A lawsuit against the Six Rivers National Forest filed in Federal District Court in San Francisco charging the Forest Service with failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in development of its 2001 Fire Management Plan (FMP) was upheld on September 5, 2003 by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. The Plaintiffs included the California-based Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) and the national environmental group, American Lands Alliance, represented by the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund.
According to the 1995 and 2001 Federal Wildland Fire Policy, FMPs are required for every acre of federal lands containing burnable vegetation, including areas within the community protection zones around homes and private property. All other land management agencies in the U.S. Department of Interior fully comply with NEPA in the development of their FMPs because they value the importance of public input in the planning process for fire management strategies that directly impact their communities and homes. The review process required by NEPA not only provides the public crucial information regarding environmental impacts, agency priorities and potential alternative actions, it is also the primary law that enshrines meaningful public involvement in the federal government's decision making process.
The Forest Service has been the only federal agency that does not utilize NEPA for their FMPs. Consequently, Forest Service FMPs do not include substantive public input or comments, and do not analyze or disclose the environmental effects of selected fire management strategies and tactics even if these tactics involve decision making regarding property and resources that directly impact peoples' lives. Plaintiffs charged that the Six Rivers FMP makes both programmatic and site-specific decisions for fire suppression and fuels management activities that will cause significant adverse impacts that were never fully analyzed or disclosed in the Six Rivers' Forest Plan or any other NEPA document.
"Every other federal land management agency complies with the nation's environmental laws in developing their fire management plans because they recognize the value of public input; why should the Forest Service be exempt?" said Christine Ambrose of EPIC. "It's time we had a higher level of agency accountability, especially in light of the Bush Administration's recent attempts to significantly undermine public involvement in fire hazard and risk reduction with the deceptively named `Healthy' Forests Initiative. Projects involving fire hazard and fuels reduction on up to 20 million acres of federal public land could take place most anywhere, rather than in the community protection zone, where they are most needed."
"This lawsuit is about ensuring the public's right to be fully informed and involved partners in fire management planning, and to help ensure that the agency's plans more closely match the public's priorities, particularly near at-risk communities. It is in the public's interest to help move the agency away from reactive fire suppression towards proactive forest restoration, and to ensure that when and where fire suppression is necessary, it will be done safer, smarter, and with more ecologically and economically sound strategies and tactics," said Timothy Ingalsbee, Director of the Western Fire Ecology Center for the American Lands Alliance.
"The Forest Service should not and cannot dodge public involvement in this most critical area of fire management planning that can directly affect peoples lives," said Brian Schmidt, attorney for Earthjustice.
The Forest Service has already admitted that they have exceeded the allotted budget for fire suppression spending this year, and has started robbing funds from other programs, including prescribed burning and community protection zone projects. The Forest Service has never subjected its fire suppression activities and spending priorities to environmental analysis and public disclosure in accordance with NEPA, in spite of the impact their decision-making has on communities, property, and even human lives.
