{"id":261,"date":"2023-11-02T18:48:51","date_gmt":"2023-11-02T18:48:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/?p=261"},"modified":"2023-11-02T18:48:51","modified_gmt":"2023-11-02T18:48:51","slug":"overview-of-summary-judgment-brief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/2023\/11\/02\/overview-of-summary-judgment-brief\/","title":{"rendered":"Overview of Summary Judgment Brief"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Wild Watershed et. al. v. Hurlocker et. al.<br>January 15, 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Summary:<br>A programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared<br>in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to<br>address the potentially significant impacts of mechanical clearing and<br>burning on potential wilderness (roadless areas), old growth habitat,<br>wildlife diversity, recreation and human health. The Hyde Park and<br>Pacheco Canyon projects must be permanently enjoined until NEPA is<br>fully complied with. pp. 1-2 and 27<br>NEPA and the 2014 Farm Bill:<br>Congress did not create an exception from NEPA for projects that<br>qualify for insect and disease treatment under the 2014 Farm bill.<br>Instead it set up a process in which projects could be categorically<br>excluded from detailed analysis under NEPA. These projects, including<br>Hyde Park and Pacheco Canyon, must still be given a hard look under<br>NEPA. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill requires that categorically<br>excluded projects be limited to 3000 acres, must maximize the retention<br>of old growth and large trees and consider the best available science.<br>The Forest Service cannot split these two projects apart under cover of<br>the 2014 Farm Bill in order to avoid doing a programmatic analysis of<br>impacts to the surrounding 100,000 acre Headwaters forest. Together the<br>Hyde Park and Pacheco Canyon projects total 4,383 acres. On-going and<br>planned projects in the surrounding forest cover nearly 22,000 acres of<br>largely potential wilderness. NEPA requires that the Forest Service<br>consider the potential cumulative effects of extensive mechanical<br>clearing and burning in the larger forested landscape. pp. 8-14<br>The public could not effectively comment on the projects because<br>supporting documents from Forest Service experts were not made<br>available. p. 6<br>Potential Wilderness (roadless areas):<br>Sixty-six percent of the two projects is within inventoried roadless areas<br>that have been proposed as additions to the Pecos Wilderness. The Forest<br>Service did not disclose the impacts to the wilderness character of<br>aggressive tree removal and burning or whether such actions would<br>preclude these areas from being protected as wilderness in the future.<br>The courts have consistently found that timber harvest would have<br>serious environmental consequences in roadless areas. Removing up to<br>90 percent of trees to reduce fuels would have similar impacts.<br>According to Forest Service reports, approximately 65% of trees over 9<br>inches diameter would be removed in mixed conifer forest and 75-90%<br>trees over 9 inches from ponderosa pine.<br>Old Growth Forests:<br>The Santa Fe forest plan establishes a minimum age of 180 years for old<br>growth ponderosa pine forests. There are \u201cmany\u201d 180 year old<br>ponderosas in Hyde Park roadless areas according to the Forest Service.<br>Yet no old growth analysis was done. pp. 16 and 17<br>Former Forest Service planner Rich Fairbanks found that the<br>requirements of the forest plan to identify and protect old growth were<br>ignored. Also, ignored were the requirements of the 2014 Farm bill to<br>maximize the retention of old growth and large trees. pp. 19, 20<br>It is unlikely old growth will ever develop. The Forest Service<br>acknowledges that repeated treatments would preclude the development<br>of the late seral stages (old growth) and the warming climate could<br>prevent regeneration of future old growth. There is no strategy for<br>protecting existing or potential old growth or discussion of treatment<br>effects on old growth. p. 22<br>Northern goshawk and its prey, the tassel eared squirrel, depend on<br>mature and old growth forests. This coevolved relationship is key to the<br>continued existence of ponderosa pine forests. The status of their<br>populations is unknown because they are not monitored. Reducing<br>canopy cover below 40 percent will harm both species. The Forest<br>Service failed to address this concern during public comments or<br>consider the impacts of extensive habitat manipulation. pp. 22-24<br>Public Health:<br>The Headwaters forests would be burned annually for years to come. In<br>contrast, natural mixed severity wildfires happen once or twice in a<br>person\u2019s lifetime. Annual low-intensity prescribed burning emits large<br>amounts of fine particulate matter and heavy metals, including mercury,<br>into the atmosphere causing adverse health effects even when complying<br>with air quality standards. According to health professionals, there is no<br>safe level of exposure below which adverse impacts are not observed.<br>The Forest Service failed to respond to these public health issues, saying<br>only that air quality standards will be complied with. pp. 24-26<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Wild Watershed et. al. v. Hurlocker et. al.January 15, 2019 Summary:A programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) must be preparedin accordance with the National Environmental Policy &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-action"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=261"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":262,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261\/revisions\/262"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/santafeforestcoalition.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}