SOS Forests

Court Throws Out Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

In a bitter and overtly cynical decision issued Aug 19, US District Judge Morrison C. England threw out the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

The suit was brought by Marxist-Fascist panderer Bill Lockyer, former Atty General of the State of California, on behalf of the Pipple and Worldwide Communist Domination. Despite the absurdity and malicious destructiveness expressed by raving pyscho nutwad Lockyer, Judge England was forced to rule against all logic and rationality because Judge Pol Pot Noonan of the Ninth Communist Circuit Court had a Commie arsonist brain failure last May [here].

The entire Aug 19 England decision is [here]. In it Judge England carefully lays out all the arguments barfed up by Lockyer and rips them to shreds.

By way of background, Judge England describes the process and reasoning that led to the creation of the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

The Sierra Nevada contains some 11.5 million acres of National Forest Service land with eleven National Forests and encompasses “dozens of complex ecosystems each with numerous, inter-connected social, economic and ecological components.” SNFPA 1920. In the late 1980s, the Forest Service began developing a comprehensive strategy for managing the myriad resources found within the region. In 1995, the Regional Forester for the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) outlining its management proposal. SNFPA 229.

After extensive public participation and the preparation of a Final EIS (“FEIS”) responding to public concerns, the Regional Forester issued, in 2001, a Record of Decision (“ROD”) which adopted management objectives in five major areas: old forest ecosystems; aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystems; fire and fuels; noxious weeds; and hardwood ecosystems on the lower westside of the Sierras. Id. at 231-35.

Among the thorniest issues confronted by the ROD was striking the appropriate balance between balancing the excessive fuel buildups occasioned by decades of fire repression and conserving key habitat for wildlife species dependent on old forest environments. …

In order to protect old forest conditions within its specific areas of emphasis, the 2001 Framework generally prohibited logging that would remove trees over 12 inches in diameter or logging that would reduce canopy cover by more than 10 percent. SNFPA 328.

Even within the “general forest” areas, the 2001 Framework prohibited logging of trees over 20 inches in diameter. SNFPA 336. It was only within the intermix zones that no canopy restrictions were imposed and logging of trees up to 30 inches was permitted. SNFPA 333, 315.

Although the Forest Service ultimately affirmed adoption of the 2001 ROD despite receipt of approximately 200 administrative appeals, it nonetheless directed the Regional Forester to conduct an additional review with respect to specific concerns like wildfire risk and the Forest Service’s responsibilities under the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (“HFQLG Act”), a congressional mandate which established a Pilot Program for fire suppression through a combination of fire breaks, group selection logging and individual logging. SNFPA 1918. A management review team was assembled by the Regional Forester for this purpose.

In March 2003, the team concluded that the 2001 ROD’s “cautious approach” to active fuels management had limited its effectiveness in many treatment areas. The management review team further found that revisions to vegetation management rules would decrease flammable fuels while protecting critical wildlife habitat by guarding against the risk of stand-replacing wildfire. See SNFPA 1918, 1926. …

Following receipt of the team’s findings, the Regional Forester ordered that management strategy alternatives in addition to those considered in the 2001 FEIS be considered. A draft supplemental environmental impact statement (“DSEIS”) was thereafter released to the public in January 2004. While the same five areas of concern were targeted in the DSEIS as in its 2001 predecessor, in 2004 a new action alternative was identified (Alternative S2), in addition to the alternative selected by the 2001 Framework (Alternative S1) and the seven alternatives that had previously been considered before adoption of the 2001 Framework (Alternatives F2-F8).

Following the public comment period after dissemination of the DSEIS, the SEIS in final form also included response to various issues raised, including comments by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, by California resources protection agencies, and by the Science Consistency Review (“SCR”) team.

By adopting the SEIS on January 21, 2004, the Regional Forester replaced the 2001 ROD with its 2004 successor and amended the forest plans for all eleven national forests situated in the Sierra Nevada. SNFPA 2987-3061. The 2004 ROD reasoned that the 2001 Framework “prescribed technical solutions that do not produce needed results, or offered methods we often dare not attempt in the current Sierra Nevada.” SNFPA 2995. The 2004 Framework reasoned that the methods as adopted in 2001 fail to reverse the damage, and growing threat, of catastrophic fires quickly enough.

To review, the USFS, as directed by Congress, created a plan to save Sierra Nevada forests from catastrophic incineration. That plan was originally issued in 2001 and amended in 2004 after extensive scientific research and public involvement. Despite the fact that eco-Nazi holocausters sued over 200 times, the Plan was found to pass every legal test imaginable. All proper procedures were followed and all standards met.

Bill Lockyer, certifiable crazy jerk, wasn’t satisfied though. Following the Dictats issued by the International Eco-Commie Horror Squad, and using the Treasury of the State of California, he sued again and again and again. Sacramento super-libs in 3-piece suits (every stinking one of them living in wood-framed homes) feel it was their duty to Satan and Mao Tse Tung to burn California forests to ashes.

One by one Judge England destroyed the Plaintiff’s challenges. He summarily rejected every stupid claim, with hard language that cut to the bone.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the record does contain support for the Forest Service’s conclusion that the 2004 Framework would better address fire and fuels concerns than its predecessor. The Management Review Team (assembled by the Regional Forester to address specific concerns raised by the Forest Service following adoption of the 2001 Framework) evaluated the fuels strategy encompassed in the 2001 Framework and identified three critical areas meriting improvement. SNFPA 3100-3101. First, the Team identified the need for fuel treatments to be strategically placed across the landscape. Secondly, the group recommended that enough material be removed to ensure that wildfires burn at lower intensities and slower speeds in treatment areas. …

The 2004 Framework, in response to those suggestions, provides more flexibility to strategically locate treatments across the landscape. SNFPA 3290, 3291. Because the 2004 Framework does not restrict the location of mechanical treatments as much as the 2001 ROD, fire behavior can more effectively be modified than under the 2001 Framework, which dramatically limited such treatments in many areas. See SNFPA 2995; 3290, 3291 (comparing rate of spread, flame length, scorch height, and projected mortality). The 2004 Framework also results in the removal of more hazardous fuels, making mechanical treatment more effective. See SNFPA 3290 (noting that the effectiveness of mechanical treatments under the 2001 ROD was “greatly compromise[d]” by the fact that 30 percent of the acreage treatment was limited to removing trees less than six inches in diameter). Finally, the increased cost efficiency of the 2004 Framework is illustrated by the fact that while its more comprehensive treatment objectives would be higher and cost more to implement, it would also generate 3.5 times more revenue annually to offset the higher costs necessary to more effectively reduce fire risk to the landscape. See SNFPA 3293-94. The fact that the 2004 Framework addressed the concerns voiced by the Management Review Team with regard to its 2001 predecessor provides a reasoned basis for changing the Forest Service’s approach to fire and fuels management, thereby satisfying the APA.

In addition, it was reasonable for the Forest Service to choose a treatment option that, after a decade of implementation, would result in fewer acres experiencing stand-replacing wildfires. …

The Sierra Nevada faces a situation where nearly 8 million of the 11.5 million acres that comprise national forests in the region are in vegetation condition classes that pose moderate to high risks from wildland fires. SNFPA 2998.7 The proliferation of smaller, less fire-resistant tree species (which under natural conditions had kept in check by widespread, low severity fires) has created a highly-combustible fuel bed, as well as a fire ladder serving to carry ground fire into the crowns of larger trees. Given that potential tinderbox, it was reasonable for the Forest Service to explore and adopt measures to more effectively address fire danger by reducing the understory of smaller and less desirable vegetation. The 2004 Framework points out that the magnitude of this increasing danger has been borne out by devastating fires throughout the Western United States in recent years that has occasioned an “unacceptable loss of life, property and critical habitat” calling out for a more effective alteration of current forest conditions. …

At the same time, much of the increased fuel treatments entailed within the 2004 Framework were attributable to full implementation of the HFQLG Act Pilot Project, which, as stated above, represented a congressional mandate to test the efficacy of improved fires suppression through a combination of fire breaks, group selection logging and individual logging. SNFPA 1918. The Management Review Team found that the 2001 ROD “severely limit[ed]” implementation of the HFQLG Pilot Project, as it did not allow the full extent of group selection envisioned by the HFQLG Act. SNFPA 1967, 1970. Experimentation with such techniques is a valuable tool in refining adaptive management techniques, whereas the 2001 Framework’s more passive approach reduced the ability to experiment and obtain information.

And so on, regarding spotted owls, willow flycatchers, Yosemite toads, whether the USFS took a “hard look,” timber harvesting, consideration of opposing viewpoints, scientific uncertainty, adaptive management, etc. Judge England slammed the Plaintiff and flushed his arguments down the legal toilet.

All except for one. The Plaintiff claimed that the “range of alternatives” was not broad enough. As specious as that argument is, Judge England’s hands were tied by the insane ruling of Judge “Burn Them to Hell” Noonan of the 9th Circuit Court of San Francisco Loonies.

This viability of these competing arguments has recently been squarely addressed by the Ninth Circuit within the context of a decision overruling this Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Plaintiff to permit logging within three site-specific proposals (Basin, Empire and Slapjack) approved by the Forest Service for logging. In Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2097150 (9th Cir. May 15, 2008), the Ninth Circuit looked specifically at whether or not the 2004 Framework rigorously explored and objectively evaluated all reasonable alternatives in analyzing whether plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of success on the merits for purposes of their entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief. It unequivocally concluded that the Forest Service “cannot rely on its discussion of alternatives in the 2001 FEIS to satisfy its requirement [that reasonable alternatives be evaluated] for the 2004 FEIS.

Judge England ruled that the 2004 FEIS was rigorous. Judge Loony Noonan ruled that it wasn’t and then went of on a Commie tirade about extortion, bribery, and collusion. As embarrassing and senile as that decision was, the Ninth CC trumps the District Court and Judge England had no choice but to find for the Plaintiff.

Bill “Suckfish Commie Holocauster” Lockyer is no longer the Atty Gen of Calif. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is. Moonbeam is a forest hater and destroyer from way back. He laughed and jeered when federal firefighters ran like scared rabbits and left the Tassajara Zen Center to fight on their own the deliberate holocaust promulgated by those very same firefighters. Moonbeam wants mega-holocausts to raze Los Angeles and San Diego and so has filed more suits against the USFS for daring to do any fuels management in the Cleveland, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino National Forests. Moonbeam sued to enjoin the Plumas Basin, Empire, and Slapjack treatments, joining tentacles with the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society. He won that one in front of Judge Knucklehead Noonan, right before this year’s megafires rose up and raged across California.

Megafire, dead forests, ravaged watersheds, and broken budgets are sweet nectar to Moonbeam and his Shining Path Comrades.

Rational people who wish to save forests and communities from catastrophic fires are powerless against the Insane Hatred For Humanity And All Life Forms Party and their willing arsonist quacks in the legal/political system.

In fact, the USFS has joined the Crackhead Wacko Pervert Arsonist Movement and is currently incinerating vast tracks of forests across the Western U.S. with absolutely no NEPA process at all. If the Commie Powerbrokers want holocaust, then the USFS is here to please them. No NEPA needed for megafires, and the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and Red Menace Eco-Terrorist Gang are all for that. In their sick and tiny minds NEPA was written to destroy nature, not to protect it.

Holocaust forest destruction is thusly ordered by the Judicial Branch of our Federal Government, a willing pasty front tool for the most despicable subhumanoids on the planet today.

Special Extra Note: Is this rhetoric extreme? Not hardly. What is extreme is the deliberate incineration of millions of acres of priceless American forests every year in the name of some sort of twisted environmental “purity.”

It is time for the populace to rise up and throw the Commie Suckfish Holocausters into the Pit of Despair. We can and must be stewards of our landscapes. Wholesale incineration is NOT stewardship, NOT good for man or beast, NOT beneficial to the planet, NOT the command of Tyrant Mother Nature, and is TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, DANGEROUS, DESTRUCTIVE, AND HARMFUL.