By Michael Howell
Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Julie King hand delivered a letter to the County Commissioners last week confirming that the County cannot legally object to the adoption of the Bitterroot National Forest Travel Plan because it failed to file any comments on the issue during the public comment period and thus lacks standing to object to the decision. The public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was initiated in the fall of 2006, and concluded on November 9, 2009, after being extended an additional 45 days.
The Commissioners held a meeting at the end of May this year to consider filing an objection to the agency’s decision to adopt the Travel Plan. They decided to send a letter to the Forest Supervisor objecting to the process and the agency’s “non-compliance with the CFR’s, policies, and directives which outline the requirements for coordination, communication and meaningful participation from local government, solicited by the Forest Service.”
They quote a 2014 memo from former Deputy Chief Leslie Weldon to Regional Foresters regarding public involvement in the Travel Management Rule. They quote Weldon saying the Forest Service “must re-engage the public in the process by holding regular meetings with local officials, such as sheriff’s offices and county commissioners” and “it is vital that forests continue to listen to, and solicit input from local officials and the public at large.” The commissioners claim that “the forest service did not solicit input or make an attempt for local government to participate cooperatively or in any meaningful way…” They claim that the law requires the responsible official to “coordinate land management planning with the equivalent and related planning efforts of federally recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other federal agencies and State and Local government.” The County believes that its adoption of a local Natural Resource Policy should be taken as public comment on the Travel Plan and qualify them as objectors.
BNF Supervisor King disagrees. She claims that the agency met all the requirements of the law for public notification and for holding regular meetings with local governments such as the sheriffs and county commissioners during the process. She attached a chronology of events to back up her claims.
She states that during that time the Forest met with the Commissioners specifically to discuss the plan. Approximately 10,000 comments were received during the initial scoping and an additional 3,400 comments were received during the Draft EIS comment period; however, the County Commissioners decided not to provide comments. She said the comment period actually closed prior to her taking the position as Supervisor, but she spoke with three county commissioners who were serving between 2007 through 2010, and each confirmed the coordination by then Forest Supervisor Dave Bull and Stevensville District Ranger Dan Ritter with the Board of Commissioners during the initiation of the Travel Management Plan, both during the scoping period and the open comment period for the Draft EIS.
King also notes that the Commissioners quote the wrong federal regulation, one that applies to Forest Planning but not Travel Plans which fall under another rule and are subject to the following public involvement process “individuals and entities as defined in 218.2 [“entities” including state and local governments] who have submitted timely specific written comments regarding a proposed project or activity that is subject to these regulations during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection.”
King does acknowledge receiving the a Draft Ravalli County Natural Resource Policy dated July 9, 2012 and states that the rule referred to by the commissioners will come into effect when the Forest initiates the Forest Plan Review process in 2017.
King adds a chronology of events demonstrating that the Forest Service did work with the county commissioners throughout the public comment period, but the commissioners at the time chose not to submit any public comment for the record. The Forest Service received 13,400 comments during the comment period. They received 23 objections to the proposed plan and six of those have been dismissed outright because the parties had not commented previously or they didn’t meet a deadline.
A regional panel will sit down with objectors to see if any viable solutions to the objections can be worked out or if the final decision can be issued.