Increased BLM logging decision overturned
A ruling that faulted the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for not permitting sufficient logging in Western Oregon was overturned by a federal appeals court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has dismissed the earlier decision on jurisdictional grounds, finding that timber companies lacked legal standing to file their lawsuit.
The ruling held that the sawmills and industry groups who sued BLM had not proven they were directly harmed by the agency’s failure to fulfill legally-required harvest levels in BLM’s Medford and Roseburg districts.
The American Forest Resource Council, one of the plaintiffs, is disappointed by the outcome because the BLM must clearly allow a larger volume of harvest under a federal statute that governs the land, said Ann Forest Burns, the group’s vice president.
“Selling a quarter of what they’re growing is not sustainable,” she said.
In 2013, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found that BLM hadn’t lived up to its obligations under the Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937, which requires a “sustained yield” of annual timber production in the region.
As a remedy, the judge ordered BLM to sell the full volume of timber available in future years.
The ruling’s impact was discernable the following year, when the agency increased timber sales by 90 percent, to 47.1 million board feet, in the Medford district and by 30 percent, to 41.5 million board feet, in the Roseburg district, Forest Burns said.
It’s unclear whether the BLM will now decrease logging levels due to the D.C. Circuit’s dismissal of the lawsuit, since the ruling wasn’t overturned based on the merits of their case, she said. “The court never got there.”
The plaintiffs haven’t given up the fight yet, however.
Timber companies are pursuing a similar lawsuit against BLM over logging in the Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay and Lakeview districts, and may decide to amend their complaint to encompass the Medford and Roseburg districts, Forest Burns said.
Capital Press was unable to reach a representative of BLM for comment as of press time.
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling also means that timber industry lawyers must figure out how to establish legal standing in that jurisdiction, effectively convincing the court they’re “starving to death near a refrigerator of food,” Forest Burns said.
The question of standing had seemed pretty clear, given that one of the plaintiffs — Rough & Ready Lumber — actually closed for a year due to the dearth of timber coming from federal lands, she said.
Environmental groups that intervened in the case based their objections on the legal arguments made by timber interests, rather than legal standing, but they’re not surprised by the D.C. Circuit’s decision, said Susan Jane McKibben Brown, an attorney for the groups.
Brown said she’s not convinced the previous ruling prompted BLM to increase logging, since planning for harvest usually takes several years.
“I don’t think you can attribute increasing numbers to the lawsuit,” she said.
By the same token, the reversal of Leon’s ruling doesn’t mean that logging will now decrease, since the BLM seems inclined to increase harvest levels under resource management plans currently being considered, Brown said.
Whether any increase in logging passes muster with other federal regulators — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association — is another matter, she said.