HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-29-21 Public Comment - N. Ostlie - Commission Meeting Format & BMW ProjectFrom:Nancy Ostlie
To:Nancy Ostlie; Agenda
Subject:Please oppose BMW logging project -- followup
Date:Thursday, July 29, 2021 10:14:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the city commission:
Thank you all for giving careful consideration to the Forest Service' case (Bozeman Municipal
Watershed) for logging our national forests to prevent/mitigate wildfire. I testified in thecommission meeting Tuesday July 27 but was disappointed in what I was able to say in three
minutes, which came off a bit disjointed. My colleagues' heartfelt and informed testimonyalso was impaired by the format on WebEx, which was unfortunate. I had preregistered but
was never able to 'join' the meeting despite frantic attempts. Finally I emailed your clerk andshe called me. Very disconcerting. And I sent an email at that time to 180 followers of Great
Old Broads suggesting they follow the link to speak up, when it was announced that therewere "no other commenters" after a short time. Surely there are many citizens of Bozeman
who have an opinion but were not heard in this format. I was not impressed with yourtechnology performance despite the extensive amount of time and protocol devoted to
explaining how to join the event, etc.
But that comment on your meeting format is distracting from my real message. Jumping to mynotes from the meeting, I noted that Jeff Mihelich, City Manager, commented that the intent of
the BMW plan is not to "prevent wildfire" and that the city recognizes fire as expected. That iswell understood. In fact from what I have read, fire is natural and even essential in
ecosystems, varying by "fire rotation"/expected burn cycles, etc. and other scientific factorsthat characterize forests. Jeff also emphasized that the logging would be "very selective" and
not result in widespread clearcuts. This is language I have heard that is meant to calmconcerns that the logging is not really logging. But in fact, clearcuts are proposed. I appreciate
that Jeff has taken the Forest Service tour of the area. I have also been in the areas ofproposed logging many times. Some of the trees planned for cutting are 12 feet in
circumference. Clearly these 200-300 year old trees are 'survivors' of all types of adversity(fire, disease), and their genetics should be preserved by leaving them alone. Jeff might be
glad to know that I and my colleagues have held in-person meetings with Mary Erickson andCorey Lewellen to hash over the various scientific sources who are relied upon in their
assessment of "forest management" or logging policy. I would be available for a meeting(being fully vaccinated) to elaborate on those exchanges. I would invite one or two colleagues
who were also at those meetings. The bottom line, in my estimation, is that the agency isbound to their mission of harvesting timber for profit by private corporations, and has little
authority to embrace science that would suggest that things are 'different' now and we muststop the harvest and take a measured approach during our drastic climate change and weather
conditions.
Coming back to an introduction, I have been working for years as an individual volunteerconservation advocate for safeguarding the biodiversity in our part of the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem (GYE). My group, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Bozeman Broadband,comprises 180 Montanans who support the Broads mission. Great Old Broads for Wilderness
is a national grassroots organization, led by women, that engages and inspires activism to
preserve and protect wilderness and wild lands.
I am also on the board of directors of two other local grassroots organizations: GallatinWildlife Association and Gallatin Yellowstone Wilderness Alliance. gallatinwildlife.org
gallatinyellowstonewilderness.org Finally, I am a member and supporter of CottonwoodEnvironmental Law Center.
In the past decade I have devoted my full attention to participating as an interested member of
the public to issues about protection of local lands and waters. I have attended manycollaborative group meetings over the years, including the Custer Gallatin Working group, the
Beaverhead Deerlodge Working Group, the Governor's Montana Forest Action AdvisoryCouncil, and the Gallatin Community Collaborative. Colleagues were barred from the
Gravelly Landscape Collaborative. I personally was barred from participation in the GallatinForest Partnership by Barb Cestero of The Wilderness Society after years of involvement in
the GCC. (She said, 'we aren't including everybody; only those who we know will agree withus'.) I have learned at these meetings that the timber industry and other groups such as the
recreation industry have an outsized influence on the proceedings, and dissenters aremarginalized or excluded. I have the notes, names and dates to back up that observation, and
have made recorded public comments regularly at these meetings. (Links available). I havesought out the insight and knowledge of forestry experts, from retired agency personnel to
practicing scientists.
One thing I learned in attending Montana Forest Action Advisory Council meetings as the(lone) public observer, is that the industry experts who are advising the DRNC and
Forest Service do not actually have the capability of assessing wildfire risk in an integratedway with other factors on the landscape. It is complicated, and they simply don't have a grasp
on what they can do to mitigate catastrophic wildfire. The answer is, virtually nothing, asfactors such as drought and high winds will drive fires over any landscape, whether
grasslands, forest or subdivisions. The plan they presented last year was explained to be a"proxy" for the 'real' data that they would get after a company in Missoula released a new
version of a product that would be useful. The factors considered in choosing the PriorityAreas for treatment included "distance to nearest sawmill" and factors that have no relevance
to species requirements for wildlife and wild plant communities. In fact there was no scientiston the council with a degree in biology. Only Tom DeLuca, Dean of Forestry at that time of
UM. You would hope for better, but the ends were driving the means, in that the federaldollars were available to spend "if" Montana had a plan.
These "collaboratives" are often established with agency support, agency funding and agency
commitment to the results. In fact the Forest Service representatives, whom I know frompersonal meetings over the years, are intelligent and well-meaning, but they are captive
players with a duty to "get the cut out" and cater to the logging industry. Again, I have lots ofreliable notes and quotes I could share with anyone interested, policy makers or lawyers.
One point I will cite is that in official public comment on the MTFAAC final plan, our local
NGO conservation groups Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Montana WildernessAssociation (now WildMontana) submitted comments condemning the scientific merit of the
plans, but still approving them. (John Todd, Darcie Warden). Again, glad to providesubstantiation with links to the documents. My interest is not in discounting their groups. (In
fact the E.D. of GYC is my neighbor and we talk on the driveway about this proposal.) Butthis anecdote of hypocrisy tells us that we should weigh agency and NGO support for the
logging of old growth trees in our local forests with great scrutiny. The written publiccomments state that the models used in MTFAAC had no consideration of wildlife,
endangered or threatened species and other myriad factors that should be reflected.
I consider myself a student of the issues, learning from the experts and listening in atmeetings. To further education of the public, I have hosted a webinar with Dr. Cathy Whitlock
and Dr. Phil Higuera (July 2020) about fire and forest management. To bring that science toour agency heads, my colleagues and I have met with Forest Service Supervisor Mary
Erickson and others to suggest consideration of peer-reviewed studies that do not supportlogging (thinning, clearcutting, etc.) under the current climate change scenario (i.e., Moomaw
et al). Lance Craighead's 2015 study is relevant, as well as the 2017 Montana ClimateAssessment and following related publications. My testimony yesterday quoted key points
from Cathy Whitlock's Climate Assessment.
I have had personal conversations with other University faculty such as Tom DeLuca, formerdean of U.M forestry (now in Oregon) outside of state meetings that confirm my observations
that best available science is not being considered in the state's logging plans. At one point,Tom commented that I was 'exactly right' about the origins of these logging plans starting with
Donald Trump's comment that we should "rake" our forests.
There are many other points I could make that support a PAUSE on this project and any otherlogging actions.
Just this week, in Idaho a judge ruled that the Forest Service was wrong to propose logging
under a Categorical Exclusion in grizzly habitat. The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) wasdisputed. The FS said the entire county was in the WUI, but the county had done no
assessment of WUI lands. Likewise, I have read the Gallatin County Fire Plan, which is adraft and incomplete. The maps show the WUI extend south of Windy Pass Cabin! The
report cites "no history...need to get data" and shows that almost all fires in Gallatin Countyhave been on less than 1/4 acre. The county is inadequately prepared, and the state officials
defer to the locals. The Forest Service apparently has not got the memo --- they propose themost terrible plans and expect them to be screened in the courts for illegalities. I predict that
logging plans on the Custer Gallatin National Forest will fail in the courts, as the cancelledSouth Plateau project south of West Yellowstone was destined to do.
The Bootleg fire in Oregon has spread rapidly through treated areas (thinned, clearcut) but
slowed considerably when it reached more moist, biodiverse Wilderness forests with dead anddowned timber to increase humidity. Yet in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, a story quoted
Oregon State University foresters as saying that the behavior of the Bootleg fire "proved" theirfuel treatments effective. I looked up the Forestry Program at OSU and saw who the funders
are -- groups like the "Institute for Working Forest Landscapes" that focuses on intensivelogging. Universities funded by industry are to be considered carefully, or even discounted,
when they are not citing facts.
Good thing Cathy Whitlock of MSU and others are willing to suggest that "what we can donow is to focus management efforts on the places where intervention is needed to slow the
pace of change and thereby give ecosystems a chance to adapt." In her 2016 report, she saysour "strategies are inadequate" at this time and "fuels reduction cannot alter regional trends".
Whether the massive logging project proceeding in the Gallatin mountains will protectBozeman's drinking water is questionable at best, since local experts say the soils and
topography are such that the ash from charcoal in a wildfire may not pose a problem, whilecutting new roads will certainly cause sedimentation that will yield more runoff than an
undisturbed system.
I hope that my comments will give you some pause. The best thing we can do now is to delaythese irreversible actions and let the science catch up, as is concluded in Dr. Cathy Whitlock's
research.
Thank you sincerely for considering these points.
Nancy Ostlie263 Painted Hills Rd.
Bozeman MT 59715406-556-8118