Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan.
Article on Court Decision (legal slant)
http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/ninth-circuit-dumps-u-s-forest-services-sierra-plan-bureaucratic-speak/
Stockton Record Article (local flavor)
http://www.modbee.com/2012/02/12/2066810/court-overturns-2004-forest-plan.html
As an OHV representative during the public process and associated appeals (circa 1998- 2004) connected with the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework, I had many concerns about goals, objectives, and success of this “landscape level” planning effort. It started off on a bad foot for OHV recreation and recreation in general because those uses were not even addressed in the plan.
2002 News Article with BRC/Amador Concerns
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/sierra-nevada-forest-plan-stalled/content?oid=7604
In fact, BRC’s concerns were so grave that it filed an appeal of the plan – see appeal info at this link
http://www.sharetrails.org/news/2001/04/16/coalition-files-appeal-says-sierra-framework-decision-flawed
HQ has not had time to do an exhaustive review of the decision, but my initial response is the court has exposed the soft underbelly of landscape level planning efforts. Other such efforts include the new greater sage-grouse program in 10 Western states, the 2005 TMR, and the FS’s new planning rule.
At the end of the day, these big gulp planning efforts are doomed to failure because they will be challenged by the green-conflict industry where the taxpayer gets hit three times. The first whack is when the taxpayer has to fund these massive planning efforts. Second, is when they have to pay the court costs associated with defending the plan. And last, but not least, is they have to pick up the enviro’s legal bills.
# # #
