By Denny Walsh
Bee Staff Writer
(Published March 8, 2001)
(read it here or go to http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/local09_20010308.html)
A Sacramento federal judge Wednesday denied a motion to shut down 220 logging
projects in the Sierra Nevada and ruled that imperiled species are adequately
protected by the U.S. Forest Service's recently unveiled master plan.
U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb found that an environmental coalition's legal move to protect the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher is much ado about nothing.
Because the Earth Island Institute and two other groups "are not likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims," Shubb refused to issue a preliminary injunction halting the already approved logging.
He said the main premise of the lawsuit -- that timber sales in the 11 national forests of the Sierra were based for 5 1/2 years on outdated management guidelines -- is faulty. There is no evidence that the guidelines expired March 1, 1995, as alleged by the coalition, Shubb said.
The three nonprofit organizations fell far short of proving the logging will result in irreparable injury to the owl or the fisher, the judge said in a 24-page order.
First, he said, they didn't seek the injunction for "at least five years" after the Forest Service began the sales they claim threaten the creatures. "This considerable delay in asserting their claims implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm."
Second, Shubb said, a study published in January by the Forest Service as part of its long-awaited Sierra management plan says the projects will have no significant effect on the owl or fisher.
Rachel Fazio, a lawyer for the Earth Island Institute, said Wednesday that she will seek an emergency injunction from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals while the matter is before the appellate court.
She said Shubb's ruling does not surprise her.
"We didn't get a strong feeling that he understood our case and the importance of it with regard to the environmental harm," she said.
On the other hand, Assistant U.S. Attorney Edmund Brennan said Shubb was right on point.
"The new environmental impact statement laid to rest the claims that were asserted here," he said. "The statement and the research behind it comprise an outstanding piece of work, and it is gratifying for the court to recognize that."
It was expected that interim management guidelines adopted in 1993 would be replaced within two years by a more comprehensive, longer-term strategy. That estimate proved to be overly optimistic, and a new plan did not materialize until January.
That plan, which became effective Feb. 11, significantly reduces logging and increases protection for the Sierra's oldest trees and most vulnerable wildlife.
But the environmental organizations want the 220 timber sales approved by the Forest Service between March 1, 1995, and Feb. 11 halted. They claim the sales were based on expired guidelines, and thus illegal, and were not designed to protect owl and fisher habitat.
Not so, says Shubb.
"Not only were these timber sales approved under a then-valid plan, but they were subject to project-specific analyses and ultimately re-evaluated" as part of the research that went into the new plan, he said.
"Furthermore, based on the regional forester's direction to forest supervisors, these sales will undergo even further environmental analysis before any trees are logged.
"Thus, it is unlikely that plaintiffs will be able to establish that the Forest Service has made an irreversible commitment of resources without any consideration of the potential environmental effects," the judge said.