And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:09:17 -0600 To: "Wild Rockies Alerts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Wild Rockies InfoNet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: JUDGE IN CHEYENNE RULES IN FAVOR OF REDUCED LOGGING News Release Contact: Biodiversity Associates (307) 742-7978 May 17, 1999 LAWSUIT TO INCREASE LOGGING ON MEDICINE BOW NATIONAL FOREST DISMISSED BY FEDERAL JUDGE IN CHEYENNE LARAMIE, WYOMING--A lawsuit filed in 1998 by a Colorado corporation which sought to greatly increase logging in the Medicine Bow National Forest was tossed out of Federal Court on Thursday, May 13. The lawsuit was filed by the Coalition for Sustainable Resources against the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), purportedly to gain additional water in the Platte River to benefit endangered species downstream in Nebraska. However, in his ruling, Federal District Judge Clarence Brimmer sided with arguments made by Laramie's Biodiversity Associates and Laramie resident Donald Duerr that the case should be dismissed. The Whooping Crane, Least Tern, Piping Plover, and Pallid Surgeon all depend on high water flows in the Platte River of Nebraska and are now in danger of becoming extinct as a result of agricultural uses and other activities which remove too much water and change flow patterns in the River. The Coalition claimed there would be increased water runoff if the USFS clearcut 50 percent of the harvestable trees on the Medicine Bow, including the popular Happy Jack and Vedauwoo recreation areas between Laramie and Cheyenne. However, Duerr says this level of cutting is neither legally nor ecologically possible: "It's preposterous. To do the extremely high level of clearcutting the Coalition was asking for, the USFS would have to compromise all other uses on the forest, including recreation and the habitat needs of forest wildlife, ignore environmental protection measures, and even extensively clearcut areas that have been classified as unsuitable for timber harvest." Jeff Kessler, spokesman for Biodiversity Associates, added that "The Coalition was basically asking the Court to order the USFS to mow down the Forest, for a single use--maximum water yield--just so wasteful overuse of the natural Platte River water flow can continue." Earlier this year, Biodiversity Associates and Duerr asked the Court for permission to intervene in the case because of their concerns that the Medicine Bow was already overcut and that more clearcutting would be disastrous for forest wildlife, fish, water quality, and backcountry recreation. Judge Brimmer granted their request on April 13, 1999, observing that both parties "have an obvious interest in this litigation and would be prejudiced should this matter be adjudicated without their participation." As intervenors, Biodiversity Associates and Duerr asked the Court to dismiss the Coalition's lawsuit because it was not "ripe" for court action; they argued that logging and less destructive ways to recover the Platte River are now being intensively studied by the government. Judge Brimmer agreed with Biodiversity Associates' and Duerr's ripeness" argument and dismissed the case. The judge cited specifically a comprehensive study on Platte River endangered species now being conducted by a Partnership between the federal government and the states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. He also noted that the USFS is now working on a new long-range management plan for the Medicine Bow National Forest. The judge observed that *the experts that should be considering these matters are working [on] this problem.... It is better to let the Partnership and USFS consider these matters." In addition, Judge Brimmer found that the Coalition--composed of ranchers, farmers, and other water users--was not really concerned about the Whooping Crane, Least Tern, Piping Plover, and Pallid Surgeon. The Judge said the Coalition engaged in "a sham attempt to show harm," and that the Coalition's concern was "not the endangered species in the Platte River," but was instead about their desire to sell water. Duerr hailed the ruling as a victory for the forest. "The 'Bow has already been heavily clearcut. More clearcutting would eliminate habitat for species on the Forest like the Northern Goshawk and Pine Marten, would reduce forested hiding cover for Elk and Deer, would erode streams and harm fish, and would ruin the experience for backcountry visitors--all in a clearly disingenuous attempt to help species elsewhere. Plus it would be silly and wasteful to have a long, drawnout trial on this case when the problem is already being addressed. There are better ways to help the Platte River species without threatening Forest species and other public land values." Kessler said that Biodiversity Associates is gravely concerned about the Platte River endangered species, but that this lawsuit, and any increased cutting, would not help them: "The real problem facing these species is the gross over-allocation of the Platte River water. Even if more water could be produced by radically clearcutting the 'Bow, and even if the resulting damage to the Forest would be ecologically and socially acceptable, the additional water would be used up like the millions of gallons already flowing downstream, without ever really helping these trouble species. The only way to help the endangered Platte River species is to eliminate wasteful water uses and implement sensible water conservation measures." "Besides," Kessler added, "It doesn't make sense to destroy one ecosystem in a misguided attempt to fix problems in another ecosystem. That's robbing Peter to pay Paul." Additional Information The U.S. Forest Service also filed its own motion to dismiss in March, 1999. The agency argued that even if a law had been broken, the Coalition lacked "standing" to bring a lawsuit, and further, that the federal government was protected by "sovereign immunity." To have "standing" to sue, a plaintiff filing a lawsuit must show it has suffered a tangible harm and that the harm is traceable to a violation of law. Duerr said he and Biodiversity Associates decided not to make these arguments because it is their position that "anyone who has good cause to believe the federal government broke the law should be allowed to seek judicial review, provided they first have exhausted all of the available administrative processes trying to get their concerns addressed; the Coalition did not do this." Judge Brimmer rejected the federal government's "standing" argument and found the Coalition had a legal right to bring the suit, even though their "harm" was related to water and not endangered species -- Jeff Kessler Biodiversity Associates and Friends of the Bow PO Box 6032 Laramie, WY 82073 (307) 742-7978 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> News Submissions or Problems: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This list is a public service provided by WIN: http://www.wildrockies.org Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
