Couple of questions for the Missoulian

Comment By Ochenski, 12-03-07

Koelhler is right to be concerned if he and his group have been misrepresented in the press. Right now, looks like that's the case.

I'll be interested in seeing Perry's response and, if it turns out WildWest hasn't been doing all this suing, looking forward to another piece that sets the record straight.

These kinds of issues are too important to Montanans and wind up generating too much heat in the political arena to be in any way distorted for the general public. As they say, "The truth shall set you free" -- and we all love freedom -- and truth.

Comment By Ellen Engstedt-Simpson, 12-05-07

George... between 2003 and now the Ecology Center aka Wild West Institute has filed 15 lawsuits or notices of intent to sue in Region 1. Basin Creek Hazardous Fuels -Beaverhead Deer Lodge; Middle East Fork - Bitterroot (2); Trout - Clearwater; West Troy - Koot (9 separate projects in two different actions); Big Steep - Koot (twice litigated); Lower Big - Koot (twice litigated); Whiskibas and Left Over Elk - Koot; McSutton (twice litigated) - Koot; Dry Fork Veg Restoration - Lewis and Clark; Blazing Saddles - Lolo; West Fork Petty - Lolo; Fish Trap - Lolo; Cat Exclusions (6 projects on the Lolo).
These are the ones on the current, active list. There are many more than have been files but in some manner resolved.
I agree "truth shall set you free" and we in the timber community can provide the truth and do. Take care friend!

Comment By Ellen Engstedt-Simpson, 12-05-07

GO.. after sending the last comment I dug out my search records for the entities in question. From January 2, 1999 to March 15, 2007 the Ecology Center was involved in 56 court actions relating to Region 1. Same timeframe for WWI indicates 16 court actions.
Court actions are a very poor way to manage our public lands that are supposed to be for multiple use.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 12-05-07

"we in the timber community can provide the truth and do"

Ellen, I like that one, perhaps you've found a new slogan. You are comparing apples to oranges and honestly throwing in some peaches and bananas too.

We never sued on West Fork Petty.

We never sued on Fish Trap.

We only sued on one CE project on the Lolo NF (Camp Salvage), not the 6 CE projects that Ellen states.

Our organization has not filed a new lawsuit over a timber sale in Montana since May 2006, 19 months ago.

With the exception of Fish Trap, every single timber sale that Ellen has listed above in her first comment has either been logged, is currently being logged or could be logged because there simply is not a court order injunction on any one of these sales.

If anything I have stated here above is incorrect and Ellen has proof that what I have said is not true please share it and if I have accidently stated anything here that is factually incorrect I'd be happy to correct that.

Ellen is fond of telling the public that 312 million board feet of timber is "tied up" in appeals and litigation in Montana and northern Idaho. Yet as I have pointed out above, how can the volume from a timber sale still be considered "tied up" in appeals and litigation if, in fact, the logging is already done, or the logging is on-going or if the logging contractor could be logging the sale, but is simply waiting until the weak market conditions improve? Most people assume a "tied up" timber sale isn't one that was logged last year. Like I said, apples, oranges....

The last time I checked there was only one court-order injunction of a timber sale in all of Montana. It's on the 600,000 board foot (not 312 million) Keystone-Quartz timber sale on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF.

If anyone takes the time to look at the Forest Service "study" that was used as the basis for the Missoulian article, you'll notice that it's hardly a "study" but just a spreadsheet that contains some blank spaces and questions marks. You will noticed right at the bottom of the spreadsheet that it states: "The project listings include appeals and litigation that may be due to internal problems (not following forest plans as an example)" So the Forest Service acknowledges that appeals and litigation may have something to do with the Forest Service "not following forest plans."

Yes, it's true that – just like the timber industry, oil and gas industry, mining industry and grazing industry – the WildWest Institute participates in the public lands decision making process. And yes it's true that – just like these resource extraction industries – the WildWest Institute follows the public appeal process that was set up by Congress in reaction to a history of abuse on National Forests.

And, yes it is true that – just like these resource extraction industries – we may file a lawsuit when we believe the Forest Service has not followed it's own forest plan or the law, just like the logging industry sued to stop implementation of the roadless rule or sued to increase logging under the Northwest Forest Plan.

If anyone doubts that resource extraction industries are filling lawsuits on timber sales and other public land management decisions, check out this email that I got in response to the Missoulian article from Rich Fairbanks, who worked for the Forest Service for 32 years as a silverculturist, a planner and in fire. It's shared with his permission: "Maybe it's different in region 1 [northern Rockies], but in region 6 [Pacific Northwest] one of the main sources of appeals/litigation against the FS is the timber industry itself. They appeal and litigate conditions of timber sales, clauses in the TS contract, amount of BD collection, pretty much anything that can help their bottom line. Quick example: My last job before I left the agency was ID Team leader on the Biscuit Fire "Recovery Project". When the appeal period opened the very first appeal that came across my desk was from the timber industry. They wanted more timber offered. Naturally, when I read about "frivolous litigation tying the Forest Service in knots", I always think of the timber industry."

The purpose of our lawsuits is to get the Forest Service to follow the law and their own forest plans and to get the agency to protect fish and wildlife species, soils, old-growth and improve their overall management, not to stop all logging.

Take our recent Kootenai lawsuit for example. True, our lawsuit names 9 separate timber sales, however WildWest chose not to seek injunctive relief stopping any of these sales while the litigation proceeds. And like I stated earlier all 9 of these timber sales are either logged or being logged or could be logged. Yet Ellen, the Missoulian and Forest Service tell the public that all 80.3 million board feet of timber from these 9 timber sales is "tied-up" in litigation. Apples, oranges....

Hopefully we get to a point soon where appeals and lawsuits greatly diminish because the Forest Service follows the law and implements projects that protect and restore fish and wildlife species, refrain from cutting down old-growth and unlogged, native forests and begin to restore the vast ecological damage caused by the Forest Service and logging industry's wholly unsustainable practices of the recent past.

That's why the WildWest Institute is deeply involved in numerous efforts around the region to try and reach some common ground and move forward with diverse interests to craft positive, sustainable solutions that create jobs in the woods restoring watersheds and forests while also protecting our communities from wildfire through careful and strategic fuel reduction projects.

Comment By Ellen Engstedt-Simpson, 12-05-07

Clearing away the attempt by Mathew to cloud the issue of lawsuits - the timber community in Montana is not the serial litigator. On rare occasions, there might be a friend of the court filing or even on more rare times, a filing as an intervenor by someone who supports the Forest Service and its actions.
The West Troy-Kootenai suit (9 projects) was appealed to the 9th circuit because the plaintiffs lost at district court. They requested an injunction and it was denied which is the case in many of the filings.
The Basin Creek project in Butte's watershed was enjoined for a time and then the Judge lifted it so logging could resume.
The same is true on the Middle East Fork 2 projects. The WWI tried to have the projects enjoined but the Judge denied their motion. Immediately when denied at the district court level they race to the 9th circuit attempting to halt the projects. In fact, all of the Kootenai sales I listed are sitting in the 9th circuit and have not been offered for sale. Hardly apples and oranges....
The fact that some logging occurs on a few of the sales because they are not enjoined is not due to lack of attempt on the part of the litigators.
The current amount of volume "left in process" - meaning not sold - because of appeals and litigation in Region 1 is 314 million board feet. And, yes, Mathew, that means "tied up" with the uncertainty of eventual court decisions by the 9th circuit. Those are logs not going to Montana mills.

Comment By Hal Herring, 12-05-07

Thank you, Matt.

The struggle over management of our national forests is a rather bitter one: many people seem to have forgotten how it was, not so long ago, when the timber industry basically presided over the management of public lands. I have not forgotten, and I have not forgotten the price that the land and the waters paid during those years, and the price that it continues to pay.

In the world we live in, in this issue, balance is only achieved through endless struggle. If noone appealed timber sales, more timber would flow, and excesses would occur, just as we saw from the 60's to the 80's. What we witnessed then (the excess that Arnold Bolle outlined in his report) is why there is so much conflict now. The timber industry is a good bunch of folks, and they have a plan to produce more timber from the public lands. That is good. But there is no way that they can be expected to look out for the health of the lands, too- profit sometimes precludes doing what is best for the land (Overwhich Disaster, ie.). Somebody else has to counter their endless demands for more, more, more. Enviro groups like Matt's have done this, and every one of us should be grateful to them for taking on a truly thankless task. Thankless, that is, unless you walk a beautiful, clear, deep-shaded creek somewhere, in a forest that was supposed to be logged, and wasn't because it was a bad idea, and you fought to prove that. That's the thanks they get, a handshake from creation. And that is probably more than enough. They get a handshake from me, too, because I walk that creek, too, take solace and strength from those old trees, and yet I'm too busy to fight for it myself.
Hal

Comment By Ellen Engstedt-Simpson, 12-05-07

"We never sued on West Fork Petty. We never sued on Fish Trap." Both of those projects were part of the Camp Salvage lawsuit that was filed in July 2005 by the Ecology Center. So, yes, suits were filed on both which makes the first statements untrue.
There have been 9 court actions by WWI between August 2006 and February 2007 - direct attempts by that organization to stop hardworking Montanans from making a decent living while claiming to care about our rural communities.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 12-06-07

Hal, Thank you for your kind words of support.

Below is list of current WildWest Institute lawsuits in Montana. Like I said in a previous comment, if I have accidently stated anything here that is factually incorrect I'd be happy to correct that. For example, after checking with another staff member I realized I was wrong, and WildWest did include the Fishtrap project in our May 2006 lawsuit against the Blazing Saddles timber sale. And in truth, our organization sent two letters to the Lolo NF Supervisor earlier in 2006 offering to sit down and try and figure out ways that these sales could go forward without a lawsuit, but the Supervisor ignored both of those requests.

Furthermore, our concerns with the Fishtrap timber sale centered on the following facts and issues: The Fishtrap logging project would cut down enough trees from over 3 1/2 square miles of the watershed (2,260 acres) to fill 2,400 log trucks lined up end-to-end for twenty miles. The Fishtrap project calls for industrial logging in unroaded wildlands, within old-growth forests and important habitat for grizzly bears and bull trout. Based on the Forest Service budget the logging project will lose over $2.5 million. The Fish Trap project area is literally surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of private industrial timberlands that have been exhaustively clearcut and roaded. The Fishtrap project area was located 20 miles north of Thompson Falls within the remote upper Fishtrap Creek watershed. Sixty-seven percent of the Fishtrap project area is part of the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area and Fishtrap Creek is listed as a priority stream for the threatened Bull trout.

In a news article about this project I was quoted as saying: "We have been working with the Lolo National Forest and various stakeholders to try and come to agreement on projects that restore our watersheds and forests and focus the Forest Service's limited fuel reduction resources near neighborhoods and communities. We have even spent time with the Forest Service on-the-ground within the Fishtrap project area. This Fishtrap project - with industrial logging in unroaded wildlands, old-growth forests and habitat for grizzly bears and bull trout over twenty miles from the nearest community - clearly doesn't fit within that sensible framework for common ground."

So, as you can see, we had some real, justifiable concerns and issues with the Fishtrap project and we even offered to meet and hammer out an agreement with the Forest Service but they refused. And, to be honest, that is pretty typical of things have gone under the Bush Administration.

Remember, many of the legal challenges currently taking place on public lands are the direct result of the Bush Administration and former timber industry lobbyist Mark Rey (who has run the Forest Service during Bush's presidency) who have broken the law and illegal bent the rules to change long-standing Forest Service policy in favor of increased logging, oil and gas development, etc. If you're looking for someone to blame for lawsuits against they illegal policies or projects, blame former timber industry Mark Rey and the Bush Administration who broke the law, not environmental groups, for holding them accountable. Heck, like I said earlier, even the Forest Service "study" on appeals and litigation admits that these actions are the result of the Forest Service "not following forest plans." Is that our fault?

Finally, before that promised list of current WildWest lawsuits in Montana, I'd like to again point out that Ellen is comparing apples to oranges with a clever use of the term "court action." I've never seen anyone use that term below, but it appears as if Ellen is adding up each and every time paperwork is exchanged between Forest Service attorney's and our attorney's as a separate "court action" even though that exchange of paperwork is for the same lawsuit.

1. Clancy-Unionville timber sale, Helena NF: (Volume: 2.3 million board feet).

Status: On appeal to the 9th. No Injunction in place and no injunction ever sought by WildWest.

2. Middle East Fork timber sale, Bitterroot NF: (Volume: 11.02 million board feet).

Status: On appeal to the 9th. No Injunction in place. Logging is on-going and nearly completed on one part of the project. Logging contract has been awarded on another part of the project, but the logging contractor is waiting for lumber markets to improve before logging.

3. Basin Creek timber sale, Beaverhead/Deerlodge NF: (Volume: 14 million board feet).

Status: On appeal to the 9th. No Injunction in place. Logging and roadbuilding is on-going.

4. Keystone Quartz, Beaverhead/Deerlodge NF: (Volume: 600,000 board feet).

Status: Injunction in place pending further Forest Service studies regarding impacts on flamulated owl. It's our understanding that this is only timber sale in Montana currently under a court-ordered injunction.

5. Kootenai NF (multiple timber sales all under the same lawsuit): Bristow Area Project, Fortine Project, West Troy Project, Pipestone Project , Lower Big Creek Project, South McSwede Project, Alder Creek Project, Cow Creek Project, and the McSutten Project. (Volume: approximately 80 million board feet).

Status: On appeal to the 9th. No Injunction sought by WildWest. and no injunction in place. To be perfectly clear, WildWest has not asked the court to stop the logging on these sales while the litigation moves forward. It's our understanding that logging is on-going on many of these timber sales.

6. Camp Salvage CE, Lolo NF: (Volume: N/A. But under 1 million board feet)

Status: Logging already completed. On appeal to the 9th. No Injunction in place. Note: This lawsuit names approximately 20 CE's on the Lolo to give the court an idea of how wide-spread the use of CE's on the Lolo NF is, but WildWest never asked for injunction for any of these other CE's.

Comment By Ms Montana, 12-06-07

I don't understand why Koehler's group is not upfront about their litigations. If your fight is for real than shout it out and be proud of filing these suits to stop projects. But if you are trying to survive on the fees you get reimbursed through litigations then maybe its time to slither into silence.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 12-06-07

What in the world have I not been "upfront about" regarding our litigation? I have provided a listing of our current lawsuit in Montana. I have provided examples of the issues/concerns raised in our litigation.

If anyone wants to browse through documents related to WildWest's participation in the public lands decision making process within the Forest Service's Region 1, the link is found on our website at: http://maps.wildrockies.org/ecosystem_defense/Federal_Agencies/Forest_Service/Region_1/

Comment By Cameron Naficy, 12-07-07

One thing that I have wanted to say in response to all of this talk about lawsuits is that there are justifiable and worthwhile reasons why we engage the Forest Service in comments, collaboration, an endless series of meetings and phone calls, and if none of that works ultimately in appeals, and litigation as well. I agree it's important that we get the facts correct about our litigation record and where they are wrong we should endeavor to correct them publicly, but I would hope that not be perceived as apologetic (as I think Ms Montana points out). I think we should be very strong in asserting the reasons for our litigation, things such as 1) a continued assault on old growth and primary forests while the FS has no old growth species population data, a lack of reliable old growth data, and no strategy for managing for old growth species viability and the maintenance of biodiversity 2) no plan for sustainable levels of logging on national forests (note: an ASQ is not a plan for sustainability), much less a conception of what sustainable is 3) a failure to allow natural processes which have historically maintained landscape heterogeneity and species habitat to occur on the landscape 4) the wholesale commitment to the notion of fixed historical baselines, unfounded and generalized assumptions of changes from historical conditions, and the total buy-in to highly experimental, undefined and untested logging prescriptions for "restoration" to baseline conditions 5) a failed commitment to recover threatened, endangered and sensitive species 6) an unwillingness to deal with needed watershed/aquatic restoration measures unless funded by logging 6) a failure to maintain soil productivity, much less begin to explore what this means. Basically, our lawsuits are about the FS agenda to place logging first and foremost above all of these issues: water, soils, wildlife, fish, biodiversity, ecosystem function, wildness, etc. Take the Kootenai as an example. Many of those lawsuits are specifically related to the failure of the agency to address the cumulative effects of its decision to log 95% of the old growth out of that highly productive and once beautiful forest, all while continuing to log more and more virgin forest stands. Moreover, where will the future old growth come from when so much of the forest is already logged and timber sales continue to unfold in mature forest stands that don’t qualify as old growth and therefore have little protection under current Forest Service policies? Over the course of many years in our comments, litigation and other communications with the Forest Service, we have tried to be proactive in solving these problems. But the FS has shown strong commitment to doing only the minimum necessary and even that only once a court has ordered it. Mark Rey, who is the administratively appointed head of the Forest Service, is even risking jail time to undermine court orders to the full extent possible. The Forest Service continually wraps individual projects in a healthy forest, win-win veneer using the same set of “ecological” justifications for logging time and time again. However, on a project level the Forest Service has refused to take into account and accept the responsibility for its past actions, has no comprehensive data to justify the healthy forest claims that it puts forth and has been totally unwilling to provide an overarching, scientifically-based approach to restoration, soil productivity, species habitat, old growth, biodiversity, water quality and sustainability through its forest plans. These are failures which we have pointed out time and time again. They have not been addressed. How can sustainability be addressed by a piecemeal project by project approach? So how can the public buy these justifications about why logging is so good for the forest when the Forest Service has no overarching restoration plan that will maintain natural process and species diversity on our public lands, has failed to learn almost anything useful about the effects of various management treatments on landscape patterns and species responses despite a century of intensive management and still won’t discuss what sustainable forestry means in the slow growing forests of the Northern Rockies much less produce a tractable plan? For that matter, where is the timber industry's plan for sustainable logging on the public's land? Ellen...?

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 1-04-08

"For that matter, where is the timber industry's plan for sustainable logging on the public's land? Ellen...?"

...chirp...chirp...chirp...

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/couple_of_questions_for_the_missoulian/