web powered by 
Home 
News Local News Groups weigh Framework ruling impact
Groups weigh Framework ruling impact
|
Local organizations interested in forest management are reacting to a court decision against changes to a federal management plan in the Sierra Nevada mountains. But representatives with the U.S. Forest Service and the organization that filed the legal action against the 2004 version of the Sierra Nevada Framework say it will take some time and work before the decision’s effects on area forestland are known.
John Buckley, director of the Twain Harte-based Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, said in a written statement that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling proved the Forest Service let political pressure overrule environmental law when relaxing logging regulations in 2004. “It’s a simple fact that protecting water quality and watershed resources not only benefits the environment, but it benefits the economy as well,” Buckley said. “Hopefully this latest court decision will push the Forest Service to give greater protection to water resources.” Friday’s ruling by a three-judge panel reversed a 2008 U.S. District Court decision that rejected a challenge in court to the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework, which sets rules for logging in national forests within the Sierra region. The latest ruling instead declared the 2004 plan to be unlawful because it did not include an analysis of how new, more lenient logging rules would affect fish, something that is required by federal environmental law. The Sierra Nevada Framework was first put in place in 2000 during the end of President Bill Clinton’s administration and placed added restrictions on logging and other uses on the area’s public forests. Under President George W. Bush, the Forest Service amended the plan in 2004 and increased the amount of logging allowed and the size of allowable trees for cutting from 20 to 30 inches in diameter. The Oregon-based Pacific Rivers Council sued the Forest Service over the changes, alleging the failure to take fish habitat into account. A separate lawsuit filed by conservation group Sierra Forest Legacy in 2004 also sought to overturn the amendments and successfully forced some changes to the framework. Buckley stated that the 2004 amendments to the framework were due to political pressure and “primarily benefited the livestock industry and timber industry.” “Those heavily-subsidized industries don’t need favoritism from public agencies,” he stated It remains to be seen exactly how last week’s decision could affect ongoing or future timber projects in the Stanislaus National Forest. Forest spokes-man Jerry Snyder said on Monday that forest officials won’t know the effects until details are worked out in the circuit court. Chris Fressell, a staff scientist for the Pacific Rivers Council, reiterated that point on Monday. Fressell said if the Forest Service doesn’t appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, two options remain. The two parties can argue in court about how the lower court should decide on injunctive relief, or they can cooperate to settle the issues in the framework plan, he said. Fressell said they prefer the latter idea, as he said the organization is not looking for a “systematic stoppage” of all work in the national forests. They want to find an approach that can keep their concerns about fish and water quality in the planning process, Fressell said. “What we want is a settlement that actually works for the Forest Service,” he said. Mike Albrecht, a director with TuCARE, a Twain Harte organization that represents forest logging and cattle-grazing business interests, said on Tuesday that it’s still “unclear” what the ruling will mean for the local industries, as the involved parties are still working details out. However, Albrecht said it’s “really disappointing” that judges like those on the Ninth Circuit “continue to rule against good forest management and good practices.” Albrecht, who also co-owns logging company Sierra Resources Management, said companies continue to improve their harvesting practices with more concern for environmental conservation, something he said judicial officials don’t consider in rulings like these. “We’re at the point where enough’s enough,” he said. “Come out here, Ninth Circuit Court, and see what we’re doing.” |
