Landmark Decision Made In CA Forestry Case
November 2nd, 2007 Mike
On Oct. 16, Judge Morrison C. England of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California issued a written judgment denying the injunctions demanded by the Plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental groups led by Sierra Forest Legacy, formerly known as Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign. Others in the (losing) coalition are the Center For Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the Wilderness Society.
The victorious defendants were Mark Rey, in his official capacity as Under Secretary of Agriculture, Dale Bosworth, in his official capacity as Chief of the United States Forest Service on the date of filing, Jack Blackwell, in his official capacity as Regional Forester, Region 5, US Forest Service, and James M. Pena, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest. For a report from the Plumas County News, see (here).
The Plaintiffs sought to have the court enjoin three forest thinning projects initiated through the efforts of the Quincy Library Group. The QLG (website here) is a local citizen group with a steering group of about 30 members, formed in Quincy, CA in 1994. The QLG has been the most successful of any local group in the Nation at influencing the stewardship of the federal land in their landscape, about 2.5 million acres that encompasses most of the watershed of the Feather River. For a partial history (through 1998) of the Quincy Library Group, see (here).
In 2004, Regional Forester Jack Blackwell signed a new Record of Decision (ROD) for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment providing authority to USFS managers to implement pilot thinning projects called for in the 1998 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act.
Since then the construction of over thirty lineal miles of DFPZ’s (Defensible Fuel Profile Zones: areas approximately ¼ to ½ mile wide where fuel loadings are reduced, usually along roads) have saved hundreds of thousands of acres of Sierra forest from catastrophic fire.
The Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction on grounds that the Slapjack, Basin and Empire Projects risked irreparable harm to old forest habitat and imperiled wildlife including California spotted owls, Pacific fishers and American martens. However, no fishers or martens have been seen within 200 miles of any of the project areas during the last 40 years.
The Projects are forest thinnings in the Wildland-Urban Interface, that most dangerous of fire zones. The Empire Project will treat 2,500 acres immediately adjacent to five communities at risk: Quincy, Massack, Greenhorn, Keddie and Butterfly Valley. The 35,00 acre Slapjack Project is near the communities of Brownsville, Challenge, Clipper Mills, Dobbins, Feather Fall, Forbestown, and Strawberry Valley, which collectively are home to between 5,000 and 7,0000 people. The Basin Project is 1,300 acres of similar selective thinning.
Judge England rejected the arguments of the Plantiffs, refused to grant an injunction, and wrote an excellent, landmark decision (for the entire document see here, 160KB): Some excerpts:
The USFWS study opined that the vegetation management treatments envisioned by the HFQLG Act (which include the three projects presently at issue) would not adversely affect the owl, and stated unequivocally 1) that catastrophic wildfire appears to be the greatest potential threat to the owl, with fuel-reduction treatments being necessary to reduce that threat; and 2) that the contemplated treatments will not threaten the continued existence of the owl…
Any impact on either the Pacific Fisher or the American Marten by the site specific plans is even more attenuated than potential effects regarding the owl. While Plaintiffs appear to argue that logging would increase fragmentation and create barriers to the movement of these forest carnivores, the simple fact is that neither species appears to be present within the project areas. No marten sightings have ever been reported 10 within any of the three project locations; in fact, marten generally prefer habitat at higher elevations than the lands at issue here. In addition, no scientifically validated sightings of fisher within 200 miles of any of the projects has occurred within the last 40 years…
In sum, then, available data shows that habitat effects upon owls are minimal, with the vast majority of habitat being unaffected by the projects in question and with the owl comprising a stable population in any event. Protections affecting potential forest carnivore habitat are also largely unaffected by the projects even though virtually no individual carnivore specimens have been detected…








