In terms of what Mike said here about other groups (such as collaborative groups) filing in lawsuits as friends of the court, I would think that if it works for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, it would work for local collaborative groups (if they could afford attorneys, or perhaps law students could volunteer to support these groups). Hopefully, more knowledgeable people can tell me if I am barking up the wrong tree here.
Here’s the link.
Bay Foundation, others can join restoration suit
By ALEX DOMINGUEZ Associated Press
Posted: 10/13/2011 02:49:17 PM MDT
Updated: 10/13/2011 03:45:13 PM MDTBALTIMORE—The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other groups can join a court fight over bay restoration efforts, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Thursday.
The bay advocacy group, other environmental organizations and associations representing sewer authorities asked to side with the federal Environmental Protection Agency as defendants in the suit. The American Farm Bureau Federation sued the EPA in January over the stricter federally led effort and other groups have since joined the challenge. Critics say it is too far-reaching and will burden states with huge costs.
U.S. District Sylvia H. Rambo said the groups may help settle the complex case.
“In fact, given the complexity and voluminous size of the administrative record, which includes scientific models, the court finds that the presence of the intervenors may serve to clarify issues and, perhaps, contribute to resolution of this matter,” Rambo said in her order.
A telephone call by The Associated Press seeking comment from the American Farm Bureau Federation was not immediately returned Thursday afternoon.
Foundation attorney Jon Mueller said the groups were “looking forward to arguing this case in order to ensure that Bay restoration moves forward, and that all do their part to reduce pollution.”
The other environmental groups joining the foundation in the motion were Penn Future, Defenders of Wildlife, the Jefferson County Public Service District, the Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which represents sewer authorities nationwide, also sought to intervene with state sewer authority associations. The head of the association said in May that his organization has some concerns about the EPA’s strategy, but is much more concerned with attempts by the plaintiffs to walk away from the process.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William Baker accused the plaintiffs on Thursday of trying to halt the restoration process.
“The effort to derail Bay restoration must be stopped, here and now,” Baker said. “We are pleased we can be part of defending the Bay restoration effort and are confident that the court will uphold the public’s right to clean water.”
The EPA’s strategy puts everyone in the six-state bay watershed on a “pollution diet” with daily limits for how much sediment and runoff can come from each area. Pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer, auto and power plant emissions cause oxygen-robbing algae blooms once they reach the bay, creating dead zones where sea life can’t live.
Farmers and agriculture interests are concerned about the strategy because agriculture is the single largest source of bay pollutants, according to the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay model. While agriculture has made gains in reducing bay pollution, the strategy calls for even more reductions from all sectors.
———
For whatever this information is worth, below are the copies of the two letters the Lolo Restoration Committee sent in to the Forest Service for the Colt Summit project. You’ll notice the letters are short (one to two pages) and don’t really offer much substance, other than repeating a lot of glad-handing and back-slapping. It’s somewhat interested to compare these official letters from the Lolo Restoration Committee with the much more detailed, substantive letters sent in during the entire EA process by the likes of Alliance for Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan.
Regarding the larger issue of “collaborative” groups filing friend of the court briefs, I’d like to point out that the Co-Chair of the Southwest Crown of the Continent Collaborative is Deb Austin, Supervisor of the Lolo National Forest. I’m not sure how the federal court system would feel about a friend of the court brief coming from a “collaborative” group chaired by the Supervisor of the National Forest that’s being sued. Anyway, those are just message details I guess.
January 12, 2011
Tim Love, District Ranger
Seeley Lake Ranger District
3583 Highway 83
Seeley Lake, MT 59868
Re: Comments on the Colt Summit Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project
Dear Mr. Love:
Please accept this letter regarding the Colt Summit Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project
(hereinafter “the project”) on behalf of the Lolo National Forest Restoration Committee (LRC).
In addition to offering these comments on the EA, we would also like to thank you and your staff
for offering the LRC multiple presentations, site visits and extensive background information
during this ongoing collaborative effort.
First, we would like to thank you for providing LRC members with a field trip and multiple
presentations on this proposed project. We would also like to reiterate the LRC’s belief that the
goals of the project are consistent with the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC)
principles and that it has a high potential for restoration, monitoring, and adaptive management.
Further, we believe the project has the potential to be highly consistent with the goals of the
Southwestern Crown Collaborative.
We appreciate the Seeley District’s proposed use of appropriate and varied tools to enhance
ecological and recreational values in the project area, including road decommissioning and rerouting,
fish barrier removal and replacement, prescribed fire, thinning, and conducting the
majority of vegetative treatments during winter months. We believe this mix of treatments, as
depicted on the project map, will improve fish and wildlife habitat, enhance stream water quality,
reduce fuel loads to historic levels, and improve soil quality and nutrient cycling.
In addition to highlighting these strengths, we offer a number of comments below intended to
strengthen the project. We believe that the monitoring component of this project can be
significantly improved. There was no mention of effectiveness monitoring in the EA. Affirming
that effectiveness monitoring is planned, and explaining how it will be conducted, is necessary in
order to fully apply an adaptive management approach.
Describing in more detail this project’s relationship with the MFRC’s monitoring approach and
Southwestern Crown Monitoring Committee, including roles and responsibilities relative to
monitoring this project, will also improve the likelihood of successful monitoring and adaptive
management. Specifically, we request that you fully develop and describe in detail an
effectiveness monitoring program that will be consistent with the MFRC’s Monitoring and
Adaptive Management Strategy (http://www.montanarestoration.org/monitoring) and the
monitoring protocols developed by the SW Crown Collaborative.
In addition to the road decommissioning activities described in the documents made available to
us, we respectfully request that you provide the LRC with more information regarding the pros
and cons of removing all culverts and other fish passage barriers from the existing Colt Creek
Road (#646) route. We also request that you provide the LRC with additional information
regarding the costs and benefits of completely removing the road prism in areas where its
continued existence would pose a long-term risk of slope failure and erosion into the creek.
As appropriate, please also consider including precommercial thinning of overstocked,
previously managed stands in the project area.
Sincerely,
/s/ Pam Gardiner
Scott Brennan, Co-Chair Pam Gardiner, Co-Chair
Lolo Restoration Committee Lolo Restoration Committee
Megan Birzell, Chair
Seeley Working Group of the LRC
————-
Lolo Restoration Committee
November 16, 2010
Tim Love, District Ranger
Seeley Lake Ranger District
3583 Highway 83
Seeley Lake MT 59868
Dear Tim,
Please accept this letter as the first formal comment from the Lolo Restoration Committee (LRC) on the Colt-
Summit Fuel Reduction and Restoration Project. These preliminary comments are based on the information that
is currently available regarding the potential for fuel reduction and forest restoration activities at Colt-Summit,
including the presentations, field trip, and written documentation you have provided to LRC members in recent
months. Thank you very much for devoting a significant amount of your time and your staff resources to
educating LRC members regarding this project area and your restoration goals.
After an initial assessment, including a site visit and review of information provided by you and your staff, we
believe that the goals of the Colt-Summit project are consistent with the Montana Forest Restoration Committee
(MFRC) principles and that Colt-Summit has a high potential for restoration, monitoring and adaptive
management. Furthermore, we are committed to working with you to ensure that the final project design,
implementation and monitoring are consistent with the MFRC principles as well as the Southwestern Crown of
the Continent (SW Crown) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project (CFLRP) proposal and landscape
strategy.
As you know, the Lolo Restoration Committee has endorsed the SW Crown CFLRP proposal and strategy. We
understand that Colt-Summit is an integral part of FY11 and FY12 work for the SW Crown and this provides us
with additional motivation to work closely with you, your staff and all of our collaborative partners to ensure that
Colt-Summit is a successful demonstration of forest restoration and fuel reduction consistent with the MFRC
principles and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. At this time, in addition to committing
to working with you as the project moves forward, we are also requesting more information regarding the
monitoring and adaptive management planned at Colt-Summit and we specifically ask that you emphasize multiparty
effectiveness monitoring in addition to the standard implementation monitoring.
We hope that this letter will be one more positive step in a productive dialogue that will continue through all
phases of project design, NEPA, implementation and post-treatment monitoring. Please also accept our thanks for
considering the Montana Forest Restoration Principles in project design at Colt- Summit and for your
commitment to working with the LRC as this project moves forward.
Thanks again for your work on this project and please let us know when the next opportunity to learn more about
this project and to provide input to your staff arises.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Scott Brennan Pam Gardiner
LRC Co-Chair LRC Co-Chair
Matthew,
I was thinking more broadly… many collaborative groups do not have FS people as members or co-chairs.
If I had students or a class, I would develop a table of comments on different topics associated with these groups and try to tease out the similarities and differences. I think it would be a great learning experience for students. Any takers from U of Montana faculty/students, since the project is in Montana?
E.g. Topic Monitoring
Group A wants more monitoring of x at a different spatial scale
Group B wamts….
A few years ago, I was chatting with a group composed of several loggers, the Forest Service Representative (FSR) and the local Sierra Pacific mill representative. I asked the group, where are the mill’s lawyers in all these lawsuits against salvage sales? Everyone looked at one another but there was no answer from any of them. However, there was a spark of interest and wonderment.
I think it was earlier this year when it was decided that stakeholders could join on the side of the government in lawsuits. I see this as a double-edged sword but, it makes sense to not exclude people who might be impacted by court’s decisions.