Timber Sale Stalled to Allow Appeal

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a huge timber sale in Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest, accusing the Forest Service of “electing to take the law into its own hands.”

The judge’s ruling late Tuesday was a blow to the agency, which had attempted to short-circuit the normal procedure, under which citizens and environmental groups are allowed to appeal timber sales, in order to hasten the harvest.

The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups to stall the sale of 41,000 acres of timber in the northern Rockies until the agency allows the public an appeal.

The plan envisions harvesting 176 million board-feet of the timber over three years, more than double the amount harvested from the entire forest in the last decade.

The environmentalists think that logging activities will further harm plants and animals on the endangered or threatened species lists. The plants and animals are already suffering because of a massive fire in the 1.6-million-acre forest last year. But the lawsuit is about more than just this one sale, the environmentalists say; it is about preserving the legally established role environmentalists play in timber sales across the country.

“This decision protects our right to participate in government and influence management of our public lands,” said Bob Ekey, northern Rockies regional director for the Wilderness Society, one of the groups involved in the suit.

Alisa Harrison, spokeswoman for the Agriculture Department, which oversees the Forest Service, said the judge’s ruling was “regrettable.” The department, she said, is working with attorneys on a response.

The case highlights the difficulties that the Bush administration faces as it tries to strengthen the Forest Service’s traditional role as a timber supplier amid growing opposition to logging by environmental groups and the public.

After a timber sale is announced, the public has 45 days to file notices on the project. Environmentalists, businesspeople, scientists or any citizen can take issue with the logging plan for reasons varying from threats to wildlife to effects on local businesses. The agency can respond by modifying its project if it believes that the concerns are valid.

Without the administrative appeal process, any changes would have to be sought through the court system.

In his decision, U.S. District Chief Judge Donald W. Malloy made it clear that he was persuaded by the groups’ argument that the sale would cause irreparable harm to the bull trout, a threatened species whose habitat was affected by the fire. Environmentalists contend that the logging plans will increase sediment in streams that already have too much sediment because of the fire.

“Once cut, trees cannot be returned to their stumps,” Malloy wrote, explaining his reasons for blocking the harvest.

Before the judge’s decision was announced, Mark Rey, the undersecretary of Agriculture with jurisdiction over the Forest Service, said the decision to cancel the public appeal was an effort to speed up the forest’s recovery. Hundreds of thousands of acres were destroyed by the fire, Rey said, and the sale was part of the Forest Service’s effort to manage the forest to prevent future fires. It contends that clearing the area of downed trees would remove possible tinder.

Rey, a former timber lobbyist who is a favorite target of environmentalists, said the environmental groups surely would sue even after an administrative appeal, thus making the appeal process extraneous.

“This is one of those rare--and I would hope exceptionally rare--cases where the administrative review process will not add particular value to the outcome,” Rey said. He stressed that the decision to move ahead in this case without allowing public comment would not set a precedent.

But the judge said that, rather than speeding the process, the Forest Service was polarizing the environmental community and logging interests, thus dragging things out.

“By its impetuous decision to disregard what Congress requires, the Forest Service is causing further delay in its already languid decision-making, thus impeding the legitimate interest of those who want to salvage timber,” Malloy wrote.

Doug Honnold, the lawyer representing the Wilderness Society and American Wildlands, said his clients might be satisfied if the agency scales back its project to limit its effect on the bull trout and other fragile species and to stay out of backwoods areas where there have never been roads.

“If the Forest Service was to redesign the project, it is possible that my clients would not want to proceed to litigation,” Honnold said.

The judge set a hearing for Jan. 3. It was not immediately clear whether the administration would back down and allow the administrative appeal or press its case.

“The choice is theirs: whether they want to continue to fight or grant the public an appeal,” Honnold said.

A Forest Service spokeswoman said the agency does not comment on legal matters, and Rey did not return calls to his office.