Folks, as some of you know, I’m editor of The Forestry Source, the newspaper of the Society of American Foresters. I’m thinking about writing an in-depth article with a title similar to the subject line of this post: “Anatomy of a Timber Sale Lawsuit.” I’d look at one specific project from inception on, and get input from a variety of sources and perspectives. I’d strive to be evenhanded, thinking that a look a sale that was litigated and why, and the lessons learned, would be enlightening not only to Forestry Source readers, but to the denizens of The Smokey Wire.
Two questions, for now:
- Is this a crazy idea?
- What project would make for a good case study?
FWIW, my time with the Society of American Foresters is short. I recently learned that SAF will not renew my contract as editor — after 14+ years. The June edition will be my last. The official reasoning is that SAF wants to “shift to a more financially sustainable model.” I’ll need to shift to a more financially sustainable model, too. Anyhow, I’d like to pursue this story idea while I can.
Or would some other outlet be better?
— Steve
No, not “crazy”, but perhaps uncomfortable since your writing transparency would likely be high, showcasing the thinking of the parties involved on why they choose to litigate/defend a project. SJ has helped provide some of this perspective; however, covering a project cradle to grave would be interesting reading, particularly when written for your chosen audience.
Jacob Ryan EA would be a really interesting case file. It is back in the news right now since it is currently being implemented.
I just saw something come through on Twitter about logging old growth in an Alaskan national park. It seemed to me the sender conflated national park with national forest. Of course, I can’t find the story now….
I think like a social scientist, not like a journalist, so it would be more interesting for me take a sample of say one from each state that the FS operates in, and do some qualitative interviews.
I asked one prof how much it would cost to fund a project and I think it was 60K annually for a student? Oh well…
Anyway, back to your idea.. perhaps pick a project that was collaboratively developed? That way you would have a number of people who were involved who are not the litigants nor the FS.
I ran across this testimony of Chuck Roady in 2017: I wouldn’t pick a sale in R-1 because I don’t think the dynamics are typical of anywhere else in the FS.
“In Region 1 where I work, 38 timber sales are under litigation, and 23 of these are enjoined.
Over 17,000 acres of needed management – fuels reduction, creation of habitat diversity,
and watershed protection are currently being blocked by the court, and another 11,500
acres could be delayed. More than 171 Million Board Feet of timber – timber that could be
putting loggers, truckers, and mill hands to work – is currently being delayed by legal
action.
While its true that the Forest Service conducts many minor projects using streamlined
authorities, in general in our region when they are trying to execute larger projects they
tend to use Environmental Impact Statements. It seems that any size project is subject to
challenge, especially the larger landscape analysis that makes the most sense – even in a
region that takes great pains to avoid controversial areas. At one point in 2015, 80 percent
of the acres the Forest Service was trying to manage pursuant to an EIS was under
litigation.
Example after example of litigation against collaboratively developed projects can be cited
in Region 1. Here are just a few:
The East Reservoir Project on the Kootenai: After more than 4 years of strong local
collaborative work on a project designed to improve wildlife habitat and reduce fire
danger, the project has been in an out of court for the last few years, thanks to one of our
frequent flyer litigants. It was enjoined last year and will remain so at least until this fall.
The Colt Summit Project on the Lolo –7 years from scoping to final court clearance in order
to do just over 3,200 acres of thinning in a fire prone forest. The lawsuit was filed by people
who did not participate in the collaborative
The Lonesome Wood Project on the Gallatin National Forest – scoping began seven years
ago. Extremist groups have won yet another injunction – on a 2,500 acre project.
The Telegraph Project on the Helena National Forest – a 5,700 acre fuels reduction effort –
has taken seven years and five months to go from scoping to the filing of a lawsuit.
The Stonewall Project on the Helena National Forest – a collaborative project first
proposed in 2008 – remains under injunction today, even after years of support from a
local collaborative.”
https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony_Roady.pdf
“even in a region that takes great pains to avoid controversial areas.”
The process by which they figure that out might be an interesting angle. I’ll admit I’m skeptical. I often heard in R1 that the “low-hanging fruit” had already been picked. (And for revised forest plans, why did they keep controversial areas in the suitable timber base?)
In some regions, it seems like almost any area would be controversial to someone. Especially, it looks to me, for whatever reason, in Region 1.
RE: “for whatever reason” and “Region 1”
Some reasons: Grizzly bears, Canada lynx, bull trout, wolverines, roadless areas, history of unsustainable logging and roadbuilding, including within marginally-productive “timber lands,” headwaters of the nation, political interference with U.S. Forest Service, and political interference with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
P.S. Plenty of timber sales have gone forward in Region 1 over the past 20 years without “controversy.”
Given that Alaska is so different as to be its own set of controversies. 2 also has grizzly bears, but granted the Shoshone doesn’t do much timbering. 2,9 and 6 seem to have Canada lynx and 6 also has wolverines. All have roadless areas. To some people, every region has unsustainable logging and roadbuilding and marginally productive land. Headwaters? Region 2 also sends water east and west. Political “interference” with the FS and USFWS has been greater in Region 1 than elsewhere? Interesting observation. Tell us more.
It may be difficult to find something that is truly representative – and only doing one may not give the full picture of why there are lawsuits. I suggest doing some pre-work on a “random” sample of timber sale lawsuits to get some idea of the breadth and depth of the topic. Otherwise you’re just doing a random case study that may not have much meaning beyond that project. There is a fairly large group of lawsuits where the appellants just don’t agree with the decisions made in the Forest Plan/Resource Management Plan. They find all kinds of ways to try to thwart the project indirectly, but their primary interest is to stop all logging. And if one approach is not successful, they will try another one.
there are other lawsuits where people are supportive of forest management, but just not the way that a particular project was put together, so that may result in a lawsuit.
And there are others where the agencies have actually violated their own law/policy/decision. I seem to recall a recent case that the Forest Service lost in Alaska where their decision said they would have specific types of documentation completed before harvest, and they didn’t do that. I think it was a “conditional NEPA” decision.
You may have to do a lot of FOIA requests and you may have to get permission from Public Affairs to interview Agency employees, so you may want to factor that in as well.
I agree that there are lots of different kinds of timber lawsuits (different purposes, different effects/issues, different NEPA documents, different people/relationships), and it would be hard to find something “typical.”
Maybe you should consider looking at “anatomy of a no-bid timber sale” instead? There are a lot of sales offered by the Forest Service that go without a bid – yet there is a push for more restoration work and more timber sold. Why the mis-match? Many of these sales are re-offered after some adjustments and then successfully sold. Others are not. In some regions, many no-bid sales are salvage sales, which discourages the use of salvage sales. How are agencies changing business practices to reduce the number of no-bids?
A “no bid” sale analysis is an excellent suggestion. I have wondered how on one hand the FS is getting political (and perhaps ecological) motivation to cut timber, but on the other hand, the market demands do not always mesh with this increased supply of timber. Result? No bid sales. What is the fallout from this?
Not a crazy idea but a difficult one as some other commenters mention. Partly because if the case is yet to be resolved (and they do drag on and on), there will be very little commentary available from the government outside of what is in the administrative record submitted to the court.
There is a really interesting lawsuit ongoing very near Springfield, OR…where BLM is planning regeneration harvest on the O&C lands, an area in the Harvest Land Base delineated by the 2016 Resource Management Plan. This is the second time this case has been heard; the first time BLM was required to revise the EA’s fire hazard analysis, and delineate a recreation management zone. The area overlaps a recreation management area, and would also result in the construction of trails post-harvest. Lots of interest from the public many of which argue that a recreation trail should be protected by an unharvested buffer, and others who don’t want to see regeneration harvest near communities for reasons related to post-harvest fire hazard/risk. Though the lands are clearly allocated to the purpose of sustained yield timber production under the O&C Act. The project is called the Thurston Hills Trails and Forestry Project, a link to an information video BLM put out is below.
https://youtu.be/dlZr9EeIY8A
I think it’s a very interesting idea– happy to talk about potential ideas.
Folks, thank you for all of the input. I think this is a project that’ll take longer than a couple of months, so I’ll keep thinking about it…. Steve
Good idea. The Fourmile project in the Chequamegan Nicolet NF in Wisconsin is a good choice. 12,000 acres, rare species, likely court action.