Forest Service Bid to Lift Wildlife Protections Met With Lawsuit

Issued earlier this month, the rule represents the Forest Service’s third attempt to weaken the nationwide regulations. The two previous attempts were rejected by the courts.

"The Forest Service violated the law in preparing new rules in 2000 and 2005, and the 2008 rule is also fatally flawed," said Paul Spitler, attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "The Forest Service should stop wasting resources and develop a rule that ensures protection for the fish, wildlife, and other resources in our national forests."

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Forest Service operated under nationwide regulations that provided mandatory protection for forest resources, including a requirement to ensure the viability of fish and wildlife species.

These regulations governed all timber sales, livestock grazing, and road construction throughout the National Forest System.

Now rare, the American marten is a carnivore. Adapted to live in cold climates, the marten is threatened by global warming and habitat destruction. (Photo courtesy Wisconsin DNR)

The Forest Service first attempted to weaken these nationwide regulations in 2000, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the agency had violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

Under the Bush administration, the Forest Service attempted to remove essentially all environmental safeguards for the national forests with a new rule in 2005.

In March 2007, however, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California threw out the 2005 rule based on violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.

The new Forest Service rule issued earlier this month in response to the court's 2007 decision is nearly identical to the 2005 rule, the plaintiffs say. The 2008 rule would eliminate the long-standing requirement to ensure viable populations of fish and wildlife species.

The new rule decreases public participation in forest planning by allowing the Forest Service to "categorically exclude" entire forest plans from public review and environmental analysis requirements.

"Thankfully the Bush administration is coming to an end, as it continues to push forward with woefully inadequate protection for our national forests," said attorney Pete Frost of the Western Environmental Law Center.

The Forest Service says opportunities for public involvement would apply even if a land management plan decision is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.

For the 2008 rule, while the agency prepared what it purports to be an "environmental impact statement," it simply states there will be no environmental impacts.

"The elimination of mandatory standards that protected our national forests for decades will of course result in increased environmental harm to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources in the National Forest System," declared attorney Marc Fink with the Center for Biological Diversity. "The courts have recognized this, the general public can see this, but the Forest Service has chosen once again to keep its head in the sand."

The Forest Services says the rule is intended to "strengthen the role of science in planning; to strengthen collaborative relationships with the public and other governmental entities; to reaffirm the principle of sustainable management consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and other authorities; and to streamline and improve the planning process by increasing adaptability to changes in social, economic, and environmental conditions."

The 14 plaintiff conservation organizations in the lawsuit are: Citizens for Better Forestry, Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Wild West Institute, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, Idaho Sporting Congress, Friends of the Clearwater, Utah Environmental Congress, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Wild South, The Lands Council, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, and Oregon Wild.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

A copy of the new rule is online here.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.