County, coalition join timber suit

Three new players have joined in the lawsuit between the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the United States Forest Service over the future of the East Reservoir timber sale.

Lincoln County and the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition have officially joined the suit as defendant-intervenors, while Montana’s Attorney General Tim Fox has filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief in the case.

The two sales already awarded within the project amount to nearly 2,000 acres with a production estimate of nine million board-feet of timber in the next five years. The East Reservoir project is expected to produce a total of 39 million board-feet over the course of several years.

The Helena-based group filed the suit against the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, the Kootenai National Forest and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging the defendants failed to adequately consider impacts to threatened grizzly bear, lynx and bull trout habitats and populations.

The county and the stakeholders’ group, in conjunction with the American Forest Resource Council of Portland, Ore., contracted Missoula-based attorneys Carl Mendenhall and Matt Cuffe of Worden Thane to function as local representation and co-lead counsel on the matter. Cuffe is a Libby native and has recently announced his intention to seek election to Montana’s 19th Judicial District Court in Lincoln County when Judge James Wheelis retires next year.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies opposed intervenor status for the county and the coalition, claiming the parties lacked appropriate legal interest in the case.

“Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition and Lincoln County have filed a joint motion to intervene in this case,” the Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ attorneys wrote in their opposition motion. “For the reasons set forth below, Alliance opposes the motion. Applicants do not have significant legally protectable interests in this case; their interests are adequately represented by the federal defendants; there is no independent jurisdiction; and intervention would prejudice Alliance.”

Lincoln County Commissioner Mark Peck said the groups assertion that the county and the coalition lacked sufficient interest in the case was ironic at best, and insulting.

“I think it’s pretty brazen for them to somehow think that they have standing and we don’t,” Peck said. “We’re here on the ground working to solve this problem, they’ve never been here. It just goes to show how far out of the mainstream they are. They’re nothing but serial litigators.”

United States District Judge Dana Christensen ruled in favor of the county and coalition.

“The court finds that, given the extensive public process and input characterizing the project at issue in this case, it is appropriate to provide stakeholders and Lincoln County a continued seat at the table,” Christensen wrote in his order. “That said, the court finds that the agreed-to terms of intervention will serve judicial economy and the efficient processing of this case, and so will adopt them here. Furthermore, the court advises stakeholders and Lincoln County that, while they may participate in settlement negotiations with the parties should such negotiations take place, their status as intervenors does not carry with it the right to prevent any settlement of plaintiff’s claims from occurring.” 

Once allowed to officially intervene in the case, Cuffe and Mendenhall filed a memorandum in support of summary judgment in the case Nov. 25, arguing the collaborative process between the coalition and the various agencies involved not only provided a model of effective forest management, but also resulted in a project that complied with all applicable laws and regulations.

“The East Reservoir Project is a model for how forest management should work,” they wrote in the motion. “Working collaboratively with important stakeholders throughout the region, and especially closely with the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition, the Forest Service designed a project that improves forest health, restores watersheds and habitats, and supports the local economy. The Stakeholders Coalition is a diverse group of local organizations who have an interest in responsible forest management. The coalition’s members worked hard to ensure that they could all fully support the project. The Forest Service also worked hard to prepare a project that complied with all applicable standards and laws.”

Attorney General Fox reiterated the importance of the project and the value of the collaborative process used in its design. 

“The East Reservoir Project is a carefully designed effort to safeguard and improve the health of over 90,000 acres of forest land within the Kootenai National Forest,” he wrote. “It is the product of careful design and review and of significant stakeholder collaboration, and advances multiple important interests of the State of Montana. And it is fully compliant with the law. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied and the cross motions for summary judgment should be granted.”

Peck said the level of coordination involved in the defense of the East Reservoir project is historic.

“It’s very precedent-setting for the county and the Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition to get involved in a case like this,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s the first time, but it’s big. To have that level of coordination between the county, the Attorney General and the stakeholders coalition. I also want to give credit to the American Forest Resource Council, who is footing the bill for our involvement.”

Cuffe said he is excited to be part of a case with significant meaning to the people of Lincoln County.

“Personally I can tell you, as someone whose family made its living dealing in various aspects of the timber industry, the chance to assist in this case holds particular meaning for me,” he said. “ I welcome the opportunity (no matter how large or small) to be part of a case  that hopefully will bring some economic benefit to Lincoln County.”

The case is now in the hands of Judge Christensen, who can rule in either party’s favor as summary judgment, which would then end the case, subject to appeal, or he could deny both summary judgment motions and scheduled the matter for trial. A time frame for his decision on the motions has not been released.