I couldn’t find a photo of the project.. so Nez Perce folks are encouraged to send one. Thanks!
For those of you who want to watch our government in action, I was sent this fascinating video of a court proceedings (Appeal?) on the Little Slate project. I couldn’t stomach much more than about 30 seconds (thank Gaia I am retired!) but I have been told by those who know that the whole thing is interesting, and that this blog’s own Guy Knudsen appears in the flesh at about 16:00.
According to one official:
The Court affirmed the district court in an unpublished memorandum decision (attached). The Court agreed with our positions that: the Forest Plan did not require MIS monitoring at the site-specific level, the EIS took a hard look at impacts on all species, and the BiOp was based on the best available data.
The FS received an NOI, won in District Court, were appealed and then they were denied a PI, then the 9th upheld the FS decision. Apparently it took a mere 2 1/2 years. Since we have people on both sides who contribute to this blog, we may be able to have an interesting discussion. I’d just like to know how much it cost the FS, OGC and DOj to win this case.. how much it cost the plaintiffs and where the money came from to litigate. I also wonder why this project was picked for attention, perhaps Guy can tell us what decision criteria were used.
Here are a few more documents of interest..2013_11_27_Decision_Order
Some info on the project: here’s the link.
Alternative B2 will: Conduct timber harvest and fuel reduction on 2,598 acres and construct 12 miles of temporary roads and decommission them after use. Decommission 49 miles, reconstruct 15 miles, and improve 63 miles of existing roads. Complete restoration of: soils (100-150 acres), riparian areas (0.75 miles), gullies (75 acres) and instream (13 sites). Treat 59 road and 73 trail stream crossings. Expand a rock quarry by 2 acres. Reduced yearlong motorized access on system roads & trails.
here is why folks opposed it.. they felt it would hurt lynx and bull trout. Note how the caption to the video says that “the logging would harm” not “FOC claims that logging would harm.”