Ten years ago I researched why the enviro's were so successfull at halting the federal timber sale program. I talked to my congressman Wally Herger (R-CA) and asked him for help. What we got was known as the "salvage logging rider". I told him then that the basic laws have been re-interpreted by the courts, and that congress needed to revise the ESA, NEPA, Wild & Scenic Rivers Act etc. He then asked me "What sections of these laws need to be revised?" I will post that next.
REASONS FOR SUCCESSFUL LITIGATION - Court Interpretations
NEPA requires preparation of an EIS if the proposed project may significantly degrade some human environmental factor. Sierra Club, supra, slip op. at 4060; Foundation for North American Wild Sheep v. USDA, supra, 681 F. 2d at 1178; City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F. 2d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 1975). A determination that significant effects on the environment will in fact occur is not essential. Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, supra, 681 F. 2d at 1178. If substantial questions are raised whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIS must be prepared. Id. (Italics added for emphasis.)
"A showing that significant effects on the human environment will in fact occur is not necessary. Rather, '(i)f substantial questions are raised whether a project may have a significant effect upon the human environment, an EIS must be prepared.'" (citations omitted) National Audubon Society v. United States Forest Service, No. 90-811-MA (D. Or. Nov. 21, 1990). (Italics added for emphasis.)
Appellants (ie enviro) Arguments
*Fails to analyze... *No mention of.... *Contains no data on... *Subjective discussion of... *No long term assessment *Does not consider... *No assessment of... *Does not indicate... *Fails to adequately discuss... *Does not identify... *Fails to show how... *Lack of information... *Lack of assessment.. *Does not adequately analyze *No justification... *Inadequate assessment... *...must be considered *No evidence of... *Should have been... *Fails to document... *Does not evaluate... *Disguises impacts... *Undervalues... *Inappropriate tests.. *Does not provide a basis... *Fails to explore... *Does not properly disclose *Does not properly inform... *Did not document... *Inadequate analysis... *Misleads the public... *Fails to adequately disclose *Does not adequately address *Fails to include... *Lack of any discussion... *Violated the requirements of *Fails to identify... *No reference to justify... *Without adequate analysis... *An EIS is required... *Does not contain any evaluation... *Based on incorrect and insufficient information... *Require additional environmental analysis... *Inadequate and inconsistant with NEPA... *Does not take a "hard look" *Not been adequately assessed...
What a great post. It encapsulates perfectly the enviros specious arguments that get rubber stamped on each and every suit, especially the KEY phrases.