All sides claim victory in logging lawsuit ruling: AP story on Colt Summit

by

Above are the details of the disputed project.

Thanks, JZ for this AP story in the Helena IR.

Link here.
Excerpt below.

Lolo National Forest Supervisor Debbie Austin said the one-paragraph order does not address the status of the project, so both sides must wait for the full order to determine the effect of Molloy’s ruling. But Austin declared it a win for the project, saying the judge ruled with the Forest Service on most of the claims brought against it.

“We won on 11 of the 12 counts, and most importantly, we did show that we provided adequate analysis and are providing adequate protections for lynx, grizzly bears and bull trout,” Austin said. “We’re just waiting for the full opinion and we’re looking forward to strengthening the cumulative effects analysis and moving forward.”

The Wilderness Society also called the ruling a victory for the project because Molloy upheld “their most significant argument,” that the project would not harm lynx, grizzly bears and bull trout.

Assessing the long-term cumulative effects on lynx habitat won’t present a major obstacle because the judge has already agreed the project won’t harm lynx, the organization said.

Garrity said that when the Colt Summit Project is put into the context of other logging projects on private land and in the neighboring Flathead National Forest, there is a real threat to lynx habitat.

“I don’t think that’s something they can paper over,” Garrity said. “It’s a real issue.”

Austin said contracts for part of the project that are not being contested, such as roadwork and culvert repairs, already have been awarded and work could begin as early as July 1. A contract for the logging portion of the project has not yet been awarded, and advertising the timber sale has been pushed back to later in the summer because of other priorities, she said.

But the important thing, Austin said, is that the judge’s ruling is a good sign of the strength of the collaborative process and the Forest Service will be working to develop more projects using that method.

“The design and development is much better and I think that is shown in the judge’s decision,” she said.

Note from Sharon: It should be interesting to see what kind of cumulative effects analysis is “enough.” Apparently, the bull trout and grizzly bear cumulative effects were “enough,” so we’ll be able to tell what Judge Molloy thought was missing. PS If anyone has a copy of the order please send to [email protected].

Judge Molloy on Colt Summit- E&E News

by

Here’s a link.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a brief order that will be followed by a lengthier written opinion, Molloy granted the Forest Service’s motion for summary judgment on several points. Among other things, he concluded that the Forest Service had adequately reviewed the potential direct impact of the proposal on lynx and grizzly bears.

But he ruled that the analysis of the project’s cumulative impact on lynx as required by the National Environmental Policy Act was not sufficient.

The Forest Service will now have to conduct that analysis before the plan can go ahead.

Megan Birzell of the Wilderness Society, a supporter of the plan, said Molloy’s finding was not a major setback because of the judge’s concurrent finding that the project passed muster under the Endangered Species Act.

“The judge said it won’t have an impact on lynx, but the Forest Service needs to beef up their analysis to better document that,” she said.

It will be interesting to see exactly what the documentation didn’t have that the judge was looking for.

Why Some of Our Last Remaining Old-Growth Forests May Be Privatized for a Political Favor

by

Here is a contribution from an Alaskan reader:

While world leaders converge on Rio de Janeiro this week to discuss what can be done to rein in climate change, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has other plans: It will take up an omnibus bill that bundles together more than a dozen proposals that critics have denounced as a sweeping effort to roll back environmental laws and privatize public lands.

The bill that could go to a vote as early as Tuesday includes one measure that would privatize some of the last remaining old-growth trees inside Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, a rugged wilderness often called the “crown jewel of the U.S. public lands system.” The legislation would convey tens of thousands of acres of Tongass forestland to Sealaska Corp., a native corporation that helped bankroll Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s 2010 write-in reelection victory.

Sealaska, a diversified conglomerate with native Alaskan shareholders, says the land includes sites with cultural and sacred value. But the company’s critics, including some of its own shareholders, say it’s a land grab worth billions of dollars in timber sales. Logging those lands, they warn, could jeopardize ecosystems inside one of the world’s last remaining temperate rainforests and destabilize the local economy in a region that spawns the vast majority of the world’s commercial salmon catch each year.

Sealaska, which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees in support of the legislation in recent years, has the backing of Alaska’s entire congressional delegation. Alaska Rep. Don Young introduced the measure being considered this week, while the Senate version of the bill, co-sponsored by Murkowski and Mark Begich, a Democrat, has been the subject of furious behind-the-scenes negotiations with lawmakers, the Obama administration, environmental groups and other special interests. While a new version of the Senate bill has yet to be made public, Murkowski has said she hopes to hold a Senate markup later this summer.

Sealaska didn’t respond to emails requesting comment but the corporation’s executive vice president, Rick Harris, told Reuters that Sealaska would relinquish rights to other ecologically valuable old-growth areas inside the Tongass, in exchange for the lands. According to Reuters, Harris said the deal fit with Sealaska’s mission to redress long-standing wrongs against native people in the area.

Note from Sharon: I am always interested in what appears to be the divergence of media nowadays into “us” media and “them” media and how that plays out.. here is one of the pieces in “About” Alternet, the organization that published this piece.

STRATEGIC JOURNALISM

AlterNet has developed a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media, as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media, especially “hate talk” media.

Not only do we keep our readers highly informed on a wide array of topics, from hundreds of experts and sources, but we also provide laser focus on the most compelling issues of the day. We offer our readers comprehensive information, a positive vision for the future, and concrete action steps towards change. AlterNet believes that media must have a higher purpose beyond the essential goal of keeping people informed. We insist on playing an active role in helping our community funnel its energy into change.

It seems like increasingly stories are in service of agendas, and not just about explaining to people why different people think differently about an issue.

Anyway, here’s a link to Sealaska. So is returning land to them technically repatriation or “privatization” or some hybrid? There seem to be some nuances left unexamined.

Environmental laws are essential: U.S. government needs to follow the guidelines, requirements it has established: op-ed in Missoulian

by

JZ contributed this link in a previous comment, it seemed worthy of its own post. This is an op-ed by Mike Garrity and Carole King (is she a member of Mike’s group?)

Do these groups agree with the timber industry’s demands? If the “collaborative” groups believe we should eliminate the public appeals process and exempt many Montana timber sales from judicial review, they should say so openly to their members and the general public so everyone knows exactly where they stand. If their goal is to protect land and wildlife in a meaningful way, they should speak up in defense of maintaining full public involvement and judicial review in public lands management.

The mission of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies is “to secure ecological integrity of the Wild Rockies bioregion through citizen empowerment and the application of conservation biology, sustainable economic models and environmental law.” Enforcing the environmental laws of the United States that apply to public lands management is critical to maintaining ecological integrity.

When our government doesn’t follow the requirements of those laws, the Alliance turns to the courts to force federal agencies to follow the law. Our record is clear. Our success in the vast majority of our lawsuits proves beyond a doubt that our claims have merit.

“It’s easy to see how a climate of silence from the “collaborative” groups might encourage the Forest Service to believe it can avoid full compliance with environmental laws. It’s more difficult to understand why, when a citizen group steps forward to see that our nation’s laws are enforced, the “collaborative” conservation groups go on a well-financed public relations campaign and their industry “partners” launch statewide attack ads against that group.”

It’s clear that corporations want subsidized access to public lands unencumbered by environmental laws. When the government follows the law, the Alliance supports its actions. When it doesn’t, we go to court. That’s how democracy works, and that’s where we stand.

Sharon – It’s not clear to me that “corporations” want “subsidized access” “unencumbered by environmental laws”. Overstatements make me lose confidence in people; they seem to make newspaper editors want to publish op-eds, though.

Judge: USFS failed to study how Colt Summit timber sale affects lynx habitat

by
Past logging has heavily degraded the Seeley-Swan Valley in Montana, including here on either side of Lake Inez and Seeley Lake on the Lolo National Forest. Photo by George Wuerthner.

According to the Missoulian, a federal judge has ruled that the US Forest Service failed to adequately study how the Colt Summit timber sale might affect endangered lynx habitat.

As readers may recall, The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association and National Wildlife Federation – as well as their ‘timber partners’ at Montana Wood Productions Association and Montana Logging Association – actually filed a court brief in support of this timber sale.   Last month, some Montana timber mills even launched an all out, $30,000 PR campaign to support the logging project, discredit the plaintiffs and call for many Montana timber sales to be exempted from judicial review.

Meanwhile, others have spoken out against the Colt Summit timber sale, claiming it’s based on false assumptions and that the collaborating conservation groups have been less than honest about facts concerning this timber sale, including the fact that the Forest Service already is moving ahead with all the watershed restoration work.  Additional details about the Colt Summit logging project can be found here.

Question: What does this ruling saying about the type of “collaboration” taking place in Montana right now between the timber industry and a handful of well-funded conservation groups?  Is the future of national forest management best served when industry gets together with well-funded special interest groups to push through illegal timber sales? Or is it best served when the Forest Service is required to follow the law and best science when managing our public lands?

Court declines to rehear Sierra Nevada case from E&E News

by

Here’s a link.

Excerpts

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not rehear the case. The full court also opted against an en banc hearing involving 11 judges

and

Judge William Fletcher’s majority opinion in the case was one of several openly criticized by one of his colleagues on the court, Judge Milan Smith, in a vituperative dissenting opinion filed earlier this month when the court, sitting en banc, ordered the Forest Service to consult with other agencies over whether gold prospecting in the Klamath National Forest will negatively affect fish species (Greenwire, June 4).

If left intact, the Sierra Nevada ruling “will dramatically impede any future logging in the West” because “it will take even longer for the agencies to approve forest plans,” Smith wrote in his dissenting opinion. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski was the only other judge who signed on to Smith’s most outspoken comments.

Despite Smith’s concerns, today’s announcement said that “no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc.”

Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said he was surprised that Smith had not asked for the court to vote on an en banc rehearing.

“On the surface, it doesn’t make much sense,” he said. Hellman speculated that the outcome in the Klamath gold prospecting case may have deterred Smith from pursuing the issue. Instead, Smith may be hoping that the Supreme Court will take up the case, Hellman said.

National Grasslands Week

by

US Forest Service celebrates 75 years of national grasslands

The U.S. Forest Service is celebrating National Grasslands Week June 17-23, showcasing the beauty, history and economic value of these national treasures on the 75th anniversary of the legislation that established them.

America’s 20 national grasslands, spanning 12 states and 4 million acres, were created through the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937, authorizing the federal government to acquire damaged lands for rehabilitation. Thirteen of these national grasslands reside in the Great Plains, where the ravages of the Dust Bowl left the soil bare of vegetation for years. Today, the benefits grasslands provide are valued in the billions of dollars.

“Our national grasslands remain beautiful examples of successful restoration programs,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “These lands are once again rich habitats brimming with native wildlife, grasses and wildflowers. They are also economic engines, generating jobs and bolstering rural American communities.”

The national grasslands offer a wealth of recreation and education opportunities for more than 1 million annual visitors. The grasslands feature some of the world’s best bird-watching experiences as well as camping, hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, target shooting, off-highway vehicle riding, picnicking and learning activities. Scenic drives offer unique geological features, wildlife and stellar locations for stargazing.

History buffs can visit old cemeteries and homesteads and take guided tours of Native American petroglyphs. They can also share in the experience of early settlers and their trek on the Santa Fe Trail.

“It took decades to restore the national grasslands from the barren landscapes of the Dust Bowl, to the rich prairie habitats we see today,” said Tidwell. “Every American should experience these unique grasslands that are so much a part of our rich natural heritage.”

Comanche National Grassland, Colorado

The national grasslands provide tremendous benefits including pollination of native and agricultural plants estimated at $6 billion annually. Livestock grazing and energy ventures including oil, gas, coal and wind also contribute to the economic benefits provided by these lands. They help prevent drought and floods, maintain biodiversity, generate and preserve soils, contribute to climate stability and protect watersheds, streams and river channels.

These lands were managed by the USDA’s Soil and Conservation Service, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service, until 1960 when they were transferred to the U.S. Forest Service and designated as national grasslands.

Check out your local grassland this week, they might have a special event to celebrate.

National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire

by

Thanks to one of our readers for this.

The National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire 11236 N. Highway 3, Fort Jones, California 96032 – (530) 468-2888 – [email protected] “The mission of the National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire is to educate, collaborate and motivate decision makers at all levels to take the necessary steps to eliminate catastrophic wildfire.”
Attached Invitation[1] is information about the Institute and a two day workshop to be held in Sacramento,CA July 17-18, 2012 to launch the Initiative.

Something of Value: The National Forest System
Congressional Action is Needed for the Revitalization of the National Forest System.
March 12, 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

America’s 193 million-acre National Forest System is in serious decline. The United States Forest Service (USFS) was created to be the congressional designated manager of the forests and to be the leader of professional forestry in the United States. As much through designed neglect as benign neglect, the national forests are being allowed to change from productive forests to fire-prone, insect-infested, and disease-wracked lands of declining value to the public, and the USFS that manages them for their citizen-owners is declining in its ability to carry out its mission of “caring for the land and serving people.” Congress must act immediately to save the National Forest System and its invaluable commodity and amenity resources, and to restore and revitalize the beleaguered USFS charged with their management.

During the past decade, the natural resources on over 12 million acres (an area larger than the State of Maryland) of National Forest System lands have been damaged or destroyed by catastrophic wildfires, insects, and disease. This devastation is a consequence primarily of improper and inadequate management in a time of rapidly changing environmental conditions caused by climate change. Science-based resource management by Forest Service professionals has been preempted by those with ideological agendas and the political power to impose them. Congress’s statutory direction for management of the national forests on a sustained yield-multiple use basis has been subverted by special interest groups. This situation will only get worse without immediate congressional intervention.

Congress must act now to charter a comprehensive review of the legislated mission and physical status of the forests and their resources, and then reverse and remedy the situations in those forests and their administration that threaten the nation’s economical and ecological well-being. If it does not, and current trends continues, the nation’s needs for vital economic goods and ecosystem services provided by the National Forest System will not be met (such as water), and Forest Service capabilities to manage the national forests will decline with the decline of its corps of professional resource managers and other specialists.

We believe the necessary review would best be led by a new public land law review commission, or Congress’s investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), with input by members of the Forest Service along with representatives of state and local governments directly concerned with national forest issues, citizen dependent on the forests, resource management experts, and user group members. This review should focus on: (1) the biological and physical condition of the National Forest System; (2) the management needs and challenges which must be met to restore those lands and resources through active management, as well as restore public confidence in the process; and (3) The indicators of needed service and products being delivered to American citizens. As a result of this review, Congress should: (1) revise the often-conflicting statutes governing National Forest System management and stewardship; and (2) revise, restore and reaffirm the mission of the Forest Service to manage those lands to produce “the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run” that was its original charge, as well as provide for accomplishment of that mission.

Note from Sharon:Reminds me of a couple summers ago when University of Colorado Law School summer conference was on the need for a new land law review commission. Here’s a link to one of the posts on that by John Rupe.

N. Idaho logging project faces possible lawsuit

by

Thanks to JZ for this contribution.

From the Helena here: LEWISTON, Idaho (AP) — N. Idaho logging project faces possible lawsuit

“Two environmental groups say they will file a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service concerning a planned logging project in the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests.
Friends of the Clearwater in Moscow, Idaho, and the Alliance of the Wild Rockies in Helena have filed a 60-day notice as required under federal law.”

“… the groups contend the 2,500-acre Little Slate Project in northern Idaho will harm protected species, including Canada lynx, bull trout, steelhead and spring and summer chinook.”

“The project involves a mix of logging and restoration, with the goal of treating lodgepole pine stands harmed by beetle infestations.”

A copy of the appeal response for the project can be found here.

The project file here.

From the ROD on the vegetation treatments:

Vegetation Treatments
Alternative B2 will conduct timber harvest and fuel reduction treatments on 2,598 acres to alter species composition and structure.
Regeneration harvest will occur on 2,188 acres as described below.
• 1,211 acres will be clearcut with reserves. Most of the existing mature stand will be removed to
produce a site with high sun exposure that will provide optimum growing conditions for the new
stand. This prescription will be implemented in lodgepole pine dominant stands with little
regeneration and few healthy trees in the overstory. Approximately 5 to 10% of the existing
canopy will be retained in all harvest units to serve as shelter and some cases, serve as a seed
source. Following site preparation, the units will be planted with western larch and ponderosa
pine. Some areas will be allowed to regenerate naturally.
• 600 acres will be seed tree cut with reserves. This prescription will be implemented in areas
dominated by lodgepole pine where healthier, vigorous trees of desirable species (western larch,
ponderosa pine, Douglas fir) are present in the overstory to provide a source of seed for natural
regeneration. Eight to ten trees per acre will be left widely scattered on the sites following
harvest to provide seeds for natural regeneration and serve as shelter. Seed tree retention is based
on desired species, wind firmness, and seed-producing capacity and is considered in the count of
green tree replacements for snags. Ten to 20 percent of the canopy should be present following
treatment. Following site preparation, the units will be planted with western larch and ponderosa
pine or allowed to regenerate naturally.
• 377 acres will be shelterwood cut. This prescription will be implemented in areas dominated by
lodgepole pine, with areas which contain higher concentrations of other species including western
larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir and Engelmann spruce. Approximately 20 to 40%
(15 to 40 trees per acre) of the overstory tree canopy will be retained to provide shade, structural
diversity and other resource benefits. Retained trees consist of healthy, vigorous medium to large
diameter western larch, ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. These trees will be included in the count
for green tree replacements for snags. Following site preparation, the units will be planted with
western larch and ponderosa pine or allowed to regenerate naturally.

Commercial thinning will be completed on 410 acres to increase growth, vigor, and resistance to
damage from fire, insects and diseases. This prescription will be implemented in areas that are
predominantly mixed conifer. Intermediate suppressed trees will be harvested and about 40 to 100
overstory trees per acre of healthy dominant and co-dominant trees will be retained, leaving 40-70%
canopy coverage. Seral species such as ponderosa pine and western larch will be favored for retention,but healthy, larger Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce and grand fir are viable leave trees. In areas where nodesirable leave trees exist, openings up to two acres in size may be created.

Snag, Downed Wood and Standing Live Tree Retention. All regeneration and commercial thinning
treatments will retain snags, green trees and downed wood consistent with Region 1 snag and green tree
retention guidelines as revised by the Nez Perce Forest for each cover type (See FEIS, Appendix C).
Green reserve trees will be retained, where possible, around snags to protect them from logging or
burning and reduce the likelihood of being felled as a hazard tree. The larger trees in a unit will be
retained, with a preference of western larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir where they occur. Reserve
trees may be lodgepole pine if they are free of mistletoe and mountain pine beetle. Trees with dwarf
mistletoe infections (lodgepole pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir) should not be retained if possible.
After treatment, all units will retain 7-14 tons per acre of downed woody material 3 inches diameter or greater in grand fir habitat types and 12-23 tons per acre in subalpine fir habitat types. (Graham et al.1994).

Note from Sharon: Photos of the units with some reasonable before and after photos of similar treatments would be helpful in discussions and with the public. A picture is worth 1000 words. Are there any out there? If so, please send to [email protected].