A federal court on Tuesday overturned the Bush administration's last attempt to weaken rules governing management of America’s 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. The Bush rules, issued April 21, 2008, repealed key protections for national forests mandated under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
The case was filed by a coalition of conservation groups -- including the Vermont Natural Resources Council -- represented by Earthjustice. The ruling was handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The effect of the ruling in Vermont is that important safeguards will need to be maintained on the Green Mountain National Forest, according to Jamey Fidel, forest and biodiversity program director of Vermont Natural Resources Council.
“For example, if the Forest Service decides to amend the existing forest plan for any reason, it cannot utilize any of the weaker resource protection standards that the Bush administration tried to implement in the 2008 Rule. Furthermore, the ruling ensures that the Green Mountain National Forest will continue to maintain viable populations of wildlife, which has been a bedrock principle of national forest management for many decades.”
Earthjustice represented Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, as well as the Vermont Natural Resources Council.Read the court’s decision here: http://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/nfma-order-09-06-30.pdf
The 2008 rule mirrored another issued by the Bush administration in 2005, which was also thrown out by a federal court. Like the 2005 rule, the 2008 rule eliminated mandatory protections in place since the Reagan administration that require the national forests to be managed to guarantee viable populations of all wildlife species, to preserve clean, healthy streams and lakes, and to protect diverse natural forests. The Bush rules also sought to reduce public participation in decisions about the management of our public forests.
In ruling on plaintiffs’ claims under the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the court’s opinion stated: “[C]ourts have rejected USDA’s argument that the programmatic nature of the plan development rule necessarily means that it will have no effect on the environment or protected species. The USDA has simply copied those rejected legal arguments in a new document and called it a ‘Biological Assessment.’ This is not sufficient to satisfy the [Endangered Species Act]’s requirements....Because the EIS does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the 2008 Rule, it does not comply with [the National Environmental Policy Act]’s requirements.”
Earlier versions of the forest planning rules contained enforceable standards that protected wildlife, water, and the forests. The earlier rules also provided opportunities for public involvement and required analysis of environmental impacts of forest plans on the national forests and impacts that result from plan decisions regarding uses of forest resources.
“America’s diverse wildlife that inhabits our national forests will be safer because of this ruling, which will require forest managers to look out for the welfare of every species,” said Earthjustice attorney Trent Orr. “The Bush administration tried twice to eliminate vital protections for all wildlife living in the national forests. Fortunately, America’s strong environmental laws, and groups willing to fight to enforce them, kept them from succeeding both times.”
The court found that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act by approving the new regulations based on a faulty environmental impact statement that failed to analyze adequately the environmental impacts of the new regulations and violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to examine the effects of eliminating wildlife protection standards on protected species.
A separate lawsuit known as Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Department of Agriculture challenged the same rule, and was consolidated with this litigation.
Background:Congress passed the National Forest Management Act in 1976 to reform the Forest Service and to ensure that the agency give due consideration to non-timber resources, such as recreation, wildlife, and water. The NFMA regulations targeted by the Bush administration include the critical legal requirement that national forests be managed to maintain viable wildlife populations. This rule supports populations of popular game species such as elk, moose, and black bear, and helps keep sensitive and rare species off the endangered species list by identifying and correcting wildlife population declines before species become imperiled.
The Reagan administration adopted this wildlife viability protection in response to declines in the population and range of many species. The Bush administration's attempt to repeal the NFMA wildlife protections threatened a future in which rare species would once again dwindle and disappear from the national forests.
The National Forest Management Act also requires the Forest Service to allow citizens to participate fully in forest management decisions.
Source: VNRC. June 2, 2009