Is the U.S. Forest Service being, shall we say, a little mischievous as it goes about broadly interpreting a federal court ruling over the agency's use of so-called categorical exclusions?
For the record, Forest Service officials say no. They say they're just trying to be careful to be absolutely sure they comply with the ruling. But environmental groups behind the legal case say the Forest Service is over-applying the court order - and needlessly throwing into question hundreds of projects they never intended to sidetrack.
But in July, a federal judge in California found that the Forest Service was using the categorical-exclusion process to improperly approve projects without public comment or appeals. The judge recently specified that his ruling applied nationwide.
The Forest Service responded by suspending hundreds of smaller projects across the nation, including more than 100 in the Northern Region. In one example, the agency suspended cutting a tree on a national forest in New Mexico that was intended to serve as "The People's Christmas Tree" on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. And last week, an Anaconda couple had a spot of trouble taking advantage of a Forest Service program that gives a hand to disabled hunters. The agency at first said that the program was on hold while it considered whether it needed to offer the public a chance to comment. That particular matter was settled to the couple's satisfaction later in the day after an inquiry from a Missoulian reporter. "We were kind of shocked," the hunter said. "It all seemed kind of silly."
In the meantime, the environmental groups behind the lawsuit have returned to court, urging the judge to clarify his order, and to do it quickly.
"Expedited consideration is warranted," the groups told the judge, "because as this motion is written, thousands of Americans are being denied their opportunity to hunt, recreate, hold gatherings, forage for forest products and otherwise use the national forest for legitimate purposes."
It will be good to get the ruling clarified. But perhaps you've noticed a touch of irony playing around this matter. For starters, in another time, another place, you might be forgiven for thinking that the words in the paragraph above came from a logging company, not lawyers for environmental groups.
We're reminded as well of the measure of truth that comes wrapped in a cliche: Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.
And, really, can it be a surprise to environmental groups that Forest Service officials - who must feel, at times, besieged by courts and lawyers and partisans representing every side of every public-land issue - would react with extreme care, perhaps even needlessly exaggerated care, to a legal decision, especially if such a response presented an opportunity to, perhaps, make a larger point to the public? Why, those would be tactics - and, again, we emphasize that the Forest Service says it's just trying to follow the letter of the judge's ruling - that would be the envy of many an advocacy group.
With all that said, though, it's the comments of the Anaconda hunter that really stick with us: This does all seem kind of silly. The judge should clarify his order, and perhaps we can put this particular bit of silliness behind us and get on with the serious business of managing the public's land.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)