More news outlets in Colorado and environs are reacting to the Forest Service's decision (discussed in this post from Monday) to turn down Crested Butte Ski Area's application for a "special use" permit to expand ski runs and lifts onto Snodgrass Mountain, in the middle of National Forest land.
The Watch out of Telluride is reporting how pleased local environmentalists are, in an article you can read here. Notably, it reports that Rocky (natch) Smith, Forest Watch Program Director for Colorado Wild "said that only once during his 25-year career reviewing Forest Service projects (including the Telluride Ski and Golf Company’s expansion into Prospect Basin that he opposed) has he ever seen the agency turn down a request to expand a ski area or open a new one." So a shift from not only the Bush Administration, but the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan administrations as well.
Meanwhile, the Gunnison Times reports here that the owners of the ski area found the Forest Service's decision to be "on the verge of appalling" and are planning on fighting the decision in court, if necessary. If it gets that far, it will be interesting to hear what the district court and perhaps ultimately the Tenth Circuit say it takes for a special use permit decision--which has a lot of discretion written into it by law--to withstand review. The ski area owners really seem to feel that they are entitled to NEPA review. The question is whether this is based on tradition, rather than anything legal.
Showing posts with label Forest Service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Forest Service. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Forest Service Blocks Ski Area Expansion onto Public Lands
Forest supervisor says expansion would be "against public interest."
In a letter dated November 5, 2009, the Forest Supervisor for the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre and Gunnison National Forests rejected an application by the Crested Butte Ski Resort for a special use permit to expand onto national forest land on nearby Snodgrass Mountain. The resort owners had sought the expansion in part to develop more beginner and intermediate ski runs to broaden their appeal. In a decision that shows which way the winds are blowing in the Forest Service, the Forest Supervisor determined that although the plan met the minimum initial screening requirements, the expansion failed second-level review as against the public interest, citing 36 CFR 251.54(e)(5).
The Forest Supervisor made his adverse public-interest finding on the basis that, among other things, the expansion (a) lacked community support, (b) posed too many economic and social costs, (c) would place too much development pressure on the surrounding area, changing its character, (d) was problematic in light of the fact that Snodgrass Mountain is in an Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), (e) would impinge on lynx habitat, and (f) would require an extensive and costly NEPA process for which there was insufficient justification in light of all the other concerns.
The Forest Supervisor's citation of the fact that the proposed expansion is in a roadless area is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the Roadless Rule's fate is not yet decided (as I explained in this post, last week)--and in light of the fact that the Obama Administration has recently filed briefs on behalf of the Roadless Rule, reversing eight years of Bush Administration litigation strategy. Obviously, this Forest Supervisor has gotten the memo. He wrote:
The owners of the ski resort released a press statement today expressing their disappointment in the decision. They said they were "blindsided" by the decision, and had thought, based on earlier interactions with the Forest Service, that everything was going well for them. They also complain that many other ski areas in Colorado have gotten special use permits for similar expansions in the past, and expected that they would be able to get one as well. The release ends with positive statements about what the expansion "will" provide to the resort and the community, perhaps indicating the owners' intent to appeal the Forest Service's decision.
If they do appeal, they will have to go to federal court, as the letter specifies that the decision is not subject to administrative review.
Press coverage of the development can be read in the Denver Post, here.
In a letter dated November 5, 2009, the Forest Supervisor for the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre and Gunnison National Forests rejected an application by the Crested Butte Ski Resort for a special use permit to expand onto national forest land on nearby Snodgrass Mountain. The resort owners had sought the expansion in part to develop more beginner and intermediate ski runs to broaden their appeal. In a decision that shows which way the winds are blowing in the Forest Service, the Forest Supervisor determined that although the plan met the minimum initial screening requirements, the expansion failed second-level review as against the public interest, citing 36 CFR 251.54(e)(5).
The Forest Supervisor made his adverse public-interest finding on the basis that, among other things, the expansion (a) lacked community support, (b) posed too many economic and social costs, (c) would place too much development pressure on the surrounding area, changing its character, (d) was problematic in light of the fact that Snodgrass Mountain is in an Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), (e) would impinge on lynx habitat, and (f) would require an extensive and costly NEPA process for which there was insufficient justification in light of all the other concerns.
The Forest Supervisor's citation of the fact that the proposed expansion is in a roadless area is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the Roadless Rule's fate is not yet decided (as I explained in this post, last week)--and in light of the fact that the Obama Administration has recently filed briefs on behalf of the Roadless Rule, reversing eight years of Bush Administration litigation strategy. Obviously, this Forest Supervisor has gotten the memo. He wrote:
Several Federal Circuit Courts are currently considering the future management of IRAs. A final decision on how ski areas can develop ski facilities in IRAs may be several years away. It is very reasonable to expect; however, that any decision to develop Snodgrass Mountain will be challenged based upon consistency with both the intent and ecological values of roadless areas.His analysis of community support for the project was also interesting. The project has engendered significant opposition. (Friends of Snodgrass Mountain, which was formed to fight the project, has an only-in-Colorado slogan: "It's Not Light. It's Not Intermediate. And It Won't Work!"). But opposition is not unanimous. Here, the Forest Supervisor cited the lack of unanimous support as a reason that the project is not in the public interest, whereas one might expect the Forest Service in prior administrations to cite the lack of unanimous opposition as a basis for moving ahead. See Nov. 5, 2009 Letter at p. 2 ("Based on what I have heard and read, I am convinced that the community is deeply divided over the proposed development of Snodgrass Mountain."). Almost any project that would require NEPA review could be said to "deeply divide" local communities--there are a lot of environmental litigators who would love to see this cited as a reason not to perform NEPA review, or to choose a no-build alternative to a proposed project. (Especially since project proponents so often form pro-development citizens groups that would not have arisen spontaneously.)
The owners of the ski resort released a press statement today expressing their disappointment in the decision. They said they were "blindsided" by the decision, and had thought, based on earlier interactions with the Forest Service, that everything was going well for them. They also complain that many other ski areas in Colorado have gotten special use permits for similar expansions in the past, and expected that they would be able to get one as well. The release ends with positive statements about what the expansion "will" provide to the resort and the community, perhaps indicating the owners' intent to appeal the Forest Service's decision.
If they do appeal, they will have to go to federal court, as the letter specifies that the decision is not subject to administrative review.
Press coverage of the development can be read in the Denver Post, here.
Coalition Sues Park Service and Forest Service to Stop Bison Kills
A group of Native American and environmental groups filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana today to prevent the National Park Service and the Forest Service from participating in state roundups of wild bison in Yellowstone that state officials suspect of being infected with brucellosis. The groups' press release can be viewed here.
Yellowstone is home to a herd of 3000 bison. (Although bison are no longer endangered, there are still only about 150,000 in North America). According to an AP story on the suit, "[d]uring severe winters and when bison numbers are high, thousands of the animals try to migrate to lower elevations outside Yellowstone in search of grass for grazing." Under a 2000 agreement between Montana and the federal government, bison who are in danger of coming in contact with cattle are rounded up and tested for brucellosis, and those who test positive (about 50%) are slaughtered. According to this article from Yellowstone Insider, this was done for the sake of Montana's beef industry, so the cattle could be certified as brucellosis free. A total of 3,000 have been slaughtered over the course of the decade, including over 1,400 in spring 2008.
Yellowstone is also home to a much larger elk population, but officials have been focusing all their energies on the bison based on arguments that the incidence of disease is higher in bison and elk, and because elk are more disperse. The Government Accountability Office, in a highly critical report released last year, criticizes the practice:
According to the GAO report, the roundups were supposed to be only temporary, and officials expected to move on to delivering brucellosis vaccine to the bison by the winter of 2002-2003. But, the report says, mismanagement and miscommunication among the agencies and state officials involved has kept them stuck in first gear. The report accuses the federal agencies involved of wasting time and money in an opaque process that depends on trial and error rather than sensible planning.
The group that filed suit today to stop the roundups includes Western Watersheds Project, the Buffalo Field Campaign, Tatanka Oyate (Buffalo Nation), the Gallatin Wildlife Association, the Native Ecosystems Council, and the Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation.
The complaint argues that the Park Service and the Forest Service have arbitrarily and capriciously failed to provide for providing for adequate and appropriate diversity of plant and animal species in their implementation of and actions under the Interagency Bison Management Plan and the Gallatin National Forest Plan. Should DoJ choose to vigorously defend this suit, they would most probably defend much of the complaint on ripeness or other jurisdictional grounds. However, one would hope in light of the GAO report, the poor track record of efforts so far, and the change in administrations that some sort of settlement will be reached relatively quickly.
Yellowstone is home to a herd of 3000 bison. (Although bison are no longer endangered, there are still only about 150,000 in North America). According to an AP story on the suit, "[d]uring severe winters and when bison numbers are high, thousands of the animals try to migrate to lower elevations outside Yellowstone in search of grass for grazing." Under a 2000 agreement between Montana and the federal government, bison who are in danger of coming in contact with cattle are rounded up and tested for brucellosis, and those who test positive (about 50%) are slaughtered. According to this article from Yellowstone Insider, this was done for the sake of Montana's beef industry, so the cattle could be certified as brucellosis free. A total of 3,000 have been slaughtered over the course of the decade, including over 1,400 in spring 2008.
Yellowstone is also home to a much larger elk population, but officials have been focusing all their energies on the bison based on arguments that the incidence of disease is higher in bison and elk, and because elk are more disperse. The Government Accountability Office, in a highly critical report released last year, criticizes the practice:
This difference in management remains even though there have been multiple suspected elk-to-cattle transmissions in recent years in Idaho and Wyoming, some of which have been detected through DNA testing; the National Research Council reported in 1998 that the risk of transmission from bison to cattle was low; and there have been no known cases of brucellosis transmitted from bison to cattle in a wild, uncontrolled setting.The whole report can be viewed here.
According to the GAO report, the roundups were supposed to be only temporary, and officials expected to move on to delivering brucellosis vaccine to the bison by the winter of 2002-2003. But, the report says, mismanagement and miscommunication among the agencies and state officials involved has kept them stuck in first gear. The report accuses the federal agencies involved of wasting time and money in an opaque process that depends on trial and error rather than sensible planning.
The group that filed suit today to stop the roundups includes Western Watersheds Project, the Buffalo Field Campaign, Tatanka Oyate (Buffalo Nation), the Gallatin Wildlife Association, the Native Ecosystems Council, and the Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation.
The complaint argues that the Park Service and the Forest Service have arbitrarily and capriciously failed to provide for providing for adequate and appropriate diversity of plant and animal species in their implementation of and actions under the Interagency Bison Management Plan and the Gallatin National Forest Plan. Should DoJ choose to vigorously defend this suit, they would most probably defend much of the complaint on ripeness or other jurisdictional grounds. However, one would hope in light of the GAO report, the poor track record of efforts so far, and the change in administrations that some sort of settlement will be reached relatively quickly.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Roadless Rule Being Litigated . . . Again
Briefs were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit yesterday in favor of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule), which bans new roads in national forests. Again.
The rule, which was issued in 2001 at the end of the Clinton Administration, has been the subject of nearly endless litigation ever since. In separate proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, environmentalists sued to overturn a Bush Administration reversal of the rule, via the so-called State Petitions Rule, which sought to give states authority over whether National Forests in their own states should remain roadless. Last August, in California v. USDA, the Ninth Circuit ruled that (1) it was unreasonable for the Forest Service to use a categorical exemption to exclude the State Petitions Rule from NEPA review, (2) it was arbitrary and capricious for it to find no significant impact under the ESA, and (3) the district court had been correct to reinstate the Roadless Rule. (As that case was argued prior to the end of the Bush Administration, DOJ supported the State Petitions Rule and opposed the reinstatement of the Roadless Rule.)
Meanwhile, the state of Wyoming challenged the Roadless Rule in federal district court in Wyoming--and won. In a 2008 decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled (for the second time) that the Roadless Rule violated NEPA as well as the Wilderness Act. This time, the Obama DOJ joined environmentalists and is arguing that the district court's decision should be overturned.
A brief AP article on the filing can be read here. And a colorful High Country News article on the judge in Wyoming who keeps overturning the Roadless Rule, as well as the endless litigation it has been subjected to, can be read here.
The rule, which was issued in 2001 at the end of the Clinton Administration, has been the subject of nearly endless litigation ever since. In separate proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, environmentalists sued to overturn a Bush Administration reversal of the rule, via the so-called State Petitions Rule, which sought to give states authority over whether National Forests in their own states should remain roadless. Last August, in California v. USDA, the Ninth Circuit ruled that (1) it was unreasonable for the Forest Service to use a categorical exemption to exclude the State Petitions Rule from NEPA review, (2) it was arbitrary and capricious for it to find no significant impact under the ESA, and (3) the district court had been correct to reinstate the Roadless Rule. (As that case was argued prior to the end of the Bush Administration, DOJ supported the State Petitions Rule and opposed the reinstatement of the Roadless Rule.)
Meanwhile, the state of Wyoming challenged the Roadless Rule in federal district court in Wyoming--and won. In a 2008 decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled (for the second time) that the Roadless Rule violated NEPA as well as the Wilderness Act. This time, the Obama DOJ joined environmentalists and is arguing that the district court's decision should be overturned.
A brief AP article on the filing can be read here. And a colorful High Country News article on the judge in Wyoming who keeps overturning the Roadless Rule, as well as the endless litigation it has been subjected to, can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
