BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz's Friends Dealt Major Setback
Judge Malloy is starting to catch on to the zero cutters game plan.
Federal judge gives go-ahead for Bitterroot hazardous fuels project
By PERRY BACKUS of the Missoulian
It didn't take long for U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy to decide that Montana's first hazardous fuels project under the Bush administration's Healthy Forests Restoration Act could move forward.
Molloy denied a request for a preliminary injunction sought by Missoula's WildWest Institute and the Friends of the Bitterroot on the controversial Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project last Friday, a day after hearing arguments on the matter in his Missoula courtroom.
Molloy said the environmental groups' chances of succeeding on the merits of their claim the U.S. Forest Service broke the law by not fully collaborating with the public were low.
In fact, the Forest Service took a hard look at environmental impacts; they considered and presented opposing scientific information; they were responsive and inclusive with the public throughout the process; and they didn't clearly make a premature commitment of irretrievable resources, Molloy said in his order denying the preliminary injunction.
“The plaintiffs failed to show they have a ‘fair chance' of succeeding in proving the defendants violated NEPA and NFMA,” Molloy wrote.
The possibility of a severe wildfire and its effect on the community is a measurable injury, Molloy said. Because a wildfire could block the only road going into the area, the judge said he had to balance the risk of human lives with the loss of recreation opportunities.
“In balancing the hardship to the parties, the scales tip toward the defendants and away from granting a preliminary injunction,” he wrote.
The environmental groups claimed the Forest Service violated federal environmental laws by committing resources before a decision was made, censoring contrary science, selectively excluding members of the public from the process, and not taking a hard look at soils.
They argued they'd suffer immediate injury if the project moved forward, because they live and recreate in the area and logging would degrade the forest. They didn't have a problem with work completed near structures, the environmentalists said, but were opposed to commercial logging.
The Forest Service and intervenors said the agency followed the law in putting together the project. Furthermore, they argued that because there is only one motorized access in and out of the area, doing nothing would increase the risk of a severe wildfire that could injure area residents and firefighters.
Molloy's order questioned the environmental groups' methods of obtaining comments for the project. The groups said 98 percent of the 11,000 public comments received on the project supported the alternative they developed, which called for reducing fuels within a 400-meter buffer around structures.
The Forest Service discovered the e-mailed comments were generated through a commercial company - and when it attempted to respond to the e-mail found that many of the addresses weren't valid, or that some people didn't know their names were on the list and asked to be removed.
While the agency didn't provide an exact number of faulty addresses to the court, Molloy said “the possibility that some of the responses were invalid makes less persuasive the argument that 98 percent of the public opposed the project.”
Molloy also took the Forest Service to task for its decision to exclude some members of the public from a press conference last summer. While the agency isn't required under the law and people don't have a statutory right to attend, Molloy said the decision “was not a wise political move.”
“When this type of act takes place, the message the Forest Service sends, whether intended or not, is that it will tolerate participation only to the extent the law requires and that after such point is reached, disagreeing voices are not welcome. They are excluded.
“Such a message is at odds with the intent of Congress. It is at odds with public courtesy. And, it is at odds with participatory transparent public involvement.”
Ravalli County Attorney George Corn represented a group of local government, businesses and private individuals who intervened in the case.
“We're very pleased with the judge's decision,” Corn said Wednesday. “This is a really important project. It's important to see that something like this can go through and the Forest Service can get started implementing it.”
Local residents and government officials have worked hard to develop fire planning documents and do fuel reduction work on private lands, he said.
“That all would have been for naught, given the land configuration we have here in this county,” Corn said.
Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull said many in the agency were surprised at the speed of Molloy's decision.
“Most of us have our jaws on the floor - in a good way,” Bull said.
The judge's decision means the agency will move forward in selling the first of three projects that will be offered. The stewardship contract was advertised Wednesday with the hope that on-the-ground work will start right after Labor Day, Bull said.
While the process has been contentious at times, Bull said, using the process outlined by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act shaved off about 100 days from what it normally takes to complete a project requiring an environmental impact statement.
The environmental groups can still appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Matthew Koehler, the WildWest Institute's executive director, said that group is currently reviewing its options, which include an appeal.
“We were disappointed,” Koehler said.
The groups supported a project that would have thinned about 1,600 acres within a quarter-mile of structures, which Koehler said makes more sense considering the limited resources and funding of the Forest Service.
The agency's current plans to harvest larger logs first will result in higher fire severity in the area for up to three years, according the Forest Service's own estimates, Koehler said.
“We feel that just doesn't make any sense,” he said.
The area still bears scars from past logging activities and the last remaining pockets of uncut timber are important for a variety of wildlife species, Koehler said.
Koehler said the groups have an “honest disagreement” with the Forest Service about how the areas should be managed.
“The courts are a good place to handle disagreements,” he said.
Judge Malloy is starting to catch on to the zero cutters game plan.
Federal judge gives go-ahead for Bitterroot hazardous fuels project
By PERRY BACKUS of the Missoulian
It didn't take long for U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy to decide that Montana's first hazardous fuels project under the Bush administration's Healthy Forests Restoration Act could move forward.
Molloy denied a request for a preliminary injunction sought by Missoula's WildWest Institute and the Friends of the Bitterroot on the controversial Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project last Friday, a day after hearing arguments on the matter in his Missoula courtroom.
Molloy said the environmental groups' chances of succeeding on the merits of their claim the U.S. Forest Service broke the law by not fully collaborating with the public were low.
In fact, the Forest Service took a hard look at environmental impacts; they considered and presented opposing scientific information; they were responsive and inclusive with the public throughout the process; and they didn't clearly make a premature commitment of irretrievable resources, Molloy said in his order denying the preliminary injunction.
“The plaintiffs failed to show they have a ‘fair chance' of succeeding in proving the defendants violated NEPA and NFMA,” Molloy wrote.
The possibility of a severe wildfire and its effect on the community is a measurable injury, Molloy said. Because a wildfire could block the only road going into the area, the judge said he had to balance the risk of human lives with the loss of recreation opportunities.
“In balancing the hardship to the parties, the scales tip toward the defendants and away from granting a preliminary injunction,” he wrote.
The environmental groups claimed the Forest Service violated federal environmental laws by committing resources before a decision was made, censoring contrary science, selectively excluding members of the public from the process, and not taking a hard look at soils.
They argued they'd suffer immediate injury if the project moved forward, because they live and recreate in the area and logging would degrade the forest. They didn't have a problem with work completed near structures, the environmentalists said, but were opposed to commercial logging.
The Forest Service and intervenors said the agency followed the law in putting together the project. Furthermore, they argued that because there is only one motorized access in and out of the area, doing nothing would increase the risk of a severe wildfire that could injure area residents and firefighters.
Molloy's order questioned the environmental groups' methods of obtaining comments for the project. The groups said 98 percent of the 11,000 public comments received on the project supported the alternative they developed, which called for reducing fuels within a 400-meter buffer around structures.
The Forest Service discovered the e-mailed comments were generated through a commercial company - and when it attempted to respond to the e-mail found that many of the addresses weren't valid, or that some people didn't know their names were on the list and asked to be removed.
While the agency didn't provide an exact number of faulty addresses to the court, Molloy said “the possibility that some of the responses were invalid makes less persuasive the argument that 98 percent of the public opposed the project.”
Molloy also took the Forest Service to task for its decision to exclude some members of the public from a press conference last summer. While the agency isn't required under the law and people don't have a statutory right to attend, Molloy said the decision “was not a wise political move.”
“When this type of act takes place, the message the Forest Service sends, whether intended or not, is that it will tolerate participation only to the extent the law requires and that after such point is reached, disagreeing voices are not welcome. They are excluded.
“Such a message is at odds with the intent of Congress. It is at odds with public courtesy. And, it is at odds with participatory transparent public involvement.”
Ravalli County Attorney George Corn represented a group of local government, businesses and private individuals who intervened in the case.
“We're very pleased with the judge's decision,” Corn said Wednesday. “This is a really important project. It's important to see that something like this can go through and the Forest Service can get started implementing it.”
Local residents and government officials have worked hard to develop fire planning documents and do fuel reduction work on private lands, he said.
“That all would have been for naught, given the land configuration we have here in this county,” Corn said.
Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull said many in the agency were surprised at the speed of Molloy's decision.
“Most of us have our jaws on the floor - in a good way,” Bull said.
The judge's decision means the agency will move forward in selling the first of three projects that will be offered. The stewardship contract was advertised Wednesday with the hope that on-the-ground work will start right after Labor Day, Bull said.
While the process has been contentious at times, Bull said, using the process outlined by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act shaved off about 100 days from what it normally takes to complete a project requiring an environmental impact statement.
The environmental groups can still appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Matthew Koehler, the WildWest Institute's executive director, said that group is currently reviewing its options, which include an appeal.
“We were disappointed,” Koehler said.
The groups supported a project that would have thinned about 1,600 acres within a quarter-mile of structures, which Koehler said makes more sense considering the limited resources and funding of the Forest Service.
The agency's current plans to harvest larger logs first will result in higher fire severity in the area for up to three years, according the Forest Service's own estimates, Koehler said.
“We feel that just doesn't make any sense,” he said.
The area still bears scars from past logging activities and the last remaining pockets of uncut timber are important for a variety of wildlife species, Koehler said.
Koehler said the groups have an “honest disagreement” with the Forest Service about how the areas should be managed.
“The courts are a good place to handle disagreements,” he said.
'Course I do love to see the bullhog in action on the Junipers. Are they good for anything??? I don't even like gin 
