BigHornRam
Well-known member
Matt's pals are dealt a crushing blow!
Judge allows timber sale to go forward
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian
A federal judge has rejected a challenge to one of the keystones in the White House's Healthy Forests Initiative, allowing a timber sale to continue on the Lolo National Forest without full environmental review.
"What he said is that the categorical exclusion is a tool that can be used," said Chris West, "and it can be done quickly - before the value of timber is lost."
West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, applauded the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula to allow logging to continue on the Lolo's Camp Salvage timber sale.
The sale was administered under new federal regulations that allow for "categorical exclusions," - exemptions from normal environmental reviews and public-comment requirements for sales that fall into a narrow category.
To qualify for categorical exclusion status, the sale must be of dead or dying timber, on 250 acres or fewer, with less than one-half mile of temporary road building. Barring any "extraordinary circumstances," the categorical exclusion means there is no need for a full environmental analysis or environmental impact statement.
That, said Lolo forest managers, was exactly the case on the Camp Salvage sale, which covers about 245 acres of forest attacked by beetles.
The categorical exclusion status was applied, and the timber was sold last May.
But Missoula's Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Ecology Center intervened, filing suit in Molloy's court and arguing that the U.S. Forest Service had wrongly tried to limit or exclude public comment by "arbitrary and capricious" application of the categorical exclusion rule.
They succeeded in obtaining an initial restraining order from Molloy, which stopped logging on the site until the judge could hear further arguments.
With that initial restraining order expired, plaintiffs again asked Molloy for an injunction to delay work while the lawsuit continued.
This time, Molloy wrote that the environmentalists had not adequately shown what "extraordinary circumstances," if any, trumped the categorical exclusion status. And, he wrote, "it does not appear Š that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously."
"It's very straight and clean," West said Tuesday, praising Molloy's order. "The plaintiffs didn't allege there was a violation of the conditions under which a C.E. can be used, and he said they didn't have a very good chance of succeeding in court."
West said he was surprised by the ruling, though, "because the judge was so strident in his opinion in approving the first restraining order."
This latest was a "big ruling," West said, because it supported, in effect, one of the "cornerstones of the president's Healthy Forests Initiative," namely categorical exclusions.
In his ruling, Molloy noted that the plaintiffs could, if they wished, file a suit directly challenging the categorical exclusion rule. The suit before him, however, was not that broad and dealt only with the appropriateness of applying the categorical exclusion to one small sale.
"We were trying to question their ability to do these categorical exclusions so widely," said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. But, he said, the lawsuit was never intended to challenge the new rules in general.
The problem with this particular sale, Garrity said, is that it is being conducted in lynx habitat, and threatens to damage sensitive populations of the reclusive forest feline.
Others, he said, are challenging the overall categorical exclusion rule, specifically in Indiana federal courts, but his suit was never intended to do so.
"Simply put," he said, "we believed this was an inappropriate use of the categorical exclusion authority."
Now that Molloy has disagreed, Garrity said, he does not expect his group will challenge the decision. And although the lawsuit continues despite Molloy's rejection of the plaintiffs' bid for a restraining order, Garrity agreed it now might be a moot point.
Even with a delay for spring breakup, he said, the logging could be done long before the case is ever resolved.
Garrity, who had not yet seen Molloy's decision, said Tuesday that "I'd have to talk to our attorney to be sure, but I don't imagine we'd appeal it to the 9th Circuit or anything."
Judge allows timber sale to go forward
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian
A federal judge has rejected a challenge to one of the keystones in the White House's Healthy Forests Initiative, allowing a timber sale to continue on the Lolo National Forest without full environmental review.
"What he said is that the categorical exclusion is a tool that can be used," said Chris West, "and it can be done quickly - before the value of timber is lost."
West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, applauded the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula to allow logging to continue on the Lolo's Camp Salvage timber sale.
The sale was administered under new federal regulations that allow for "categorical exclusions," - exemptions from normal environmental reviews and public-comment requirements for sales that fall into a narrow category.
To qualify for categorical exclusion status, the sale must be of dead or dying timber, on 250 acres or fewer, with less than one-half mile of temporary road building. Barring any "extraordinary circumstances," the categorical exclusion means there is no need for a full environmental analysis or environmental impact statement.
That, said Lolo forest managers, was exactly the case on the Camp Salvage sale, which covers about 245 acres of forest attacked by beetles.
The categorical exclusion status was applied, and the timber was sold last May.
But Missoula's Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Ecology Center intervened, filing suit in Molloy's court and arguing that the U.S. Forest Service had wrongly tried to limit or exclude public comment by "arbitrary and capricious" application of the categorical exclusion rule.
They succeeded in obtaining an initial restraining order from Molloy, which stopped logging on the site until the judge could hear further arguments.
With that initial restraining order expired, plaintiffs again asked Molloy for an injunction to delay work while the lawsuit continued.
This time, Molloy wrote that the environmentalists had not adequately shown what "extraordinary circumstances," if any, trumped the categorical exclusion status. And, he wrote, "it does not appear Š that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously."
"It's very straight and clean," West said Tuesday, praising Molloy's order. "The plaintiffs didn't allege there was a violation of the conditions under which a C.E. can be used, and he said they didn't have a very good chance of succeeding in court."
West said he was surprised by the ruling, though, "because the judge was so strident in his opinion in approving the first restraining order."
This latest was a "big ruling," West said, because it supported, in effect, one of the "cornerstones of the president's Healthy Forests Initiative," namely categorical exclusions.
In his ruling, Molloy noted that the plaintiffs could, if they wished, file a suit directly challenging the categorical exclusion rule. The suit before him, however, was not that broad and dealt only with the appropriateness of applying the categorical exclusion to one small sale.
"We were trying to question their ability to do these categorical exclusions so widely," said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. But, he said, the lawsuit was never intended to challenge the new rules in general.
The problem with this particular sale, Garrity said, is that it is being conducted in lynx habitat, and threatens to damage sensitive populations of the reclusive forest feline.
Others, he said, are challenging the overall categorical exclusion rule, specifically in Indiana federal courts, but his suit was never intended to do so.
"Simply put," he said, "we believed this was an inappropriate use of the categorical exclusion authority."
Now that Molloy has disagreed, Garrity said, he does not expect his group will challenge the decision. And although the lawsuit continues despite Molloy's rejection of the plaintiffs' bid for a restraining order, Garrity agreed it now might be a moot point.
Even with a delay for spring breakup, he said, the logging could be done long before the case is ever resolved.
Garrity, who had not yet seen Molloy's decision, said Tuesday that "I'd have to talk to our attorney to be sure, but I don't imagine we'd appeal it to the 9th Circuit or anything."
