|
Forest Service, bowing to
court, embraces Scrooge
By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES October 11,
2005
A federal court ruling in favor of environmentalists is
forcing the Forest Service to suspend more than 1,500 permits for activities
ranging from fire prevention to Boy Scout meetings and also is threatening to
delay cutting of the Capitol's Christmas tree until after the new year. A
Forest Service regulation that allowed projects determined as having minimal
environmental impact to be exempt from environmental studies and reviews was
challenged by the Earth Island Institute. Judge James K. Singleton of the
Eastern District Court of California ruled in July against a project to remove
charred and damaged trees, which could kindle a future fire, in the Sequoia
National Forest. The court said last month in a follow-up ruling that its
decision in Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck applies nationwide, rather
than just to the local dispute. As a result, the Forest Service immediately
suspended all "categorical exclusions," which approved the Sequoia project and
had been used since 2002 to allow permits of numerous other activities,
including trail upkeep at ski resorts and issuing outdoor guide permits. "We
are actively pursuing options in light of this nationwide ruling, including
working with the Department of Justice to seek a stay of the ruling pending
appeal," Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth told employees in a Sept. 23 memo.
Court documents and Forest Service memos show that the permits immediately
suspended include hundreds of projects nationwide for fire prevention on tens
of thousands of acres; nearly 100 guide permits for hunting, fishing, horseback
riding and fishing; 150 wildlife habitat projects; 165 permits to maintain camp
grounds and trails; 15 ski area projects that may shut down the upcoming ski
season in some areas; and 40 permits for family reunions and Boy Scout and Girl
Scout activities. Under the new requirement of public notices, comment periods
and appeals, the tree selected from a New Mexico forest for this year's
Christmas display on the Capitol lawn would arrive around Valentine's Day. That
prospect is frustrating New Mexico's federal lawmakers who see Washington
bureaucrats as depriving their state of a major annual civic honor. "We need
these reindeer games to stop so New Mexico can stay on schedule with its
national holiday tree plans," said
Sen. Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican. "This ruling
and the Forest Service response to it would be like the Grinch who stole
Christmas for the many New Mexicans who have worked well over a year to prepare
for the tree's state tour and eventual trip to the nation's capital, and for
school kids and groups who are already creating ornaments to festoon the tree,"
he said. Mr. Domenici noted the seriousness of the court ruling's implication
on the far-reaching impacts and "consequences of some environmental lawsuits,"
but he and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, are asking Attorney General
Alberto R. Gonzales and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns to intervene so the
holiday conifer can be delivered on schedule. "We are troubled that the
interpretation of a decision made by a Federal District Court in California may
adversely affect these plans. We urge you to redouble your efforts to address
concerns regarding the procurement of this year's Capitol Holiday Tree in order
to resolve this situation in time for the tree's tour around New Mexico," the
senators said last week in a letter to the federal officials. The Earth Island
Institute filed suit against the Forest Service in 2003 and argued that the
agency was breaking the law by exempting some projects from public comment and
appeals. On July 2, the court ruled in favor of the California environmental
group and held as "invalid" Forest Service regulations that exclude some
projects from public notice, comment or appeal. The September court decision
ordered that all Forest Service projects and decisions since July 7 be
suspended, and the federal agency must add a 105-day notice, comment and appeal
period to the decision-making process.
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|