GAO: USFS Fuel Reduction Projects 98% Litigation-Free

you forgot to point out (0.00 / 1)

that according to this same report, your Wild west institute has filed a staggering 35 lawsuits - second highest in the nation followed only by Alliance for the Wild Rockies (42 lawsuits)

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/d...

---

by: Ptarmigan @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 19:01:14 PM UTC

Time to Ptar and Pheather the enviros, eh? (0.00 / 0)

Not a good idea when you don't know what you are talking about.

There were not 42 and 35 "lawsuits" by AWR and WildWest, respectively. There were 9 and 7 lawsuits. The numbers you quote were for appeals, the majority of which were dealt with administratively, and never led to lawsuits.

For those that proceeded to litigation, in Region 1, the outcomes were as follows: 3 won by Forest Servoice, 4 won by plaintiffs (AWR and WildWest, et al.), 1 settled, and 3 ongoing.

In Region 4, it was 4-0-1-1.

So, I think you need a class in remedial GAO Report Deciphering 101, and basic NFMA and NEPA regs, Ptar.

Otherwise its just a bunch of mumbo jumbo mish-mash you're spouting that is meaningless.

---

by: JC @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 20:28:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ptarmigan, check your facts pal... (0.00 / 0)

...and brush up on your reading comprehension skills, ok?

You have misread that part of the report and provided false information above. The fact of the matter, which is clearly shown on page 47 of the report, is that the chart shows, "Appellants and Number of Appeals Filed, by Forest Service Region, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008."

That chart doesn't even refer to lawsuits. It's talking about the public appeal process, which is part of the public process established by the US Congress.

So, Ptarmigan, the WildWest Institue DID NOT file a "staggering 35 lawsuits" as you claim.

I should also point out of the 35 appeals we filed during the time frame of this report, at least 90% to 95% were co-filed with AWR...just so you don't think that the number of appeals in our area is found by adding 35 w/ 42.  Like I said, I bet 90% to 95% of those are the same exact appeal.

Fact is, WildWest is actively engaged in numerous open, inclusive collaborative processes in the region and we haven't filed a 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 appeal in 2009.

Those are the facts, Ptarmigan...if you even care.  One would assume I have some idea of the work my organization is actually engaged in. Better luck trying to discredit me next time.. Thanks.

P.S. Interesting also how you just ignore these facts, quoted by Senator Bingaman: "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."  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 20:28:03 PM UTC

True But... (0.00 / 0)

AWR and WWI still led the nation in actual lawsuits filed during the range used for this study. Table 9.

---

by: fletchshaw @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 20:42:12 PM UTC

And the USFS (0.00 / 0)

still leads the nation in losing lawsuits file on Forest Service lands. And AWR and WildWest lead the nation in winning lawsuits in this Region.

What's your point?

Lawsuits=bad? If so, then you are advocating that the government is above the law, which is a dangerous presumption, and one that will inevitably come back to haunt those who believe in it.

If the government breaks the law it needs to be held accountable. The fact that AWR and WildWest historically have prevailed in many lawsuits, both minor and major, shows that they are upholding the public interest.

---

by: JC @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 21:51:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"fletchshaw", you maybe think... (0.00 / 0)

WildWest taking part in 7 whole lawsuits (and 3 whole lawsuits in Montana, South Dakota and northern Idaho) from FY 2006 through 2008 had something to do w/ the fact that Forest Service, under the Bush Administration and former timber industry lobbyist Mark Rey, might have been pumping out some shitty logging projects? You think, just maybe...maybe...that might have had something to do with it?  Should citizens not hold the US Government Accountable when they believe the laws and regulations aren't being followed?  

You anonymous posters can continue your fishing expedition to discredit our organization all you want. Fact is, your comments demonstrate you have little understanding of federal forest policy and how the federal timber sale program works.

Fact is, right now, TODAY, the Forest Service in Montana has over 300 million board feet of timber sales already under contract to logging companies...the most volume under contract in over a decade. That's enough timber to fill 60,000 log trucks lined up end to end from Missoula to nearly Miles City, Montana. Why aren't the timber companies logging all these sales? Could it be that lumber demand in the USA is down 55% and new home construction is down 70%?  

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 21:07:39 PM UTC

One additional thing worth pointing out... (0.00 / 0)

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, 2008.

In other words, that's the period that was between 4 1/2 years to 2 1/2 years ago.

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. Thanks.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 21:46:41 PM UTC

Secretary Vilsack (0.00 / 0)

Just wanted to make sure everyone had read this article about Secretary of the Agriculture and his statements regarding the Tester bill.

DEER LODGE - The Obama administration could support the mandate in Sen. Jon Tester's forest bill to log a set number of acres every year as a pilot project, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said here Saturday.

Vilsack, in a change of position for the administration, said some changes to the measure, which mandates a set number of acres be logged every year, could be tried to see how well it works.

"We're going to continue to work with Sen. Tester to accomplish what the bill is supposed to do," Vilsack said before more than 70 people. "There's a tremendous opportunity here."

Vilsack came to Deer Lodge at the request of Tester to meet with members of a partnership of logging and conservation interests whose plan shaped his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The controversial measure would designate more than 600,000 acres of wilderness in three national forests statewide, while mandating that 10,000 acres be logged every year for a decade.

Tester has touted the bill as a way to end decades of fighting over logging and wilderness protection and says it will help the Forest Service clean out forested areas that are dying from beetle infestations. He also says the bill will help struggling timber mills that need a supply of timber to survive.

But Madison and Beaverhead county commissioners, as well as multiple-use groups and some environmental groups, have strongly opposed the bill. Commissioners from those counties say they will get the majority of the wilderness, yet the bill does nothing to guarantee that any trees will be cut, because the logging is still subject to lawsuits. They say the bill represents two narrow interests while ignoring the concerns of ranchers, motorized users and counties.

Vilsack's comments were a sharp contrast from the position of the Forest Service in December during a hearing on the bill. Agriculture Undersecretary Harris Sherman said at the time that the logging targets in the bill were "unworkable" for the agency and could set a precedent in which each national forest is managed differently by Congress.

Vilsack brought up that concern with members of the partnership in a separate meeting at Sun Mountain Lumber, whose owner Sherm Anderson is part of the partnership.

"We have 155 different forests across the country," he said. "We don't want a situation where we're legislating the management of every forest."

But Vilsack also said the plan's stated goal of clearing overgrown areas near homes, protecting watersheds and restoring damaged landscapes matches the key goals of the Obama administration for the national forests. He added that keeping small-town timber mills in business is vital because rural parts of the country are suffering from unemployment, loss of young people and lower incomes.

"This is also about the future of rural America, not just rural Montana," he said. "What's at stake here is the area of the country that provides the food, the water, the clean air and now the fuel for the country."

Vilsack said other national forests are seeing similar efforts to get work done on the ground. He said the agency would consider the bill as a test to see if it's effective to improve forest health and help rural economies.

"It's not necessarily a precedent," he said. "It's a recognition that we're dealing with a unique set of circumstances."

The environmental groups opposing the bill don't want it to succeed because it would make it harder for them to shut down logging and restoration projects, Tester said in response to a question.

"They don't like this bill because it's going to hamper their ability to work the system," he said.

Mark Petroni, a retired district ranger on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest, told Vilsack the logging goals could be reached because most of the studies are done. He said that work started more than 20 years ago.

"There's a shelf in Dillon that has all these landscape analyses sitting there waiting to go through," he said. "There are 280,000 acres available for mechanical treatment."

Tester said he is still changing the bill to help garner more support. His latest proposals include making the bill a pilot project, as well as extending the time frame for the logging mandates in an effort to make it more palatable to county officials.

The public meeting drew more than 70 people, nearly all of whom voiced support for the bill. Commissioners from Missoula, Powell, Granite and Broadwater counties also said they're behind the measure because it could help the struggling timber industry.

Among the opponents was Howie Wolke, a wilderness outfitter from Emigrant who said he fears the bill could open large swaths of roadless lands to timber companies. He asked Tester to write guarantees in the bill that the logging would take place near homes.

"Logging the backcountry doesn't do any good to reduce the risk of wildfire to communities," he said. "I feel very uncomfortable with a congressional mandate on logging, and this goes beyond that and mandates a level of logging that even the Forest Service doesn't advise."

http://billingsgazette.com/new...
 

---

by: Aspenlight @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 18:19:03 PM UTC

Vilsack's off-the-cuff comments vs. Sherman/USFS's official testimony (0.00 / 0)

"Aspenlight" (Is that you Gabe or Zack? Hmmm...):

Anyone who's experienced with public policy knows there is a seriously big difference between the head of the US Forest Service (Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment) giving very specific, well-thought out, carefully researched and constructed comments (see below) in OFFICIAL testimony before the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee....

....And Agriculture Secretary Vilsack speaking off-the-cuff in generalities at a political meeting in Deer Lodge or during a private meeting with bill supporters at Sun Mountain Lumber Company.

Below are snips from the official testimony from the US Forest Service and Obama Administration delivered before the Senate's ENR Committee on Dec 17, 2009. The entire testimony is available here:
http://energy.senate.gov/publi...

I seriously doubt that some off-the-cuff remark about "tremendous opportunity" and uttering the words "pilot project" discount, nullify or supercede all of these substantive concerns from the US Forest Service and Obama Administration.

However, I'm sure supporters of Senator Tester's bill will use Sec Vilsack's visit to give the public the impression that the US Forest Service and Obama Administration have changed course 180 degree and that they now support the Tester bill as written.

I seriously doubt that's the case. It would certainly be nice if members of the media, at a minimum, call the head of the US Forest Service (Harris Sherman) to see if the official US Forest Service's position has indeed changed.

My hunch is that the US Forest Service and Obama Administration would potential support Tester's bill as a "pilot project," as long as these serious, substantive concerns from the USFS and Administration are addressed by the Senate's ENR Committee. Given that Senator Tester, and supporters of his bill, have failed to even acknowledge these concerns (much less express a willingness to address them through proposed amendments to the bill) we'll see what happens. Thanks.

From Under Secretary Harris Sherman:

"If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable.

Secondly, we like to urge you to amend the National Environmental Policy Act related provisions, which in our view are flawed and are legally vulnerable.

Thirdly, we would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to met the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions.

And lastly, there are a number of other issues that I have flagged in my written testimony that we think needs to be addressed and hopefully corrected."

"There is the likelihood that if Congress were to move forward and pass legislation such as we are talking about today, that other regions will want to do so similarly. Now, if that happens, my concern is that there will be somewhat of a Balkanization that occurs between the different regions in the country. Those who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain "haves" and "have nots" that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a true national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 19:08:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mr Kohler, do you not know this? (0.00 / 0)

Vilsack is the head of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture...
...which means he is harris SHerman's boss...
...which means he IS the head of the Forest Service.

---

by: Ptarmigan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 19:42:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Damn "Ptarmigan" your comments seem so similar to those... (0.00 / 0)

...Just posted on the NewWest site by Jake Troyer of the Montana Wilderness Association. Hmmm...I'm sure that's just a big coincidence.

"Ptarmigan" are you really trying to convince us that all these very real concerns expressed by Harris Sherman, the Obama Administration's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment (ie the top official at the US Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service) during official testimony before the US Senate's ENR Committee are no longer relevant because Sec. Vilsack expressed a few generalities speaking off-the-cuff while on a political visit to Montana?  Seriously...you want us to believe this "Ptarmigan?"  

The US Forest Service now supports the Tester bill as written? Really "Ptarmigan?" You think public policy is crafted by the Obama Administration is such a loosey-goosey manner?

"Pay no attention to our official testimony, which was carefully researched, written and considered and clearly presented before the US Senate ENR Committee...instead pay attention to big generalizations that are spoken off-the-cuff by Sec. Vilsack during a political visit?

As I said above, it would certainly be nice if members of the media, at a minimum, call the head of the US Forest Service (Harris Sherman) to see if the official US Forest Service's position has indeed changed.

Again, what follows are very concrete specifics from Under Secretary Harris Sherman, the person who runs the Forest Service, expressed in official testimony before the US Senate's ENR Committee:

"If the Committee decides to go forward with a bill, we would urge you to first, alter or remove the highly specific timber supply requirements, which in our view are not reasonable or achievable. 

Secondly, we like to urge you to amend the National Environmental Policy Act related provisions, which in our view are flawed and are legally vulnerable. 

Thirdly, we would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to met the bill's requirements. If we were to go forward with S1470 it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions.

And lastly, there are a number of other issues that I have flagged in my written testimony that we think needs to be addressed and hopefully corrected."

"There is the likelihood that if Congress were to move forward and pass legislation such as we are talking about today, that other regions will want to do so similarly. Now, if that happens, my concern is that there will be somewhat of a Balkanization that occurs between the different regions in the country. Those who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain "haves" and "have nots" that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a true national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country."

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:45:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]