Volume XXI, Number 9

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Page One News at a Glance

Middle East Fork Project FEIS released

Oily film on river caused by bacteria, EPA says

Middle East Fork Project FEIS released

Trees marked in advance of decision; Environmentalists barred from press conference

By Michael Howell

Controversial from the beginning, the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project has become even more so as the Forest Service approaches a final decision in the matter. The announcement of the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) at a press conference on Thursday was preceded, a few days earlier, by allegations from the Native Forest Network (NFN) and Friends of the Bitterroot (FOB) that trees had already been marked in cutting units while the Forest Service was still seeking public input on its various alternatives. Then, on Thursday, FOB President Jim Miller was escorted out of the press conference room by an armed law enforcement officer when he could not produce any press credentials. Two other FOB members were also barred from entering the conference room.

The Middle East Fork Project is the first in the state to be processed under President Bush's Healthy Forest Restoration Act. Under that Act the Forest Service is required to study, develop and describe a proposed agency action, a no action alternative and an additional action alternative if one is proposed during the scoping or collaborative process. In this case, an additional alternative developed by four environmental groups was included for consideration in the EIS process.

The agency's proposal, Alternative 2, would treat about 4,000 acres in a variety of ways including some planned burns, pre-commercial thinning and commercial logging, the aim being to reduce the risks of wildfire and to salvage beetle-killed Douglas fir to help pay for the entire project.

Alternative 3, developed by a coalition of environmental groups, would focus the work in community protection zones primarily within 400 meters of structures.

One of the big differences between the alternatives is the amount of timber harvesting. Alternative 2 would yield an estimated 13,300,000 board feet while Alternative 3 would yield only 286,000 board feet of timber. Alternative 2 would also require building one mile of new road. Alternative 3 calls for no new roads and all logging to be done by helicopter.

On September 19, the Native Forest Network and Friends of the Bitterroot cried foul and announced that the Forest Service had already marked the trees in cutting units with paint in preparation for implementing Alternative 2. FOB spokesperson Larry Campbell accused the agency of running full bore on the Middle East Fork timber sale before a preferred alternative was even decided upon in the public process.

"They are supposed to be considering three alternatives," said Campbell, "and yet they have already marked the trees to implement Alternative 2."

Campbell said that Forest Service documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that the Forest Service has spent $162,000 between April 22 and August 15 of this year on marking trees in the cutting units outlined in the Middle East Fork Project, $135,000 on crews, $25,000 on paint and flagging, and $6,000 for administrative work.

"That expense is irretrievable at this point," said Campbell. But most of all he is appalled at the contempt it shows for the public process. He said other documents obtained through the FOIA request also reveal that the Forest Service doesn't care about public input. He said that out of 10,000 public comments received by the Forest Service on the Middle East Fork Project, 98 percent supported Alternative 3 and were opposed to Alternative 2, the one he believes is being implemented in advance. He said that the whole thing represents a blatant abuse of the public process and wastes the public's time and energy.

Campbell registered one more complaint about the tree marking. He said in most units the Forest Service seems to be marking the "leave" trees, that is the trees that will be left behind.

"What we will be left with," said Campbell, "is a forest of orange painted trees."

Sula District Ranger Tracy Hollingshead told the Bitterroot Star on the day of the press conference that it was decided to mark the trees in the timber sale units and that tree painting had begun in June and continued through the middle of August. She said that this decision was made "in the interest of implementing the treatment quickly." She explained that if no trees were marked prior to the decision actually being made that it would potentially delay implementation by a year. With the trees marked, if a decision is made this fall then implementation might begin this winter. She said many people living in the area had experienced the wildfires of 2000 and were anxious to implement measures to reduce the fire risk.

"We were working in good faith to address the concerns of the landowners in the community," said Hollingshead. She also said that in some cutting units the leave trees were being marked, but that it was with a new kind of paint that wears off quickly.

Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull reiterated the district ranger's rationale for starting the tree marking when they did.

"From my perspective," said Bull, "we have been working with the community for one and a half years on this project and the community is anxious. They saw the fires of 2000. They want treatment and are concerned about time passing. We attempted to show good faith by marking the trees that may help avoid a year's delay in implementation. My intent was a good faith gesture and there is nothing out there that can't be erased."

Bull did admit that it meant "anticipating a decision."

"Maybe in hindsight it was not the smartest thing to do," said Bull.

Bull also addressed the huge number of public comments received that expressed opposition to Alternative 2 and endorsed implementation of Alternative 3. He said that close to 11,000 comments had been received on the Draft EIS, "but only a few hundred contained substantive remarks." He said that over 10,000 of the comments received were by e-mail tied to a web site for Native Forest Network and simply expressed opposition to Alternative 2.

"To simply oppose an alternative is not a valid comment," said Bull. He said that the public was supposed to comment upon the analysis, not just vote for one alternative against another.

Bull conceded that to get so many votes in opposition to the preferred alternative meant that there were quite a number of folks out there who support another viewpoint.

"But a popular vote on land management decisions is not in the best interest of the resource or the public," said Bull. He said that it was his job to make the decision that in his viewpoint is best for the resource and the public and that is what he did, even if much of the public disagrees.

Bull said that marking leave trees was perhaps a new procedure, "but when you are trying to picture what you want left, instead of what you want to take out, it helps to mark them. We found that it is a better way to visualize the results." He said that the paint on the leave trees was not expected to last more than two years.

Bull referred to the incident at the press conference on Thursday, in which FOB President Jim Miller was escorted from the press conference room by an armed law enforcement officer, as "a bit of a distraction." He said that it had been inaccurately reported in the press that armed guards had escorted people out of the building. He said that it was a press conference and not a public meeting. He said that three members of FOB wanted admission to the press conference but did not have press credentials which were required for entrance. He said that he met with the three men outside the building following the press conference to hear their concerns.

"Because I heard that Sula community members and some timber industry people might be present and that some environmental groups might show up, I thought it best to have some law enforcement personnel there as a precaution," said Bull.

Nan Christianson, Public Affairs official for the Bitterroot National Forest, also stated in a telephone interview that the press had incorrectly reported that armed law enforcement escorted people from the building. However, according to her own account of the affair, one person was escorted by armed law enforcement out of the press conference room.

According to Larry Campbell, he was pulled aside by Public Affairs officer Dixie Dies when he tried to enter the area of the press conference and it was explained to him that only members of the press were being allowed in and that he would have to wait in the area of the main desk until it was over. Dies stopped FOB member Stuart Brandborg as well and explained the parameters to him. Neither was evicted from the building but they were not allowed to enter the press conference room. Brandborg told the Bitterroot Star that he was not there on behalf of FOB but was there on his own behalf as a member of the concerned public.

"My father was a supervisor on this forest for many years," said Brandborg. "I had an interest in what was taking place there and wanted to witness it. I've never been barred from attending a press conference in my life." He said that he had been to a lot of them.

While Campbell and Brandborg waited, FOB President Jim Miller found his way into the conference room unobstructed. Christianson said that she approached Miller in the conference room and asked him if he had any press credentials. She said that she explained to him that it was a press conference and that if he had no press credentials he should leave the room.

"When he declined my invitation to leave," said Christianson, "a law officer reiterated it and escorted him from the room."

According to Campbell, who saw Miller as he was escorted out, the law officer was armed and wearing a bullet proof jacket. Miller has not returned phone calls from the Bitterroot Star since the incident.

Christianson said that a lot of thought was given as to how to conduct the release of the Final EIS. She said that a simple press release was considered, or a full blown press conference, or a public meeting. It was decided that a press release was not enough, and that a press conference involving some of the community members who helped fashion the preferred alternative, which was being announced, was more appropriate. She said that a public meeting was not appropriate because there was no need for discussion. The press conference was designed to inform the public about the FEIS, and the subsequent steps in the process, not to generate more comment.

She said that one reason for the conference was concern about how Alternative 2, the newly announced preferred alternative, has been portrayed as a Forest Service alternative. "The goal was to show that it was not just our alternative, but based on community input. So we arranged to have a cross section of elected officials and three very involved community members present to explain this," said Christianson. "The main message we wanted to get across was that this is a community driven alternative... and the citizens added value to that message."

Campbell doesn't believe the message. From Campbell's point of view, the Forest Service has, from the beginning, picked a handful of like thinking members of the public who will give the community stamp of approval to their alternative. These select few are then paraded before the press to show community support while dissenting members of the community are ignored, and barred from show.

Christianson said that the list of those invited to the press conference included County Commissioners Alan Thompson and Greg Chilcott; Senator Rick Laible; Byron Bonney, a forester for Bitter Root RC&D; and community members Becki Linderman, Bill Gasser, and Jack Joern.

Bull noted that the process being used under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a new process and may have some members of the public confused. He said that under NEPA a record of decision was usually issued along with the FEIS. In this case that is not true. The FEIS only presents the analysis of the alternatives considered and the preferred alternative that has been selected. No decision has yet been made. The public has 30 days to review the FEIS and make objections. But objectors must have commented upon the Draft EIS and their objection must be based upon those comments, according to Bull. The Forest Supervisor will then review any objections that are received and make a final decision. The Record of Decision is then published and there is no chance for further objection. This could yield a decision by early November, according to Bull.

Copies of the FEIS for the Middle Burnt Fork Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project can be viewed at the Bitterroot National Forest offices and at libraries in Darby, Hamilton, Stevensville, and Missoula. It is also available for review at the Bitterroot National Forestıs website: www.fs.fed.us/r1/bitterroot/planning/decisiondocs/decisiondocs.html.

For more information about the objection process, call Tracy Hollingshead, Sula District Ranger, at 821-3201 or Sandy Mack, Team Leader, at 821-1251.

Oily film on river caused by bacteria, EPA says

By Michael Howell

The apparent oil sheen that lines the water's edge along a stretch of the Bitterroot River north of Stevensville is not an oil sheen, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on-scene coordinator, Craig Meyers, who investigated a complaint about the matter last week.

"Someone thought there was oil being released from old cars used as rip rap along the bank in the area," Meyers told the Bitterroot Star in a telephone interview. "What he was seeing is a bacterial life form that can look a lot like an oil sheen," said Meyers.

The bacteria is observable in slow or stagnant water and indicates the presence of iron. He said that the bacteria uses iron as a catalyst for its own metabolism and then leaves an iron precipitate when it biodegrades. He said that the iron could be naturally occurring in the soil or it could be coming from the rusted cars.

"But it's probably natural," he said.

Tom Pratt, who filed the complaint and was along on the site visit, said that he was willing to accept the explanation about most of the film visible on the water being a bacteria, but he still believes that the obvious presence of so many old car bodies along the same stretch of river showing the same rust color makes it likely that the car bodies are the source of the iron that is feeding the bacteria.

Karen Nelson, a toxicologist working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who along with Lee Metcalf Wildlife Refuge manager Steve Whitson accompanied Meyers and Pratt on the inspection, said that there were no adverse health effects associated directly with the bacteria. Nelson did say that she saw other things in the area that did raise concerns. One was the fact that at least some of the cars along the river bank have oil in them. The other was the potential for metal contamination from the cars such as mercury, lead or other metals leaching into the water.

"There probably are some metal issues and some hydrocarbon issues that need to be addressed," said Nelson.

The area includes about a half mile of river bank bordering the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. Around 1960 the railroad constructed a levee, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, to protect the railroad trestle that crosses the river there and the associated tracks that still travel through the north part of the refuge.

For Refuge Manager Steve Whitson the trip was an eye opener. He said that he has known about the car bodies since he first arrived on the Refuge. He said that the Refuge has considered it a problem for a long time and recognized the possibility that the levee might fail. But what they didn't know was that there was oil in some of the cars.

"I was surprised to learn that there is oil in some of the engine blocks," said Whitson. "That can change the way you look at things. But at this point we have more questions than answers," he said.

Whitson thinks that the verified presence of some oil in some of the cars makes it imperative to find out how many cars there really are and how many have oil in them. Whitson said that right now, with so many cars buried in the ground and in the river, he would hate to guess how many cars are actually there.

"This is something we definitely need to be looking at. Not just the Refuge, but also the railroad and the Army Corps of Engineers," said Whitson.

Meyers said that the only estimate of the amount of cars that he was aware of was one given by the complainant of about 500.

Complainant Tom Pratt told the Star that one day he counted 500 visible cars, but that there were obviously more buried in the bank and sunk in the river. Pratt said that Bitterroot Conservation District files contain estimates of from 1,500 to 2,000 cars being used in the project. Other unanswered questions include the swaths of rocks in the area that have been stained black on their surface. Meyers said that it could be old oil stains from 50 years ago or it could be a natural occurrence, although he could not think of a natural cause off the top of his head. Whitson and Nelson both said that the stains resemble oil but that no determination of their cause had been made. Pratt has received a preliminary opinion from a University of Montana professor that the black stain may be caused by the presence of manganese. Manganese, like iron, may be found in natural deposits. It is also used in making steel such as that used in car bodies, according to Pratt.

When asked about the presence of oil in some of the cars, EPA coordinator Meyers said, "There is probably a small amount, but the vast majority has probably already gone down the river." Meyers also minimized the threat of a catastrophic failure of the levee where it has been scalloped out by flood waters, stating, "I would have a hard time seeing water running that hard through there. But I guess I did see it at low water."

But for Whitson, the fact that there is oil in some of the cars is significant. He said that it means there will be oil getting into the river, he just doesn't know when or how much. And unlike Meyers, Whitson sees the failure of the levee as a distinct possibility.

"It might have failed already if it wasn't for the log jam caught on the old cable that currently shields the site," said Whitson.

Meyers said that his report about the alleged "oil spill" will be made to the U.S. Coast Guard, which is the acting authority for enforcing the water pollution laws in the case of oil spills.

Whitson said that no one thinks that having all those old car bodies along the river bank is a good idea. The hold up, he believes, is and will be finding the funding to do any restoration of the area. He said that his efforts at addressing the situation will be aimed at getting all interested and affected parties and agencies together and finding the funds to plan and execute a restoration project.

"Hopefully we will move forward in the best way we can," said Whitson.

Pratt said that a lot of questions still need to be answered and that he was encouraged by the potential involvement of the local chapter of Trout Unlimited. He said that TU was aware of the problem and may help pay for some preliminary water sample testing in the area. Pratt said that he is also working with the Bitterroot Conservation District to get permission to hold a clean-up day in the area, perhaps in early November, when volunteers will pick up pieces of the old car bodies that litter the river bottom in the area.

"It will give us the chance to do a little something constructive in the area and raise people's awareness, while we work to determine the true nature and extent of the problem we are facing," said Pratt.