Regional forester discusses Cedar Thom Project

Forest Supervisor Debbie Austin as well as Superior District Ranger Tawnya Brummett were on hand at the Aug. 30 meeting of the Mineral County Commissioners to discuss the commissions concerns regarding the state of forest management in the county – particularly the Cedar Thom Project.

Commissioner Roman Zylawy opened the meeting through introductions and then asked who among the gathered attendees would like to begin things. Angelo Ververis, representing the Mineral County Resource Advisory Group, began the two-hours of public discussion with two simple questions – what is the status of the Cedar Thom Project and why has it taken so long.

“How long do you have?,” Austin replied. “The status of the Cedar Thom Project is that we are currently in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the bull trout.”

Austin elaborated on the process for projects such as the Cedar Thom by saying that after the USFS completes an environmental impact statement they go into a “consultation” phase. This phase is required by the Endangered Species Act and involves a biological assessment be submitted to FWS in order for FWS to then give their opinion back to the USFS.

“We are currently circling back and forth with the Fish and Wildlife Service in the consultation process,” Austin said.

Ververis then made an inquiry as to why the timeline FWS is required to give their opinion in was not met.

“The timeline came and went a couple of times,” Austin said. “There’s a process where they can request an extension and they have done that. There are other times where they haven’t done that. But basically it’s not like we submit it and it goes into a black hole and they send it back – often times there are questions and dialogue regarding where the project will go and things like that. And that’s happened a lot of times.”

According to Austin, new information regarding the bull trout in the area kept surfacing which created “heightened concerns” about the status of the trout in the area.

“Maybe a month and a half ago I asked them to just stop for a minute because there were so many versions of the report going around,” Austin said.

The middle Clark Fork River is considered by the USFS and FWS to be an “area of really high concern” for bull trout and bull trout recovery. As the Cedar Thom Project moved forward, so to did the concern for the bull trout and the increased importance of the middle Clark Fork for the species.

A bull trout conservation strategy, recently completed by the USFS, also prioritized the region as critical.

“This consultation is what’s getting us behind on the set project date and it seems like there is a lack of accountability,” Ververis said.

Austin replied to Ververis’ statement by stating that the FWS is “severely understaffed” and as a result are unable to complete projects under the established timelines.

“What really want to know here is how are we moving forward,” Ververis asked.

Austin replied that she cannot sign a decision and the project cannot move forward until she has received the opinion from FWS.

“That’s what I am really trying to expedite and move forward with,” Austin said. “That has to happen and I can’t sign it until that happens.”

Ververis responded to Austin’s statement by saying that FWS “had a timeline” that was not met and what the group gathered in the commissioners room wanted to know is “who do we hold accountable?”

“Again, going back to their (FWS) capacity and ability to do this – it is extremely limited,” Austin said. “So the forest service has said now, again we have three top priorities, this project is not one of them and until those three things are done they’re not going to be working on anything else.”

According to Austin, the prioritized projects “were much larger in scope” than the Cedar Thom project and the USFS and FWS is trying to “get those big things out” before working on other projects.

“If they aren’t participating because of funding, knowledge or whatever in their opportunity to put their opinion into this process – they are moot,” Dennis Hildebrand, representing the Mineral County Resource Advisory Group, said. “Our government shouldn’t be doing that to us and they should have standards that the forest service should be aware of. To me there are too many brick walls happening in here and there’s no way to get passed them because we are unwilling to get passed them.”

Hildebrand added that if agencies such as the FWS and USFS aren’t communicating with each other it is “getting to the irresponsible range.”

Austin responded to Hildebrand by saying that the FWS requirements for projects such as Cedar Thom are separate to the original collaborative process that he was referring to.

“We wanted something on the ground that met the needs of the resources and people so that’s why we did that (had the collaborative process),” Austin said. “Separate from the Endangered Species Consultation has a process and a laws behind it. They aren’t required to, nor do they have the capacity to, sit in on collaborative groups. In hindsight we could have done a better job in talking about what was happening.”

Austin said that if she were to ignore the FWS requirement for an opinion the project would likely be litigated.

“I agree though, it’s time for us to get moving and get it done and we’ve been spending a lot of time over the last couple of weeks working towards that end,” Austin said.

Part four of the series on timber in Mineral County will continue next week by looking further at the two-hour discussion that took place between Austin and members of the public at the commissioners meeting – including the eventual discussion on the bigger picture of resource management in the county.