Supreme Court agrees to hear Sierra Nevada forest case

 

McClatchy Newspapers

A long-running Sierra Nevada forest planning dispute will now be settled by the Supreme Court in what could shape up as a crucial public lands case.

On Monday, the court agreed to referee the dispute pitting environmentalists with the Portland, Ore.-based Pacific Rivers Council against the U.S. Forest Service over decision-making that dates back to the second Bush administration. While the specific case involves 11 Sierra Nevada forests, the eventual outcome could shape everything from who gets to file lawsuits to the scope of future environmental studies.

“Definitely, throughout the West, this could have huge impacts on the moving of projects forward,” Dustin Van Liew, executive director of the conservative Public Lands Council in Washington, D.C., said in an interview Monday.

One key question confronting the court will be whether environmentalists have the “standing” to sue against a general forest plan, as opposed to a specific project proposal, by virtue of their making recreational use of the national forests. To gain standing in federal court, individuals must show they’ve been injured or face imminent injury.

A second major question is how extensively detailed the Forest Service must be when preparing overarching management plans, such as the one governing the 11 Sierra Nevada forests.

“The only role for a court is to insure that the agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of its proposed action,” Pacific Rivers Council’s attorneys said in a legal brief, adding that “agencies cannot take a ‘hard look’ unless they have reasonably identified the consequences of their actions.”

Underscoring the case’s potential significance, the Public Lands Council and the affiliated National Cattlemen’s Beef Association secured Supreme Court permission Monday to file a brief opposing the environmental group. Many more briefs, from both sides, are sure to come.

The court’s decision to hear the Sierra Nevada case, sometime during the 2013 term that starts in October, means that at least four of the court’s nine justices agreed to reconsider a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision from last year in which environmentalists prevailed.

In that 2-1 appellate court decision, the 9th Circuit panel concluded the Forest Service in 2004 failed to adequately study the effect of dramatically revised forest plans on Sierra Nevada fish populations.

“The Forest Service provided no analysis despite the fact that the 2004 (plan) allows much more logging, burning, road construction and grazing,” Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the appellate panel.

The planning, and required federal environmental impact statements, cover nearly 11.5 million acres of Forest Service land stretching from Southern California to the California-Oregon border. Taken together, the Sequoia, Inyo, Sierra, Stanislaus, Humboldt-Toiyabe, Eldorado, Tahoe, Plumas, Lassen and Modoc national forests, and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, encompass more than 5 percent of all land managed by the Forest Service nationwide.

When presidents have changed, so have the Sierra Nevada forest plans.

The Clinton administration issued one Sierra Nevada plan in January 2001, about a week before President Bill Clinton left office. The President George W. Bush administration then scrapped that plan, and issued another in 2004.

The 2004 Bush plan called for harvesting 4.9 billion more board-feet of timber than under the 2001 Clinton plan. The Bush plan also called for constructing 90 more miles of new roads, reconstruction of 855 more miles of existing roads and a loosening of restrictions on grazing. Bush’s supporters in the timber and cattle industries, among others, supported the changes, while environmentalists warned of the dangers.

“My first Sierra Nevada backpacking trip was to the Mineral King area in 2000, during which time I also fished,” Pacific Rivers Council Chairman Bob Anderson, a South Lake Tahoe resident, said in a court declaration used to establish injury and standing. “I plan to continue these activities as long as the management of Sierra Nevada national forests does not prevent me from doing so.”

Email: mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @MichaelDoyle10

Read more Politics Wires stories from the Miami Herald

  •  
Wyoming Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis speaks during a press conference where she announced her bid to seek a fourth 2-year term to Wyoming's only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, Wednesday April 23, 2014, in Cheyenne, Wyo.

    Rep. Lummis announces re-election bid

    Rep. Cynthia Lummis announced her bid to seek a fourth two-year term to Wyoming's only seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

  •  
CORRECTS SPELLING OF NAME OF IDA SARGENT - Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, center, speaks during a ceremony honoring members of the U.S. Winter Olympic team from the state, Wednesday, April 23, 2014, at the Statehouse in Montpelier, Vt. Five Olympians attending are, from left, Ida Sargent, Hannah Kearney, Liz Stephen, Susan Dunklee and Sophie Caldwell. At rear are state Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, left, and Parker Riehle, president of the Vermont Ski Areas Association.

    Governor honors Vermont's winter Olympians

    Five Vermont athletes who competed at the Sochi Winter Olympics received standing ovations and thanks from the governor on Wednesday at the Statehouse.

  •  
FILE - In this Feb 6, 2014 file photo, South Dakota state Rep. Scott Ecklund, R-Brandon, a sponsor of the bill to provide prenatal care to immigrant women who are not citizens, speaks during a committee hearing Thursday, Feb 6, 2014, in Pierre, S.D. Ecklund says the measure to provide prenatal care to immigrant women will save babies lives and save the state money. He is a family physician in Brandon and deliveries babies. He calls the proposed change a “no-brainer.”

    Some South Dakota GOP support help for immigrants

    Some Republicans in conservative South Dakota are putting the contentious politics of immigration reform aside and backing a measure to provide prenatal care to women living in the state illegally whose children will become citizens of the United States.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category