Courting disaster in the forests
It's become kind of a repetitive, predictable and depressing reality in the world of federal forest management: litigation in some court in some distant state has the potential to put the kibosh on projects here in Northwest Montana.
The latest is a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the Sierra Club's claims regarding a "categorical exclusion" rule for hazardous fuels projects on less than 1,000 acres. The rule is intended to reduce the red tape and analysis required for projects that fit certain criteria, and by Sierra Club thinking, that is pretty much the problem with the rule.
Our problem with that line of thinking is that it dwells on bad things that might happen with a fuels reduction project, such as cutting down trees. But it doesn't consider the merits and benefits that result from hundreds of projects that were approved under the rule nationwide, including nine active projects on the Flathead National Forest.
Those projects are still under way, even though the appellate court has ordered a lower court in California to issue an injunction stopping the so-called "cat-ex" projects. That process could take months, and by that time, hopefully most of the projects on the Flathead will be finished or close to completion.
That's how it should be. The Sierra Club, after all, did not have to demonstrate any environmental harm that would result from projects on the Flathead or other forests scattered across the country. It wasn't even necessary to show the slightest deviations from forest management standards.
The Flathead projects have tended to be conservative, with no road construction and thinning activity focused on the forest understory, rather than removing the biggest, most fire-resistant trees.
Because all of the projects are situated on national forest lands directly adjacent to private property and homes and businesses - rather than in distant roadless areas - they have been the subject of intense public scrutiny. Staffers on Flathead ranger districts have had to work closely with neighboring landowners, in some cases just to get access to the project area.
The entire purpose of the litigation, it seems, is simply to make it more difficult - maybe as hard as possible - for the Forest Service to do work that has for several years been considered a national priority because of widespread, large-fire activity.
When the appellate ruling came out in December, just after California had endured a historic fire season, Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell pointed to a series of projects that had been carried out in the Golden State under the rule, almost certainly alleviating the severity of the fire season and the loss of property.
But hey, what's more important? Lawsuits, lawyers and a bureaucracy tied up in red tape, or a federal agency that is capable and expeditious in being a responsible neighbor?