Environmental lawyers object to logging rules

Environmental and government lawyers argued in federal court in Seattle Tuesday about whether a recent change to the Northwest Forest Plan — one that eased logging restrictions — was properly arrived at and would provide adequate protections for trout and salmon.

The change was made in March 2004, when the Bush administration dropped wording from the forest plan that required certain projects to be evaluated for how they would affect their watershed before they could be approved. Environmental groups say that in making the change, the administration overruled the arguments of its own scientists to please the timber industry.

The result, Earthjustice lawyer Patti Goldman told U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler, is that "even in key watersheds, there are no standards that control logging or mining or road building or grazing or any other activities."

The industry had requested the change, arguing that loggers have not been allowed to cut as much as predicted under the Northwest Forest Plan — a 1994 compromise between environmentalists who sought to protect threatened species and loggers who sought to protect their livelihoods.

Setting criteria

Tuesday's 3 ½ hours of arguments focused on part of the forest plan known as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which set out criteria for protecting watersheds. The courts interpreted the criteria to mean that before approving logging, road building or other projects, federal agencies must find that each will either maintain or improve watershed quality as described by the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The logging held up by failure to meet those criteria was on 4 million acres designated for logging under the forest plan.

Language reworked

In response, the Bush administration reworked the conservation strategy's language. While logging or road building that takes place in stream or lake corridors (known as "riparian reserves") is still restricted, now such work that takes place upland does not automatically have to clear any hurdles with regard to its effect on the watershed — even though such logging can affect erosion .

Previously, projects that did not help improve watersheds — such as by decommissioning more logging roads than they built — could not proceed. Following the change, federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management may or may not allow such projects to proceed, depending on their own discretion.

Government lawyer Ruth Ann Lowery told the judge that it was difficult if not impossible for any project to meet the old standard, leading to unreasonable restraints on logging and other activity.

"The harvest of timber is a legitimate and long-standing goal of the Northwest Forest Plan," she said. "There's nothing wrong with the agencies trying to fix their plan to make it implementable."

The goals of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy remain intact, and the government will continue to strive to meet them, Lowery said.