onausable
05-03-2006, 08:01 PM
Source: The River Guardian, aritcle authored by Thomas Buhr, Anglers of the AuSable.
By the time you read this, we may know the judge's decision regarding oil/natural gas drilling near the Mason Tract. The hearing concerning the decision of the USDA-Forest Service to grant permission for Savoy Energy, LP to drill an exploratory well near the Mason Chapel was held in late March. We were told to expect a ruling by early May-just as the Hendricksons take full flight.
Anglers of the AuSable, along with the Mackinac Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Mason family, took the Forest Service to court on the basis of their review documents-which have beenheavily criticized for poor analysis and the means used for justifying of this action-and the fast tracking of the appeals process recarding the decision to OK drilling. In addition to inadequate investigation and a seeming "rush to judgement", there were a myriad of errors cited in the Forest Service's ruling documents including the Environmental Assesment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice (DN).
The forest Service chewed big holes in the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), but also managed to traverse the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Administrative Act (APA), and the Minerals Leasing Act (MLA). I would appear as though the agency designed to protect the forests and streams of this great land was bound and determined to allow this mineral extraction project near the beloved South Branch of the AuSable.
Can this court action stop the project, or, at the very least, significantly alter its nature in an environmentally sensitive way?
It has already yielded one satisfactory outcome: an injunction on any prep work on the site was issued last December until a decision is rendered. This is an important indication that the case has some merit to it. The Judge is highly respected and noted for being fair-minded and detail oriented in his rulings.
Some have suggested that his ruling on the injunction and restraining order indicated that there will certainly be an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) attached to this project. An EIS is a much more involved review of how an action such as an exploratory well or series of wells would affect the environment. These are rare activities, expecially east of the Mississippi. It would be a major plus if one were to take place in this instance.
Still, it is important to remember the nature of the times. We are in great need of both oil and natural gas. That is why Savoy wants the project. That is also why the Forest Service (the State did its part too) appears to have made every effort to see that they get it.
So is this good fight worth it when it may be doomed?
"The point is-we can make a difference by taking on these issues," Rusty Gates, Angler's President wrote in a letter to the Michigan Fly Fishing Club. "It only hapens once-the management folks will get the message and change future policy because they are dealing with the TROUT ADVOCACY GROUPS. They are hard-line groups-not afraid to take on issues that affect their resources."
This has already happened regarding other 40-acre parcels available near the Mason Tract for mineral leasing. the State worked with Anglers to determine if it would be in the best interest to make them available. We said it wasn't. They were removed from consideration.
This is pretty much it. There is nothing much more to do but wait and hope for a good outcome from the Eastern District of the U.S Federal Court.
By the time you read this, we may know the judge's decision regarding oil/natural gas drilling near the Mason Tract. The hearing concerning the decision of the USDA-Forest Service to grant permission for Savoy Energy, LP to drill an exploratory well near the Mason Chapel was held in late March. We were told to expect a ruling by early May-just as the Hendricksons take full flight.
Anglers of the AuSable, along with the Mackinac Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Mason family, took the Forest Service to court on the basis of their review documents-which have beenheavily criticized for poor analysis and the means used for justifying of this action-and the fast tracking of the appeals process recarding the decision to OK drilling. In addition to inadequate investigation and a seeming "rush to judgement", there were a myriad of errors cited in the Forest Service's ruling documents including the Environmental Assesment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice (DN).
The forest Service chewed big holes in the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), but also managed to traverse the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Administrative Act (APA), and the Minerals Leasing Act (MLA). I would appear as though the agency designed to protect the forests and streams of this great land was bound and determined to allow this mineral extraction project near the beloved South Branch of the AuSable.
Can this court action stop the project, or, at the very least, significantly alter its nature in an environmentally sensitive way?
It has already yielded one satisfactory outcome: an injunction on any prep work on the site was issued last December until a decision is rendered. This is an important indication that the case has some merit to it. The Judge is highly respected and noted for being fair-minded and detail oriented in his rulings.
Some have suggested that his ruling on the injunction and restraining order indicated that there will certainly be an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) attached to this project. An EIS is a much more involved review of how an action such as an exploratory well or series of wells would affect the environment. These are rare activities, expecially east of the Mississippi. It would be a major plus if one were to take place in this instance.
Still, it is important to remember the nature of the times. We are in great need of both oil and natural gas. That is why Savoy wants the project. That is also why the Forest Service (the State did its part too) appears to have made every effort to see that they get it.
So is this good fight worth it when it may be doomed?
"The point is-we can make a difference by taking on these issues," Rusty Gates, Angler's President wrote in a letter to the Michigan Fly Fishing Club. "It only hapens once-the management folks will get the message and change future policy because they are dealing with the TROUT ADVOCACY GROUPS. They are hard-line groups-not afraid to take on issues that affect their resources."
This has already happened regarding other 40-acre parcels available near the Mason Tract for mineral leasing. the State worked with Anglers to determine if it would be in the best interest to make them available. We said it wasn't. They were removed from consideration.
This is pretty much it. There is nothing much more to do but wait and hope for a good outcome from the Eastern District of the U.S Federal Court.