Statement of “Undisputed Facts” Disputed: Colt Summit

The legal steps on Colt Summit are going through their process. Here is the response to the “statement of facts.”

I’d like to post assertion 1 and assertion 2, and have people make their own determinations, but I don’t think that the administrative record (that they refer to) is public information. Personally, I think it would add to transparency and openness for equivalent records on both sides of litigation to be open to the public, and for the legal documents to be freely available.

Anyway, here are a couple of examples from the document:

Plaintiff’s Statement: “17. A ‘shelterwood’ cut is similar to a clearcut
with a few more trees left in place in order to create a partial canopy
cover. The shelterwood cuts will vary in size and density. M11-
29:12346.”

Record: Shelterwood cuts are not similar to clearcuts.
“Shelterwood cuts will vary in residual size and density from 30 to
50 trees per acre and 2 to 7 acres in size. Thinning-from-below,
western larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir will be selected as
residual trees in the shelterwood areas.” M11-29:12347, A-1:14.

Plaintiffs’ Statements: “45. MDOT’s 2006 report states that lynx are
‘known to cross MT 83 around the [Summit] Divide . . . It is thought
that the reason Canada lynx may not frequently cross MT 83 elsewhere
is that most of MT 83 is at lower elevation and therefore not
surrounded by typical Canada lynx habitat. . .’ S-1:3.” “46. Recent
federal studies depict most lynx movements across Highway 83 to be
within or near the Summit Divide corridor. N1-370:27976, N1-
370:27996, N1-370:28006.”

Record: Plaintiffs refer to: N1-370:27976 (lynx points), N1-
370:27996 (dispersal paths of two lynx), and N1-370:28006
(“preliminary model” landscape scale map). The maps and
discussion in K-32:1549-1553 contain the latest comprehensive
studies of lynx in the Seeley Lake area, including location data
from all radio / GPS-collared lynx, from 2005 through 2008. The
data show very limited use of the project area by lynx, and
virtually no use in the area provisionally identified as a linkage
area in 2003. K-32:1553. They also show virtually no lynx use of
areas near or across Highway 83, where treatments are proposed.
Compare M16-39:15168 with K-32:1549 and 1552. The lynx point
map at K-32:1552 shows in site-specific detail the locations of lynx
in and near the Colt Summit project area. The 2006 MDOT
report does not include the results from these comprehensive
studies of lynx in the Seeley Lake area.

and..

Plaintiffs’ Statement: “85. Colt Summit is likely to adversely affect bull
trout critical habitat, at least in the short term. K:29:1527.”

Record: The FWS Biological Opinion concluded “[a]fter reviewing
the current status of the Clearwater River, Rainy Lake and
Clearwater River and Lakes core area of bull trout and its
relationship to the Upper Columbia River bull trout population,
the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the
proposed action, and cumulative effects, it is the Service’s opinion
the actions as proposed are not likely to destroy or adversely
modify the bull trout critical habitat in the Clearwater River and
Rainy Lake.” K-29:1530.

There are 29 pages of these claims and counterclaims in the document; it gives you a flavor over the kinds of discussions involving both the physical and biological realities (e.g. where are the lynx and whether they use the area), as well as what it in the record. Worth taking a look at to get a picture of the kinds of information that judges have to deal with. We’ll be following these legal documents through time on this project.

Here is the USG rejoinder to the “undisputed facts.”

Alliance for Wild Rockies Responds to MT Standard Editorial

A few days ago, the Montana Standard ran this editorial blasting the Alliance for Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystem Center for a lawsuit filed on the Fleecer timber sale on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.  The editorial also claimed that the paper couldn’t think of any instance in recent years when WildWest Institute hadn’t sued to stop a logging project. Since the truth is that the WildWest Institute hasn’t filed a new timber sale lawsuit in Montana in over 5 years, the Montana Standard was forced to run this correction in today’s paper as well. – mk

Fleecer timber cut illegal, says group
By Michael Garrity, Alliance for Wild Rockies
http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/editorial/fleecer-timber-cut-illegal-says-group/article_4028ae86-67db-11e1-b8ac-001871e3ce6c.html

One of the many reasons that Butte is a great place to live is the tremendous wild country surrounding the area. Within minutes of Butte there is world-class fishing on the Big Hole and Jefferson Rivers and some of the best elk hunting anywhere — including the Mount Fleecer area where the Fleecer timber sale is proposed.

The Montana Standard editorial on March 4 criticized the Alliance for the Wild Rockies for filing lawsuits to stop the Fleecer timber sale, the Colt Summit timber sale in the Seeley-Swan Valley, and for other timber sales we have stopped recently.

While claiming the Alliance is “abusing environmental laws,” what the editorial didn’t mention is that we win about 87 percent of those suits. Simply put, unless the Forest Service is found to be breaking the law, we don’t win.

One of the lawsuits we filed in the last several years was to stop the Price Powder timber sale in the Mount Fleecer area. This timber sale authorized 133 acres of clearcuts in prime elk habit and violated the Forest Plan standards for elk hiding cover that these large and iconic symbols of Montana require.

After we filed that suit, the Forest Service’s attorneys looked at our complaint, decided that we were right and pulled the timber sale.

It is common practice for the Forest Service to pull a timber sale before a judge can rule against them, because then they don’t have to pay our attorney’s fees and the thousands of dollars of expenses we incur are paid by us. When a judge rules in our favor, our attorneys get fees but we get nothing to cover our costs.

After the Forest Service pulled Price Powder, the agency went to work on a new timber sale in the same area named “Fleecer,” which is three times bigger than the Price-Powder timber sale and proposes 1,137 acres of clearcuts.

When the Alliance was informed of the new project, we toured the site with the forest supervisor and two district rangers, told them our concerns, and submitted detailed comments in writing.

The previous two forest supervisors worked with us on the Grasshopper, Anaconda Job Corps, Beaverhead-Deerlodge roadside salvage and the Georgetown Lake timber sales, for which they should be commended. But this time around, the agency decided to try and make giant, illegal clearcuts in prime elk habitat instead of following their own rules and laws.

Contrary to media representations, our country’s environmental laws aren’t that strict. They don’t prohibit logging on our National Forests, but do require that the Forest Service must ensure that there will be viable populations of native species after logging — and clearcuts simply do not make good wildlife habitat for elk, grizzly bears and other old-growth dependent species.

We are a nation of laws and that means federal agencies, just like citizens, must follow the law. As before, the Forest Service will either pull this proposal or, if it loses in court, blame environmentalists for once again stopping clearcutting of elk winter range.

The Standard claims it was surprised to find there are grizzly bears around Butte. But in 2010, the Standard reported that a grizzly bear was killed near Elk Park and in 2005 a hunter killed a grizzly bear within the Mount Haggin Wildlife Management Area which adjoins the Fleecer timber sale and is within the wildlife security analysis area for the project.

If grizzlies are to be recovered and removed from the Endangered Species protections, it means their habitat must be taken into account in Forest Service timber sales.

The Standard also pointed to the Colt Summit timber sale and chastised the Alliance for taking that project to court. But like the Fleecer sale, Colt Summit is another money-losing, taxpayer-subsidized logging proposal that will destroy habitat for elk, lynx and grizzly bears while costing taxpayers $1.5 million. Moreover, the Forest Service’s own records show that the agency made the decision Colt Summit would not impact the environment well before any analysis was done or public input received.

Instead of attacking citizens for participating in the management of our public lands and “abusing” environmental laws, the Standard should ask the Forest Service and its allies, like the Montana Wilderness Association, why the agency has such a hard time following the laws that ensure Butte continues to be surrounded by beautiful national forests full of native wildlife for generations yet to come.

Dueling Colt Summit Opeds in Helena Paper

Today’s Helena Independent Record included dueling guest columns concerning the Colt Summit timber sale lawsuit, which is the first lawsuit of a timber sale on the Lolo National Forest in over five years.   One oped comes from Michael Garrity, a 5th generation Montanan, who’s the director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  The other oped is co-written by Keith Olson, director of the Montana Logging Association and Tom France, regional director of the National Wildlife Federation.  The most recent Colt Summit posts from this blog are found here and here.  Click here for the entire Colt Summit archive.

Colt Summit Update: FS Confirms Restoration Work Under Contract

The Colt Summit project area is located in the upper-center portion by the "83" and bend in the road. The surrounding area (including the portions of the Lolo National Forest, State DNRC lands and private lands) have been heavily logged and roaded, significantly compromising critical habitat for lynx, grizzly bears, bull trout and other critters.

Much ado is being made about the Colt Summit logging and restoration project on the Lolo National Forest.  In fact, last week The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and Yaak Valley Forest Council joined with the Montana Logging Association, Montana Wood Products Association and others to actually file a “friend of the court” brief in support of this logging project.

Asking around, this appears to be the first time that conservation groups like The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association and National Wildlife Federation have filed a brief to support a logging project.  Reading the rhetoric-filed, dooms-day press releases from these folks, you can’t help but get the impression that the Lolo National Forest must be under siege from timber sale lawsuits.

However, the facts tell a much different story.

Lolo National Forest officials confirm that the Lolo National Forest hasn’t faced a new timber sale lawsuit in over 5 years. In fact, between FY 2005 and FY 2010, the Lolo National Forest had at least 99 active timber sales.

Another impression one gets from reading press releases and statements from these groups is that the Colt Summit lawsuit has halted the positive road decommissioning and culvert upgrade work. In fact, the Montana Wilderness Association even has gone so far as to tell their members and supporters via Facebook that what’s “at stake” with the Colt Summit project is the road decommissioning/culvert work.

[Update: An hour after this article was posted, Montana Wilderness Association staffers removed these (here, here) substantive comments from their Facebook posts about the Colt Summit timber sale. Such tactics have been a very common practice by these groups as they attempt to stifle debate and prevent the open exchange of substantive information.]

Perhaps the people at Montana Wilderness Association should have more carefully read the plaintiffs summary judgment brief in this case:

“CONCLUSION
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court grant their motion for summary judgment, declare the Forest Service violated the law, and enjoin the Forest Service from approving and/or authorizing work on the Colt Summit project (excluding the road decommissioning and culvert removal work) pending full compliance with the law.”

Perhaps the staffers at Montana Wilderness Association should have remembered that last September, the Lolo National Forest issued this press release, very clearly (and somewhat ironically) titled “Colt Summit Restoration Contracts Awarded.”

In fact, below I will re-print an update about the status of the Colt Summit road decommissioning and culvert upgrade work I obtained over the past few days from the Boyd Hartwig, the Lolo National Forest’s very own Public Affairs Officer. Boyd’s generally been pretty good about responding to pubic information requests and as anyone can clearly see, the Lolo National Forest confirms that the following restoration work has been under contract since last September, is moving forward and is not impacted by the lawsuit.

1.  Colt Creek Road Decommissioning will decommission about 6 miles of Colt Creek Road #646.

2.  Colt Creek Road Rehabilitation will reconstruct an existing road to BMP standards and add a short section of newly- constructed road.  This route will replace access currently provided by road #646.  It’s important to note that the short piece of new construction is not being funded through CFLR.

3.  Colt Creek Culvert Replacement project will replace an undersized culvert with a new structure that provides for aquatic organism passage.

So there you have it folks. A pretty good, verified example of how much of the rhetoric and the “story-line” coming from these “collaborator” organizations and their timber industry “partners” isn’t really matching up too great with the reality of the situation on the ground, or in the courtroom. I believe there are a number of reasons for this, and perhaps in coming days I will get an opportunity to explore them further on this blog. However, suffice to say, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that what we’re seeing with the Colt Summit timber sale PR blitz from these “collaborators” is really just a continuation and/or extension of the campaign to support Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The players, political campaign type tactics/rhetoric and the intentional spreading of false information about these public lands issues is virtually identical.

From: Matthew Koehler
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:47 PM

Hello Boyd:

Can you please tell if this work [Lolo NF Press Release, September 30, 2011] is on-going or finished? Also, can you let me know details of all the work currently being done, or under contract, in the Colt Summit project area? Thank you. – Matthew

—————–

From: Boyd Hartwig

Matthew, all three projects are awarded.  No ground disturbing activity has occurred to date.  Ground-based activity could begin as early as July 1, 2012.  Instream work associated with the culvert replacement project must occur between July 15 and Sept. 1.  The decommissioning work cannot be done until alternative access is provided through the Colt Creek Road Rehab project.

Boyd Hartwig
Public Affairs Officer
Lolo National Forest

——————
From: Matthew Koehler
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 12:38

Hello Boyd:

Thanks so much for the info. Just so I have it correctly can you please confirm the following:

1) The name of these three projects awarded, or at least what work is included in this

2) That the lawsuit filed on Colt Summit hasn’t stopped these three projects from moving forward.

Thanks so much,
Matthew Koehler

———————-

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012
From: Hartwig, Boyd C -FS
To: Matthew Koehler <[email protected]>

Matthew, here are the listed projects:

1.       Colt Creek Road Decommissioning will decommission about 6 miles of Colt Creek Road #646.

2.       Colt Creek Road Rehabilitation will reconstruct an existing road to BMP standards and add a short section of newly- constructed road.  This route will replace access currently provided by road #646.  It’s important to note that the short piece of new construction is not being funded through CFLR.

3.       Colt Creek Culvert Replacement project will replace an undersized culvert with a new structure that provides for aquatic organism passage.

All three projects are awarded but no ground disturbing activity has occurred to date.  Instream work associated with the culvert replacement project must occur between July 15 and Sept. 1.  The decommissioning work cannot be done until alternative access is provided through the Colt Creek Road Rehab project.

Regarding start dates,  they are hoping to begin work this spring, that’s correct. They are aware of the lawsuit but as you know there is no injunction on the planned work.

Boyd Hartwig
Public Affairs Officer
Lolo National Forest

Abuse of enviro laws may doom them- Editorial from the Mountain Standard

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one from the Mountain Standard.

Who knew that Fleecer Mountain had such a thriving population of grizzly bears? And who would have thought that taking out some dead and dying trees, working on stream restoration and improving sagebrush range lands might lead to the extinction of lynx?

Environmental groups do – at least the handful that find themselves in court every time professionals in the U.S. Forest Service try to do their jobs and actually manage land.
This week two environmental groups – the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystem Council – filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service for its proposed Fleecer timber sale.

What a surprise.

It’s hard to think of any instances in recent years when the Forest Service has tried to do logging or habitat work on the public land it manages without these groups, as well as the WildWest Institute, having sued to stop it. They constantly cite the damage such projects could cause to the land and to the animals on or under consideration to go on the Endangered Species List in the northern Rockies. When they sue, they allege violations of several other environmental laws as well, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, but the ESA is almost always used because of the species on the list in the northern Rockies.

The leaders of these two groups have made careers out of suing the Forest Service and other federal agencies. Listening to their rhetoric, one might get the impression that government employees are bent on wiping out native species and butchering forests into moonscapes.
The Fleecer project is a prime example. Forest Service scientists carefully planned the project to deal with numerous dead and dying trees in the area and supply some logs to the timber industry. They looked at conifer encroachment into native grasslands and the decline of aspen groves. And they considered the health of the streams and ways to improve the movement of fish.
But Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, saw the Forest Service’s real, sinister motives. He proclaimed the project “one of the most corrupt” ever proposed in Montana and said the lawsuit was necessary “for the sake of the elk, grizzly bears, lynx and a myriad of other old growth dependent species.”
The trouble is, the project area has no old growth – it’s all been historically logged. There have never been grizzlies spotted there. And Forest Service personnel say their analysis found the lodge pole pine areas where the logging is proposed is not prime lynx habitat.
Even other environmental groups see the folly in the tired arguments that the extremists keep pushing.
This week the Wilderness Society and Montana Wilderness Association – hardly groups bent on destroying the earth – filed a brief in support of a logging project near Seeley Lake on the Lolo National Forest that the Alliance and three other groups challenged. They noted that the project was part of a collaborative effort involving the Forest Service, local community and themselves and the logging and habitat work is needed.
Undeterred, Garrity countered by saying those groups have no business calling themselves conservationists and environmentalists. He called for them to give back the money they have collected from members for promoting a project that will harm endangered species.

But the turning of several environmental groups on the serial litigants is a sign that people of all stripes are fed up with their tactics. And as efforts to work together to solve habitat problems grow, people are seeing that these extremists have never done a thing for conservation other than file lawsuits. As long as they are filing lawsuits, they are protecting their jobs.
The real loser, however, is the ESA itself. This is a good law, albeit one that isn’t perfect. It has helped bring back bald eagles, grizzly bears in the lower 48 states and several other species that likely wouldn’t have made it without the act. But when it gets used by extremists to shut down any and every habitat or logging project because endangered animals could wander through an area, it’s hard to defend.

A word to the wise environmentalists, keep it up. Sue the Forest Service over projects that cut a single stick. Bring those corrupt government workers to their knees as they try to improve habitat.
But don’t forget that laws can be changed. And as the frustration grows over the management of public lands, eventually the ESA and other important laws to protect the environment will be gutted — or outright repealed.

Try filing legitimate lawsuits without any environmental laws on the books.

Note from Sharon: I don’t think realistically that there would be the votes to change those laws based on people who can separate the rhetoric of the lawsuits from the reality (local mostly westerners). However, you might see some federal lands policy changes from Congress and perhaps the change from appeals to objections is a step in that direction.

The Wages of Compromise: When Environmentalists Collaborate

I found this piece on a pingback from our blog.The author and associates seem to have an enemy known as Big Timber, and I’m not sure that there is an extant energy source of which he would approve.
I think the expression “the wages of compromise” may be a reference to the “wages of sin” in Romans 6:23. Perhaps intended to imply that compromise is a “sin”? Oh, well. Note the reference to Matthew Koehler (walkin’ the talk, good on you, Matthew!) and the Colt Summit project (referred to as the “2,038-acre Climate Camo logging plan on the Lolo National Forest.”) I also think the tone of self-righteousness and the use of inflammatory and not-quite-correct statements is a bit off-putting, but that seems to go with the territory.

March 01, 2012
The Wages of Compromise
When Environmentalists Collaborate
by MICHAEL DONNELLY

Spring is in the air in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Crocus and daffodil add a splash of late winter color. Trees are budding. Days grow longer, the sun makes a cameo appearance…and, like swallows to Capistrano, the usual suspects cadre of eco-wonks/lawyers return to Eugene and the University of Oregon for the 30th Annual Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (E-LAW) March 1 – 4, 2012.

“Compromise is often necessary, but it ought not to originate with environmental leaders. Our role is to hold fast to what we believe is right, to fight for it, to find allies, and to adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or our friends to win, then let someone else propose the compromise, which we must then work hard to coax our way. We thus become a nucleus around which activists can build and function.” — David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club. This year PIELC officially celebrates the 100thAnniversary of Brower’s birth.

E-LAW is part employment bazaar for newly-minted attorneys seeking jobs in the ever-expanding (much thanks to E-LAW) field of Environmental Law. It is also part gathering of actual non-paid, in the trenches eco-activists who are the ones who generate the resistance that leads to all those legal jobs. What matters to the job seekers and the already employed panelists who draw a paycheck derived from a cornucopia of foundation-funded groups and what motivates the volunteer or underpaid activists sometimes coincide and sometimes the activists are featured panelists; but, most of the time the disconnect is palpable. Invariably, PIELC becomes living proof of the Upton Sinclair dictum.

“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” —Upton Sinclair

Many environmental topics – local, national and international are featured among the many panels and plenary sessions. Excellent panels on Civil Liberties and Activism always are on the agenda, as are ones addressing threatened Species. Many prominent issues are left unaddressed. And, as Earth First! co-founder Mike Roselle (now in Appalachia fighting the good fight against the abomination of Mountaintop Removal coal extraction) always notes, “The real work at any of these gatherings is done in the hallways and bars.”

So, here’s a summary of the local and national ones that I see are the hot points issues right now; the ones getting the mountain lion’s share of the funding and attention:

Hair-of-the-Dog Logging

“Forests precede civilization; deserts follow. In between scientists and priests and environmentalists give their blessings to the destruction of the trees and aid in convincing the public to pay no attention to the ever shittier forests in exchange for a cut of the loot.”— Jeff Gibbs

The buzz this year among the professionals is “Collaboration” with the Agencies and industries in the business of cutting trees for profit under the rubric of “forest health.” This was started back in early Clintontime with the Big Foundations’ Community-Based Solutions’ Quincy Library Group in the Sierra. This 50-foundation effort has metastasized and is now the preferred model for the eco-wonks and their giant non-profits funders. From the point of view of forest activists without any financial horse in the race, the evidence is in: “Collaboration” is decimating forests and harming the planet.

“Collaboration” always results in agreements that allow for more logging with a bone or two of promised protections. It green-lights previously untouched lands to be logged and lands already recovering from one to several rounds of logging, air pollution or insect attacks and saturated with logging roads and tracks to be decimated once more.

Much of it is in the name of fire reduction and forest health. But few will admit the “unhealthy” forests of today are sick because humans have already seriously diminished them by past logging. Recent data unveiled by courageous, non-industry-funded scientists show that these elaborate ecosystems take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to heal from even one round of extraction; time we certainly are not giving them.

The land and trees can only take so much of this. Even worse, standing forests may well be our last best chance for co2 sequestration and biodiversity.

The most common “Collaboration” has to do with professional enviros self-selecting themselves to represent environmental interests in Collaborative Groups (usually called “Watershed Councils” or “Stewardship Councils”) around logging of our Public Lands. These “representatives” are approved by the relevant Agency and join with Big Timber and their usual pack of supportive public officials (all “stake-holders” in bureaucratic jargon) to hammer out agreements that always allow for more logging while that never-realized bone or two of promised protections is dangled in front of the public. As evidenced by recent appropriations for “fire-reduction logging,” the timber part of the deal always gets done. Yet, not a single acre ever gets set aside inviolate.

For example, the Colville National Forest in NE Washington state has seen such collaboration go on for years now. We were told it would lead to 1/3 of the forest gaining full Wilderness status; a third to be a timber extraction sacrifice zone and a third would see a “one-time” “restoration” logging (chainsaw surgery) effort – though “fire-reduction” logging quickly became the rationale. As expected, just a month ago, the chainsaw part of it got its first heaping helping of tax dollar funding and the all clear to fire up the saws. Also as expected, not a single acre was protected.

Every state with public forests has such (many) a collaborative group going. And, the result has been the same across the board. As noted, fear-mongering around fire is the rubric. Industry will disingenuously argue that the Agencies forced their past logging to leave the forests “over-stocked” with small fire-prone trees and therefore it’s contingent upon Big Timber themselves to be the “healers” wielding the saws. ALL logging is now called “Restoration Thinning,” including heavy commercial thinning schemes that remove 85% of 135 to 180-year-old naturally-regenerating stands.

This is fully embraced by the establishment “greens.” As stated by Andy Kerr, “senior counselor” of the ossified statewide eco-group Oregon Wild, “Today, I want the remaining sawmills in Elgin, Gilchrist, John Day, Klamath Falls, Lakeview, Pendleton and Pilot Rock to remain operating — because society needs their help to restore and protect those very same resources.”

In this vein, a panel headed up by Doug Bevington, author of “Rebirth of Environmentalism” has been formed to discuss “Climate Camouflage for Logging.” The blurb for the panel states “New projects are increasingly under the pretext of addressing climate change – including carbon credits for clearcutting, forest biomass removal for energy production, and landscape-wide thinning projects claiming to prevent mega-fires.”

What the blurb does not tell you is that one panelist is from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a group that itself has planned the largest such Climate Camo logging plan ever, the Southwest’s Four Forests Initiative. CBD, a top potential employer for new eco-attorneys, is so proud of this effort that you can find – exactly nothing – about it in their annual reports. I once questioned CBD’s Executive Director about it and got nothing but hostile projections in return.

In his book, Bevington cites CBD as a model for “grassroots” advocacy. In reality, it is a closely-held legal non-profit corporation; quite successful, the best, in securing Endangered Species Listings – though settling for Listings alone without inviolate Critical Habitat set aside leaves the job incomplete. Despite their absurd foray into Climate Camo timber sale planning, CBD employs a battalion of eco-attorneys doing very worthy work. CBD representatives can be found on a myriad of E-LAW panels. Included is an important panel on Population and Consumption levels, a topic often self-censored at such conferences.

How the Big Greens define “Success”

Just this week, The Wilderness Society (TWS) and the Montana Wilderness Association filed a brief in favor of a 2,038-acre Climate Camo logging plan on the Lolo National Forest. The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the WildWest Institute and two other real grassroots conservation groups had filed a lawsuit against the Colt Summit Timber Sale alleging that the logging would do grave harm to lynx, grizzly bears and bull trout.

TWS and the Forest Service combined hold 43% of the votes in this Southwestern Crown of the Continent (SWCC) “collaborative” group. The Lolo Forest Supervisor has served as co-chair of the group. The other co-chair? A TWS rep. With “greens” oiling the chainsaws like this, Big Timber doesn’t even need to work up a sweat. According to the Associated Press, “TWS’ Megan Brizell said in regards to the sale that whenever possible, taking a collaborative approach to forest management is more successful.”

Matt Koehler of the Wildwest Institute will be on a panel opposing this Montana-style Collaboration. He won’t be there in person. It will be the first E-LAW panel that is conducted using Skype; foregoing the usual big carbon footprint of most E-LAW panels, not to mention saving a scarce few hundred dollars the Institute will wisely use elsewhere.

The Science is In

Add to the mix a recent study by one of those courageous, immediately under attack from industry and its sycophants, scientists – Dr. William Baker, a professor in the Program in Ecology at the University of Wyoming

This study of such “fire-prone” forests debunks every single rationale the collaborators always cite about the need to thin out the forests…reducing to self-serving myth Andy Kerr’s main justification that “we must address the fact that many of our dry forests are unnaturally dense due to decades of poor logging practices and fire suppression. To restore these lands, we need an expanded program of ecological restoration thinning that can make way for the return of more natural conditions…”

This fable was never embraced by and indeed has been fiercely opposed by the real, under-funded grassroots, like those at The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, WildWest, the Native Forest Council, etc. who have been under attack from the professional “greens” over it since “restoration logging” first appeared on the scene and locals first cried foul. The reality is: hair-of-the-dog logging works about as well for the impacts of past over-logging as the drinking version does for over-imbibing.

Bridge Fuel

Another recent big story out of Green Central (and unaddressed this E-LAW) is that the 120-year-old Sierra Club – after a 2009 alliance (read: greenwash campaign) with Clorox yielded a $470,000 boost to the Club’s coffers – went big time. The Club has now been revealed to have secretly taken and spent $26 million from the Natural Gas industry (Chesapeake Energy) to promote gas as the “Bridge Fuel” to a supposedly fossil fuel-free future. Looking at being exposed, the Club then gave back an additional $30 million, instead of redeeming themselves by passing in to the many local grassroots groups who’ve been fighting off the ever–expanding Natural Gas Fracking industry on their own dime.

As Fracking (the process of injecting a stew of toxic chemicals under pressure deep into the ground designed to free up trapped gasses) exploded across the land with serious deleterious impacts to aquifers – enraging local activists – the Club went into damage control mode; first repeatedly responding evasively to any questions about it and then only admitting their collusion with Big Gas and issuing a very weak apology after a whistle-blower leaked the info to TIME.

Other Big Greens who still ally with the Gas Industry, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, haven’t backed off a bit. EDF’s Fred Krupp goes so far as to promote “How to Frack Responsibly.”

The Club then took $50 million from the personal vault of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; ostensibly for their Beyond Coal Campaign, meaning that now the Club has shifted gears from pimping gas to pimping “clean, efficient solar, wind and geothermal” – which, of course, are neither clean nor efficient (one E-LAW panel addresses the many pitfalls of Big Wind). Some of those millions should immediately go to the local Appalachian grassroots anti-mountain-top-removal coal extraction (MTR) groups who have nationalized the issue on great heart and shoestring budgets.

As ever, the real “Bridge Fuel” for Big Greens is Grant Funding, which comes primarily from…Big Oil Foundations – Pew (Sunoco), Rockefeller Brothers, et al…and, as shown by the Club, directly from the offending parent industries and billionaires themselves.

Biomassacre

Another E-LAW topic this year is the removal of trees from the forests which are then burned for energy production. It is being promoted as a way to utilize the output from those “ecological restoration thinning” projects. Oregon Wild has also signed on to a huge Climate Camo logging plan that would log off the small trees from over 9 million acres of Eastern Oregon’s dry public forests , with the resultant “biomass” being burned; fueling “baseload” steam generators without which the grid cannot operate. In Oregon just this past spring, there was so much hydroelectric production from snowmelt that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) refused to take any more power into the grid from Big Wind’s industrial installations that blight 100s of miles of Columbia River ridgelines. However, the grid operators still had to run the Boardman Coal Plant at 40% capacity in order to provide the balancing baseload – even hydro is too fluctuating.

As the Boardman – Oregon’s largest single polluter – plant’s operators have agreed to get off coal by 2020, any guesses where all that biomass will be burned? And burning wood is 1.5x more polluting than burning coal and it’s only ¼ as efficient! Wood is the dirtiest fuel of all.

E-LAW addresses (barely) the biomassacre scourge. The main Biomass panel is populated by people who have spent a couple years in-fighting to see who can be the top Biomass dog – scheming to ally with Big Greens and mine foundation grants – actual Biomass resistance is an after-thought. These people have gone so far as to censor people (myself included) from a listserve ostensibly set up to garner widespread grassroots support for fighting biomass. All one has to do is question the efficacy of the endeavor or the internal dynamics of the effort – especially the involvement of Big Green pro-biomass apologists – to bring on the red e-pencil.

“Renewable” Energy = Biomass and Nukes.

What no one will say is that if you keep talking the Big Green/Democrat “clean, renewable energy,” ultimately you are talking about biomass and nukes. The facts are that solar, wind, geothermal…cannot run the grid and never will (that sticky baseload thing again) and Al Gore’s “solution” – the so-called “smart grid” would cost about $100 trillion. The land base needed for the amount of solar installations w/output equal to the current US grid demand is the size of Arizona and Southern California – combined! As none of them is calling for decentralization (rooftop solar, etc.) and the end of the grid, the steam generators will have to be run by wood or nukes, if no longer by fossil fuels. Your “electric” car is really a coal-powered (or dead-salmon-powered here in the NW) vehicle and, the way things are going, may one day be an atom or tree-powered one.

It won’t be long before some “green” trots out “How to do Biomass Responsibly.” In fact, already something called The Apollo Alliance is the vehicle the biomass industry and the usual funders have trotted out to greenwash Biomass. Other anti-fossil fuel greens also blindly embrace biomass.

So far the grassroots opposition has been mixed. As noted, almost immediately that nationwide listserv set up to connect anti-Biomass advocates foundered as proven-effective grassroots activists were ousted for questioning the inclusion of pro-biomass Big Greens. But, local activists have won against some ghastly Biomass schemes when they have held the line; staring down the Apollo Alliance’s hired guns. It’s likely to get way worse, as “green” groups continue to tout Biomass and Nukes as “clean and renewable” while an effective nationwide anti-Biomass coalition remains unattainable.

Pipeline to the White House

For a couple decades now, every time one of these gatherings was held, shrill cries rang out about “Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” (ANWR) in Alaska. The shadow play would act out nationally every year (and often more frequently). Both sides would use it to rally their base and raise funds; yet, nothing would ever changed on the ground – still hasn’t. In 1996, Bill Clinton opened up to drilling the former Naval Petroleum Reserve in Alaska – right next door to ANWR – twice as big and just as ecologically sensitive – with nary a peep from Big Green at the same time they were decrying yet another going nowhere attempt on ANWR.

This year, ANWR is nowhere to be found at E-LAW. It’s been fully replaced by the Keystone Pipeline election-year feint as fund-raiser/potential eco-job du jour.

We’ve been told repeatedly that if the Keystone Pipeline from Alberta’s Tar Sands to Texas is built it will be “game over” for Climate Change. Yet, no one on the foundation dole will tell you that the Tar Sands crud is already here, coming in thru multiple existing pipelines and being refined at over 30 refineries; complete with recent devastating “spills” in Kalamazoo and in the Yellowstone River. Most of the refined Tar Sands bitumen goes into aviation fuel. One of the great ironies of the decade was the anti-Keystone rally at the White House earlier this year. Hundreds of people flew into DC to get arrested; apply a painless greenwash coat to the Obama reelection campaign and then fly out again – on jets fueled with Tar Sands product!

The Tar Sands can only be stopped at the source. Yet, that issue is nowhere to be found. That’s left to Canadian First Nations defending their ever-more devastated lands to fight against by themselves and their, as usual, underfunded allies.

Disconnect

Obviously, one of the issues with huge Climate Change impact that is never addressed by this nor any other eco-confab is the huge Eco-cost of Jet Flying in this age of Skype. Assembling a large face-to-face gathering such as this with people from all over the country and planet, cannot be done (at least not the way it is done) without there being huge transportation-related environmental costs. And, E-LAW is but one of dozens of such annual eco-gatherings. Boards and staffs of groups like the Sierra Club, TWS, CBD, et al., jet to one fabulous destination after another for multi-meetings per year, when they aren’t flying to and from DC. Paid enviros likely rack up more frequent flyer miles than any profession other than politicians.

Jet flying contributes some 3.5% of all greenhouse gasses to the air. That’s a low-ball estimate and its Global Warming impact has to be multiplied by a factor of at least 155% as the damage is greater when the carbon is released high in the atmosphere. It may “only” be 3.5%, but it is the fastest growing contributor to Climate Change. And, it is THE single top personal, unnecessary contribution to Climate Change; killing the planet more in a few hours than all one could save in a year of recycling, bicycling, driving a Pius, E-LAW refusing to serve imported java in throw-away cups, etc. combined! One trip across the country and back spews as much carbon per person as driving an SUV for two years. Every one of the E-LAW panelists, as do most Americans, consumes more carbon in a year than the average human will in her lifetime. Talk about your 1%!

I’ll predict right now that in ten years E-LAW will feature panels on Abolition of Jet Flying to save the planet. The sad fact is; not even self-declared Greens will give up Darth Cheney’s “Non-negotiable American Way of Life.” As a fellow activist recently noted; “That those who claim to care about fossil fuel abuse and climate will not give flying up, tells you all you need to know about why the other side doesn’t believe us and why we will never win. The right does what they want without shame; we do what we want with shame, and then kick dirt on it like a kitty that just went in its own backyard. It stinks and is destroying the world either way.”

Chief Broom Awakens

To its credit, PIELC always makes an effort to involve Native people. In addition to an annual gathering with elders at the Student Longhouse, there is usually a panel or two focusing on a major Native issue. (One year actually saw Oregon Wild and others opposing the dam-busting/salmon-saving Klamath River deal the local tribes worked relentlessly for years to gain.) This year the issue is Celilo Falls, the great historical Native salmon-fishing/bartering site. The Columbia River falls were inundated and the culture greatly diminished with the construction of The Dalles Dam back in 1957.

The loss of Celilo was the underlying motif of Ken Kesey’s brilliant novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest; though you’d never know it from the movie – the main reason Ken refused to ever see the film. (What Hollywood did to Kesey’s magnificent novel of Northwest logging, Sometimes a Great Notion, was even worse!)

Where are the Youth?

“They may already have destroyed the planet. But, don’t let ‘em get yer day, too.”

As E-LAW panels get ever greyer and the same tired, worse-than-useless, foundation-inspired strategies get regurgitated, one can always count on some relief from the annual OutLAW Bash. A decidedly younger gathering takes place one night nearby; with music, libations and ever-popular bonfires of mock-ups of eco-destruction – a bulldozer here; an oil derrick there.

Hundreds of local youth activists and many not-so-young attend. Relationships are formed and/or solidified among the people who will be on the front lines fighting the usual Oregon eco-affronts – from the Big Green-darling Democrat Gov. John Kitzhaber’s absurd plan to double the cut on the Elliott State Forest to raise money for schools; to Big Green/pseudo-left-darling Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio and careerist “green” Andy Stahl’s insane plan to give half of the Bureau of Land Management’s southern Oregon forest lands (over 1 million acres) to a ”Trust” for logging as a way to fund Counties that even after ten years and over $1 billion in direct Federal Tax money are bankrupt due to Big Timber’s minimal taxation on their own vast holdings in these counties Big Timber controls politically; to, in the local case, a series of Forest Service timber sales up in Eugene’s watershed – along the nearby McKenzie River. These are logging projects that the collaborators kept to themselves; failed to inform the general public about; failed to stop and now the Appeals clock has run out. In this case, the self-anointed “Collaborators” even went so far as to demand that representatives of other local eco-groups be removed from the Forest Service-led discussions on the watershed.

OutLAW is all about camaraderie and successful resistance or, at least, going down fighting. As Wavy Gravy has noted regarding effective collective efforts – “It’s all done with people.”

One veteran activist had this to say about the curious lack of youth involvement: “I see the fresh-faced young activists (women, mostly–where are the guys these days?), all eager to throw themselves into this cesspool, and I frequently find myself being asked what they should do, given how awful our situation is. I tell them to be creative, be independent, don’t take at face value anything anyone says no matter whose side you THINK they’re on. Watch your back. Stand up for yourself and for your beliefs. Trust your hunches, your intuition. If something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. Get out quick. Find people you feel you can trust, and assume you’re a lucky girl if five or ten years later only half of them are still around.”

Another veteran activist, Tim Hermach, tireless eco-defender from the Native Forest Council, gets the last word on E-LAW: “Twenty-six years ago 95% of the environmental law students were there to become lawyers to use the laws to save nature. After Oregon’s pro-business Republican Attorney General – the University’s biggest fund-raiser – Dave Frohnmayer became the Dean of the Law School and later President of the entire University, that slowly but steadily changed. So that today, it appears that 90% of environmental law students are there to assist corporations in working their way thru all those pesky and obstructive environmental protection laws – where they can receive much more lucrative incomes. This helps to explain the nature, content and panelists of many of the panels that are allowed to present at ELAW; when and where they are scheduled.”

More Details on Colt Summit and ‘Collaboration’

The Colt Summit project area is located in the upper-center portion by the "83" and bend in the road. The surrounding area (including the portions of the Lolo National Forest and private lands) have been heavily logged and roaded, significantly compromising critical habitat for lynx, grizzly bears, bull trout and other critters.

Thanks to Sharon for her most-recent post (below) on the Colt Summit timber sale project on the Lolo National Forest.  Here is a link to the AP article, which takes a more balanced look at the project, the lawsuit and the “friend of the court” briefs filed this week.

As the AP article indicates, my organization, the WildWest Institute, filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs (Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Wild Swan, Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and Native Ecosystems Council, all represented by the Western Environmental Law Center).

Our brief questions some of the claims made by the collaborators regarding the relationship of this Colt Summit logging project to the Southwestern Crown of the Continent (SWCC) ‘collaborative’ group.  We also question key aspects of the very nature of the SWCC ‘collaborative’ since the Forest Service and The Wilderness Society currently make up 43% of the voting block of the “collaborative.”

Yes, that’s right, unlike any other national forest ‘collaborative’ group that we know about in the country, the SWCC ‘collaborative’ allows Forest Service officials to be voting members.   Currently 7 of the 28 voting members of the SWCC ‘collaborative’ are Forest Service employees.

Also, the co-chair of the entire SWCC ‘collaborative’ for the past two years has been the Forest Service Supervisor of the Lolo National Forest.  Again, to our knowledge, this is something that isn’t done in any other national forest ‘collaborative’ around the country.  Ironically, a few weeks ago, the SWCC Charter was amended to remove the Forest Service from being able to co-chair the ‘collaborative;’ however, the SWCC ‘collaborative’ still allows Forest Service employees to be members and to vote as part of the ‘collaborative.’

Another issue to keep in mind is how the SWCC’s scheduling of meetings favors ‘collaborators’ who get paid to be part of the SWCC. Normal citizens, or organizations with limited resources, often cannot afford to attend mid-day, mid-week meetings at various locations around western Montana.  This is from our brief:

“SWCC’s scheduled meetings are always held on the third Tuesday of the month, currently from 1 pm to 4 pm. However, during the period [WildWest Institute] was a member of the SWCC, the meetings ran from 9 am to 4pm. Additionally, according the SWCC website, [SWCC’s] Prioritization Committee meets from 10 am to 2pm on various weekdays at the Seeley Lake Ranger District, north of Seeley Lake and [SWCC’s] Monitoring Committee meets from 1pm to 4pm on various weekdays, also at the Seeley Lake Ranger District office.

The fact that these meetings are held during the middle of the day, on a weekday makes it difficult for members and the general public to attend these meetings. Those individuals who have full time jobs not directly tied to national forest management must take time off work. Those who don’t live in the Seeley Swan area must also travel to and from the meetings, sometimes at great distance and cost. Forest Service employees, however, attend these meetings as a part of their position. Wilderness Society employees also attend these meetings as part of their full time jobs.  Taking days off work and traveling is not an issue for them because their attendance is a part of their job.

Furthermore, inability to make the meetings is penalized. Missing three consecutive meetings can result in an individual being stripped of their voting rights. See Id at R-5:68131. Therefore, the meeting schedule itself seems to give unfair favoritism towards those members who attend these meetings as a part of their full time job.”

No matter what the “feel-good” rhetoric is, the fact of the matter is that the Forest Service didn’t do a great job on their NEPA analysis for this project and there are some real concerns with this project and the process used to put it together.   For example, the Forest Service contracted the Finding Of No Signification Impact (FONSI) prior to completing the Environmental Assessment.  Here’s a snip about that from our brief [emphasis added]:

“…in a discussion of the upcoming EA, IDT meeting notes, dated April 27, 2010, state “The forest [service] has designed the project to have no significant issues so that a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) can be written after the environmental analysis (EA).” Colt Summit Restoration and Fuel Reduction EA, IDT Meeting Notes, I-8:926.  Document I-9 of the administrative record contains the above quotation, then furthers that idea by stating, “EA should already have reached conclusions on significance. Write from that point and perspective, providing support and evidence for no significance.” I-9:939. The following three pages basically provide a mini-seminar on how to persuasively say that the actions of the Forest Service have so significant impact on the environment.  See I-9:940-942.”

Here are some other issues to ponder.  While the ‘collaborators’ (lead by The Wilderness Society) sent out a media advisory worthy of a blockbuster Hollywood movie trailer (using words such as “targeted” “attacked” “bury it forever” “blowback” and “Ideological rift”), the simple fact of the matter is that the Lolo National Forest hasn’t faced a timber sale lawsuit in over 5 years and there have been 99 active timber sales on the Lolo National Forest between 2005 and 2010.

The ‘collaborators’ are claiming that the plaintiffs didn’t participate in the up-front planning for this project, which is a lie and completely untrue.  In fact, the actual public record for this timber sale actually reflects a higher level of involvement from the plaintiffs (Alliance for Wild Rockies/Friends of Wild Swan) than from some of the ‘collaborators.’ Indeed, plaintiffs attended all meetings, all field trips and submitted extensive, detailed and substantive comments during the entire NEPA process.

Finally, from the plaintiffs briefs, here are some details about the Colt Summit Timber Sale:

• 2,038 acre logging project in lynx critical habitat and MS1 habitat for grizzlies

• logging will occur in old growth and mature forest stands;

• logging will remove the dense horizontal cover in forest stands that is so important for lynx foraging and denning

• “vista” cuts to open views of the swan mountains for motorized users are part of the project

• technically, project is in WUI (as per the Seeley fire plan) but it’s 10+ miles from the nearest community

• project is in the important Summit Divide wildlife corridor – the best place for lynx and griz to cross H83 as they travel between the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Mission Mountain Wilderness

• logging is proposed in a number of wetland areas

• Forest Service shrunk the INFISH buffers (designed to protect native trout species, including bull trout) to accommodate project.

UPDATE Feb 29, 4:15 pm: Thanks to Larry H for finding the google map link of the Colt Summit project area (see comments section). I just added a photo to this post, which is a view of the Colt Summit project area (roughly upper center by the 83 and bend in road), which also includes an expanded view about 8 miles in any direction from the project area.  As anyone can see, the majority of the area around Colt Summit has been very heavily logged and roaded.

Conservationists oppose logging lawsuit in Lolo National Forest- More on Colt Summit

We have discussed the Colt Summit project here before, here and the Cone of Silence post here. There may be more, you can just use the search box to the right and type in “Colt Summit.”
It might be interesting to imagine that we were using objections instead of appeals and see whether you think this would have changed the dynamics at all.

Here’s a link to all the documents, which I got by typing in “colt summit project” into Google.

.. we have ringside seats to see how this litigation process goes. At this step, some conservation organizations are filing supporting briefs. Here’s a link to the news story.

Conservationists oppose logging lawsuit in Lolo National Forest

Story
By EVE BYRON Independent Record

HELENA – A proposed project that includes logging, roadwork and weed spraying on national forest land north of Seeley Lake is pitting a wide-ranging array of organizations against four environmental groups that filed a lawsuit opposing the work.

On Monday, organizations including the Seeley Lake fire department, the National Wildlife Federation, the Montana Wilderness Association, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Lewis and Clark, Missoula and Powell counties all filed legal briefs supporting the five-year project on 4,330 acres of the Lolo National Forest.

Representatives of those groups said that the “unprecedented interest in the case marks the first time such a large and diverse number of groups and individuals have ever assembled to defend a forest restoration project in the court of law.”

“We decided to get involved because this is a science-based decision and we had our staff truth-test it,” said Jean Curtiss, a Missoula County commissioner. “This area is such a unique, intact ecosystem, with all the plants and animals there that were there when Lewis and Clark came through.”

During a news conference Tuesday, representatives from some of those groups said the logging, burning and road treatments are direly needed to restore forest health and create a better habitat for wild animals that include endangered lynx, bull trout and grizzly bear, while at the same time lessening the threat of wildfires near communities.

“In the summer of 2007, we had the Jocko Lakes fire that covered 31,000 acres and cost $40 million,” said Frank Maradeo, the Seeley Lake fire chief. “We evacuated 85 percent of the community during that fire. This project, the Colt Summit, is at the north end of our fire district.”

They also pointed out that the project is a collaborative effort among a wide range of interests, including loggers, timber mills, environmental groups, community members and local, state and federal officials.

“What we are focused on doing is what’s best for the ground,” said Megan Birzell with the Wilderness Society. “There may be some cases where the best thing to do is to try to stop a project, but we think a better approach and one that’s more successful, rewarding and fulfilling is to seek positive solutions on the ground, recognizing there are places where active management is needed and is appropriate.”

But Michael Garrity, executive director of the Helena-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies, disagrees. That’s why his organization, along with the Friends of the Wild Swan, Montana Ecosystems Defense Council and the Native Ecosystems Council filed a lawsuit in federal court in November to try to stop the work.

“It’s not the right place for a timber sale,” Garrity said. “It’s critical lynx habitat. And if the whole idea is to protect the wildland-urban interface – it’s 10 miles north of Seeley Lake and there’s no community there. There are plenty of places around Seeley Lake where they could do logging, but this is just the wrong location.”

He added that they believe the environmental assessment done on the project violated the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act.

The project calls for logging and burning on about 2,038 acres; decommissioning or storing 25 miles of road; restoring four miles of streamside road and rerouting the access; reconstructing five miles of road; and conducting noxious weed herbicide treatments along 34 miles of national forest roads and on six acres of existing infestations.

In a brief filed by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the state agency said the project will have clear benefits for fish and wildlife.

“The Colt Summit Project will significantly increase the amount of secure lynx and grizzly habitat within an important riparian corridor, will remove roads that are sending sediment into a native trout stream, and will maintain sufficient cover to allow a variety of wildlife species to continue to move through the area,” said Jay Kolbe, an FWP wildlife biologist. “This project is thoughtfully planned out, grounded in good science and long overdue.”

Reporter Eve Byron can be reached at 447-4076 or [email protected].

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/conservationists-oppose-logging-lawsuit-in-lolo-national-forest/article_378a11e8-6254-11e1-ae6c-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1nmbl5a3P

Illegal ‘Adventure Pass’: What were they thinking?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned a lower court’s ruling, declaring that the Forest Service’s Adventure Pass violated the Recreation Enhancement Act (pdf). What I wonder is how the Forest Service thought that the Adventure Pass could pass a ‘red face test’ both in public and in the courts? Moreover, how did their USDA Office of General Counsel legal advisers feel that they could pass that red face test?

Is this yet another example of the Forest Service pushing forward with an initiative without much regard for the law, with both ‘professional arrogance’ and ‘budget protection/maximization’ motivations as backdrop? Finally, where does the Forest Service go from here?

In my book, given the austerity that the American people now face, and will face more squarely in the future, I think it time to talk seriously about what ought the Forest Service to manage for and at what cost, both in terms of direct cost to the US taxpayer and in terms of environmental costs. For me there are plenty of programs to prune, both within what the agency calls recreation and elsewhere. I believe it past time to take a careful look at Forest Service cash flows, sources and uses. Let’s then try to figure out what more and what less to do, and what to do differently.

A Flashback
Fee Demo and Adventure pass discussions are not new to the Forest Service. The Forest Service had a chance to respond to critics of both way back in 1999-2000 on Eco-Watch [Note this link provides a flat file readout of a forum that was largely devoted to fee demo discussion/criticism]. The Forest Service chose to be silent, just as they did with the recent forest planning rulemaking process. See, e.g my Earth to Forest Planning: Get a Blog. In 1999 I could understand their silence, their reluctance to engage in social media discussion. Social Media was brand new and the Forest Service was toying with it.I no longer have patience with their reluctance to engage.

Evidently the Congress did listen, passing the Recreation Enhancement Act in 2004,to replace the Recreation Fee Demo Program of 1994. But the Forest Service somehow thought that it could evade the clear language of the latter Act.

My question is broader than to allege that the Forest Service routinely ignores the Congress and the Courts. My question is, When will the Forest Service engage in public discourse, in public deliberation? And I’m not taking about the many, mostly facilitated, highly spun so-called dialogue efforts that the Forest Service too often employs. [Note: I am a champion of dialogue, when used for deep inquiry. But I’m afraid that the Forest Service is now in the process of turning “dialogue” into another “inform and involve” spin mechanism.]

Footnote on Framing, Blaming
I threw this post together in response to Sharon’s earlier post on this subject. Both posts are examples of what I call The Frame Game and The Blame Game. Sharon’s post frames this as “a problem if the FS can’t charge fees and doesn’t get funding from Congress.” The Forest Service is framed as the victim and the Congress or those who block general fees/contributions are framed as villains. This remains true (or not) whether or not the frame was imposed innocently. My post frames the issue as one where the taxpayer and/or the public interest are victims and the Forest Service is villain. Neither frame does justice to the problem at hand. But, hey, this is a blog and things are “thrown together” quickly.

In both cases—in every case—we ought not to forget that these twin forces, framing and blaming, are almost always at work. And we must never forget that there are plenty of victims (real and imagined) and plenty of us who can rightfully be viewed as villains from time to time. What remains a challenge and an opportunity is to be able to work together toward betterment of the public interest as best we can when we mostly see only our own shadows playing in reflection off the walls of caves that keep our thoughts narrowly confined.

[Note: 2/24/8:23 AM — I updated this post slightly, in response to a comment]