|
Reagan-era planning rule superior to Clinton's, enviro groups say |
|
|
|
The Forest Service should use its national planning rule developed
under Ronald Reagan rather than a more recent version drafted by the
Clinton administration, 14 environmental groups say in a lawsuit filed
yesterday.
The lawsuit is the latest in a legal tug-of-war over the national
planning rule, the rule that governs how the 155 national forests and
20 national grasslands develop their individual forest plans, documents
that govern activities from timber harvests to recreation and
protecting endangered plants and animals.
In March, Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California sided with environmentalists
and the state of California and enjoined the Bush administration's 2005
planning rule, saying the Forest Service violated the Administrative
Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species
Act when it drafted, revised and published the rule (E&ENews PM,
March 30).
But instead of reverting back to the Reagan-era 1982 planning
rule, the Forest Service said it would operate under the 2000 plan.
Problem is, the environmental groups charge, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals said the 2000 rule was also illegally promulgated.
At the time, environmentalists were split on the 2000 rule.
While it placed ecological sustainability above social and economic
concerns while also strengthening wildlife protections and
opportunities for public input, changes timber groups adamantly
opposed, it also would have replaced language mandating clear and
enforceable standards for wildlife and watersheds in national forests.
An April 27 memo from USFS Deputy Chief Joel Holtrop directed
the agency to revert to the 2000 regulations as a result of Hamilton's
ruling.
National forests are now approving site-specific projects
under that 2000 rule. For instance, last month officials on the Dixie
National Forest in Utah approved the Mount Dutton vegetation management
project, stating they "considered" the best available science for this
project.
The Forest Service also plans to take additional public
comment on the 2005 planning rule, conduct new environmental analysis
and address ESA concerns raised by Hamilton, Holtrop wrote.
Marc Fink, attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity,
said environmentalists did not ask for an injunction blocking any
future implementation of the 2000 rule at the time because the Forest
Service was already moving to replace it.
The plaintiffs argue the Forest Service did not provide any
public notice or comment prior to reinstating the 2000 rule and charge
the agency has failed to cure the NEPA "deficiencies and violations"
cited by the 9th Circuit panel.
The Bush administration plans to appeal parts of Hamilton's
ruling to the 9th Circuit it cannot remedy, Agriculture Undersecretary
Mark Rey told Greenwire.
The 9th Circuit has tended to rule against the Forest Service
on a series of agency regulations in recent years, including attempts
to replace the Clinton-era Roadless Rule and limit comment and appeals
for small timber projects. Rey lamented the panel's role in national
forest policy at an unrelated House Parks Subcommittee hearing
yesterday.
"We don't think federal judges should anoint themselves
foresters and biologists, but in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals they
often do," Rey said.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
