Impact of U.S. Forest Service court ruling is unknown, agency officials say
Agency officials: Logging, burning exceptions under litigation
U.S. Forest Service representatives from the local to national levels are not commenting on a court ruling this month blocking Bush administration logging exemptions, stating the impact of the decision by the federal appeals court is being analyzed by attorneys and the matter remains under litigation.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down exemptions in the Healthy Forest Initiative that allowed certain logging projects and prescribed burns to proceed without Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments, stating in its decision that the agency "failed to assess properly the significance of the hazardous fuels reduction categorical exclusion." The lawsuit, targeting the fuels categorical exclusion set forth in the Bush administration's 2002 Healthy Forests Initiative as a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, was brought forward by the Sierra Club and Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign (Sierra Club vs. Bosworth).
In its Wednesday, Dec. 5, decision, the court cited "irreparable injury" caused by lack of ecological impact studies of yearly logging and burning on over 1 million acres of national forest land. Plains/Thompson Falls District Ranger Randy Hojem said that numerous categories, ranging from roads and trails to tree harvesting and salvage, are included in the Forest Service's categorical exclusions.
The court ruling specifically addresses exempted prescribed forest burns involving up to 4,500 acres of land and logging projects on 1,000 acres or less from Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments, but Hojem and Boyd Hartwig, a Forest Service public affairs officer based in Missoula, said the ramifications of the court ruling on exemptions is under review by the agency's lawyers.
Forest Service spokesperson Joe Walsh, speaking from the agency's National Headquarters in Washington, D.C., said he was unable to comment on the court ruling.
Hojem said that assuming exempt logging and burning projects are done without analysis is inaccurate; rather, the projects fit within another level of review. He said the agency employs three methods for analyzing projects: an EIS for any project that would have "significant" impact to the environment; an EA, which offers "less in-depth analysis"; and projects that fall under categorical exclusions - the least-comprehensive level of review.
Hojem said he and other Forest Service departments are waiting for direction from the national office regarding the court decision, but said only a "handful" of projects his department has undertaken have fallen within the exemptions. He said three Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District projects have been excluded from documentation based on the Bush rule regarding prescribed burning.
The purpose of the exclusions, he said, was to address the buildup of fuels in wild land urban interfaces. Completing an EIS, he added, requires a "lot of time and money," and the logging exceptions "streamline the process for projects smaller in nature." He said the exclusions particularly applied to areas where the need for logging or prescribed burn treatment was immediate.
According to information cited in the appeals court ruling, the logging and prescribed burn exemptions were in response to the 2000 fire season.