SAWS Members,

 

SAWS felt it was important to inform you of the fact that many of the National Forest Land Management Plans (LMP) that are currently in work, or that have recently been completed, and that have also followed the 2005 Planning Rule, have been virtually put on hold for the time being. For most of these LMPs, we had previously sent out SAWS Alerts requesting you to submit comments to encourage the Forest Service to support the alternative that would be the most positive for snowmobile access in the final plan when they were eventually implemented. Having many of these LMPS put on hold is probably good news for snowmobilers at the moment, because many of these LMPs were looking pretty bleak in regards to continued snowmobile access to traditional riding areas. The LMPs that were completed under the previous rule are still valid as of today.

 

The reason for these plans being suspended is due to the March 30, 2007 decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the combined cases of Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA and Defenders of Wildlife v. Johanns. The Court prohibited the Forest Service from implementing and utilizing the 2005 planning rule.

 

Additional information:

Northern California March 30, 2007 Ruling, 60 pages, .PDF

 

Questions and Answers regarding 2005 Planning Rule Injunction

 

How will this ruling affect the LMPs for the forests where you recreate?

 

In Region One, this will affect the Lolo, Bitterroot, Flathead, Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, and Clearwater/Nez Perce National Forest LMP.

 

In Region Two, this will affect the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests in Colorado and the Shoshone National forest in Wyoming.

 

In Region Four, this will affect the Manti-La Sal National Forest in Utah and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada with portions in California.

 

In Region Six, this will affect the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests in Washington and the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests in Oregon.

 

Stay tuned for additional information to come out on this ruling. When it does, SAWS will inform our members when we hear about the next ruling and have a good understanding of how this will affect these plans.

 

 

Dave Hurwitz

Snowmobile Alliance of Western States

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Deputy Chief Letter to Regional Foresters

 

April 27, 2007 U.S. Forest Service Washington Office letter to Regional Foresters with attachment, 2 pages, .PDF

 

 

File Code:      1570/1920                                                                                 Date:       April 27, 2007

Route To:     

                       

Subject:          Compliance with District Court Decision in Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA and Defenders of Wildlife v. Johanns    

                       

To:                  Regional Foresters   

                                                         

 

On March 30, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision in the combined cases Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA and Defenders of Wildlife v. Johanns.  The Court held our Agency’s adoption of new planning regulations at 36 CFR 219 in 2005 violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The Court remanded the matter to us to comply with its order.  Pending compliance, the Court enjoined us from implementing and utilizing the 2005 planning rule.   A copy of the Court’s decision is enclosed.  The 2000 planning rule, including its transition provisions as clarified by the 2004 interpretive rule,[1] is now in effect.

 

We have filed a motion with the Court to alter or amend judgment.  In the meantime, please be advised that the Agency must comply with the District Court’s order.  Forests that were completing revisions under the 1982 regulations as allowed by the transition provisions of the 2005 regulations are unaffected, except that the authority for continuing under the 1982 regulations is now found in the transition provisions of the 2000 regulations, as amended.  Forests that were completing revisions under the 2005 regulations must take certain steps.  At least until the Court rules on the pending motion you may not implement activities specific to the 2005 rule such as: issuing proposed plans; proposed final plans; or final plans under the 2005 planning rule or resolving objections under §219.13 of the rule. 

 

We do want you to maintain the collaborative relationships you have built and there are many forest and grasslands planning activities and analyses that are in accordance with the National Forest Management Act and independent of the planning rule in effect.  You may continue such activities including planning discussions with the public.  A more extensive list of permitted activities is enclosed.   

 

Also, while we are awaiting the Court’s decision on our motion we intend to take actions that are consistent with the Court’s ruling.  We are planning to take additional comment on the 2005 rule, undertake additional environmental analysis, and take additional actions to address the Court’s rulings regarding ESA compliance.

 

We appreciate your efforts to manage responsibly National Forest System lands in conformance with applicable law, regulation, and the Court’s order.  We will continue to coordinate with the Department of Justice and the Office of the General Counsel and keep you apprised of further developments.  If you have questions about the guidance as applied to the forests in your region, please contact Tony Erba or Ricardo Garcia, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, at

(202) 205-0895.  

 

 

 

/s/ Joel D. Holtrop

JOEL D. HOLTROP

Deputy Chief for National Forest System


 [1][1][1] The Court’s decision upheld the issuance of the 2004 interpretative rule, finding it was not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the APA.