A federal judge has ruled decisively in favor of the Plumas National Forest in a legal dispute over how the agency handled post-fire logging in the wake of the 2007 Moonlight Fire, which burned 66,000 acres.

In a decision dated March 28, U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. found for the forest on every point. He said the PNF had taken the requisite “hard look” at scientific data and had “directly and deliberately” responded to alternative scientific opinions. It is not the court’s role to referee a “battle of the experts,” England wrote, and cited recent higher-court decisions that direct the court to defer to the agency’s expertise.

“What the plaintiffs were trying to do is set a very high bar, to make it difficult for us to do post-fire work,” said Nancy Francine, ecosystems staff officer for the Plumas National Forest.

“The thoroughness of our environmental review was validated,” Francine said. “We can see the kinds of things judges like to see in a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) document.

“As we move into fire season, it’s helpful to know that the court said we did a good job in managing this huge post-fire environment,” Francine said.

Environmental group Earth Island Institute filed suit in 2009 challenging the forest’s environmental analysis for the Moonlight-Wheeler Fire Recovery and Restoration Project and asking for an injunction to stop proposed work.

Much of EII’s suit revolved around the forest’s analysis of black-backed woodpecker habitat. The bird prefers post-fire ecosystems, nesting in burned trees and feeding on insects that attack fire-killed or weakened trees. The Forest Service currently considers the bird a “sensitive” species.

EII argued the Plumas National Forest violated NEPA by failing to ensure the scientific integrity of its analysis of the project’s impact on the black-backed woodpecker; failing to meaningfully respond to dissenting scientific opinion regarding the woodpecker, failing to take a hard look at the impacts of the project; and failing to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement in light of new information concerning the woodpecker.

EII also argued the Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act by failing to ensure the viability of the woodpecker by failing to determine the necessary quantity and quality of habitat necessary for the bird’s survival.

England ruled that EII failed to show the agency reached its decisions “arbitrarily or capriciously.”

The ruling will have no appreciable effect on the ground in Plumas County. That’s because all of the contracted work associated with the project has already been completed, according to Francine. “Nothing was curtailed because there was never an injunction.”

Not for lack of trying. When the district court denied a motion for an injunction in August 2009, EII appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which, in a split 2-1 decision, also denied the motion. EII could appeal the latest ruling to the Ninth Circuit, too. “We’ll know by end of May,” Francine said.

This ruling will likely not be the last word on the black-backed woodpecker. A petition from EII and The Center for Biological Diversity to list the bird as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act is pending before the California Fish and Game Commission. The California Department of Fish and Game is currently soliciting public comment. A decision by the commission could affect future salvage logging on private timberlands in the state.

Comments  

 

+4#1A little late... — Me2012-04-11 04:09

Wow! that's great, but I think it's a little late to really do much anymore. Too bad it took over 4 years the FS could have salvaged more than what they did!.

Quote| Report to administrator

 

 

-2#2Re: Forest Service — Portola Resident2012-04-11 10:25

And there's the woodpecker again... anything the enviro wackos can do to stop anyone from doing anything in our public forest, they will do it. I'm actually glad the FS won this one...

Quote| Report to administrator

 

 

+7#3Re: Forest Service — Portola Resident2012-04-11 10:26

And please quit wasting money by suing people - our state is in a bad enough situation without you adding to the problem.

Quote| Report to administrator

 

 

+10#4RE: Forest Service wins Moonlight fire salvage logging case — Me2012-04-11 11:16

Quoting Portola Resident:

And please quit wasting money by suing people - our state is in a bad enough situation without you adding to the problem.

It's not state money being wasted, it's federal so it hurts everyone!

Quote| Report to administrator

 

 

+4#5Re: Me — Portola Resident2012-04-11 12:10

Federal, state, same difference - all comes out of our pocket.

Quote| Report to administrator

 

 

+1#6RE: Forest Service wins Moonlight fire salvage logging case — Me2012-04-11 19:29

In most cases I believe that the looser must cover most of the court costs... but I'm not sure on that one... They (environmentalists will always find something to try and stop the Gov't from logging.. I'm sure it's quite a big business.

Quote| Report to administrator

 

 

0#7Wow — Portola Resident2012-04-12 06:51

Looks like someone's got their panties in a bunch, thumbs downing us! Yes, the loser pays for some court costs, but there is still a ton of time, energy, and lawyer fees put out by the government to fight it. Yes, people, it's your tax dollars going towards stupid things like this!

Quote| Report to administrator

 

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

Add comment

Feather Publishing encourages civil discussion on news stories that are important to our community. We do ask that commenters follow certain rules of conduct. Keep your comments on the topic at hand. Threats, insults, lies, and inappropriate language are prohibited. Just as with our letters to the editor we want you to be accountable for your comments so we ask that you use your full real name. We reserve the right to delete any comments that do not comply with these rules of conduct. Commenters who repeatedly do not comply will be prohibited from posting further comments.
Comments are limited to 300 characters. If you would like to post a longer message, please submit a letter to the editor. Submit a letter to the editor. Letters to the editor are limited to a maximum of 300 words. Deadline for submittal is noon on Thursdays.

Name (required)

E-mail (required, but will not display)

Title

Notify me of follow-up comments

Send

Cancel

JComments