This is about a formal objection to a logging project. I think it illustrates one of the major issues we see in a lot of conflicts about logging (and an eastern example to boot): what role should timber sale economics play in project selection and decision-making?
From the objectors:
Instead of focusing restoration efforts where they’re most needed, the Forest Service is going where the timber is,” Scheff said. Scheff said there is a genuine need for appropriate measures to improve the health of the area, which is home to unusual or rare features including sandstone glades, Appalachian seeps and spots of native grassland. But the Forest Service could use methods other than commercial logging at many sites to achieve the goals of the project, Scheff said.
From the Forest Service:
The Forest Service said logging as part of the Greenwood project would help the local economy. Reed said commercial logging is a tool to help improve the national forest, bringing in money for work the Forest Service would otherwise have to pay to get done. “It’s an efficiency and it’s common sense,” Reed said.
I at least hope the NEPA process clearly laid out the differences in effects between these alternatives, and the reasons for the choices made.