We had previously discussed how dead and dying hazard trees are considered to be an opportunity for different kinds of uses in Colorado. That’s so we don’t burn them in piles and put more carbon into the atmosphere.. also if we could use them for something, we might get some bucks, which would be good, since the Feds, at least, are in deficit. And we don’t want trees falling on people or blocking roads.
Well, it sounds like they are trying to use dead hazard trees in Northern California. I even hear tell that they developed an “Emergency Situation Determination” that went all the way to the Chief to be approved. Which means OGC lawyers must have weighed in. So THEY must think that they’re obeying the law.
So it turns out that this project is being litigated…someone sent me this email…
Plaintiffs Challenge the Bagley Hazard Tree Project on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest for violations of NEPA, NFMA and the APA in Conservation Congress v. United States Forest Service. On September 156, 2013, the Conservation Congress filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging the Forest Service violated NEPA and the APA for this project approved under an emergency situation determination by failing to prepare an EIS; failing adequately to disclose and analyze cumulative effects of the project along with nearby past, present and reasonably foreseeable timber sales; and, failing to analyze the direct and indirect effects of the project on the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat, late successional reserves and inventoried roadless areas. Plaintiff also alleges the Forest Service violated NFMA and the APA by failing to comply with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for management consistent with recovery plans (13-01922, E.D. Cal.).
So we might wonder, who are these people and what is their interest in this project?
I looked up the Conservation Congress and found this…somehow I couldn’t find 990’s or a Board of Directors. I will call the Executive Director in Livingston Montana (?) to see if I can find who is litigating, who is paying for it and what their rationale is..
Their accomplishments seem to be many other litigation efforts here.
I think this is an interesting example, because we all would like NSOs to be successful, yet I wonder how they can use dead trees that are right next to, or fallen on, roads.
Now, the Conservation Congress says it’s “Holding the Federal Government Accountable to Environmental Laws and Regulations.” But here we have a D administration with very smart lawyers. So a person’s gotta wonder.. if somehow smart D lawyers think it’s legal, is something else wrong with the system?
Would this be different if mediation and public release of the mediation discussion and results, were required?