Houston Regional Group - News

Brandt Mannchen

On May 6, 2005, the Sierra Club, Texas Committee on Natural Resources, and Forest Conservation Council (Sierra Club) met in Houston Federal Court before Judge Mary Milloy versus the U.S. Forest Service (FS), represented by Justice Department attorneys, over the continuance of an injunction against timber sales in Sam Houston National Forest for the Compartments 28/37 and Boswell Creek projects.

Judge Milloy is a visiting judge who is assisting Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore in this important forest lawsuit due to Judge Gilmore's involvement with Enron legal cases. The lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club makes the claim that the FS did not conduct the inventorying and monitoring for sensitive and management indicator species of wildlife over several thousands of acres of public forest lands. Without inventorying and monitoring the FS is unable to determine the environmental impacts on these species; the ways to reduce these impacts on these species; and the ways to assess the protection proposed for these wildlife species.

Although the reason for the court appearance was to argue whether the injunction should continue Judge Milloy, due to her unfamiliarity with the lawsuit, allowed both sides to present their cases. Sierra Club attorneys, Mr. Joe Dodson, of Gibbs and Bruns and Mr. Eric Huber, of the Sierra Club Legal Program, professionally, coolly, and ably argued that the FS had violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Mr. Brandt Mannchen, Chair of the Forestry Subcommittee of the Houston Sierra Club, attended as the representative of the three environmental groups.

The Justice Department argued that the Sierra Club had not mentioned in its complaint that the NFMA had been violated; that there had been no violations of the NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act; and that the planning rules that require inventorying and monitoring had changed, no longer require inventorying and monitoring, and therefore should apply in this case. The FS agreed to a stay of the timber sales through August 15, 2005.

The Sierra Club thought that the FS would call several witnesses. This did not occur although the FS presented additional exhibits that were not in its pleading for summary judgment that was filed before the court hearing. The Sierra Club also filed for summary judgment before the court hearing. Summary judgment is a legal way to tell a judge that the case is so clear cut that its can be decided in favor of the person filing summary judgment solely on the pleadings filed.

Judge Milloy ruled that she wanted short briefings on two issues. The first issue is the impact of the repeal of the original planning rules that required inventorying and monitoring. The second issue is which body of law the Sierra Club relies on in the case. The FS is supposed to respond by May 23, 2005 and June 30, 2005 with its briefings. The Sierra Club is supposed to respond by June 10, 2005 and June 30, 2005 with its briefings.    

July/August 2005

Last updated:  10/02/2005.   Content © 1999-2004 by the Sierra Club.