Friends of the Bitterroot and the WildWest Institute have filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a review of U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy's recent order approving the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project (MEF Project). The groups also ask for an Injunction Pending Appeal that would preclude logging operations in cutting units that were formerly designated as old growth habitat. They charge in their appeal that the Forest Service's removal of live trees from old growth designation and re-classifying them as "imminently dead" was based upon a questionable methodology that the lower court, in their opinion, didn't fully consider.

The MEF Project is the first project in the state to be approved under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The project, which covers almost 5,000 acres in the Sula area, was designed to reduce wildland fire threats to the Middle East Fork community and to treat the effects of a massive Douglas fir bark beetle infestation in the area, which exacerbates the fire hazard as trees die from the beetle infestation.

The environmental organizations criticize the method by which the Forest Service removed trees from old growth designation by determining that, although still living, they were not likely to survive a bark beetle attack. They quote Forest Service experts characterizing the method of predicting the mortality of Douglas fir trees that do not exhibit any crown symptoms as "difficult" and "subjective" guesswork. They accuse the Forest Service of not even trying to validate the method, and failing to disclose the uncertainty involved in the predictions in the EIS for the project.

"This seems especially unforgivable in light of Forest Service admission at oral argument that there is no paper trail documenting how this subjective methodology was actually applied in the field. That is, there is no place in the record for the court to look in determining how many live trees per acre were actually not counted as live trees per acre based on the field application of the 'imminently dead' methodology," states the lawsuit.

They claim that the District Court failed to address these facts about the flaws in the methodology and the lack of any filed verifiable record and was also in error in not admitting supplemental evidence produced by the organizations about the number of green trees in the area. The groups also claim that Forest Service experts have contradicted on the record the Forest Service's stated claims that there is no old growth habitat in any of the cutting units.

The organizations are asking the Court of Appeals to hold up only the logging planned on units that were formerly designated as old growth (before use of the new methodology), totaling about 1,252 acres. If the injunction was granted, logging on the remaining 1,641 acres of commercial logging units could continue as well as the planned 1,558 acres of cutting brush and small trees and 487 acres of pre-commercial thinning.

"Old growth forest is a venerable public treasure that should not be blindly squandered. The Bitterroot National Forest has not divulged to the public the factual data used for de-classifying former old growth stands in order to log them. This issue, among others, has been ignored by the District Court. The fate of about 1,200 acres of formerly classified old growth is at stake. A time out for court review is a moment compared to the centuries it takes old growth to grow," stated a press release from Friends of the Bitterroot.

The groups also complained in their original lawsuit that the public was excluded from the decision making process. They also claim that information gained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the Forest Service spent $208,000 in taxpayer money marking logging units as part of the project during the public comment period and prior to any official decision.

Molloy dismissed all the groups' claims in his December decision and chastised the groups themselves for apparently placing more focus on an eventual appeal than on the merits of the case before him.

"What's always been at issue, from the moment in November 2004 when we began on-the-ground surveys of the project area, has been the unlogged, old growth forests that the Forest Service is logging as part of this project," said WildWest Institute executive director Matthew Koehler. "These forests are critically important for the tremendous elk, bighorn sheep and mule deer herds up the East Fork and the public should realize that these intact forests are literally surrounded by past clearcuts, meaning their importance for wildlife is even greater."

Bitterroot National Forest officials were unavailable to comment upon the appeal on Monday due to the closure of federal offices for the Martin Luther King holiday.

County adopts animal control ordinance

By Michael Howell

Ravalli County Commissioners adopted on first reading a new animal control ordinance, called an Animal Protection Services Ordinance, that will require dog owners in the county to license their pets. The ordinance, according to its own summary, "is designed to protect and control dogs." Besides requiring license tags that serve as identification tags and help in restoring lost dogs to their owners, the ordinance establishes the potential position of an Animal Control Officer capable of enforcing the ordinance. It allows the use of confinement and quarantine as means of control and protection, and allows for the control of dangerous vicious dogs, dogs running at large or abandoned, sick or injured dogs and dogs that are deemed nuisances.

One rancher from the Lake Como area expressed his objection to the ordinance, stating that he and some other ranchers in the area that couldn't attend the meeting had reached a consensus that it was alright for the community to have such an ordinance, but it shouldn't be forced on rural county residents.

Undersheriff Kevin McConnell said that the ordinance did not add any new laws over and above those already on the books. He said that everything in the ordinance in terms of dealing with vicious dogs and dogs at large and such problems are already in effect and being enforced by the Sheriff's Department. He said that the only thing really new in the ordinance was the establishment of a license fee. He said that the intention was, through collection of fees and additional monies in grants, to reach a point that an Animal Control Officer could take over the role now served by the Sheriff's officers in enforcing the growing number of dog-related problems in the county.

Commissioner Greg Chilcott noted that paying an animal control officer would be cheaper than paying Sheriff's Deputies to deal with animal problems. He also noted that the county currently funds the Animal Shelter to the tune of about $30,000 annually in a cooperative agreement with the shelter over handling problem animals that are picked up by the Sheriff's Office. He said that it made sense to continue in the direction of cooperation.

Only dogs over 6 months old need apply. For a license, that is. And it is really their owners that must apply and who face fines if their dogs are found in violation of any laws.

The cost for a license can vary from $10 for a one-year neutered/spayed license, or $25 for a one-year unneutered/unspayed license. Owners of five to twenty dogs may pay a Class I kennel fee of $125. Owners of more than 20 dogs may pay a Class II kennel fee of $200. Owners of five or more dogs may either license their dogs individually or purchase the appropriate Class I or Class II kennel license, whichever is less expensive.

A three-year license may be obtained for neutered and spayed animals at a cost of $25 or for unneutered and unspayed at a cost of $60. A special permanent license is available to senior residents (over 65) for $50.

Some dogs are exempted from the license fees, such as certified seeing eye dogs, hearing dogs, governmental police dogs, and other dogs that are trained to assist the physically handicapped.

Proof of current rabies vaccination is required at licensing and at every renewal.

Dogs held in custody could cost the owners $10 for the first confinement, then $20 for the next, $40 the third time, $80 for the fourth confinement, and finally $100 for the fifth confinement. Upon third impoundment of an unneutered or unspayed animal, the owner may be subject to a penalty of $150 in addition to the regular fee, unless the owner agrees to have the animal neutered or spayed at the owner's expense prior to release.

The ordinance includes rules for adoption of animals and rules that allow euthanasia of unclaimed animals not eligible for adoption after five business days or the animal may be transferred to an approved humane society or animal welfare organization.

The ordinance also contains a section on treating vicious dogs and on rabies control.

Commissioners Alan Thompson and Chilcott approved the ordinance on first reading. Newly elected Commissioner Howard Lyons was absent. In response to a question from the audience about his absence, Thompson said that Lyons was in the hospital.

Stevi police force down to one officer, but help is on the way

By Michael Howell

Last week Stevensville Chief of Police James Marble was chief of himself, since he was the only active officer left in the Stevensville Police Department. According to Stevensville Town Council member Paul Ludington, with the only other officer in the department out on medical leave due to a job-related injury, it was imperative that the council allow the Chief to hire some temporary help. It was agreed at the January 8 council meeting to hire a Stevensville Reserve Officer to work part time, 20 hours per week, to fill the temporary gap. Marble also has council permission to hire a replacement for the position of Records Clerk in his office. A Reserve Officer from Missoula will be filling in for the local Reserve Officer who takes the temporary part-time shift. Chief Marble is the only officer meeting the requirements for fulfilling the DOT grant the town is implementing.

The town is also applying to the Ravalli County DUI Task Force for a two-way radio to be placed inside a patrol car.

The Council approved without much further discussion a proposed amendment to the Town's Planning and Zoning Ordinance and the amendment replacing the Planned Unit Development section.

The Council heard concerns from town attorney Art Graham about further potential for conflicts of interest involving the Creekside Meadows Subdivision and the town's engineer Tom Hanson of Professional Consultants Inc. (PCI). PCI is also working for the developer, Arlo Ellison. Graham explained again that the Town is responsible for DEQ certification of the water system at the subdivision and that certification process is being done by PCI as the town's engineer.

Now, according to Graham, there has been a problem at the subdivision concerning some drawings and diagrams and the placement of a gas line. He said it was a matter between PCI, the developer, and the homeowners, and had been resolved, in part by PCI purchasing two lots in Phase II of the subdivision that are now deemed to be unbuildable due to the location of the gas line.

"So now we have PCI working for the developer, designing the system, and owning lots in the subdivision. But DEQ looks to the town to certify the water system," said Graham. He urged the council to get an outside engineering firm to review the system for DEQ certification.

The council unanimously approved the hiring of an outside engineer by Mayor Bill Meisner. The council passed a resolution several months ago requiring the developer to reimburse the town for the cost of an independent engineer for evaluations related to the subdivision. They used an independent engineer on both Phase I and Phase II of the subdivision, according to Ludington.

The council also unanimously agreed to modify the town's pay schedule to reflect changes in federal and state minimum wage laws.

Gene Mim Mack, owner of the Stevensville Hotel, and a member of the Stevensville Main Street Association board of directors, told the Council that he was attending the Town Council meeting as a representative of that organization as part of their latest determination to be more active in local government affairs. As part of that commitment, he said, the Main Street association would be sending out copies of the Town Council's agenda to its members so that they could be informed about any council considerations that may be of concern to them.

Planning Department releases work plan and timetable for countywide zoning

By Michael Howell

The Ravalli County Planning Office has released a timetable for enacting the voter-mandated countywide zoning. The plan calls for devising and implementing the necessary zoning regulations over a period of one and a half years in two phases. Possible adoption of the working plan and timetable will be the topic of discussion at a meeting of the Planning Board scheduled for this Wednesday evening in the Commissioners' Meeting Room at the County Administration Building, 215 S. 4th Street, Hamilton.

The first phase would apply baseline zoning regulations countywide to address density, use, setbacks and heights using the subdivision review criteria as part of the basis for data analysis that will be used to apply zoning to land because it can allow for a more streamlined subdivision review process. The projected timetable calls for completion of Phase I by mid-2008. In the second phase more detailed zoning regulations would be developed along with the use of other planning tools, such as a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, in those areas that are determined to warrant further protection and/or require more detailed development standards. This phase is expected to be completed by the end of 2008.

Planning Director Karen Hughes characterized the work plan and schedule as a compromise between "the ideal situation" and "the status quo." Recommended steps include hiring an additional planner, as well as professional consultants for GIS and public involvement aspects of the plan. It involves freeing up staff to work on countywide zoning issues and charging fees at the planning department to match the cost of services in subdivision review and other work. Finally it involves adoption of the Work Plan by the County Commissioners.

Cost of implementing the work plan is estimated to be an additional $10,000 for the remainder of the current fiscal year and $45,000 for the following fiscal year. This money cannot come from soft money or grants, according to Hughes.

For more information about the work plan and timetable see the Planning Department web site at: htpp://www.ravallicounty.mt.gov/planning/range.htm.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2006 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney