Monday, May 19, 2008
Ninth Circuit Sierra ruling should shift Forest Service priorities
6:31 PM ET
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/05/ninth-circuit-agrees-that-forest.php
Greg Loarie [attorney, Earthjustice]: “At its core, Sierra Forest
Legacy v. Rey (incorrectly titled CBD v. Rey) challenges the 2004
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (also known as the “2004
Framework”), which establishes management direction for all 11
national forests in the Sierra Nevada. The 2004 Framework replaced
the original “2001 Framework,” which set forth a balanced approach
for conserving species and reducing the risk of wildfire and was
widely regarded as the new gold standard for ecosystem-based forest
management. The 2004 Framework abandoned the 2001 Framework’s
carefully crafted standards, and called for a drastic increase in
logging of large, fire-resilient trees throughout the Sierra.
When it adopted the 2004 Framework, the Forest Service acknowledged
that logging large trees does not reduce the risk of wildfire, but it
claimed that such logging was necessary to finance the removal of
smaller trees and brush. Quite literally, the 2004 Framework lost
sight of the forest for the trees. Our clients argued, and the Ninth
Circuit agreed, that the Forest Service’s failure to consider any
alternative options for financing fuel reduction activities violated
the National Environmental Policy Act. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit
enjoined the Forest Service from carrying out aspects of three
logging projects – totaling 12,000 acres – in the northern Sierra
Nevada that implement the 2004 Framework and would be inconsistent
with the 2001 Framework.
In our view, the Ninth Circuit’s repudiation of the 2004 Framework is
an important legal victory that should shift the Forest Service’s
attention away from the last big trees in the backcountry and back to
the important fuel reduction activities that are needed around Sierra
communities.”
Opinions expressed in JURIST’s Hotline are the sole responsibility of
their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s
editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.
———————————————————————-