Colt Summit Update: FS Confirms Restoration Work Under Contract

The Colt Summit project area is located in the upper-center portion by the "83" and bend in the road. The surrounding area (including the portions of the Lolo National Forest, State DNRC lands and private lands) have been heavily logged and roaded, significantly compromising critical habitat for lynx, grizzly bears, bull trout and other critters.

Much ado is being made about the Colt Summit logging and restoration project on the Lolo National Forest.  In fact, last week The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and Yaak Valley Forest Council joined with the Montana Logging Association, Montana Wood Products Association and others to actually file a “friend of the court” brief in support of this logging project.

Asking around, this appears to be the first time that conservation groups like The Wilderness Society, Montana Wilderness Association and National Wildlife Federation have filed a brief to support a logging project.  Reading the rhetoric-filed, dooms-day press releases from these folks, you can’t help but get the impression that the Lolo National Forest must be under siege from timber sale lawsuits.

However, the facts tell a much different story.

Lolo National Forest officials confirm that the Lolo National Forest hasn’t faced a new timber sale lawsuit in over 5 years. In fact, between FY 2005 and FY 2010, the Lolo National Forest had at least 99 active timber sales.

Another impression one gets from reading press releases and statements from these groups is that the Colt Summit lawsuit has halted the positive road decommissioning and culvert upgrade work. In fact, the Montana Wilderness Association even has gone so far as to tell their members and supporters via Facebook that what’s “at stake” with the Colt Summit project is the road decommissioning/culvert work.

[Update: An hour after this article was posted, Montana Wilderness Association staffers removed these (here, here) substantive comments from their Facebook posts about the Colt Summit timber sale. Such tactics have been a very common practice by these groups as they attempt to stifle debate and prevent the open exchange of substantive information.]

Perhaps the people at Montana Wilderness Association should have more carefully read the plaintiffs summary judgment brief in this case:

“CONCLUSION
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court grant their motion for summary judgment, declare the Forest Service violated the law, and enjoin the Forest Service from approving and/or authorizing work on the Colt Summit project (excluding the road decommissioning and culvert removal work) pending full compliance with the law.”

Perhaps the staffers at Montana Wilderness Association should have remembered that last September, the Lolo National Forest issued this press release, very clearly (and somewhat ironically) titled “Colt Summit Restoration Contracts Awarded.”

In fact, below I will re-print an update about the status of the Colt Summit road decommissioning and culvert upgrade work I obtained over the past few days from the Boyd Hartwig, the Lolo National Forest’s very own Public Affairs Officer. Boyd’s generally been pretty good about responding to pubic information requests and as anyone can clearly see, the Lolo National Forest confirms that the following restoration work has been under contract since last September, is moving forward and is not impacted by the lawsuit.

1.  Colt Creek Road Decommissioning will decommission about 6 miles of Colt Creek Road #646.

2.  Colt Creek Road Rehabilitation will reconstruct an existing road to BMP standards and add a short section of newly- constructed road.  This route will replace access currently provided by road #646.  It’s important to note that the short piece of new construction is not being funded through CFLR.

3.  Colt Creek Culvert Replacement project will replace an undersized culvert with a new structure that provides for aquatic organism passage.

So there you have it folks. A pretty good, verified example of how much of the rhetoric and the “story-line” coming from these “collaborator” organizations and their timber industry “partners” isn’t really matching up too great with the reality of the situation on the ground, or in the courtroom. I believe there are a number of reasons for this, and perhaps in coming days I will get an opportunity to explore them further on this blog. However, suffice to say, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that what we’re seeing with the Colt Summit timber sale PR blitz from these “collaborators” is really just a continuation and/or extension of the campaign to support Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The players, political campaign type tactics/rhetoric and the intentional spreading of false information about these public lands issues is virtually identical.

From: Matthew Koehler
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:47 PM

Hello Boyd:

Can you please tell if this work [Lolo NF Press Release, September 30, 2011] is on-going or finished? Also, can you let me know details of all the work currently being done, or under contract, in the Colt Summit project area? Thank you. – Matthew

—————–

From: Boyd Hartwig

Matthew, all three projects are awarded.  No ground disturbing activity has occurred to date.  Ground-based activity could begin as early as July 1, 2012.  Instream work associated with the culvert replacement project must occur between July 15 and Sept. 1.  The decommissioning work cannot be done until alternative access is provided through the Colt Creek Road Rehab project.

Boyd Hartwig
Public Affairs Officer
Lolo National Forest

——————
From: Matthew Koehler
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 12:38

Hello Boyd:

Thanks so much for the info. Just so I have it correctly can you please confirm the following:

1) The name of these three projects awarded, or at least what work is included in this

2) That the lawsuit filed on Colt Summit hasn’t stopped these three projects from moving forward.

Thanks so much,
Matthew Koehler

———————-

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012
From: Hartwig, Boyd C -FS
To: Matthew Koehler <koehler@wildrockies.org>

Matthew, here are the listed projects:

1.       Colt Creek Road Decommissioning will decommission about 6 miles of Colt Creek Road #646.

2.       Colt Creek Road Rehabilitation will reconstruct an existing road to BMP standards and add a short section of newly- constructed road.  This route will replace access currently provided by road #646.  It’s important to note that the short piece of new construction is not being funded through CFLR.

3.       Colt Creek Culvert Replacement project will replace an undersized culvert with a new structure that provides for aquatic organism passage.

All three projects are awarded but no ground disturbing activity has occurred to date.  Instream work associated with the culvert replacement project must occur between July 15 and Sept. 1.  The decommissioning work cannot be done until alternative access is provided through the Colt Creek Road Rehab project.

Regarding start dates,  they are hoping to begin work this spring, that’s correct. They are aware of the lawsuit but as you know there is no injunction on the planned work.

Boyd Hartwig
Public Affairs Officer
Lolo National Forest

Abuse of enviro laws may doom them- Editorial from the Mountain Standard

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one from the Mountain Standard.

Who knew that Fleecer Mountain had such a thriving population of grizzly bears? And who would have thought that taking out some dead and dying trees, working on stream restoration and improving sagebrush range lands might lead to the extinction of lynx?

Environmental groups do – at least the handful that find themselves in court every time professionals in the U.S. Forest Service try to do their jobs and actually manage land.
This week two environmental groups – the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystem Council – filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service for its proposed Fleecer timber sale.

What a surprise.

It’s hard to think of any instances in recent years when the Forest Service has tried to do logging or habitat work on the public land it manages without these groups, as well as the WildWest Institute, having sued to stop it. They constantly cite the damage such projects could cause to the land and to the animals on or under consideration to go on the Endangered Species List in the northern Rockies. When they sue, they allege violations of several other environmental laws as well, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, but the ESA is almost always used because of the species on the list in the northern Rockies.

The leaders of these two groups have made careers out of suing the Forest Service and other federal agencies. Listening to their rhetoric, one might get the impression that government employees are bent on wiping out native species and butchering forests into moonscapes.
The Fleecer project is a prime example. Forest Service scientists carefully planned the project to deal with numerous dead and dying trees in the area and supply some logs to the timber industry. They looked at conifer encroachment into native grasslands and the decline of aspen groves. And they considered the health of the streams and ways to improve the movement of fish.
But Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, saw the Forest Service’s real, sinister motives. He proclaimed the project “one of the most corrupt” ever proposed in Montana and said the lawsuit was necessary “for the sake of the elk, grizzly bears, lynx and a myriad of other old growth dependent species.”
The trouble is, the project area has no old growth – it’s all been historically logged. There have never been grizzlies spotted there. And Forest Service personnel say their analysis found the lodge pole pine areas where the logging is proposed is not prime lynx habitat.
Even other environmental groups see the folly in the tired arguments that the extremists keep pushing.
This week the Wilderness Society and Montana Wilderness Association – hardly groups bent on destroying the earth – filed a brief in support of a logging project near Seeley Lake on the Lolo National Forest that the Alliance and three other groups challenged. They noted that the project was part of a collaborative effort involving the Forest Service, local community and themselves and the logging and habitat work is needed.
Undeterred, Garrity countered by saying those groups have no business calling themselves conservationists and environmentalists. He called for them to give back the money they have collected from members for promoting a project that will harm endangered species.

But the turning of several environmental groups on the serial litigants is a sign that people of all stripes are fed up with their tactics. And as efforts to work together to solve habitat problems grow, people are seeing that these extremists have never done a thing for conservation other than file lawsuits. As long as they are filing lawsuits, they are protecting their jobs.
The real loser, however, is the ESA itself. This is a good law, albeit one that isn’t perfect. It has helped bring back bald eagles, grizzly bears in the lower 48 states and several other species that likely wouldn’t have made it without the act. But when it gets used by extremists to shut down any and every habitat or logging project because endangered animals could wander through an area, it’s hard to defend.

A word to the wise environmentalists, keep it up. Sue the Forest Service over projects that cut a single stick. Bring those corrupt government workers to their knees as they try to improve habitat.
But don’t forget that laws can be changed. And as the frustration grows over the management of public lands, eventually the ESA and other important laws to protect the environment will be gutted — or outright repealed.

Try filing legitimate lawsuits without any environmental laws on the books.

Note from Sharon: I don’t think realistically that there would be the votes to change those laws based on people who can separate the rhetoric of the lawsuits from the reality (local mostly westerners). However, you might see some federal lands policy changes from Congress and perhaps the change from appeals to objections is a step in that direction.