Defenders' Experts
National Forest Management Plan: Bush Administration Revisions
Date Filed: 05/06/2008
Case Status: Victory
Background:
On April 21, 2008, the Bush Administration announced new regulations in the Federal Register for managing national forests and grasslands under the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”). These regulations govern every action on every acre of national forest and grassland in the country, of which there are 175 in 42 states, encompassing 192 million acres – 8% of the United States. Unfortunately, the Forest Service’s latest planning rules contain almost all of the same problems as the agency’s 2005 regulations that were struck down in 2007 in a legal victory for Defenders. Both the 2005 regulatory changes and these latest changes seek to turn the strict forest-planning standards established in 1982 by the Reagan administration into virtually meaningless suggestions, making it easier for industry to log, mine, and drill national forests with little to no regard for impacts on wildlife and the land.
2008 Rule: Defenders of Wildlife v. Schafer
(consolidated with
Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA)
Upon the Bush administration’s issuance of new National Forest Management Plan revisions on April 10, 2008, Defenders and a coalition of conservation groups filed suit to overturn the revisions on May 6, 2008. Just as in 2005 (see 2005 case below), the revised rules remove vital protections for national forests that require they be managed to guarantee viable wildlife populations, protect bodies of water, preserve biodiversity and give a voice to public participation in forest management decisions. The weakening of management plan opens the door for the timber industry and others to extract resources from our nation’s forests without binding standards and guidelines to protect wildlife and environmental values. The suit alleges that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act because they approved the new regulations based on a feeble environmental impact statement that entirely ignored the environmental impact of dramatically weakening the forest planning regulations that govern nearly all activities on all national forests across the country. Additionally, the groups argue that the Forest Service failed to adequately consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to assess the impacts to federally listed species as required under the Endangered Species Act. In sum, plaintiffs allege that the same legal defects exist as when the court ruled in our favor in 2007, despite the Forest Service’s gesture toward the most minimal compliance with the court’s order.
On June 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled for plaintiffs on all claims. The Court struck down the 2008 Rule and barred the Forest Service from further implementing it. In addition, because the 2008 Rule may no longer be used for forest planning purposes, the Court ordered the agency to return to either the 2000 Rule or the 1982 Rule for all forest planning activities.
Related Documents:
Press Release (7/1/2009)
Court Decision (6/30/2009)
Press Release (5/6/2008)
2005 Rule: Defenders of Wildlife v. Johanns
In 2005, Defenders and co-plaintiffs filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service, challenging their failure to consider the impacts of eliminating these protections on the environment, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and on endangered and threatened species, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Defenders also challenged the failure to allow public input on significant changes made to the regulations between the draft and final versions, and challenged the failure to include environmental protection measures mandated by Congress in the National Forest Management Act of 1976. In March 2007, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton issued a decision enjoining the 2005 regulations until U.S. Department of Agriculture considers their impacts under NEPA and the ESA, and accepts public input under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Related Documents:
Status:
Victory
Co-filers:
The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Vermont Natural Resources Council, all represented by Earthjustice. (The case was consolidated with a similar case filed by 13 other conservation groups led by Citizens for Better Forestry.)
