous alternatives that do not sacrifice economic stability. You may be assured I will investigate this issue further. In closing, I must state that I do not believe a healthy forest and a healthy economy are mutually exclusive. In fact, I would go so far as to say that healthy forests and healthy economies are interdependent and that without a strong local economy, the U.S. Forest Service will find itself unable to meet the demands that will be placed on the agency in the next century. [The prepared statement of Senator Enzi follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.005 Senator Enzi. I defer to Senator Crapo. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. CRAPO, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM IDAHO Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Chairman Enzi, and I have a full statement which I will submit for the record and I will try to make my remarks brief. I thank the Small Business Committee and Chairman Bond for allowing this important issue to be addressed before this Committee. It may be unusual for many people to see the Small Business Committee examining forest policies but as you will see today, there is a very direct impact and a critical issue that is now very evident. We know that, in the past, the Forest Service policies have had a negative impact on small businesses throughout the Nation. It is my hope that, through efforts such as this hearing and others, the Forest Service can be made accountable for fulfilling its mission while allowing interested stakeholders to effectively participate in the policymaking process. In Idaho we have more than 20-million acres of National Forest land, which is 10 percent of the National Forest System. Everytime that the Forest Service issues and carries out a proposal, businesses in Idaho will be affected. There is no way around that. But what we can strive for is a process whereby the Forest Service actively engages those people who are affected by its land management policies in order to foster active environmental stewardship of our public lands and resources without harming the economy. Today that type of cooperation between the Forest Service and the small businesses is absent. As stated in the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy statement on July 17, 2000, to the Forest Service which, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record: The public has an interest in knowing the potential economic impact of a particular proposed regulation. . . . Providing the public with a complete economic analysis that fully discloses the potential impact of the action and considers less burdensome alternatives not only complies with the requirements of the RFA, it also complies with the basic tenets of sound public policy that balance conflicting interests. The Federal Regulatory Flexibility Act, the RFA, of 1980 which was later strengthened by the passage of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, directs government agencies to conduct a series of analyses describing the impact of a proposed rule if it will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, agencies must determine whether a rule is expected to have a significant economic impact on small businesses. It is apparent that the Forest Service has repeatedly acted in a manner that contradicts the law of the land. It has failed to adequately and accurately account for the direct or indirect financial or other effects that a proposed action would have on small businesses. For example, on May 10, 2000, the Forest Service published a proposed rule on Roadless Area Conservation. Unbelievably, the Forest Service has argued that this proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and therefore that it is not required to comply with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Again citing the Office of Advocacy's letter to the Forest Service, ``case law and the facts support a finding that the impact of the proposal is indeed direct, not indirect,'' as the Forest Service argued. Therefore, the RFA necessitates total compliance by the Forest Service. In this example, the Forest Service's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis did not adequately address the issue of economic impact. A full, detailed economic analysis of the impact of the Forest Service's policies should be completed prior to the finalizing of any such proposals. This roadless proposal reaches far and wide, but other policies pursued by the Forest Service challenge the resolve of small businesses on a daily basis. Among many others, the recreation, timber, logging, ranching and mining industries have been imposed upon with the onerous burden of defending themselves against these rules. From national policies such as the roadless rule, draft transportation plan, strategic plan, and the cost recovery rule, to regional and local plans, the Forest Service is showing a disregard for the impact of its policies on small businesses. The Federal Government has an obligation to ensure that its policies will not have an unwarranted effect on individuals. The Forest Service is not meeting that obligation. Although the Forest Service may contend that many of its policies are a result of other environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act, I disagree. Closing access may be the easiest way to comply with outside factors, but it is not the right way to do it. It may take more effort but the Forest Service should and can work together with interested parties to address both environmental and economic concerns. I want to thank the witnesses for your participation in this hearing and look forward to your testimony. Your input based on your personal experiences will be particularly helpful as we further investigate this issue. I also want to thank Senator Craig and Senator Thomas for their participation in this hearing. As chairman of Senate Subcommittees, which have jurisdiction over these issues, I look forward to their insight on these issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement and attachment of Senator Crapo follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.014 Senator Enzi. Senator Burns. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CONRAD BURNS, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MONTANA Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Senator Thomas and Senator Craig for coming this morning. We sit together on the Energy and Natural Resource Committee and of course our dialog with the Forest Service is ongoing about every time we have a Committee hearing. Just to give you an idea on how the relationship between Congress and the Forest Service and also the local people that live in communities in and around our National Forests has deteriorated, yesterday in Interior Appropriations we eliminated the funds for the second time for the assistant secretary of agriculture that is in charge of the Forest Service, and for good reason. It is just an indication of the erosion in the communications between the Forest Service that is here in this town and the foresters on the ground in our different communities. I believe it is vitally important that we focus specifically on how these policies that are set by the Forest Service are hurting our businesses in and around our forests. Whenever there is a change proposed for the use of public land, we always have to do an EIS, an environmental impact statement. Well, we can turn environmental into economic and that is going to have to be done, too, in order to give an overall view of the effects these decisions have on this country. People are being put out of work and today we are going to see real people with real faces that have real concerns about their businesses and the people who work in those businesses. We are small businesses in Montana. Ninety-nine percent of our businesses in Montana are 100 employees or less. So we know what it is like. New rules have reduced the amount of timber harvested from our public lands by over 90 percent in the last 10 years. New rules have blocked new roads from being built. New rules have reduced grazing allotments on public lands. The current rules have punished our outfitters and guides and left them with virtually no economic stability. I want to give you an example and it is sitting right here. This is from a tree that lies 50 feet off the road. It is dead. It died of pine bark beetle and there are thousands and thousands of board feet available within a rope's throw of a road that can be harvested to keep our mills alive and lumber flowing for our consumers. There have been no plans, none at all, no effort made by the Forest Service in order to deal with this situation. And this log, this piece, comes from just a few miles from where American Timber shut down their mill this last year. It went out of business early this year and now we have another mill that is not very far away from it that is cutting back on their employees. This is letting a natural resource just go to waste. Not only do we not have access to the resource but also our infrastructure and the base of employees has also eroded and pretty soon those folks will be gone. So I will submit my full statement, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that Jim Hurst is here today from up in Eureka country. I promised him one thing, that we would have him out of here so he would be home to watch his son play football on Friday night, and we are going to do that. I thank you for having this hearing and my congratulations to Senator Bond for facilitating it. [The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.016 Senator Crapo. So this hearing is going to go till Friday afternoon? Senator Burns. Yes, we are going to be here until we get it all ironed out. Did you bring a lunch? Senator Enzi. I want to thank everybody who is participating today. I particularly want to thank this first panel, our distinguished colleagues from the committee of jurisdiction. We are handling a very small part of the issue, the small business issue. Of course, in each of your States small businesses actually, by Federal definition, would probably be about 98 percent of the businesses, so it is not that small a part of the economy. We have a lot of discussions in this Committee here about what small business is and 500 employees seems pretty big to us in Wyoming. It is my pleasure to welcome the Senior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, and the Senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig. Senator Thomas, would you like to begin? STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CRAIG THOMAS, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM WYOMING Senator Thomas. All right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank you for having this hearing. I appreciate it very much. All of us are concerned, of course, about these issues and the impacts that Forest Service policy has on small business and indeed on all we do in our States. Both Senator Enzi and Senator Craig and I were in Billings, Montana, with Senator Burns recently and heard these kinds of things very directly as they related to the fire damages, and so on, so I think it is great to do this. Obviously all of us are concerned about this issue. The preservation of the resource is, of course, very high on all of our agendas. I grew up right outside the Shoshone National Forest in Cody, Wyoming, and I am very glad the forest is there and I want to work to protect it the best that I can. Certainly the first purpose is to do that but the second is to allow the owners of that forest to participate in it, to enjoy it, to have access to it, and I think that is really what we are talking about here. This administration has moved steadily toward cutting off access. Whether it is the EPA, whether it is the White House Council on Environmental Quality, whether it is the Department of the Interior, whether in this case it is the Department of Agriculture, I think clearly there has been an overt movement to reduce access to these lands. All of us here this morning, of course, understand the importance of public land access. In our State 50 percent of the State belongs to the Federal Government. It is higher than that in some of your States. So it has a great deal of impact on all of us and what we do and on our economy, of course. We recognize that these lands are in different Federal ownership categories. I happen to be chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee. Park lands are operated differently. We have wilderness areas that are operated differently. But the point I want to make is that many national forest lands are multiple use lands and that is what they were designed to be and indeed can be if they, I think, if they are managed properly. I am talking about hunting, hiking, visiting. You know, it was interesting when the roadless proposal came up, the kinds of people that you heard from. You would think first of all it might be those who had direct economic interest, and so on. Not so. For example, we had veterans associations concerned about how people with handicaps were going to be able to visit their forests and those kinds of things. So I think the impact is very broad and it is very important to consider how best to manage these resources. I think the policies from the Forest Service certainly need some review. We have sought to do that. Since 1998 the agency has proposed a number of management regulatory changes. Just to name a few, the National Forest System Road Management and Transportation System Policy--that is all one title. Forest planning regulations, roadless area reviews, Strategic Plan for Government Performance and Results Act, final interim rule on roadless areas, fuel reduction policy, draft environmental impact statement for Interior Columbia Basin, ecosystem management project, cost recovery for special use applications, unified Federal policy for insuring a watershed approach to Federal lands, to name a few. And I think one of the difficulties is that these have not always been related to one another and worked in a cooperative kind of way but have sort of been thrown out there. I was particularly, I guess, impressed and negatively impressed with the roadless proposal. This policy came from Washington in kind of an announcement to apply to all lands. At the same time, each of the forests has their own forest study, which they do periodically for their own forest plan, which would have been the logical way to take a look at roadless areas but, instead, that was declared from here. We went to the meetings. I went to some of the meetings that people were interested in. There were really no detail available to the people who came to a so-called hearing and they had no chance to really react. So these are the kinds of things that I think ought to be changed. I believe these policies have been largely implemented and run by the assistant secretary over in the Department of Agriculture--not by the professional foresters--and that is too bad. Small businesses are involved, of course, in recreation, in tourism, in guiding and hunting and ranching and forestry, mineral exploration, all these kinds of things, which are very important to our economy. So Mr. Chairman, I do think all of us need to take a look at how we can better implement Forest Service policies, how we can take some of the regulatory burden off small business, how we can provide more access to these public lands for the various kinds of uses and, at the same time, protect the resources. I appreciate what you are doing and thank you for the opportunity to be here. Senator Enzi. Thank you. Senator Craig. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LARRY CRAIG, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM IDAHO Senator Craig. Chairman Enzi, thank you very much. Let me also thank Senator Crapo and Senator Burns. I also want to commend Chairman Bond for allowing the Small Business Committee to hold these hearings on the role of the U.S. Forest Service in dealing with small business. I am especially pleased to be joined here at the table this morning with Senator Craig Thomas, who has played an active role with me, as has Senator Burns, on a variety of committees that have jurisdiction over the U.S. Forest Service. Since 1995, I have chaired the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Mr. Chairman. That Subcommittee has primary jurisdiction over the programs and operations of the U.S. Forest Service. During the 104th Congress and in the current Congress, I also chair the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. So I have had the opportunity, as chairman of those two Subcommittees, to look at the broad jurisdiction and also the narrow focus that we have given to the U.S. Forest Service. During those chairmanships I and many of you have joined with me, have held over 100 oversight hearings on the programs and polices of the U.S. Forest Service. As it relates to the interests of this Committee and the subject of this hearing, our oversight record suggests two fundamental conclusions. First, the U.S. Forest Service is likely the single most important agency affecting small businesses in the rural areas of my State and all of your States and most of the western States of the United States. The Forest Service's programs and policies essentially determine the success or failure of logging, road maintenance and other land management service contractors. The Forest Service basically controls the marketplace for recreation outfitters, hunting and fishing guides, visitor concessionaires and resort owners dependent upon the use of the national forests. The economic health of small service establishments in public lands dependent communities is inextricably tied to the national forests and the surrounding area. In short, while other Federal agencies like the Small Business Administration have programs to help these businesses, the Forest Service determines the future of these businesses. My second conclusion is that there is not an agency in the Federal Government that is less sensitive to the needs of small business. The Forest Service operates in a milieu of constant conflict among powerful, national interest groups over resource management direction and priorities. Small business entities are poorly organized, diverse in their views, and generally are ignored in the ongoing debate. Worse, the Forest Service has moved actively to minimize and, in some cases, even eliminate the limited opportunities and considerations that other Federal agencies routinely afford small business interests to access and influence their programs. For example, the agency has taken the position that its land and resource management plans are not agency rules subject to the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The Forest Service persists with this unlawful and exclusionary position notwithstanding clear case law to the contrary. Clearly, the agency is of the view that it is up to small business to petition the court to force the Forest Service to meet its obligations under the law. Further, to say that the Small Business Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses accompanying Forest Service rulemakings are cursory would be to award the agency an unintended compliment. These analyses are typically nonexistent. I have not reviewed a single Forest Service rule over the past 5 years which contained an analysis of this sort which could withstand judicial scrutiny. But here again, the agency is depending on the limited means of small business to seek judicial intervention to correct a constant pattern of lawlessness. Any reasonable effort to complete these analyses would easily highlight problems created for small business. For example, in the case of recreational outfitters, the Forest Service has regulations which severely constrain the ability of these small businesses to operate in a reasonable business environment. Many visitors to the public lands would not be able to enjoy them without the assistance of outfitters and guides. The outfitters who provide important guide services to visitors to our National Forests are required to have a permit and to pay a share of their revenues to the Federal Government. But these small businesses are not offered permits on a reasonable, long-term basis. Rather, they must expend the time and energy to secure their permit on an annual basis, subject to revocation at any time. You can imagine the impact such regulations have on outfitters and guides when they try to get a loan to buy new equipment or to sell their small businesses. Perhaps most troubling have been the reports that, through programs like the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, the Forest Service has attempted to supplant small businesses with government enterprises. The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program is a pilot effort which allows the Forest Service to charge recreation user fees for some sites and retain those fees for agency purposes. We have received a number of complaints from concessionaires that the Forest Service is using this authority to drive their businesses away from the most popular Forest Service recreational sites so that they can be managed for the agency's financial gain instead of the concessionaire or the local business person. As a result of these complaints, we have so far refused to make this fee collection authority permanent, pending further oversight. Lastly, unlike other Federal agencies--for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency--that manage large programs that impact small businesses, the Forest Service has neither appointed a small business liaison within the agency, nor assigned this responsibility to any office within the agency. Indeed, I believe your hearing will uncover evidence that there is very little sensitivity to, or understanding of, the needs of small businesses anywhere in the U.S. Forest Service. As one outcome of the hearing, I would like to work with this Committee to assure that we are successful in creating an independent Office of Small Business Advocacy within the Forest Service itself. That office should be given the opportunity and the responsibility to approve both Small Business Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses before any final regulation leaves that agency. Again, Mr. Chairman, those are my views based on the experience we have had in examining this agency upside down and inside out for the last good number of years. So I hope that once again your effort and this Committee's efforts will expose what some of us have known and what we hope the country can understand--an agency now that pays little attention to the responsibility it has had and has within the law to the small communities that surround it. It is tragic to me that somehow in the mix of what has happened over the last decade the word commercial value is of disdain on the lips of the U.S. Forest Service. But it is today and as a result of that the biases that I think are reflected in the actions they have taken are clearly anti-business, anti- small business, and therefore anti-West and anti-rural America. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Enzi. Thank you very much. I thank each of you for your testimony this morning. I particularly thank you for the leadership that you demonstrate on this issue every day. I want to again thank you for taking time out of your busy day to testify and also your agreement to take the results from this hearing and use them for your work on this issue. Thank you very much. Now while the second panel is taking their place at the table I will do a brief introduction, but I have to mention that the three of us that are here today are in our home States almost every weekend traveling a different part of the State, talking to people that are actually dealing with the problems. This is a delightful panel because these are the people that we talk to when we are in our respective home States. They give us some good, common-sense ideas for things we can do; which we bring back here. The usual reaction is ``That is too simple; it will not work.'' But we manage to complicate them. We have some people here that will give some of those on-the-ground opinions. We have Jim Hurst, who is the president of Owens & Hurst Lumber Company of Eureka, Montana. We have Joel Bousman, who is a cattle rancher from Boulder, Wyoming, and the regional vice president of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association. We have Del Tinsley, who is the owner and publisher of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup in Casper, Wyoming. Mr. Tinsley is also a member of the Advisory Board for the University of Wyoming College of Agriculture in Laramie, Wyoming. And we have Al Bukowsky, who is the owner/operator of Solitude River Trips in Salmon, Idaho. Mr. Hurst. STATEMENT OF JIM HURST, PRESIDENT, OWENS & HURST LUMBER CO., INC., EUREKA, MONTANA Mr. Hurst. Senators, thank you for inviting me. My name is Jim Hurst. I own and operate a small mill in Eureka, Montana, where I have been a life-long resident. To get directly to the point, the impact of current and proposed U.S. Forest Service policies and regulations are and will continue to be devastating to small timber-related companies and the rural communities where they are located unless changes are made soon. Please note that I speak not only for my company but for my employees and a significant number of the residents of Eureka and Lincoln County, Montana. We offer a dire picture of what the Forest Service is doing to small businesses and families in our community. Last Thursday I was forced to lay off approximately 60 percent of my workforce. A copy of my lay-off notice stands before you. [The notice follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.017 Mr. Hurst. The names not on this list represent 60 jobs in a small community where my firm was the largest employer. Forest Service policies in conjunction with the likes of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, road obliteration mandates, etc., are primarily responsible. As these anti-harvest measures intensified, coupled with an onslaught of appeals by the environmental industry, our forest, the Kootenai, has sold only 25 percent of historic levels. In short, Federal dictates are literally sucking the blood out of rural, timber-dependent communities in Montana. We are a small independent mill. Our adversaries are big government, big environmental organizations and big business, which present us with a bit of a challenge to merely stay in business. As I mentioned, harvest volumes from the forest have greatly decreased. My instincts tell me that the system works like this. The big environmental groups influence big government to promote a zero or reduced harvest. Big timber companies that have their own private forests do not intervene because closing the National Forests to timber removal increases the value of their own holdings. The result is the extermination of the small firms who have deep roots in their communities. An example of this is the closure of the American Timber Company. I attended its auction 2 weeks ago. That notice is here before you. [The notice follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.018 Mr. Hurst. When that family-owned small business closed after 54 years, 145 people lost their jobs. The auction sold what was left for 2 cents on the dollar. Another independent company gone forever and for no good reason, as we have clean air, clean water, abundant wildlife and literally millions of acres of dead, down and disease-infected timber that needs treatment--a resource that could be processed into lumber for our Nation instead of providing citizens with the annual Montana firestorm event. Driving us out of business only enhances the opportunities for big business to buy what U.S. Forest Service timber is offered at bargain basement prices because of a lack of competition and would provide big government an opportunity to ride in on a white horse and offer to relocate us or retrain us. Problem is, many of us do not want to leave. Many will stay and live in poverty rather than leave their homes. I realize this may be a simplistic view but I believe it hits the mark. I have a Native American friend who, when referring to the Federal Government's treatment of rural Westerners, said, ``You are the new Indians. First they take away your land and your way of life. Then they say, `Trust us.' '' The fact is we do not trust our national government anymore and it is quite evident our government does not trust us. As far as we are concerned, the Federal Government has turned its back on rural resource-dependent communities. It ignores the locals who live, work, recreate in, care for and understand our forests. Instead, the ``Wizards of Washington'' know what is best for us. They allow massive build-ups of fuel in our forests, yet removing this fuel is currently not an option. Local, on-the-ground decisionmaking would not allow this to happen. Are Forest Service policies negatively affecting small business in rural communities? You be the judge. The Montana Hunger Coalition fact sheet states 14 percent of Lincoln County residents are living in poverty; 28 percent are poor and at risk for hunger. And that was before my lay-off. Statewide, since 1994, Montana has led all 50 States in the rate of increase in poverty. While poverty has been on the increase, the rate of unemployment has been low. This is ludicrous in a State with an abundance of natural resources and with a population willing to work. The report states that while Montanans are working harder than ever, they nevertheless lead the Nation in the rate of increase in poverty mainly because of a deterioration in wages in agriculture and the extractive industries and an increase in low-wage sector jobs. I have brought with me letters from the mayors of Rexford and Eureka, Montana, further describing the negative impact of Forest Service policies on their towns. I hope you will include these letters in the record of this hearing. In Eureka, Montana, the U.S. Forest Service has an opportunity to prove its worth. It can care for the land and serve the people by immediately selling the estimated 150- million board feet of timber that have been burned within 15 miles of our town. Harvest the trees while they have value and in the process, grind the limbs and tops into the ground to stabilize the soil and also stabilize our way of life for another 3 to 4 years. A momentary stay of execution until we can determine if sound science, reasonable decisions and common sense will once again be the trademark of the U.S. Forest Service. If no stay is forthcoming, I would personally prefer lethal injection. If nothing else, I would hope the Forest Service and the Federal Government would look at small business with the realization that some of their oversights and the intended and unintended consequences of their actions are destroying us one by one. If nothing is done to advance our cause, it should be noted that some day this country will desperately need us, but we will not be here. Thank you. Senator Enzi. Thank you very much. [A subsequent submission for the record from Mr. Hurst follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.019 Mr. Enzi. Mr. Bousman. STATEMENT OF JOEL E. BOUSMAN, CATTLE RANCHER, BOULDER, WYOMING, AND REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, WYOMING STOCKGROWERS ASSOCIATION, CASPER, WYOMING Mr. Bousman. Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, my name is Joel Bousman and I am a cattle rancher and regional vice president of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association. My wife, Susan, and I, along with our son, Jim, and his wife and daughter, and our son, Cotton, operate a cattle ranch in western Wyoming. My sons are the fifth generation of our family in the ranching business in Sublette County. Our cattle ranch is an independently owned and operated small family business. After college I returned home to Boulder, Wyoming, and I bought 1,600 acres and the Federal grazing permits from my father. My wife and I did the work and we started to build both our family and our family ranch. In the summers we packed up the kids, the tent and the lunch cooler and we all headed to work in the hayfields for the day. To make ends meet, we worked the ranch together as a family. My children recognize that our family ranch is a real business opportunity with high-stake risks. The Federal Government could put us out of business with nothing more than the stroke of a pen. Grazing on Forest Service land is critical to my operation. If you will refer to the map up here, please, that is a map of Sublette County in western Wyoming. (See Page 40.) Jackson Hole is just to the northwest. Sublette County is about the size of the State of Connecticut. Both shades of the green on the map are Forest Service land. Yellow is administered by the Bureau of Land Management, blue, the State of Wyoming, and the small amount of white you see in the river corridors is the private land in Sublette County. Sublette County is only 20-percent private property. Livestock are on the private land during the winter and the spring until the new grass begins to grow. The ranchers, with BLM permits, pasture their cattle on the BLM land through June. Meanwhile, on all the privately-owned land, the irrigated hay land, the crops are being grown for the hay that is to be needed to get through the next winter. When the Forest Service range is ready for grazing in July, livestock are then herded into the higher mountain pastures until early fall. Two hundred and thirty-eight head of our 350 mother cows graze a common Forest Service allotment from July 1 till September 15. If our ranch loses our forest permit we would have the option to downsize our ranch or try to find other grazing land. If we downsize our small business, we would not be economically feasible and my sons would be unable to join me in my business. Purchasing private pasture in this case is not a realistic option because if you can see on the map, there is so little private land available in the county where I live. Another option would be for me to sell out to the highest bidder, likely a subdivision developer. Our land is at the foot of the Rocky Mountains and some of my neighbors have already chosen this option. I could sell and try to move elsewhere to ranch or just retire. I would have to give up my home in Boulder and the family business I have created, and I would sacrifice my hope and my dream to pass my family ranch on to my children. The threat to my grazing permit is not due to negative range conditions. I use scientific range monitoring. These lands are in good condition. Rather, the threat is from Federal regulations. The Forest Service often ignores the mandates from Congress to manage for balanced multiple use. Some of the nongrazing regulations that are harmful to our business include the endangered species regulations, the roadless initiative and Forest Service road policy and the Forest Service planning process itself. For example, 3 years ago on our ranch's grazing allotment the Wyoming Game and Fish and the Forest Service tried to restrict grazing. Their plan was to reduce livestock grazing while placing Colorado cutthroat trout in an intermittent stream. We were forced to spend a great deal of time and effort with scientific experts and fish biologists. Since the stream was intermittent, it had no water in it part of the year. The scientific experts finally convinced the fish biologists that fish cannot live without water. Can you imagine that? The time, energy and expense required to stay informed and respond to so many regulations and proposals hurts my ability to improve my operation. In the last year I estimate I have spent 15 working days and $1,700 responding to regulations. What difference does it make if increased regulations force me out of business? Critics of Federal lands livestock grazing fail to mention how important private lands are for wildlife. Like livestock, the majority of wildlife survive the winter on private lands. Ranchers provide winter forage, water and shelter for wildlife. Almost 100 percent of Wyoming moose make their winter home on private land. When a ranch is forced out of business there is a public cost, a public loss. For discussion purposes, let us look at a conservation easement that mandates no development. In Sublette County, a conservation easement attached to a ranch will reduce the market value by 40 to 50 percent. The open space and the wildlife habitat--in other words, the public value--would then be contained in the remaining 50 to 60 percent of the value of the ranch. Six years ago my son Cotton, then 14 years old, came here to Washington, D.C., to participate in a town meeting with President Clinton. Cotton talked about the importance of Federal grazing lands and the increasing costs imposed by government regulations and specifically the nonfee costs. Now, 6 years later, I am here testifying before this Committee about the impact of Forest Service regulations that still are threatening to take away both his dream and my hopes. Members of this Committee, I can assure you this situation has not improved in the last 6 years. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bousman follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.029 Senator Enzi. Thank you. Our next person to testify is Mr. Tinsley. STATEMENT OF DEL TINSLEY, OWNER/PUBLISHER, WYOMING LIVESTOCK ROUNDUP, CASPER, WYOMING, AND MEMBER, ADVISORY BOARD, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, LARAMIE, WYOMING Mr. Tinsley. Good morning. I want to thank this Committee for the opportunity to testify and represent the great State of Wyoming. I am a Wyoming small businessman. Wyoming is where I raised my three children and where I have been self-employed for the past 25 years. I am a publisher of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup located in Casper. Our subscription base is 85 percent of the people engaged in agriculture in Wyoming. The message I need to communicate to this Committee today is simple: The State of Wyoming is under attack by the Federal Government. This heavy-handed, regulations-laden government is distorting our wildlife habitat, our open spaces, threatening our culture and forcing our second-, third-, and fourth- generation ranchers out of business. Virtually all of Wyoming is small business, including ranches. This is why it is so important to tell our story to this Committee. The Federal Government owns more than 50 percent of the State of Wyoming, as you can see on the map. [The map follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.030 Mr. Tinsley. Notice the different colors. The colors indicate the land ownership, including the Federal Government, State and private individually-owned land. The purple represents the National Parks, Yellowstone and Teton, and so forth. The green represents the National Forest. As you can see, we have five National Forests, I believe, in the State of Wyoming. The yellow represents the BLM, and the blue represents the State of Wyoming-owned land, like our school sections and we have a land trust in Wyoming. Orange represents the Wind River Indian Reservation, and the white represents deeded private property. If you look at the map closely you can see that the western part of the State, in my estimation, is more than 85 percent federally-owned. Well, let me explain the ownership of Wyoming and why it became the way it is. Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s during the Homestead Act, virtually everything on this map that is designated white and yellow was available for homesteading. Homesteaders could claim up to 640 acres. It started at 120 and moved up to 360 and now it is 640 acres because it is getting more arid the further west we go in our development of this great country. They had to live on the 640 acres for 1 year. One of the conditions was they had to have a wooden floor in their cabin to what they call ``prove-up'' or to get legal title to the property. But as arid as it is and with water as precious as gold, homesteaders chose to prove-up on lands with live water. If you can imagine bringing your family out West and as arid as Wyoming is, if you look at the drainages in Wyoming you can see that our deeded land is virtually our river bottoms and our creek flows and that sort of thing. In later years ranchers started accumulating these homesteads and assembling ranches. During that same period the Forest Service started issuing grazing permits on the forest, making these units balanced. They summered on the forest; they wintered on their deeded land. Today these second-, third-, and fourth-generation ranchers and families are being forced to reduce the number of livestock they can graze on the forests. That, coupled with the high cost of operation, is forcing these stewards of the land out of business. This, in turn, is leaving the deeded base ranch on the river bottoms vulnerable--which is very, very good wildlife habitat--vulnerable to subdivisions. As I mentioned earlier, these are prime wildlife habitat lands. These base operations are also very attractive to the developers because of the beautiful scenery, abundance of wildlife along the creek bottoms, and access to the National Forest. As a result of these developments, critical habitat is being lost and destroyed forever. The destruction is the exact opposite of what the Forest Service say they are accomplishing by putting ranchers out of business. The poster to my left depicts what used to be a ranch. [The poster follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.031 Mr. Tinsley. The Lathrop Ranch featured about 10,000 acres of open space and critical wildlife habitat. This is the deeded land on this ranch. You can see the mountains in the background. That is where the cattle used to summer. This is critical wildlife habitat that once served as home to wintering cattle, elk, deer, antelope and other wildlife. It is now a subdivision. The people living in the subdivision are now complaining that the displaced wildlife is eating their shrubbery and there are problems. My wife and I go out and walk early in the mornings and we see deer on people's lawns chewing up their vegetation. Well, this was their winter home. The people displaced the wildlife. The people of Wyoming lose a way of life, a culture, when this is done. But everyone in our Nation loses the magnificent scenery and wildlife habitat that are provided by those ranching families that we are losing. Keeping the Federal land ownership in mind and coupling it with the fact that Wyoming's population is only 480,000, we soon realize that any change in the use dictated by the Forest Service guidelines dramatically impacts every man, woman, and child in Wyoming. In all 23 counties in Wyoming, there are people living there that have forest permits, including Gosham County, which is in eastern Wyoming on the Nebraska line. There are seven forest permit-holders there. The people of our State depend upon production agriculture and the use of renewable resources-- grazing, timber, minerals, wildlife, and open spaces. Forest Service policies that destroy the habitat and the landscapes by replacing ranchers with developments cripple both Wyoming and America. It was interesting yesterday morning when I picked up our local statewide paper that the Wyoming News Service did a survey and they asked people in Wyoming, ``What would you ask at the debate tonight?'' Overwhelmingly the people from Wyoming said we would ask, ``Why is our Federal Government shutting down our forests?'' Its affect is overwhelming. And I am not talking about people in agriculture; I am talking about people on the main streets of Wyoming. I would like to see this Senate set up a revenue impact study. Instead of an environmental impact study, let us study the revenue and what it is going to cost us to implement all of these regulations and the impact it is going to have on rural Wyoming. I want to talk just a minute about Yellowstone Park, if you will, please. Four years ago we went on a pack trip and we went through the southern part of Yellowstone Park. We went in the South Gate and made the loop opposite of the way the highway goes through. We rode through the burned areas with 1-million acres of the 3-million acres in Yellowstone National Park that were burned. Today the Canadian thistle, which is a noxious weed, has grown so thick in that country that you cannot ride a horse through it. This is what is happening. They will not spray it; they will not take care of it; but yet they let it burn and it has just done tremendous damage to our economy. It is a very serious situation. I want to conclude by thanking you for this opportunity to testify. I will be real happy to answer any questions that you may have. I would like to submit some other material with my testimony if I could, please. Senator Enzi. We will accept anything for the record that you want to add to your testimony. We appreciate the additional information and we will make sure that Members of the Committee have it, too. [The prepared statement and attachment of Mr. Tinsley follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.136 Senator Enzi. Mr. Bukowsky. STATEMENT OF AL BUKOWSKY, OWNER/OPERATOR, SOLITUDE RIVER TRIPS, SALMON, IDAHO Mr. Bukowsky. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the Committee. The management of Federal forest lands and forest uses is undoubtedly the single most significant factor in the economies of the rural communities in which my family and our employees live, so we are particularly grateful that congressional attention is being focussed on our relationship with the Forest Service. My name is Al Bukowsky. Along with my wife Jeana, we own and operate Solitude River Trips, a small outfitting and guiding business that has operated since the mid-1970s on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. I personally guide on all of our river trips, so you are listening not only to a businessman but a person who is directly in the field every river trip day. Mostly we have a good working relationship with the Forest Service. At other times they seem to ignore our input, as the following examples will illustrate. Outfitters met regularly with the Forest Service for several years leading up to the release of the draft environmental impact statement for the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in 1998. We were regularly assured that the resource was in better shape than when the Wilderness was designated in 1980. With minor tweaking in management, the Middle Fork could be expected to remain in great shape for the foreseeable future. We should expect only minor changes in management through the DEIS. In January 1998 the DEIS hit the streets and what a bombshell. The preferred alternative called for a 50-percent cut in river use, guided and nonguided. The preferred alternative recommended that a large portion of summer use be shifted to winter use, telling us that the Forest Service personnel obviously had no understanding of our business operations, let alone Idaho's weather. As you can see by the chart, they wanted to shift the peak use in the summer to the shoulder seasons, which in the Frank Church, the river is froze over and under several feet of snow. [The graph follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.137 Senator Enzi. Figures. Mr. Bukowsky. Private and commercial users in the Frank screamed loudly. The Forest Service backed down, acknowledging publicly that they had spent $1 million on a DEIS that was seriously flawed. Forest Service staffers with a purist bent toward wilderness river use had misinterpreted their own sociological data in writing the DEIS. Outfitters had no alternative but to raise over $50,000 and spend countless hours of our time and many sleepless nights in order to deal with the inaccuracies in this dishonest document. To their credit, the Forest supervisors, especially George Matejko and Dave Alexander, became actively involved and worked closely with all users in a supplemental EIS process. The record of decision will be out sometime next year. Only then will we know if the Forest Service has really been up front and honest in their dealings with us. Outfitters on the Middle Fork tend to pinpoint the last decade as a turning point when the long history of good relations with the Forest Service began to disintegrate into a rockier road. For example, on April 9, 1997, we had an emergency meeting with the Middle Fork river managers. They told us that sensitive Native American sites along the Middle Fork were showing signs of abuse and would be closed to camping if our care for these sites did not improve in the coming season. These are prime camping sites for us, clustered closely together along a specific stretch of the Middle Fork. Closure would mean long days on the river without hope of a campsite for our guests, which naturally could lead to a serious safety issue. On June 12, 1997, barely 2 months later, outfitters showed up on the Middle Fork to launch their first trips of the float season. They were met at the launch site with paperwork from the same district ranger who had been at the April meeting, ordering that all 10 of the campsites were now closed to camping, as you can see by the letter signed by the district ranger. Outfitters immediately insisted upon a joint field trip. After much work and public involvement during the height of our operating season, the Forest Service finally agreed to a mitigation plan and reopened most of these campsites. The kicker in this story is that the campsite closure order given outfitters as they launched their first trips in June had been signed by the district ranger on April 1, 1997, 8 days before our emergency meeting with the outfitters he called together on April 9. What possible motive could the agency have had in hiding a decision already made 2 months earlier? Why in the meantime were we led through the charade of thinking outfitters and other boaters would be part of the decisionmaking process? [Form R4-2300-4 follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.138 Mr. Bukowsky. There are also examples, however, of success in turning things around, in this instance in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in central Idaho. Just 3 years ago the Upper Main Salmon River resource managers and outfitters were on extremely divergent roads relative to common sense management of that section of the river. To protect spawning Chinook salmon, the river was abruptly closed to float boaters each August, often with less than 12 hours notice. Lawsuits were filed. Communications between the outfitters and the Forest Service became nonexistent. Thanks to the constructive attitudes of two new rangers on the SNRA staff, outfitters and the Forest Service are once again working hand in hand. Communication and understanding there could not be better. Communication and collaboration is the key. Unfortunately, abrupt management style has become typical behavior for many within the agency. Because the special use permit conveys a privilege, not a right to operate, outfitters have little or no defense against sudden changes in the rules. A permit is not a contract and the sudden loss of privileges previously agreed upon between the agency and an outfitter is not compensable nor necessarily negotiable. Senator Craig recently reported legislation from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that goes a long way toward providing a stable regulatory climate for the outfitting industry. S. 1969 seeks to create a statute from existing Forest Service outfitter and guide regulations that have worked well until recently. This legislation would put a stop to the agency's manipulation of outfitter rules into a moving target. Overall, the Forest Service is desperate for money and staff and the new cost recovery program for commercial outfitters is one of several new sources of agency revenue that threatens outfitters. Cost recovery, as proposed earlier this year, promises additional financial burdens that may break the back of outfitters and other small business operations on forest lands. In Idaho, cost recovery has already been proposed on the Upper Main Salmon River where outfitters and private boaters need a new take-out site in the effort to protect summer Chinook on their traditional spawning grounds. The Forest Service told us that all costs for NEPA analysis related to this new take-out would be charged exclusively to the four small float businesses that operate the Upper Salmon, despite the fact that many nonguided floaters enjoy the same stretch of river and would share the facility. Total cost for this NEPA work is estimated at $132,000, a $33,000 hit on each of these four outfitters and no hit on private boaters, which perfectly illustrates outfitter concerns about implementation of national cost recovery rules proposed earlier this year. The real kicker in the national cost recovery rule is the requirement that all fees be paid up front even prior to the resolution of a dispute or the permit will not be processed and you are out of business. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize to the Committee that outfitters fear they are seeing encouragement within the Forest Service of prejudice against commercial operations on forest land. Over 32 percent of the land in this country is owned by the Government. In recognition of this, agencies like the Forest Service must adhere to policies that sustain private sector businesses offering quality services to forest visitors, taxpaying businesses that are critical to the economies of local and regional communities. When Congress returns home at the end of this session, I hope that your Committee Members will repeat the theme of today's hearings in a series of town meetings throughout the State this winter. I know you will have participation from various outfitters and guide organizations. It was not so long ago that outfitters and guides were proud of their partnership with the Forest Service. We continue to be proud of the job we do together to protect the land and serve the public. Locally, it depends upon open communication and mutual respect. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that your hearing today will be an important step toward putting the outfitters and other user groups, the Forest Service and the communities they serve back on this positive collaborative path. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bukowsky follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.148 Senator Enzi. Thank you. This testimony has been outstanding and very helpful. Senator Burns has some appropriations meetings, which is a key thing. We are in the process of spending $1.8 trillion and he needs to go do some specific work on that, so we will defer to him for questions first. Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very, very short. I want to ask a couple of questions. By the way, I want Mr. Bousman to know that during the fires in western Montana I was down in the Big Hole, and you are familiar with Wisdom and through that country, and I was talking to the ranchers down there. We had a visit from the Rainbow family on the Forest Service land out there this year and there are about 20,000 of them, they figure, but they just flock everywhere. We got to go up and look at a couple of pastures, a couple of meadows that they just trashed. These people, 20,000 of them, had no permit to be there, none. They just flock in there and they destroy. You ought to see these meadows. I mean they are terrible. And when you compare them to a year ago, pictures taken, it was something. I asked the forest supervisor about that and why we have to jump through all the hoops for permits and then these people can come in and trash an area, leaving big rocks in the road so that you cannot get in and out, and they said they cannot get those people off of there. So there is a double standard here and we want to do away with that double standard if we possibly can. Mr. Hurst, we know that the Forest Service also has to adhere to some laws of the land--clean water, clear air, NEPA-- all of these laws that have been passed by this Congress. If there was one--if you could put your finger on one thing that would facilitate and bring some collaboration and communication between the Forest Service and your company and the management of those resources, what would it be? What would you advise us to change now that would facilitate both protecting the forest and making sure that we have a forest there for our children and our grandchildren? Mr. Hurst. It would probably be the Endangered Species Act. And I realize that is probably too much to bite off but what we need is more local control, more input and some trust in the folks at the local level that are making the decisions. Now we have purchased fire killed timber 500 miles north in the province of Alberta. I think it is the first time that government wood was ever exported to the United States from Alberta. The reason we did that is because we could not wood our mill from U.S. Forest Service timber because of the decline in timber sales from that agency. What I found is that the people in Alberta are closer to that resource. In other words, the province has control of the timber. As a result, they have a healthy economy. They harvest the timber, in this case burnt timber, in a timely fashion so that they can take the revenue from that harvested timber and reinvest it back into the ground in the form of reseeding or restoration. In the United States we do not do that. We do everything we can to keep resource workers unemployed, it appears, and we are not making the local decisions that we should, and that is why I talked about trust. And people, as you all know, out West we are not going to trash our own backyards, especially the folks that live there and have lived there. That is ridiculous. So I would guess something has to be done with the Endangered Species Act. We have got to speed up this appeals process and we have to have more trust in locals. That is not one thing; it's three things; I realize that. But if we can get more control back to the local land managers to make the decisions, that would greatly help our industry and our communities. Senator Burns. I want to ask the grazers, also. Mr. Bousman, what would you ask us to change to facilitate maybe cooperation between the agency and the grazers and to make sure that we can manage that resource? Mr. Bousman. Well, Senator, I think one of the concerns that has the most impact on our type of operation is the fact that too often decisions are made that do not have the scientific justification to make them. In that kind of a case I think if there was one thing that this Congress could do that would help the people on the land more than anything else, it would be to put the burden of proof on the Government. Before they could make a decision they should know that that decision is in the best interest of the resource and the best interest of the environment. Instead of doing that, they are making these decisions based on what is politically correct, not what is best for the land. Senator Burns. Anyone else want to comment on that question? Mr. Tinsley. Yes, I would, Senator Burns. If you talk to a lot of these retired forest people that are on the ground in Wyoming, they say the best years of the National Forests in this country were when it was managed from the bottom up rather than from the top down. That was when we had the best use and the healthiest forest. Senator Burns. If we expanded the SBREFA to include the Forest Service, would that help? That is the accountability, you know. It makes them accountable on all the decisions they make. Mr. Hurst. I think they should be. I mean they are directly affecting the lives of a broad spectrum of Westerners. They should be held accountable. Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for letting me move up in the questioning. I want to thank our witnesses for coming this morning because they bring a lot of expertise to the table and we need that in this town. I call this town 17-square miles of logic- free environment, so you bring a little common sense here, so your voice may sound a little strange. Senator Enzi. I again want to thank all of you for---- Senator Burns. And you can have my log. Senator Enzi. Thank you. We will need that. Mr. Tinsley, you mentioned having hearings in our State and we do that through town meetings and all sorts of different ways. What has been so important for your effort today is that you are bringing a local perspective to the national level. When we talk to the folks in Wyoming, they understand the changes that are being made, but the folks back here have a little different atmosphere to live in. They have already eliminated most of the Federal land that they can wander around on and places that they can get away from the traffic and everything. So we have a lot of trouble educating Easterners on what it is like in the West. Your pictures and your maps and your letters have been extremely helpful today. Mr. Bukowsky, you are performing part of this tremendous effort because you are taking the people from back here and you are actually letting them see the area that they worked so hard to set aside, to make sure that it would be in a pristine State, and you are as interested in keeping it in that pristine State so we will be interested in coming to see it. It is kind of an oddity that we have the people out here thinking that the people out there would be interested in ruining their jobs. Mr. Hurst, we have the sawmills in Wyoming that have gone out of business. They are small businesses compared to the national standard, of course. They are very big businesses in the communities they are in and they just literally devastate the community when they go out of business. We are talking about healthy forests now, and that is an acceptable phrase throughout the United States. Everybody wants healthy forests. When I was with Senator Burns in Montana we did this hearing and one lady stated that she and her husband own a logging company in Montana and she is the accountant and runs the skidder, sometimes the chipper. That is how small business is. You have to do all of the jobs that are there. She is a little upset that they keep talking about in healthy forests having to grub out this underbrush that is not commercially usable and the dead tinder that there is in the forests. So she brought us that little log to show us what some of this undergrowth is, and it is commercially loggable. It would make a lot of boards for a lot of homes. And if you turn it into boards, it preserves the carbon dioxide that it has been capturing for probably 50 years permanently. If it falls over in the woods and disintegrates, that carbon dioxide goes back up in the atmosphere again and that is what we are blaming global warming for. So we understand the plight and appreciate the perspective that you have brought of how devastating that is. One of the reasons we are kind of hurrying here is that the Minority has objected to holding hearings over 2 hours. It is a constant protest that they have had for the last couple of weeks. So it is going to limit our hearing today. We are going to have to try to shove everything within 2 hours. We will keep the record open for 2 weeks. Other Members of the Committee may send you some additional questions so that we can get your responses in the printed record. Mr. Tinsley, I have to specifically ask you a question because I know you have a unique perspective on the impact of forest policies because you deal with paper products when you are putting out your newspaper. Can you tell us a little bit about some of the effects of Forest Service policies on paper production? Mr. Tinsley. Thank you, Senator. That is a good question and it is a good point that I would like to make. I think that the newspaper pulp industry in Canada learned a good lesson from OPEC this summer. They shut down the production of newsprint for about 3 weeks, shut it not completely down but they slowed it down about 20 percent, raised their prices by 20 percent and found out just how dang much control they have over the newspaper print industry in America. They liked what they saw, just like OPEC liked what they saw when they shut the oil flow down. Consequently, we had to go out and buy inferior paper from Mexico. I am not saying that to run down Mexico, but it just is not the quality of paper that we can get out of Canada and what is made here in America. It was pretty devastating and it was scary. I mean they could put us out of business in a heartbeat. Senator Enzi. So if we are not looking at multiple use we could be looking at--if we are happy with our gas prices now, we will really be happy with our newsprint prices, huh? Mr. Tinsley. Yes. Senator Enzi. Thank you. Mr. Bousman, you mentioned that your son, Cotton, came back to Washington and had the chance to ask the President a question. I am interested in what the response was to that question on grazing fees and also what your son thinks are his possibilities for being able to maintain the way of life, the open space and the future as he has envisioned it. Mr. Bousman. Senator, as far as the question, my son was fortunate enough to get to ask the President if he understood the interrelationship between the nonfee costs associated with grazing on public lands. The President indicated that he did not understand that. I cannot say as anything has changed except not just within the Forest Service but within all the Federal agencies that people in rural areas in our country have to deal with--the Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, BLM regulations, Forest Service regulations--they have all increased since that time. I would have to say, in fairness to the President, the grazing fee formula itself is still the same as it was 6 years ago. Other than that, everything has gotten worse. Not only my son, Cotton, but my other son, I am fortunate that both my boys would love to continue in the ranching business. I do not know how to explain it. It is something they have in their blood. People in our business can understand that. But the sum total of all these regulations--Forest Service is one example and probably the most glaring example but the Department of the Interior regulations, Fish and Wildlife regulations, Endangered Species, the roadless initiative have the impact of severely affecting our ability to continue. And, as I pointed out, the situation we are in, especially in western Wyoming, our options are limited. If I was to guess the way it appears that we are headed in the last years in the regulation from Washington, it is very discouraging, to say the least. Senator Enzi. Thank you. One final and what I think will be a quick question. Mr. Hurst, you stated that some day this country will need you but you will not be there. What did you mean by that? Mr. Hurst. Well, let us take the fires, this past summer, for example. Who were the movers and shakers on those fires? The loggers that had the equipment and the know-how to make the fire lines. That is one way. When we are gone, our loggers go with us. So when it comes to fighting the fires the next time, you know, it is not going to be as easy to put them out, and it was not easy this year at all. We are a small business and when you take a small business out of a community, for instance ours, who is going to go to that 4H livestock auction? We are having a hell of a poor year financially but we bought five beef and three pigs. Who is going to give the high school scholarships? The Sierra Club? The Wilderness Society? We have not seen one yet. Those are the kinds of things that will disappear when we do. It should also be noted that we will not turn the switch off because our corporate headquarters are in Stamford, Connecticut, or Seattle, Washington, with no direct contact to the communities. I have to look the people on Main Street in the eye, as these folks do, and we are going to take it that extra step to try to stay in business. That is why I am here. I can guarantee you there are one hell of a lot of things I would rather do than be in Washington, D.C. right now, but I owe it to my community, and I owe it to my employees to be here, so that if I have to turn that key off, I can at least look myself in the mirror and say, ``Goddang it, you gave it a try, Jim.'' Those are the things that you are going to miss. And I can guarantee you when the Coloradans and the Californians come out to Montana because it is quaint and they kind of like to rub elbows with those ranchers and loggers, all they are going to find is ex-Californians and Coloradans. So big deal. Senator Enzi. Once again if you like the price of gasoline, you are going to love the price of lumber. Senator Crapo. Senator Crapo. You might find some Canadian thistle, too. It is very notable to me that on the panel we have before us we have different industries represented. We have timber, grazing, outfitters and guides, and each industry is telling the same story. Mr. Hurst, I am not going to ask you a question but I just want to give you a little story of my own about the timber industry. We have a small community in Idaho in Lemhi County called Salmon, Idaho. There are about 10,000 people who live in the entire county and the county is probably the size of one of the northeastern States. About 70, 80, maybe even 90-percent plus of that county is federally- or state-owned. They had a little timber mill about 6 years ago in this county. I think it employed about 40 people. I went there as a Congressman and toured the mill. They were being threatened with not being able to get timber to cut. I asked them, as I toured the mill, how many board feet of timber they needed to be able to cut in this forest which they live right in the middle of and they gave me a number. I do not remember the number right now but they gave me a number that would keep these 40 people employed. Then that same day I went to the Forest Service and met with them and they talked to me about the forest management policies and their projections and they told me that in this forest, because of the climate and everything else, it took about 200 years for a tree to mature to where it could be harvested and they wanted to actually go to a 220-year cycle to harvest the trees to have a margin of error. I thought wow, 220 years, there is probably not much timber that can be harvested out of this forest. But I asked them. I said, OK, if you accept your approach, how much timber would be able to be harvested in this forest if you kept the forest viable and healthy and only harvested on a 220-year basis? They gave me a number that was 10 times what the little mill in the community needed. That little lumber mill is closed because they could not get enough to keep it open, when even on a very conservative estimate, they could have had 10 times in their local forest what they needed to harvest. That is the kind of thing I think we are talking about. I want to ask each of you, and I do not know that you all need to answer this question, but I would like to ask if any of you disagree with this statement. I have held a lot of hearings on this type of issue in Idaho in one way or another, whether they be town meetings or hearings or whatever, about the issue of whether we can have a viable, healthy natural resource-based economy and still protect the environment and have a strong, healthy, sustainable environment. And for people who do not live in these areas, the first question they are often faced with or that those who oppose access to the forests often raise is well, you are going to have to destroy the environment to allow these small businesses to thrive. Well, the people who live in Idaho want to have our forests be healthy and they want them there for their children and their grandchildren to recreate in and to enjoy for the quality of life and to have an economy, jobs, and the families that depend on those jobs. And I think that is doable. I would ask if any of you would like to make a quick comment because I have a couple of other questions about whether you think there is an inherent inability to maintain strong, viable forests and still have healthy small businesses in those forests. Mr. Bousman. Senator Crapo, I would like to comment along those lines that I do not believe there is any one of us sitting here at this table that do not realize that it is in our own best interest, as natural resource users, to make decisions which are in the long-term best interest of the environment and the natural resource. If we did not realize that, we would be ultimately putting ourselves out of business. Senator Crapo. What would you be doing to your son's future if you destroy the very environment you live in? Mr. Bousman. That is right. I would be destroying the future of the ability to pass these businesses down to the next generation. Senator Crapo. The yellow light just came on so I am going to ask each of the rest of you to just indicate whether you agree with that proposition. Mr. Tinsley. Yes. Mr. Bukowsky. Yes. Mr. Hurst. Wholeheartedly. Senator Crapo. Let me, in the last minute or so that I have, go to another issue that is very important to me. As we talk about different problems here, it seems to me that NEPA compliance, which you are all very familiar with, I think probably painfully familiar with, needs reform in the Federal system. The reason I say that is because each of you in one way or another has talked about the need for true collaborative decisionmaking as we approach these policy decisions. Mr. Bukowsky, you had actually mentioned that when it has worked, it has worked pretty well for you in your industry, and when it breaks down is when you really run into these problems. The question I have is, I think that true collaboration is more than just having an opportunity to comment and then often coming to us and asking to extend the comment period because you do not have time to comment, and more than just the opportunity to go to public hearings. Hearings and opportunities to comment are a form of public participation but to me, it is not collaboration. I think that we need true collaboration, meaning that the NEPA process should involve the local community, the small businesses in the community, and other interests--the environmental community, those who are concerned about all different aspects of the problem sitting down at a table and working through the best way to find common ground and achieve the multiple objectives that we have for forest management. Would any of you care to comment on that quickly? Mr. Tinsley. Yes, I would, Senator. Talking about the comments, I would like to make a comment about the comments. We do not get any opportunity to comment on how the forest and how the public land is used in eastern America. We would not comment. But the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that a comment coming from Atlanta, Georgia, on how we use our forest in Wyoming has just as much weight placed on it as does a comment coming from Joel Bousman, whose life is going to be ruined by the decision on how to use the forest. Senator Crapo. Good point. Mr. Tinsley. That really bothers me. Senator Crapo. Mr. Bukowsky, did you want to say anything? Mr. Bukowsky. The problem with NEPA is they hold all these town hall meetings and get all your input, and you think it will come out as part of that decision. But there is nothing in NEPA that says that once they have these town hall meetings and they take all this input that they have to use that input. What I have found out lots of times is that you spend years at all these meetings giving them input and then they end up not even using any of it, and the people that are giving the input have far more experience in the field than anyone in the Government. Senator Crapo. Thank you. I would love to go on with this with each of you but my time has expired and we are under a deadline here. We need to get the next panel up here so that we do not have to shut down before they have their chance. Thank you very much. Senator Enzi. I would again reiterate that the record will be open for another 2 weeks, so if you have additional material that you think would be helpful to us, we would appreciate that. And if Members of the Committee have additional questions, they will be sending those. If our next panel would take their places? We have some expertise now coming from Mr. Larry W. Van Tassell, professor and head, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology from the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho and we have William McKillop, professor emeritus, the College of Natural Resources from the University of California-Berkeley in Berkeley, California. We appreciate your being here today. Mr. Van Tassell. STATEMENT OF LARRY W. VAN TASSELL, PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO, MOSCOW, IDAHO Mr. Van Tassell. Thank you, Senator Enzi. I would like to thank you for being able to visit with you today. As has been said, I am a professor and department head at the University of Idaho and only 11 months removed from the University of Wyoming. My intent today is to discuss with you how decisions made by the Forest Service impact Federal land ranchers. The decisions I will focus on deal with the number of animals that are allowed to graze or the amount of time they are allowed to spend on a Forest Service allotment. In the 1990s I was part of a study to examine the profitability of a ``representative'' ranching operation after it adjusted to a reduction in Federal AUMs. An AUM can be thought of as one cow grazing on the forest for 1 month. A mathematical model of a representative 300-cow ranch was developed using input from ranchers who run cattle on the Big Horn National Forest in Wyoming. The model was allowed to adjust cattle numbers and to convert hayland to pasture as Federal AUMs were reduced. The results of the study are presented in this table. As total Forest Service AUMs were reduced 25, 50 and 100 percent, numbers of cows were reduced from 300 head to 267, 221 and 164, respectively. These reductions translated into a decline in average annual net cash income of over $11,000, $15,000 and $52,000, respectively. The ending ranch equity dropped from the original 88 to 80 percent, 78 percent and 33 percent, respectively, under the 25-, 50- and 100-percent ranch reduction scenarios. The probability of receiving a negative cash flow increased from 4 percent under the no reduction scenario to 13, 18 and 100 percent as AUMs were progressively reduced. A 36-percent reduction in required labor resulted when all permits were removed. [The table follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.149 Mr. Van Tassell. Not only does a reduction in Forest Service AUMs reduce the income of individual ranchers but the rural communities are also impacted. Dr. Robert Fletcher took the results from our study and examined the impact the reduction in total AUMs of grazing allotted to cattle on the Big Horn National Forest would have on the surrounding four- county area. He found that a 25-percent reduction in grazing would reduce yearly economic activity in the four-county area by $1.68 million per year, of which $441,000 would be personal income for local residents. The communities would lose over 31 full-time equivalent jobs. Similar results have been found by other researchers. For example, Dr. Neil Rimbey found that, in Idaho, the yearly loss in rancher net income from a proposed reduction of 6,000 AUMs on the Sawtooth National Forest was over $90,000 per year. Another impact on ranchers from a reduction in Federal grazing is the loss of value in the permit they have purchased. When the U.S. Forest Service permanently cuts grazing rights, ranchers lose the equity they have in those permits. Over the 1985 to 1992 study period, average permit values were generally in the $40 to $60 per AUM range for northern States, such as Wyoming and Idaho, where seasonal grazing is common and $90 or above per AUM for Arizona and New Mexico, where year-long grazing is common. A rancher that runs 300 head of cows on the Forest Service for 3 months of the year stands to lose approximately $18,000 in equity if he or she receives a 50-percent reduction in the AUMs they are allowed to graze. The last thing I would like to mention is the trade-off between wildlife and livestock. I have heard many times that livestock need to be removed from the Forest Service lands to increase wildlife. In most areas, wildlife do not winter on the Forest Service lands but on private lands. When livestock are removed from the Federal lands, every AUM on private land becomes that much more essential to the survival of the ranch. This additional pressure does not make for a generous landowner when it comes to allowing wildlife to winter on private property. A recent study I did of Wyoming ranchers found that the average operation lost over $4,000 per year from wildlife depredation. Landowner tolerance, not habitat, is probably the limiting factor that imposes population bounds on big game. I believe that it is in the best interest of society for the Forest Service and ranching community to work together to keep livestock on public lands. In many areas of the West I feel this is happening. More damage will be done to public lands if ranchers are forced to sell to real estate developers than was ever imaginable with livestock. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Van Tassell follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.154 Senator Enzi. Thank you very much. Mr. McKillop. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM McKILLOP, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA Mr. McKillop. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William McKillop. I am professor emeritus of forest economics at the University of California-Berkeley. My degrees are in economics, statistics, and forest science. I have authored over 100 research publications and conference papers in the area of forestry and natural resource economics. My statement today is based on my own experience and research, and on data provided to me by a range of organizations, such as the Small Business Timber Council, the Independent Forest Products Association, California Forestry Association, and Intermountain Forest Association and Northwest Forestry Association. My Exhibit 1 shows the very severe decline that has taken place in U.S. Forest Service sawtimber sales in the past decade. In 1988 the total volume sold was 8.4 billion board feet. In 1998 it was only 1.9 billion board feet. That is a 6.5 billion board feet decline, a 77-percent decline in sawtimber sales from the National Forests. In 1988, small business purchased 5.3 billion. That is 63 percent of the total. And in 1998 they were able to purchase only 1.7 billion board feet. [The chart follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.155 Mr. McKillop. These severe declines have had absolutely traumatic effects on the forest industry, on small timber companies, on working people and communities in the West. In the five-State region of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho and Montana, there were 494 sawmills in 1989; now there are only 265 sawmills. There were 86 plywood plants; now there are only 48. There were 72 veneer plants in operation in 1989 and now there are only 31 veneer plants in operation. The severity of this impact is totally unprecedented. Exhibit 2 shows that the burden of sawmill closures has been disproportionately borne by small businesses. The red, the dark color, represents the proportion of small businesses that have closed. You see that 62 percent of the sawmills that closed were small businesses in Oregon; in California, 55 percent of them; in Washington, 70 percent of them; in Idaho, 71 percent; and in Montana, 75 percent of the sawmill closures were small businesses. For the five-State region, the total number of mills that have closed has been 250 and of those, 64 percent were small businesses. And that is sawmills. [The chart follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.156 Mr. McKillop. Plywood plant closures--60 percent out of 30 closures in Oregon were small business; 88 percent in Washington were small businesses. In the case of veneer plants, 60 percent in Oregon were small businesses; 80 percent in Washington were small businesses. So there has been very much a disproportionate impact on small businesses of this huge decline in the Forest Service timber sales. Associated with these sawmill closures have been very, very large job losses. The job losses that have resulted from the closure of small wood processing plants were 57 percent of the total in Washington, 44 percent of the jobs lost in Oregon, 40 percent of the jobs lost in California, 35 percent of them lost in Idaho, and 59 percent of them lost in Montana. Overall there were something like 27,600 jobs lost in wood processing plants in the last decade and of those, 46 percent were resulting from the closure of small businesses. [The chart follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.157 Mr. McKillop. These jobs relate only to job losses due to the closure of wood processing plants. On top of that we have very substantial losses in the logging sector. Typically logging firms are small companies and this 6.5 billion board feet decrease, the 77-percent decrease in Forest Service saw timber output has had a devastating effect on the logging industry, as well as on the wood processing sector that I just mentioned. Lastly, we should note that small business losses due to this Forest Service policy are not just in the timber industry. Typically, the timber industry is a basic sector of any economy, regional or statewide or national economy. It supports jobs in the rest of the economy and the jobs that they support are very much jobs in the small business sector. So not only do we have the losses in wood processing and logging companies but we also have losses in the rest of the economy due to the Forest Service's severe decline in saw timber output. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are my formal remarks. [The prepared statement of Mr. McKillop follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.159 Senator Enzi. I want to thank both of you for being here today. I am the only accountant in the U.S. Senate, so I have to tell you, I really love the numbers you were using. That is a very critical part of the hearing, too, to have some statistics from some very credible witnesses who are experts in this area that can show some of the devastation. I think both of you have done an excellent job. Mr. Van Tassell, I particularly appreciate your comments about the wildlife wintering on the private lands and that is uncompensated use. It helps to maintain wildlife in the West, which is something people really expect to see when they come out to the West. We may not be very long from the time that they will make special tours to see a cow. Ranchers have to obtain operating loans each year. Could you go into a little bit of how the uncertainty regarding the Federal grazing regulations, particularly the allotment restrictions, might impact those loans? Has the Forest Service, in your opinion, made efforts to reduce that uncertainty or has it taken operating loans into any consideration in its decisionmaking? Could you comment on that? Mr. Van Tassell. I do not know that they have taken operating loans into consideration at all but it impacts ranchers like it would any other business. When they go to a banker, if the assets they are using to produce their product are uncertain, the banker is not very willing to give them a loan on that. The other problem is that historically the grazing permit has held value for the rancher and the rancher has used that for collateral in obtaining loans. With the uncertainty surrounding whether a rancher is going to have those permits to graze, the bankers have been reluctant to use those for collateral. So many ranchers have lost that asset which they had previously used to get a loan; so the uncertainty does impact ranchers. Senator Enzi. Mr. McKillop, I appreciate again your emphasis on small businesses and how they are inordinately affected. Mr. Hurst mentioned earlier that the small businesses are the ones that buy the ad in the high school yearbook and purchase the 4H animals and they do not have corporate offices in another part of the country, so they have to face those people on Main Street and they are neighbors, they are actually neighbors that are devastated by the changes in business. Could you give us some of those indications of the magnitude of the impact just in the timber industry? Mr. McKillop. Yes. I gave you the job losses of 27,600 from wood processing jobs lost. In addition, there must be at least about 10,000 logging jobs lost. So there we have something like 37,500 jobs lost in logging and sawmilling, plywood plants, veneer plants. Now every job--because the timber industry is part of the basic economy, every timber job supports one other job in the rest of the economy--in retail, wholesale, and service sectors. So you can just about double that number of jobs to get the total job losses. So you have about 37,500 jobs lost in the timber industry but that leads to a loss of another 37,500 jobs in the rest of the economy, therefore, you are talking about 75,000 jobs lost because of this Forest Service policy that has led to the decline in timber harvests. Senator Enzi. Another thing that, of course, we apply in Wyoming is also the total population impact because each of those jobs represents three other people that are in the family, too. So now we are up around 300,000 people that are being affected by the timber. And, of course, all of those are not in Wyoming but our total population in Wyoming is 480,000 so a small change in forest policy makes a big change in the lives of our people. Mr. McKillop. It is very destructive to family structures. It leads to break-ups of families or moving them. It is extremely hard on those communities. Senator Enzi. Again I point to the log over here. One of the comments that was made was that timbering has gotten this bad name in the United States but again they are interested in forest health. It is the future of jobs there, too. And it was pointed out that one of the big differences between a clear- cut, which is never a clear-cut anymore but a clear-cut done by a timbering company and one done by Mother Nature is that the timbering company respects 200 feet from a stream. So thank you both for your testimony. Senator Crapo. Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also will be brief because we do want to get our last panel on here in the 8 minutes we have left. So I would just state, Mr. McKillop, I assume that you would agree with the SBA Office of Advocacy's comments to the Forest Service that their proposed rulemaking, particularly on the roadless rule, for example, does have a significant impact on small businesses. Mr. McKillop. Absolutely. I read the written testimony from the Forest Service, and I think it is totally incorrect to say that these actions will not have an effect on small businesses. Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. I would just ask a question quickly here, and that is, you indicated that there could possibly be more damage to the public lands if we do not properly manage the grazing activities because that would force other uses of these lands, such as development and the like, and I think that was very well stated in your testimony. Could you also comment on what I see as the flip side of that? Does grazing necessarily conflict with our ability to manage these public lands in a way that will maintain them as strong, healthy forests in the future indefinitely? Mr. Van Tassell. I am not an ecologist but I work with several ecologists and from what I have seen and heard and been around, they are very compatible. The grazing can be used as the management tool. In fact, I know for the sheep industry, some sheep producers are paid to graze some Canadian forests to help the ecology. Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. Again we could go into much more and I would like to but we just have a few minutes left and I would like to see our next panel get up here. Thank you very much. Senator Enzi. Thank you. I do appreciate the expertise represented here. The next person, our final panel, is Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, Jim Furnish. We appreciate you being here today. I understand that you are missing a major leadership conference in Connecticut. I understand that is where Mr. Dombeck is at the moment. We had the people from out of town come first because they have to travel and they need to deliver their entire testimony. Mr. Harkin and the Democrats have objected to anybody having a hearing of over 2 hours today and it severely limits our capabilities. We, of course, had hoped that Chief Dombeck could join us and are terribly disappointed that he did not. We will be submitting some questions for him to answer; at this point I will let you begin your testimony. STATEMENT OF JAMES R. FURNISH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Furnish. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. Knowing you have limited time, I am going to keep my remarks very brief to provide you ample opportunity to ask questions if you would care to. We have three basic parts of our organization that try to address the needs of small business. One is our State and Private Forestry Organization, which is really our outreach effort to communities and the business community in America. We also have a research community through facilities like our Forest Products Lab in Madison, Wisconsin, that for many decades has sought to work in innovative ways with private business to develop the necessary tools and technology to enable small business to thrive. Then, really, the last is the National Forests, most of which are in the Western United States, where we feel we are inextricably linked, as has been amply testified to earlier, with small businesses and small communities throughout rural America. With respect to some of the regulations the Forest Service currently has in operation, it is true that we have made the determination that neither the planning regulation nor the roads policy, we feel, has a significant effect on a substantial number of small businesses. However, the roadless policy that is now undergoing final preparation, we did complete an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and we are proceeding with the assistance of the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy to address their concerns. We are in preparation of a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to comply with the legal requirements. I think in summary, I would just say that National Forest lands are experiencing an ever-increasing demand for a variety of uses from a growing and increasingly diverse population. There is a continuous demand for commodity production, along with an increasing demand for recreation, water, wildlife, fish, and other tangible and intangible goods and services. We realize that there are diverse and many needs and requests to use National Forest System lands. We try to work with small businesses at the local level, as well as with the Small Business Administration to evaluate, resolve, and address the impacts of competing uses on these small businesses. Some local communities may experience local hardships, as has been testified to earlier. We plan to focus our efforts in these few communities to help develop community-led efforts to mitigate impacts and help them diversify their economies. We believe that today the opportunities for job creation in new stewardship industries are immense. Maintaining our existing roads, facilities and recreation infrastructure, reducing fire risk, and restoring watersheds could lead to thousands of high-paying private sector jobs that emphasize ecosystem restoration and forest stewardship. This concludes my verbal testimony. My written testimony has been submitted. I would be happy to address any of your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Furnish follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.164 Senator Enzi. Your entire testimony will be a part of the record. I am going to keep a very close eye on the clock because I am notified that if we do not shut down the hearing by the 11:30 time that the whole hearing is null and void, and we certainly do not want that to happen because we have had some excellent testimony. I have to say that I want to have more information about why we are nationalizing the National Forests instead of keeping the practices at the local level where there was a local forester who knew what was going on. We have gone to a one-size-fits-all policy in the Forest Service. I can tell you the forests out here do not look anything like the forests in Wyoming, and you cannot manage a forest in Wyoming the way you manage a forest here. Out there we need as much water as we can get. Out here they are trying to drain it off. I really want to know more about why you are trying to avoid small business input. I was particularly interested in your comment that you are going to comply with the legal requirements. Our interest is not in your complying with the legal requirements. Our interest is in your finding out what small businesses need and trying to interact with them and work with them. When we talk about complying with the regulations, it sounds like you are going to meet whatever you can, staying within any loopholes that we might have built into the law, and that is what we are talking about--passing some additional laws to plug up those loopholes. I see the yellow light is on and I do not want this hearing to be null and void so we will be providing you with additional questions and you can provide additional comments. With that, I will adjourn the hearing and leave the record open. [Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8240.206