GAO: USFS Fuel Reduction Projects 98% Litigation-Free
By Matthew Koehler, Unfiltered 3-05-10
 | |
|
Yesterday, the General Accounting Office (GAO) – the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress – issued a brand new report titled, "Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008." According to the report, 98% of Forest Service fuel reduction projects (and more than 99% of the acreage) were implemented without any litigation.
New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman, the Chairman of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who along with House Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall commissioned the GAO report, had this to say about the GAO's findings:
"Nationwide, 98 percent of Forest Service decisions approving hazardous fuels reduction projects – covering more than 10 million acres – were implemented without litigation. Just 2 percent – involving 124,000 acres – were taken to court. Administrative appeal rates dropped by 69 percent compared to 2002-2003."
The findings of this new GAO report stand in contrast to what some supporters of Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act have been telling the public regarding litigation of fuel reduction projects. Over the past year, some of these supporters have routinely complained of "gridlock" and have given the impression that all Forest Service fuel reduction projects are litigated and stopped by the courts. In fact, last September, Senator Tester went so far as to tell a Bozeman crowd that "lawsuits have stopped forest management cold."
This new report from the GAO clearly demonstrates that such statements, while perhaps politically popular, are not based on reality. It will be interesting to see if Senator Tester and supporters of the FJRA, as well as the mainstream media, acknowledge and embrace the documented findings of this new GAO report. After all, shouldn't this GAO report be great news for those who want to see bona-fide national forest fuel reduction activities move forward?
Or will FJRA supporters just continue to complain about all the supposed "gridlock" and push ahead with their plans to mandate logging, undermine NEPA, cause significant Forest Service budget shortfalls throughout Montana and the region and lead to what the head of the US Forest Service has described as the "balkinaization" of America's National Forest system?
Stay tuned...
-----------------
The following information was sent out yesterday by the United States Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources:
For years, critics have complained that hazardous fuels reduction projects in the National Forests have been tied up by administrative appeals and lawsuits. Senate Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman and House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall asked the Government Accountability Office to ground that discussion in fact.
Today, GAO posted a report that includes detailed statistics on public appeals, objections and litigation regarding hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forests in recent years. The report includes the first glimpse of the "pre-decisional objection process" that was established for projects carried out under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Key finding: 98% of projects (and more than 99% of the acreage) involving hazardous fuels reduction were implemented without any litigation.
Sen. Bingaman: "It is encouraging that litigation rates remain extremely low and administrative review rates have dropped over the last decade. I think these statistics reflect a growing public understanding of fuels reduction and restoration projects, and increased collaborative efforts among stakeholders and the Forest Service."
GAO surveyed Forest Service projects involving hazardous fuels reductions that were approved during 2006-08. Most of these projects were subject to an administrative review, where stakeholders can "appeal" a decision to more senior Forest Service staff for review. Others were subject to a pre-decisional objection process, where stakeholders can submit objections to a proposal before the Forest Service staff makes a decision on a project. After the objection or administrative review is complete, Forest Service decisions could then be challenged in Federal court for compliance with applicable laws. Here are other key findings:
LITIGATION
• 2006-08 Litigation Rate: 98% of Forest Service projects (and more than 99% of the acreage) involving hazardous fuels reduction were implemented without any litigation.
• Trend: Litigation rates have dropped from 3% during 2001-02. For projects with potentially significant environmental impacts (i.e., those thoroughly analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement), litigation rates have dropped by nearly half.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
• 2006-08 Decisions Subject to Administrative Review: 84% of decisions approving hazardous fuels reduction projects were subject to the traditional administrative review process.
• 2006-08 Administrative Review Rate: Stakeholders sought administrative review of 18% of decisions approving hazardous fuels reduction projects that were subject to the traditional administrative review process.
• Trend: For decisions subject to administrative review, formal administrative review rates have dropped by 69% since 2002.
• 2006-08 Litigation Rates: 2% of decisions subject to administrative review were challenged in Federal court.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003 (HFRA)
• 2006-08 HFRA Decisions: 8.5% of the projects involving hazardous fuels reduction were approved under HFRA.
• 2006-08 Administrative Objection Rate: Hazardous fuels reduction projects approved under HFRA were objected to at more than double the rate of projects subject to the traditional administrative review process.
• 2006-08 Litigation Rates: The new pre-decisional objection process did not result in a lower litigation rate than the traditional administrative review process.
TIMING
• The Forest Service processed all appeals and objections within the prescribed times.
• Although the HFRA objection process lasts not more than two months (30 days for stakeholders to file objections, 30 days for the USFS to respond), half of the decisions proposed under HFRA were finalized by the Forest Service within three months.
# # #
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
In addition, Region 1 (northern Idaho, Montana and North Dakota) has the highest rate of litigation nationwide. 8% of all types of projects in Region 1 were litigated. It's too bad they don't break the litigation rate down by Region and treatment type, but I expect that the litigation rate of timber sales in Region 1 would be higher than 8%.
Litigation on 1 out of 12 projects is substantial. Even more substanital than actual litigation is the threat of litigation and the resulting agency culture. EIS's and EA's only get longer and take up more time.
Another caveat is these statistics only apply to treatments identified as being fuel reduction treatments by the Forest Service. Other treatments are not included.
The report also states that only 3 groups in the country filed more than 5 lawsuits on the relevant projects during this time period. Those three groups are WildWest Institute, Native Ecosystem Network and Alliance for the Wild Rockies. Out of 29 lawsuits in the country, WildWest was part of 7 of those, almost 25%.
Check it out for yourself, Mr Kohler. Its right there in appendix 6, beginning on page 47.
You also forgot to note that Montana is in the region with the highest rate of litigation and appeals in the country. Page 37.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10337.pdf
So, Ptarmigan, the WildWest Institue DID NOT file a "staggering 35 lawsuits" as you claim. As the chart on page 52 clearly show, the WildWest Institute took part in 3 lawsuits in the USFS Region One, which includes all of Montana, South Dakota and northern Idaho. In the USFS Region Four, which includes the southern part of Idaho, western Wyoming and all of Utah and Nevada, WildWest took part in four lawsuits.
One other useful tidbit of information worth pointing out is that this GAO report covers the period between Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and FY 2008. So, calender-wise, that's the period from October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2007. In other words, that's the period that was between 4 1/2 years to 2 1/2 years ago. So while I think for the most part this report is the most complete look at these issues the GAO has even taken, we need to keep it mind it's a snapshot from the recent past. After all, a lot has changed in the world over the past 2 1/2 years.
Fact is, for about the past five years we've been actively engaged in numerous open, inclusive collaborative processes in the region and the WildWest Institute hasn't filed a new lawsuit in Montana in about 2 years. We also have only filed a small handful of appeals in the last two years, and to be honest, off the top of my head, I'm not sure we filed any appeals in 2009. I'm quite positive that if, and hopefully when, the GAO takes a similar look at the period from FY 2009 (October 1, 2008) onward, the litigation percentage and appeal percentage of fuel reduction projects will be even lower than those in contained in this latest GAO report.
Finally, I'd also just like to point out that since this latest GAO report covers the time period between Oct 1, 2005 to Sept 30, 2007, that the WildWest Institute didn't even form until May 2006. Prior to May 2006 we were the Native Forest Network (which I directed) and The Ecology Center (whose organizational management and decision-making process I had nothing to do with). In other words, for 30% of the time period covered in this report I ran the Native Forest Network, which, according to report and my memory, filed one appeal, one objection and zero lawsuits during the period. For whatever reason, the GAO authors (who I spoke with on the phone for about two hours as they were researching this report) make the distinction between NFN, The Ecology Center and WildWest for the Objection chart starting on page 50, but the GAO didn't make that distinction between NFN, The Ecology Center and WildWest for the Appeal chart on p 47 or the Lawsuit chart on p 52. I mention this because some of the appeals and lawsuits that WildWest gets "credit" for in this report, were actually filed by The Ecology Center before our merger in May 2006. Thanks.
Appeals and litigation (even as of Oct 2005 to Sept 2007) have been on a significant downward trend. That trend has certainly continued over the past 2 1/2 years, and I would suspect will continue into the future. Not because of Senator Tester's FJRA or the Beaverhead Partnership, but because of these open, inclusive, transparent collaborative processes such as the Montana Forest Restoration Committee, Lolo Restoration Committee, Bitterroot Restoration Committee, Lincoln Restoration Committee, Southwest Crown of the Continent CFLRP Working Group, et al. If you are in favor of bona-fide fuel reduction work on national forests can't you at least acknowledge these facts, instead of making snide anonymous comments? Thanks.
With more than 7 million acres of dead and dying forests, all the emphasis is on treating the symptoms instead of the disease. We cannot "let nature take its course", wishing for a wetter climate and rainforests in Idaho.
The best thing I can think of is to reach a consensus on types of projects that can proceed unimpeded, without major impacts and without the possibility of lawsuit. Also, the same can be said for salvage sales, which CAN benefit the land. Rarely is a salvage project not litigated, these days. With great examples of highly destructive re-burns in unsalvaged fires, it would seem that science says salvage can be good. There are going to be a TON of salvage projects in the coming decade and it would be best for us to deal with it sooner than later. "Snag-thinning"???
"Although decisions involving prescribed burning received the greatest number of challenges, decisions that used commercial logging were challenged at a higher rate than the other treatment methods, considering both appeals and objections."
and
"Decisions that included commercial timber sale contracts were the most frequently appealed, objected to, and litigated. However the rate at which decisions were challenged was highest for decisions that included stewardship contracts."
Yeah, that makes sense to me. Litigate anything that pays.
Here's some more:
"These figures represent a similar rate of appeals for both types of decision, with about 18 to 19 percent of appealable decisions appealed; however, decisions involving inventoried roadless areas were objected to at a higher rate (50 percent) than those involving the wildland-urban interface (40 percent)."
Probably more politically savvy to make sure something far away burns than something close in people actually see.
Here's some more stuff:
"The 298 appeals were filed by 217 appellants. This total includes appeals by 88 different interest groups, mostly environmental groups, and 129 individuals.24 Of the 88 interest groups, 10—Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, John Muir Project of the Earth Island Institute, Native Ecosystems Council, Oregon Wild, Ouachita Watch League, Sierra Club, The Lands Council, Utah Environmental Congress, and the WildWest Institute—each appealed 10 or more decisions."
And more:
"The 101 objections were filed by 37 organizations and 41 individuals. Of the 37 organizations, 3—the Center for Biological Diversity, the Idaho Conservation League, and the WildWest Institute27— each objected to 5 or more decisions."
Finally:
"In the 29 litigated decisions, 24 interest groups and 11 individuals were plaintiffs. The interest groups were primarily environmental groups, with three groups—Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and the WildWest Institute—each acting as plaintiff in 5 or more decisions. Of the 29 litigated decisions, plaintiff groups and individuals had previously submitted appeals on 24 of the decisions and objections on 3 of the decisions during the administrative process. The remaining 2 litigated decisions were subject to appeal, but the plaintiffs did not submit an appeal during the administrative process."
And, in Region One, with 112 decisions, 11 were litigated. 87 percent of all projects were objected to. Highest by far in percentages. 3 of 11 won by USFS, 4 won by enemy, 4 still ongoing.
Appeals champ AWR, with 42. NEC, Sara Jane, 13. WW, 35.
Litigation champ: AWR, 9; WW, 8; NEC Sara Jane, 7.
I rest my case.
I choose to try to remain anonymous (unsuccessfully apparently . . . nice detective work), because I'm not authorized to represent the views of the organization I work for. Sometimes the views I share here don't line up with the position my employer. I'd rather not have to worry what my boss thinks about my politics when I'm commenting on a story. I'm not trying to fool or mislead anyone about who I am; I'd just like a bit of privacy. I'd appreciate if you'd respect that in the future.
I see that you posted a link to the entire report. All I did was try to lend some clarity to the details of the numbers. The press release issued by the Committee is misleading if it's applied only to Montana. Region 1 has the highest appeal and litigation rates in the country, and so do project that involve selling timber.
As both you and the report noted, litigation rates have been decreasing. I'm glad the WildWest Institute is behaving more collaboratively and less confrontationally than it did in the past. Unfortunately the Forest Service does not adapt quickly and is still going through their planning process expecting to be sued. In this region, when 1 out of 12 fuels reduction projects is litigated, can you blame them?
As I stated before, the "analysis paralysis" is additive. Every time there's a lawsuit, the Forest Service adds another element to analyze. I've been shipped EIS's that had to come in boxes, not envelopes. The culture of the Forest Service that resulted from litigation is as much of a problem as the litigation itself.
One of the prime purposes is the challenge the Forest Service to work on its planning process to make it more efficient. When implemented, the agency and stakeholders will learn valuable lessons about what worked and what didn't. This may inform an attempt to reform the National Forest Management Act.
Now you have a decision to make. I disagree with Matt on just about everything, but I agree completely when it comes to anonymous, pseudonymous commentary.
Just the other day, I posted a column over my own name in my little slot over at the Beacon, ripping into Tester's wilderness bill. Some troll comes on there, writes something so completely untrue I wanted to come find his house.
So, with a little google fu, and the fact that the Beacon comment software sends writers a copy of comments with the sender email, I found his fungous little troll butt...under Montana Wilderness Association's rock.
Lots of context there. Plenty of motives, too. And frickin' dishonest. I'm just WAITING to see if I get a response, either from my little furry friend, or from his boss man Tim Baker.
If this guy is being paid to shill, he needs to shill straight up. And if someone is saying what they believe, then by golly, they should believe it enough to put their name on it, right or wrong.
Now you yourself are in context, and context does matter.
Had she been attacking Koehler in a personal way, it would be a different story. But she clearly wasn't. It is not someone else's decision whether a person wants to remain anonymous or not, nor is it that person's place to make assumptions about the reasons why someone might choose to remain anonymous, nor is it that person's place to "out" them on here. It may bother you when someone doesn't use their real name, Matt, but that doesn't give you the right to use this forum as your own little witch hunt against anyone who presents an opposing point of view.
This was a lame move on your part, and clearly out of line. But also not the first time, and not surprising. Koehler apparently has access privileges on New West to look up people's e-mail accounts and identities when they post on here. However, that does NOT give him the right to "out" people when he chooses, particularly when those people are simply presenting a well-reasoned, but different, point of view on an issue. Doing so is nothing less than being a petty little tyrant of his microscopic fiefdom of the internet.
And yes Matt - I'm using my real name here. Someone needs to you on this kind of bullshit.
As much as I agree with THCG's line of discussion here, and often on other lines, in her other life she's a player with an outfit that has skin in this game.
Matt is here in "full context," and guess what, we just had a full-context discussion of the GAO report....which sort of shows that Matt had certain contextual intents and shortcomings. What he declared up top was technically true, but in context, pretty much a knuckleball.
Argue all you want on the "merits" but there are reasons why certain points are viewed as meritorious...ideas do not exist in a monetary or cultural or societal vacuum. Speech does not even exist in a vacuum.
Then there is the matter of the usual trolls on here, such as Horst ad nauseam. Do they add anything except angst? Would they say what they do "in face?" Heck no they wouldn't....if they did, at some point, they'd insult someone really big, or -- someone's really big, mean, loyal friend. And it would hurt.
Finally, there's the old concept of being allowed to face one's accusers, in the Sixth: "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." It's all part of the package.
I'm not talking about Horst, or anyone else who here who might be considered a "troll." Treehuggin' Cowgirl's post are not, and never have been, from what I have seen, to be "trolling," and I wouldn't lump her into that category simply to make your point.
Nor was she in any way attacking Mr. Koehler on a personal level - she was addressing the issue at hand.
The bottom line is that there isn't currently any requirement on this board that posters have to use their real names. Anyone who posts here still has that choice, and Koehler is going to have to live with that if he wants to continue contributing until the rules change. More importantly, it isn't Mr. Koehler's place to expose someone's personal information on here simply because they present a differing point of view to his own. It is wrong, vindictive and unbecoming of a "professional" contributor in response to someone who is merely offering a different point of view and clearly not being mean-spirited, whether they choose to use their real name or not.
She exists in a public role, as a public relations professional, and is associated in that way with the statements she makes and writes and is paid for on behalf of the positions of her employer. Is it just a job for her? Is she comfortable with what she writes or is told to write? Is she consistent in her positions, or not? Most important, does her track record indicate that her personal positions are worth noting?
So pardon me a little if I'm uncomfortable with accepting a plea for "privacy" from her alter ego when she's engaged in a public discussion.
I'm definitely not saying Erin should leave the romper room. But she has to either come clean with her bosses or establish some ground rules.
Granted, private is private, and should be respected. Trust me, Matt and Geo and I and others have PLENTY of sidebar discussions which I'm sure you would find interesting. Under the white flag at Bastogne sort of dialogue, mind you. Maybe Enemy at the Gates is more like it. No love lost at all. But we do tell each other what we think -- and even then, we all try not to be stupid because our stupidity might get forwarded. There are rules of engagement.
Finally, can't you gist "then there is the matter of?" Goodness gracious lumpenproletarian land sakes, sir!
She has a right to expect that privacy. And there are no rules on this board that require her to do otherwise. Nor is it for any of you self-apppointed cop, judge and jury types on here to "out" her simply because you think that's the "right" thing to do.
For the record, I do know know TG at all, but I find that this is sleazy, and someone needs to say something about it.
For the record, I do NOT know TG at all, but I find that this is sleazy, and someone needs to say something about it.
Sorry to disappoint, but no, I don't spend time "checking people out" who post on here. Don't take it personally, but I really don't care so much that I would spend time digging up dirt on people. Furthermore, I think it's pretty weird to do so. Get a life.
I imagine that Matt researching the names of anonymous commenters and then posting them could detract a lot of agency personnel from commenting. They can be put in a much more awkward position than I can, yet have very valuable information to add to the discussion. "Outting people" makes the discussion less open and would likely deter some with from participating.
On another note, does Newwest have a way of looking up commenters e-mail addresses? I'm just curious how Matt found my name.
Smith, if you are so straightforward, then why did you morph into, um, Expectoralis or whatever? And is your ire against the esteemed Mr. Koehler and myself predicated upon our polarized opposition to certain legislation that you and certain others support?
As for "sleazy," how is it that an MWA employee can have a stealth Gmail account and a stealth user name and then ream someone who opposes MWA's position on this wonderful Tester bill? Like positing fake "grassroots" and false impressions of support is ethical? Never mind whether it's approved policy?
What the heck, it's a nice evening.
No, my ire has nothing to do with your position Dave, nor Matt's. I appreciate a diversity of opinion, as long as discourse remains respectful. My ire has to do with the way that you are conducting yourselves, and the way that you have taken it upon yourselves to decide on the level of another individual's privacy. And you should know that this sort of sad conduct is cheapening the legitimacy of New West. Frankly, I'm amazed they're allowing it, particularly from one of their "esteemed contributors."
"As for "sleazy," how is it that an MWA employee can have a stealth Gmail account and a stealth user name and then ream someone who opposes MWA's position on this wonderful Tester bill? Like positing fake "grassroots" and false impressions of support is ethical? Never mind whether it's approved policy?"
I have no idea what this refers to. Nor do I care, really.
No one but New West admins (me and about three others) have access to the information commenters provide when they leave a comment. (Which, by the way, is only IP and whatever email, real or not, they choose)
In no way did anyone at New West reveal anyone's email or other information on this thread.
This comment thread has been shut down. Please do not use this platform in this way again.
Courtney