SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal District Court has again halted a post-fire logging plan proposed by the Six Rivers National Forest within a large roadless area along the western border of the Trinity Alps Wilderness in Humboldt County, California.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that the environmental analysis prepared for the logging plan violates the National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest Management Act. The injunction stops any logging from proceeding until the Forest Service prepares a supplemental environmental impact statement to correct the deficiencies.

Seven environmental groups filed the lawsuit last year, arguing that the Forest Service failed to address scientific evidence indicating that the proposed logging in the 1999 Megram Fire area would damage soil, harm fish habitat, and retard ecosystem recovery after the fire. The lawsuit also argued that logging in remote areas would not protect communities from future wildfires. In addition, the Court agreed that the Forest Service failed to address the overall, cumulative impacts to wildlife, failed to consider the impacts of past fire-fighting operations in the area, and failed to show how the project would meet forest plan soil standards.

The "Phase 1" timber sale would log large fire-scorched trees from approximately 1,050 acres, including over 300 acres within an inventoried roadless area, and extract more than 20 million board feet of timber (about 4,000 log truck loads). The proposal would log in several critical watersheds in the Trinity River Basin that have received tens of millions of dollars in salmon restoration efforts over the past 20 years.

"Unnecessary logging in an area that is one of the success stories for salmon restoration is foolish, both economically and environmentally," said Felice Pace of the Klamath Forest Alliance.

"The Forest Service says the project is intended to protect communities from wildland fires, but it will do little to help because the area is miles away from the nearest community," said Christine Ambrose with the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC). "Rather than logging in roadless areas and old growth habitat, taxpayer dollars should be spent providing homeowners in the interface with resources and assistance to protect their lives and property. But so much of the Forest Service's budget is tied to the sale of timber that there's an incentive to misrepresent the science," Ambrose added.

"The Forest Service had already been warned by the courts to address the science that advises not to log after wildfires," said Marc Fink, attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center representing the plaintiff groups. "Hopefully the agency will finally get the message and begin to recognize all the available science for their post-fire proposals. Logging the largest trees that remain after a fire is not the way to protect communities or restore a burned landscape."

The current injunction marks the third time that the logging project has been stopped. In the spring of 2001, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth took the extraordinary step of issuing an "emergency situation determination" exempting the project from public appeals. Logging began immediately after a decision was signed in July of 2001, but was blocked three days later by the Court after the groups filed suit. Bosworth subsequently withdrew the emergency finding. However, the Forest Service refused to address the issues raised by the environmental groups in their administrative appeal, forcing the groups to file in Court once again. To avoid another injunction, the Forest Service agreed to postpone logging until the Court ruled on the merits of the case. The Court has now ruled for the environmental groups on the merits, extending the injunction until the Forest Service prepares a new analysis.

"Despite clear violations of the law, the Forest Service refused to address the issues we raised," said Diane Beck of the Sierra Club. "This lack of accountability by the agency forces citizen groups to go to the courts to uphold the law."

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), Sierra Club, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, California Wilderness Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity, Klamath Forest Alliance, and Forest Conservation Council. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Marc Fink of the Western Environmental Law Center.