By Michael Howell
Officials of the Forest Service met with objectors to the Westside Collaborative Vegetation Management Project last week to hear from them personally about their most serious concerns.
The project is located on the Bitterroot National Forest in the Darby Ranger District between Lost Horse and Roaring Lion Creeks and private land and Selway-Bitterroot Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). The project area includes 927 acres of the Selway-Bitterroot IRA. It involves commercial timber harvest and thinning on about 2,300 acres between Lost Horse and Roaring Lion Creeks and includes prescribed burning, forest regeneration, permanent and temporary road construction, and bridge installation. The project is being conducted under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act which provides for a fast track for processing the project.
Last week Deputy Regional Forester Tom Schmidt, along with Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Julie King and Darby District Ranger Ryan Domsalla, listened to a roomful of official objectors to the project.
According to Domsalla, who is serving as the project leader, the purpose and need for the project includes improving forest resilience to natural disturbances such as fire, insects, and disease; reducing stand density to provide more separation between tree crowns and reduce the potential that fire would spread through the canopy in low- and mid-elevation mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests; restoring, maintaining, and enhancing wildlife and native plant habitat and diversity in riparian areas, aspen clones, and meadows; managing timber to contribute to the sustainable supply of timber products from the Bitterroot National Forest, and providing forest products, jobs, and income; and providing sustainable infrastructure (road access and bridge) for long-term management of the National Forest. It also addresses the priority to reduce fuels in the CWPP, and the Montana Governor’s priority for treating insect and disease potential, as well as the differences between existing and desired conditions in the Westside project area.
Seventeen objections to the project have been submitted and most of the objectors showed up to make a personal statement at the meeting. At least one refrain that almost all the objectors shared was the lack of “collaboration” on the part of the Forest Service, despite the use of the term in the name of the project and the requirement in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to “collaborate.”
As Michele Dietrich put it, “By not taking into account and modifying the project to include and collaborate with the public and stakeholders, this is not a ‘collaborative’ project under HFRA meaning that the EIS cannot be bypassed under HFRA… The Bitterroot Restoration Committee (BRC) only endorsed a very small portion of this project. The area where the BRC recommended treatment could be taken care of with hand thinning, but the rest of the project is unjustified for fire suppression and beetle suppression as stated in my previous objection. Since there is no justification for the project under HFRA, a complete EIS and economic statement is required by law.”
Members of Friends of the Bitterroot asked if the Forest Service had a definition of the term “collaboration” and got a somewhat rambling account of opportunities for comment, interaction and interface with the Forest Service concerning the project.
There was also a lot of opposition to the bridge across Camas Creek at the end of Hays Creek Road and to the work already being done on the bridge and to the marking of trees in the timber cutting units.
The Germanns, who live on one of the private roads slated for use in the log hauling, said the project was being shoved down their throats. Their attorney said that the easement the Forest Service enjoys on the road does not allow logging traffic.
David Kestick on Blue Jay Lane made a similar complaint.
Others criticized the economic analysis for not considering any negative economic impacts such as the harm it may do to the recreation and tourist industry.
There were also objections to the work slated for the area around the popular Coyote Coulee trail, the lack of weed mitigation, and the timber harvest methods being employed.
The County Commissioners are objecting to the decommissioning of some of the roads in the project. The county has a natural resource policy requiring no net loss of roadways on the Forest.
“This project,” said Commissioner Jeff Burrows, “constructs 3.8 miles of road, but decommissions 5.2 miles.” He said that public access in the county “was under assault.”
Commissioner Greg Chilcott added, “In fact we encourage increase.”
Burrows also called the impacts on private roads, “unmitigated.”
“We need to hammer out some mitigation agreements,” he said.
Several objectors agreed that spending $30,000 on bridge design and marking the timber units makes it look like the thing is already a done deal.
Stuart Dobbins, owner of the Deer Crossing B&B for 20 years, said he believes he has a good chance of being put out of business by the project due to the logging truck traffic and other activities. He said he was really sorry to see that work on the project was already under way.
“This is a steam roller that’s not going to stop. I’m sorry, but you have really in so many ways lost our trust over this,” said Dobbins.
Schmidt disagreed that the thing was being steam rolled and emphasized that no decision had been made yet. He said, “I hope that we can restore trust in this process.” He reminded objectors that the Forest would have a response to the objections presented by May 18.
“But that does not mean that a decision will be made at that time.” He said it might mean that the Forest Service will have more work to do before any decision can be made.