excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,158
- 34,401
- 2,290
More environmental gymnastics. And as this is a magistrate judge and not an Article III judge and overreach.
The Trump rule makes sense, so naturally, it must be attacked. Better to let forests burn so the can then blame "climate change".
The Trump rule makes sense, so naturally, it must be attacked. Better to let forests burn so the can then blame "climate change".
...
The findings came in response to a lawsuit filed by multiple environmental groups over the change.
Hallman recommended that the Forest Service's environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact should be vacated and that the agency should be required to prepare a full environmental impact statement related to the change.
"The highly uncertain effects of this project, when considered in light of its massive scope and setting, raise substantial questions about whether this project will have a significant effect on the environment," Hallman wrote.
The Forest Service didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. The agency has two weeks to object to the judge's findings and recommendations.
The protection changed by the Trump administration banned the harvesting of trees 21 inches (53 centimeters) or greater in diameter and instead emphasized maintaining a mix of trees, with trees at least 150 years old prioritized for protection and favoring fire-tolerant species.
The area impacted by the rule is at least 7 million acres (2.8 million hectares), approximately the size of the state of Maryland, on six national forests in eastern Oregon and southeast Washington state.
The Trump administration said the change, which went into effect in 2021, would make forests "more resistant and resilient to disturbances like wildfire."
"We're looking to create landscapes that withstand and recover more quickly from wildfire, drought and other disturbances," Ochoco National Forest supervisor Shane Jeffries told Oregon Public Broadcasting at the time. "We're not looking to take every grand fir and white fir out of the forests."
...
The findings came in response to a lawsuit filed by multiple environmental groups over the change.
Hallman recommended that the Forest Service's environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact should be vacated and that the agency should be required to prepare a full environmental impact statement related to the change.
"The highly uncertain effects of this project, when considered in light of its massive scope and setting, raise substantial questions about whether this project will have a significant effect on the environment," Hallman wrote.
The Forest Service didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. The agency has two weeks to object to the judge's findings and recommendations.
The protection changed by the Trump administration banned the harvesting of trees 21 inches (53 centimeters) or greater in diameter and instead emphasized maintaining a mix of trees, with trees at least 150 years old prioritized for protection and favoring fire-tolerant species.
The area impacted by the rule is at least 7 million acres (2.8 million hectares), approximately the size of the state of Maryland, on six national forests in eastern Oregon and southeast Washington state.
The Trump administration said the change, which went into effect in 2021, would make forests "more resistant and resilient to disturbances like wildfire."
"We're looking to create landscapes that withstand and recover more quickly from wildfire, drought and other disturbances," Ochoco National Forest supervisor Shane Jeffries told Oregon Public Broadcasting at the time. "We're not looking to take every grand fir and white fir out of the forests."
...
