FOR RELEASE: September 19, 2005

FOIA Reveals Bitterroot National Forest has Spent $162,000 in Taxpayer Money Marking Old-Growth Logging Units on Middle East Fork Project During Public Comment Period and Prior to Official Decision

FOIA also Reveals that 98% of 10,000 Plus Public Comments Oppose the Bitterroot National Forest’s Old-Growth Logging Proposal and Support Alt 3 Developed by Local Forest Protection Groups

For More Information:
Matthew Koehler, Native Forest Network: (406) 542-7343 or koehler@wildrockies.org
Larry Campbell, Friends of the Bitterroot: (406) 821-3110 or lcampbell@bitterroot.net

For more details on this project, including photos and videos, visit: http://www.nativeforest.org/middle_east_fork.htm

MISSOULA, MT - Information obtained from the Bitterroot National Forest via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the Native Forest Network reveals that between April 20 and August 15, 2005 the Forest Service spent $161,940 in taxpayer money marking old-growth logging units as part of the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction project – Montana's first Healthy Forest Restoration Act project – during the public comment period and prior to any official decision.

Bitterroot National Forest officials began spending $162,000 in taxpayer money marking the logging units outlined in Alternative 2 – their preferred alternative – at the same time that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released to the public and the Forest Service invited the public to submit comments on the Draft EIS.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Middle East Fork HFRA project has not yet been released to the public, but is expected to be released during the week of September 26. According to provisions within the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, release of the Final EIS will be followed by a 30-day public "objection" period.

Information from a separate FOIA request also reveals that 98% of the 10,000 plus public comments submitted to the Forest Service during the official comment period on the Draft EIS (April 20 to June 13, 2005) opposed the Forest Service’s preferred Alt. 2 to log 4,000 acres of old-growth forests and supported Alt. 3 that was developed by a coalition of local forest protection groups, together with foresters, firefighters, restoration practitioners, hunters and others.

"The pre-decisional expenditure of $162,000 in taxpayer funds to mark the logging units for the Forest Service’s old-growth logging alternative shows explicitly that the so-called ‘collaborative’ efforts and public process for the Middle East Fork timber sale were simply a grand charade," explained local resident Larry Campbell with Friends of the Bitterroot.

"It is an indisputable fact that as the public was asked to study and comment on several alternatives contained within the Draft EIS, the Forest Service simply went ahead and spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars marking the logging units for their alternative. The Bitterroot National Forest has been playing a bait and switch con game with the public under Supervisor Bull’s watch. Back in April, Bull apparently already made his final decision on this very controversial project even before the public had an opportunity to comment on the Draft. If this wasn’t the case, then why did he waste $162,000 in taxpayer funds. We demand accountability."

Campbell also observed, "Such governmental deception does a huge disservice to genuine democratic process. Governmental toying with the public creates cynicism and acts to poison civic participation."

"The public needs to understand that it's not just a few people who are thoroughly disgusted with the handling of this project by Supervisor Dave Bull and some of his staff. Some of the top PhD scientists at the University of Montana, and even other Forest Service officials in the area, have expressed their frustration with the Bitterroot National Forest," explained Matthew Koehler, director of the Native Forest Network.

"Actions such as this by Bitterroot Supervisor Bull and his staff just make it much harder to work together and find common-sense solutions that will protect and restore the Bitterroot National Forest and protect communities from wildfires. We have been successfully working with the Lolo National Forest to achieve such goals for a number of years now, but Bull’s actions prove to us that he is unwilling to work together in a constructive manner. "

"In addition to opposition expressed by 98% of the people who participated in the public comment period, Bitterroot officials also know that Ph.D. scientists with expertise in entomology, soils, fire and fuels, forest ecology, aquatics, fisheries and wildlife are concerned with, or opposed to, this project - including a number of prominent Ph.D. faculty members at the University of Montana's School of Forestry and Conservation."

"And let's not forget that approximately 10,000 people, about 98% of citizens who participated in the public comment period, supported the common-sense community wildfire protection work on 1,600 acres as contained in Alternative 3. However, it appears as if the Forest Service never had an intention of seriously considering this common-sense approach."

Campbell and Koehler also point out that the $162,000 spent marking remnants of old-growth forests for industrial logging is only up to August 15, 2005, meaning that the actual taxpayer dollars spent to date may well be over $200,000.

Campbell and Koehler also explained that the way in which the pockets of old-growth forests are being marked should also be a concern to the public.

"On many units the Forest Service is spray painting the trees that will be left, instead of the trees to be cut, meaning that following this 'healthy forest' project the public will be left with a forest of stumps and spray-paint graffiti on all remaining trees." explained Campbell.

"The public should also know that the Forest Service has defaced hundreds of majestic old-growth ponderosa pines with spray paint, some as old as 400 years, including spray-painting large ‘W's’ on these trees that they plan to leave in the forest."

Koehler pointed out: "We have also documented the fact that the Forest Service is marking large, green, healthy trees to be cut down as part of this ‘healthy forest’ project, even though they have repeatedly told the public otherwise."

Four FOIA Requests Still Outstanding

The Native Forest Network still has four outstanding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pending with the Bitterroot National Forest. On September 14, 2005, Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull sent the Native Forest Network a letter that stated:

"Due to the volume of information requested by the following FOIA’s sent to our office via email on August 16, 2005, and due today, we are extending the date of our response to September 30, 2005."

"Even though this project being implemented under the 'Healthy Forest Restoration Act' requires 'collaboration' Dave Bull and his staff have been less than cooperative with citizens who are concerned with this project and are requesting public information," explained Koehler.

"For example, since February 2005 the Bitterroot National Forest has required us to file a lengthy and time consuming Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for even basic information about this project. We find it rather ironic that the HFRA was passed to 'fast-track' projects and yet, in regards to this project, citizens must wait a minimum of three weeks for basic information. In some cases we have been forced to file a FOIA and ended up waiting six months for requested information. I don't think this is the type of 'collaboration' Congress envisioned when they passed the Healthy Forest Restoration in December 2003," said Koehler.

In the four FOIA requests about the Middle East Fork project still outstanding, the Native Forest Network requested the following information:

· Any and all communications between staff at the U.S. Forest Service’s Washington Office (including, but not limited to, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth and Undersecretary Mark Rey) and the Bitterroot National Forest regarding the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction project.

· Any and all communications between staff at the Bitterroot National Forest and the logging industry (including, but not limited to, Julia Altemus of Montana Logging Association, Ellen Engstedt of Montana Wood Products Association and Craig Thomas) regarding the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction project.

· Any and all communications between Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull and Bitterroot National Forest Sula District Ranger Tracy Hollingshead regarding the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction project.

· Any and all communications between Bitterroot National Forest Sula District Ranger Tracy Hollingshead and/or Bitterroot National Forest Forester Sheryl Meekin and/or Bitterroot National Forest Resource Team Leader Sandrah Mack regarding the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction project.

BACKGROUND: On December 3, 2003 President Bush signed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) into law. The first HFRA project in Montana and the U.S. Forest Service's Northern Region is called the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction project, in the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF), along the East Fork of the Bitterroot River. According to BNF officials, the goal of this project is to protect the East Fork community near Sula from wildfire and "restore" the forests within the East Fork area.

While forest protection groups support these goals the truth of the matter is that the BNF's preferred Alternative 2 would mix a small amount of bona-fide community protection work with industrial logging of 4,000 acres of unlogged, old-growth forests, home to elk, bighorn sheep, moose, bear, wolves, coyote, bull trout, cutthroat trout, goshawk, martin, pileated woodpecker and flammulated owl.

In response to the harmful parts of the Forest Service's proposal, local forest protection groups - together with foresters, firefighters, restoration practitioners, hunters and others - developed a superior community wildfire protection plan that truly protects and restores old-growth forests called the Community Protection and Local Economy Alternative (Alternative 3).

Unfortunately, Bitterroot Supervisor Bull decided to arbitrarily eliminate the watershed and road restoration components from Alt. 3, claiming that the HFRA doesn’t allow restoration work that isn’t tied to logging.

These restoration activities would have provided hundreds of local jobs restoring forest health in the East Fork drainage and, according to the best available science, watershed and road restoration work is an integral part of restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, which is supposedly a primary objective of this project.

Local forest protection groups also wonder that if the Healthy Forest Restoration Act is truly about restoring healthy forests, how is that goal accomplished without bona-fide, ecologically-based restoration work.

For more details on this project, including photos and videos, visit: http://www.nativeforest.org/middle_east_fork.htm