Angora Project Appeal Denied

by
Here’s a photo of a tour from 2008 of the area.

We have discussed the Angora project before on this blog.

Here’s the link to a Sacramento Bee article.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a published opinion issued Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Lake Tahoe Forest Plan did not require the Forest Service to demonstrate that the Angora project would maintain viable population levels of certain species, including the black-backed woodpecker.
The panel concluded that the Forest Service ensured the scientific integrity of the final environmental assessment, properly responded to dissenting scientific opinion, properly considered proposed alternatives to the environmental assessment, and took the requisite “hard look” at the impacts of the project.
Thus, the panel found, the Forest Service’s analysis of the environmental effects “was not arbitrary and capricious,” as that phrase is defined in federal law.
The opinion was authored by Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, with the concurrences of Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Richard R. Clifton.
The Angora fire, determined to be human-caused, destroyed 254 homes and scorched more than 3,100 acres, including approximately 2,700 acres of national forest land.
In 2010, the Forest Service approved the restoration project to “reduce the amount of dead and downed trees” in order “to reduce long-term fuel (accumulation) to reduce future fire severity.”
The thinning project called for the removal of both live and dead trees. Twelve zones were “retained as habitat for a diverse set of species,” including the black-backed woodpecker. Most of the trees “will be hauled … for disposal at … biomass energy facilities.”
The Forest Service was free to proceed with the project once Burrell ruled. Both he and the circuit panel denied the environmentalists’ requests for an injunction halting implementation of the project pending appeal.

We have had numerous posts on this appeal and litigation. You can search on “Angora” in the search box to review the history.

We started with this post which I called “Much Ado about relatively little”. Check the comments out for a conversation between Dave Iverson and me on different aspects of the project and the assertions made.

So here we are, years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later. I wonder about the quantity of taxpayer funds have been spent on the original litigation and the appeal of the original decision, by the unit, the regional office, the OGC and by DOJ? It might be interesting to take a few cases at the beginning of litigation and just keep track of the tasks involved and who gets paid what, just so the public has a better idea of the investments they are making. Hopefully this is the end of the story for this 1411 acre project..

Here are the details as I found several documents ago.. those knowledgeable please let me know if this has changed.

Alternative 2, as modified, includes the following activities:
Fuel removal of standing dead and downed wood and thinning of live trees on
approximately 1,411 acres.
Within the 1,411 acres:
o 6 acres of conifer removal for aspen stand enhancement;
o approximately 77 acres of treatment proposed in wildlife snag zones (39 acres in
SEZ; 38 ac Subdivision);
o 13 acres of conifer removal for meadow restoration/aspen enhancement in the
Gardner Mountain meadow.

A ground-based logging system on up to 964 acres (including 13 acres of Cut-to-Length
mechanical thinning in Gardner Mountain Meadow) located in areas with slopes under
30%.
New construction of new roads (up to 7.7 miles) and landings to facilitate fuel removal.
Reconstruction or opening of existing roads, trails, and landings to facilitate fuel removal.
Decommissioning/restoring 1.9 miles of road and 16.7 miles of trail.
Existing and new landings and staging areas would be utilized to facilitate removal of
fuels for ground-based operations.
Reconstruction of 1,200 feet of Angora Creek.
Treatment of the following noxious weeds: bull thistle, field bindweed, St. John‘s wort,
tall whitetop, and oxeye daisy.

Introducing “Catching People Doing Something Right”

by
Lena, the mule, of the Region 2 Packstring at the Retiree Rendezvous

Listening to folks at the Retiree Rendezvous in Vail last week, and having spent the last three years or so on this blog, I noticed some similarities between their concerns and the public’s concerns. Because they were retirees, and we had all been to the same management training, some of the discussion was couched in management talk we had learned.

It’s all about how you treat others (current FS employees) when you deal with them.

The first concept we talked about was “affirm in public, counsel in private”. Retirees have gone on record as being against something in the press, apparently without talking to the current FS folks and getting their side of the story (sound familiar?). People need a chance to hear each others’ side of the story. If you still disagree so be it. But it’s more likely that you will think of the person you spoke with as a human being, and not a faceless member of some stereotyped group (those clueless young whippersnappers, or evil minions of the timber industry, or rabid environmentalists).

The second concept was the well-known “catch people doing something right.” To that end, I’m going to establish a sidebar on this blog where folks can post where they caught the FS (or others) doing “something right.” A problem with this might be that people disagree on what “something right” is…but we’ll see how this develops. It can be as mundane as “clean bathrooms at x site” or “district employees unlocked the gate to the campground so that we could get in late at night.” It could also be “person y, of x environmental group was great to work with on the z project because…”.

I would hope that thinking about things this way will help us open a window on the future that is more positive than many of the debates we have. I know our debates are illuminating, but I’d also like to try various approaches to building trust, and imagining and possibly building towards a mutual future that is less polarized.

We older and hopefully wiser folks, I think, have a call to do that so the many vibrant young people who are working today will have a more positive environment to work in. To that end, and also because I’m retired, you will also see more posts about internal FS issues. I think it will help the people not currently in the organization understand better some of the dynamics that they observe from the outside.

More on futuring and internal issues in future posts- I am trying to locate videos of discussions at the Public Lands Symposium and the Retiree Rendezvous that we could use as a springboard for that discussion.

Anyway, when you catch someone doing something right (local or state or federal agencies, groups, elected officials, environmentalists) please send to me at [email protected] and tell us:
who you are talking about, your story of what happened and why you think it is “something right” and a photo if you have one. Finally, if something good happened with the FS and you don’t know actually who is responsible, that’s OK, tell me anyway and I can do some detective work and find out.

I’m hoping this will be more about human to human interactions and less about our usual policy issues. but like this blog, it’s a grand experiment.

Indian Valley Meadow Restoration

by

Indian Valley, part of the Amador Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest, is being restored as a high elevation meadow, after decades of misuse. Grazing has ceased but, its impacts still linger. In the past, willows were removed and water was channeled away, causing increased erosion of these shallow and fragile soils. The water table has been lowered and the meadow hasn’t been able to support the vegetation that it used to.

Concentrating runoff by channeling the water causes increased erosion, especially when we have rain on snow events. There were significant impacts from the winter of 1996. This project aims to get the water to spread out, linger, and re-charge the water-holding capacity of up to 500 acres.

A system of catchment ponds, compacted soil plugs, and native plant re-vegetation will cause snowmelt runoff to spread out and slow the erosive power of concentrated water. This project has a history of being de-funded and handed off but, all things came together when Coca Cola offered up some cash, which led to some additional matching funds and collaboration. The Ranger District had to jump through all the NEPA hoops, as surveys had to be completed for endangered willow flycatchers, frogs and toads. The one impact they could not remedy is a historic road, which travels across the meadow. Relocation was made impossible, due to archaeological sites. Removal or closure would be politically impossible.

The willows have made a great comeback, since grazing ended. However, you can clearly see that the foreground vegetation is quite sparse. Raising the water table a few feet will lead to meadow restoration. The numerous braided side channels would re-charge the water table. There appears to be one of the historic man-made channels in this picture.

Here is what appears to be one of the natural side channels, which no longer is supplied with water, due to lowered water table, erosion, and channeling of the water. This restoration project appears to be a win-win situation for everyone.

Here is a non-Forest Service link to the project:

http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/blog/lhunt-20120920-indian-valley-meadow-restoration.html

Denver Post on Making Land Management Decisions in the Courtroom : Rocky Mountain Park Elk

by
National Park Service photo

Various folks, from former Chief of the Forest Service and elk biologist Jack Ward Thomas, have questioned the idea of making land management decisions in the courtroom. This is apparently also apparent to members of the Denver Post editorial board. In Colorado, we have commissions, task forces and a variety of other mechanisms of interested and knowledgeable parties getting together to solve tough issues (e.g. oil and gas regulation). So perhaps it seems more obvious here that an appeals court is suboptimal. Given our discussion of “nit-picking” this week, I also italicized a relevant sentence. Another note: it’s obviously not just the Forest Service who deals with this.

Here’s the link, and below is an excerpt.

Yet not everyone is happy. Some environmentalists objected to the plan from the outset because it rejected the option of introducing wolves to reduce the number of elk. And just this week, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal from WildEarth Guardians of a lower-court decision that upheld the Park Service’s plan.

We hope the appeals court supports the lower-court decision. It would be a shame — indeed a travesty — if the professional judgment of the Park Service on behalf of the health of the park was second-guessed in this fashion.

It’s not that we have anything against wolves. The reintroduction of gray wolves in the mid-1990s from Canada to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming must be judged a conservation triumph. They reproduced and thrived — so much so that the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded they could even be removed from the endangered species list.

Moreover, in Yellowstone the wolves scattered elk herds just as predicted, thereby allowing the recovery of willow and other battered species.

But reintroducing wolves is not something to be undertaken lightly or in haste. While Rocky Mountain National Park, at 415 square miles, is huge, wolf packs can range even farther. Wolves would inevitably encroach onto private property and even into lightly populated areas.

As we noted back in 2006, any plan to import wolves into the park would therefore provoke a lengthy political and legal battle — even if wolves might turn out to be part of the long-term solution for elk control.

The Park Service didn’t have the luxury of years to wait for a solution to its elk problem — not if it wanted to be a responsible steward of Rocky Mountain park.

Like so many environmental court cases, this one is based upon claims that federal officials failed to dot every “i” and cross every “t” of the law in reaching their decision.

For example, WildEarth Guardians maintains that culling the herd with trained volunteers is tantamount to hunting, which is banned in the park. But this is legal word play. No one considers killing elk for ecological reasons to be a form of sport — and hunters do not benefit from it.

The future of the wolf in Colorado is a fascinating topic worthy of serious debate. But it shouldn’t be decided by an appeals court.

Danger: “Scientification” of Local Decisions

by

So here I am at Vail, on the White River National Forest and what do I see in the media?

In the Aspen Daily News here:

When science is confronted by emotional reaction to a decision that is not popular, science often takes a back seat. Take the Forest Service’s decision to not allow camping on top of Independence Pass to prevent damage to the fragile tundra ecosystem during the USA

Eric Grindstaff, from Columbus, Ohio, cheers on a cyclist prior to the summit of Independence Pass near Aspen, Colo., during the fourth stage of the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, Thursday, Aug. 23, 2012. (AP Photo/The Aspen Daily News, Chris Council)
Pro Cycling Challenge race.

Were alternative camping sites available? Yes, but they were too inconvenient for some. As a matter of fact, space was available at developed campsites along the route Wednesday night.

Those of us involved in resource management decisions love our jobs and take them seriou

Eric Grindstaff, from Columbus, Ohio, cheers on a cyclist prior to the summit of Independence Pass near Aspen, Colo., during the fourth stage of the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, Thursday, Aug. 23, 2012. (AP Photo/The Aspen Daily News, Chris Council)
sly but we also have a sense of humor. That’s why we got a good laugh at the T-shirts that poked fun with “trt” (for tundra response team) and a little tundra figure’s hands in the air.

Sometimes baseless accusations are hurtled at the agency and a cub reporter may find it easy to interview a few disgruntled spectators. Our desire is to get as much information as possible to the public through the media in a transparent manner so people understand why and how we arrive at decisions.

The United States Forest Service mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forest and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

“Caring for the land and serving people,” best captures that mission.

Those words fit well with the choice I made, along with many of my generation, to pursue a career in the management of America’s public lands. My decision was influenced by reading Wallace Stegner’s “Beyond the Hundredth Meridian.” At that time, if a word had to be picked to describe what I would become by pursuing such a dream it would be “conservationist.”

Conservation laws were passed mandating how to best care for the land and serve people. In the Forest Service we also have regulations, executive direction and congressional intent to guide our decisions.

Decisions are made taking into account 13 guiding principles that help realize our mission. One of those principles state that, “We recognize and accept that some conflict is natural and we strive to deal with it professionally.”

Many of the complex problems faced by the White River National Forest decision makers involve multiple conflicting objectives. Conflict handled professionally often leads to better collaborative decisions.

If decisions are made by caring for the land and serving people then they are appropriate. However, balancing both these priorities is not easy. Popularity is not part of the equation.

Conflict in today’s land management arena centers primarily on recreational use of public land. The focus is often narrowly reduced to “my use, my way.” Instead of “re-creating” their outdoor experience by renewing their spirit, many people become vehemently entrenched into what becomes a siege mentality that leaves no way for reason.

It becomes “my right to do as I please wherever I want to whenever I can” with no regard for any long-term caring for the land. What is missing is a willingness to modify behavior for what is appropriate to consider in making good land management decisions. Being inconvenienced trumps conserving resources.

Two of the other guiding principles that the Forest Service uses are: we use an ecological approach to the multiple-use management of the National Forests and grasslands, and we use the best scientific knowledge in making decisions and select the most appropriate technologies in the management of resources.

The Pro Cycling Challenge wasn’t our first rodeo. When we get thrown off the bronco, or in this case thrown under the bus, we smile, get up and dust ourselves off, ready to meet the challenges facing present and future generations.

Bill Kight is the public affairs officer of the White River National Forest.

Sharon’s take:
Guess what, Bill, whether we allow or do not allow camping, it is a “values” decisions- it is not a “scientific” decision. I happen to agree with this decision, but I don’t know how you can call it “scientific.” Please leave science, and scientists out of the rationalization for whomever’s appropriately value-based decision.

Never aired Edward Abbey Film Essay: “I loved it…I loved it all”

by
I just came across a post made a few days ago by a gentleman named Ned Judge, a producer, director and writer based out of New Mexico.  Apparently, back in 1985 Judge was working for a network TV show and worked with Edward Abbey on a short film essay, which it turns out the network never aired.  Do yourself a favor and watch the short film here, as Abbey’s narration, commentary and even acting are highly entertaining!   Below is some more information provided by Ned Judge:
An eight minute film essay that I co-produced and directed with Ed Abbey in 1985. At the time I was working for a network magazine show. The executive producer took me to lunch one day. He told me that he was having trouble with his son who was 18. The son thought his dad was a corporate whore. He had told his father if he had any balls at all he’d put Ed Abbey on his show. That’s why the EP was talking to me. Would I see if it was possible? I had an acquaintance who knew Ed and he passed the request along. Ed responded that he’d give it a try. He signed the contract and wrote a script. We met in Moab and went out to Arches National Park to shoot some practice sessions with a home video camera. We would review them at the motel in the evening. After a day or two, Ed was feeling pretty comfortable on camera so we scheduled the shoot. We were all happy with the way it went. But then we ran head-on into network reality. Roger Mudd, the show’s host, was extremely negative about putting an “eco-terrorist” on the show. The executive producer caved (his son was right about him apparently). So this Abbey essay was put on the shelf and never aired. Abbey died 3 years later in March 1989.

Thank You, Aspen Times! More on Burnt Mountain

by

A while back on this blog here, I wondered about Ark Initiative’s ongoing interest in Burnt Mountain (800 trees 6.5 acres, and mass extinctions).

Fortunately, a reporter for the Aspen Times had the time and the skills to investigate more.
Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

“What exactly is the Ark Initiative, and why is it interested in Burnt Mountain? It’s largely a one-person operation run by environmental consultant Donald “D.J.” Duerr, who helped found the organization and serves as its president and director. Duerr is a veteran of the conservation movement who has a reputation of being very capable but also very difficult to work with. One source, who asked not to be quoted by name, said Duerr isn’t a team player and often thinks his approach is the only approach to an issue.

Duerr created the Ark Initiative in the late 1990s. The organization’s website, http://ark.savelifenow.org, says it is “dedicated to protecting life, including human life. Our highest priority is halting the global mass extinction.”

The website says the Ark Initiative works on a “wide variety of life preservation issues,” but none are cited. The organization’s finances are also closely guarded — more so than many other environmental nonprofits. Nonprofits are required by the Internal Revenue Service to fill out a Form 990 on their finances. The website Guide Star posts the forms, with the cooperation of the nonprofits, so it provides reporters, prospective donors and interested members of the public with a glimpse at an organization’s operations. The Ark Initiative’s financial forms aren’t available through Guide Star. Duerr didn’t respond to a request by The Aspen Times on Monday to provide Ark Initiative’s latest annual report, nor did he respond to repeated requests for an interview.

So far, it’s been impossible to tell from public records where the Ark Initiative’s money is coming from for the Burnt Mountain fight.

A limited amount of information is available about Ark Initiative at the Wyoming secretary of state’s website. In addition to listing Duerr as president and director, Leila Bruno, of Laramie, Wyo., is the treasurer and director. Sylvia Callaway, whose mailing address is in care of an Austin, Texas, residence, is listed as vice president and director.

The extent of the Ark Initiative’s environmental activism is difficult to gauge. Public records indicate Duerr submitted comments to the Forest Service to oppose two timber sales: one in Wyoming in 2009 and the other in South Dakota in 2010.”

Interesting. I had heard through the rumor mill that it was a neighbor who didn’t want more people skiing around.. it’s possible that “keeping out the riff-raff” will be hard to distinguish from legitimate environmental concerns. Again, thanks to the Aspen Times for investigating.

FS Retirees’ Rendezvous

by

This week I’m at the Forest Service Retiree Rendezvous in Vail. While I am meeting some folks who read the blog, asking others to write pieces, and reflecting myself, I will not be posting and sometimes not able to approve posts (no cell signal in various places). So this might be a good time to post something you had been thinking about…

NY Times: Forest fire research questions wisdom of fuel reduction

by

Yesterday, Jim Robbins (a Montana-based science writer for the New York Times) had a very interesting article in the paper, which featured a few of the scientists/researchers we’ve highlighted before on this blog.

Robbins was lucky enough to spend a day in the woods with Dr. Richard Hutto, professor of biology and the director of the University of Montana’s Avian Science Center.  Dr. Hutto’s research has been brought up on this blog a few times in the past.  A few years ago, Dr. Hutto put together a short video titled, “Portraits in Black,” which is a  series of images from severely burned forests to help illustrate the value of such forests to those who might not believe such value exists (such as some of the readers and commenters of this blog?).

MISSOULA, Mont. — On a forested mountainside that was charred in a wildfire in 2003, Richard Hutto, a University of Montana ornithologist, plays a recording of a black-backed woodpecker drumming on a tree.

The distinctive tattoo goes unanswered until Dr. Hutto is ready to leave. Then, at the top of a tree burned to charcoal, a woodpecker with black feathers, a white breast and a yellow slash on its crown hammers a rhythmic response.

“This forest may have burned,” says Dr. Hutto, smiling, “but that doesn’t mean it’s dead. There’s a lot going on.”

The black-backed woodpecker’s drum signals more than the return of life to the forest. It also may be an important clue toward resolving a debate about how much, and even whether, to try to prevent large forest fires.

Scientists are at loggerheads over whether there is an ecological advantage to thinning forests and using prescribed fire to reduce fuel for subsequent fires — or whether those methods actually diminish ecological processes and biodiversity….

Recent research [some ecologists and environmentalists] say shows that nature often caused far more severe fires than tree ring records show. That means the ecology of Western forests depends on fires of varying degrees of severity, including what we think of as catastrophic fires, not just the kinds of low-intensity blazes that current Forest Service policy favors.

They say that large fires, far from destroying forests, can be a shot of adrenaline that stimulates biodiversity.

Robbins also speaks with Dr. William Baker, a fire ecologist at the University of Wyoming who’s recent research we’ve also discussed quite a bit on this blog.

William Baker, a fire and landscape ecologist at the University of Wyoming, contends that the kind of limited fires that are being employed to control bigger fires were not as common in nature as has been thought.

For a recent paper in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, published with Mark Williams, Dr. Baker employed an unorthodox method to reconstruct fire history that challenges current analysis of tree rings. (The study was financed by the National Science Foundation and the United States Department of Agriculture.)

Dr. Baker and Dr. Williams examined thousands of handwritten records created by agents of the federal General Land Office who surveyed undeveloped land in the West in the mid-19th century. The surveyors used an ax to mark trees at precise intervals and took meticulous notes on what the vegetation between marked trees looked like — meadow, burned forest or mature trees.

Altogether, Dr. Baker’s students combed through 13,000 handwritten records on 28,000 marked trees, and hiked miles in Oregon, Colorado and Arizona to find some of the trees and compare today’s conditions with those from the 1800s.

They found that low-intensity fires that occurred naturally were not as widespread as other research holds, and that they did not prevent more severe fires. Dr. Baker concluded that big fires are inevitable, and argues that it is best for ecosystems — and less expensive — to put up with them.

“Our research shows that reducing fuels isn’t going to reduce severity much,” he said. “Even if you reduce fuels, you are still going to have severe fires” because of extreme weather.

The article wraps up with some pretty good thoughts about the concept of “disturbance ecology” and a nice money quote from Dr. Hutto:

Proponents of the free-fire theory say that while human lives and property should be protected, beyond that widespread wildfires should be viewed as necessary ecological events that reset the clock on a landscape to provide habitats for numerous species for years and even decades to come. This principle stems from research into “disturbance ecology.” For instance, when a hurricane blows down a large swath of forest or a volcano erupts, it strongly stimulates an ecosystem, scientists have found.

“Disturbances are very important; they are huge,” said Mark Swanson, a Washington State University ecologist who recently published a paper noting that recovered areas thrived after the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980. “You actually have an increase in species richness, sometimes to regionally high levels.”

Dr. Hutto, the University of Montana ornithologist, said he believes the Forest Service approach was misguided. He pointed out that morel mushrooms thrive on charred ground, and birds, including the mountain bluebird and black-backed woodpecker, then move in.

Similarly, a plant called snowbush can remain dormant in the soil for centuries until heat from a fire cracks its seed coat, and it blooms profusely.

“The first year after a fire is when the magic really happens,” Dr. Hutto said.

UPDATE (Sept 19): The most recent issue of High Country News contains a related feature article, Fire scientists fight over what Western forests should look like.

Another UPDATE (Sept 26):  Here’s an interesting comment made by Dr. Hutto on the HCN website:

Richard Hutto

Sep 19, 2012 09:02 AM

Swetnam and Brown “…questioned how ponderosa pines could regenerate if Baker and Williams are correct about severe fires having scarred Western landscapes for generations.” They regenerate the same way most wingless pine seeds do–by animal dispersal. I have numerous photos of Clark’s nutcrackers and Mexican jays extracting seeds from cones on severely burned ponderosa pines (see photo evidence on our facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/AvianScienceCenter). The more you learn about severe-fire ecology, the more it all makes sense–plant, beetle, and bird adaptations that are apparent even in many of our dry mixed-conifer forest types!

Lawsuit filed against CE logging in IRA, WSA, RNA and Old-Growth

by

We’re discussed the appropriate, or inappropriate, use of Categorical Exclusions (CE’s) by the Forest Service in the past (here and here).  What about a CE for a 17,000 acre logging project that includes logging within Inventoried Roadless Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Research Natural Areas, and old growth forests? Is a CE really an appropriate level of analysis and public input for such a project?   Clearly some folks think not.  The following is a press release from the Alliance for Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystems Council.  A copy of the complaint is here.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council filed a lawsuit on Friday in Federal District Court against the Forest Service to stop the Little Belt Mountain Hazard Tree Removal Project in the Lewis and Clark National Forest.  The Forest Service plans to log 17,000 acres on National Forest Lands, including logging in Inventoried Roadless Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Research Natural Areas, and old growth forests.  The Forest Service authorized these activities under a Categorical Exclusion from the environmental analyses required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

“Up until now the Forest Service has done a full environmental analysis on large roadside logging projects,” said Mike Garrity, Executive Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  “We didn’t oppose the agency on those projects, but in this case the agency is excluding itself from the requirement to keep the public informed of the environmental effects and to provide public input on the proposal.  Categorical Exclusions were intended for purposes such as mowing the lawn at the Ranger Station or painting outhouses, not logging over 17,000 acres.”

“Herbicide spraying and logging will occur in several already degraded watersheds and along several streams that are considered ‘impaired’ due to sediment,” Garrity explained.  “These areas provide habitat for the westslope cutthroat trout and the Western toad, both are considered ‘sensitive species’ on the Forest and both will be impacted by logging – especially when you consider approximately 1,700 acres of logging and herbicide spraying will occur within 150 feet of streams.  The result will be to dump more sediment into already degraded streams where these native fish are struggling to survive”.

“I have recently driven roads in the Little Belt Mountains and there is evidence of the mountain pine beetle epidemic, but it is in patches, not forest wide,” explained Sara Johnson, Director of Native Ecosystems Council and former Gallatin National Forest biologist.  “Where the beetles have killed trees next to the road, firewood cutters have already done a good job cutting them down.  It’s a mystery why the Forest Service wants to log 17,000 acres of so-called ‘hazardous trees’ when there isn’t a hazard. The only hazard will be to the native wildlife when 17,000 acres of important habitat is clearcut and to the taxpayers who have to pay for it.”

“There are already massive infestations of noxious weeds, such as thistle and houndstongue, along roads,” Johnson said.  “They can’t control the weed problem now and logging will just make it worse.”

“The Canada lynx, listed as ‘threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act, has historical presence on the Forest including recent sightings in the project area. Lynx, wolverine, black-backed woodpecker, Northern goshawk, Western toad, and Northern three-toed woodpecker all are known to occur in the area and their numbers will be further reduced by these massive clearcuts,” concluded Johnson.

“We support logging to protect public safety,” Garrity said.  “But the public needs to be kept informed to ensure that the Federal Government is following the law. The public needs to be shown that there is a real safety hazard and not just an imagined excuse for more subsidized logging.

“It is unfortunate that we have to ask the court to intervene to force the Federal Government to let the public be involved in the management of our National Forests, Garrity concluded.  “But in the end, we firmly believe the public should have a say in the management of public lands…even if we have to go to court to get it.”