A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.
Rep. Ryan Zinke brought joy to the timber industry’s hearts this week, introducing H.R.2644, the “National Forest Collaborative Incentive Act of 2015.” On national forests with forest management plans developed through a collaborative process, it puts timbers sales on a fast track to approval, and deters lawsuits by small (almost always local) environmental groups by requiring that they post a bond:
SEC. 202. BOND REQUIREMENT AS PART OF LEGAL CHALLENGE OF CERTAIN FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES. (a) Bond Required. — In the case of a forest management activity developed through a collaborative process or proposed by a resource advisory committee, any plaintiff or plaintiffs challenging the forest management activity shall be required to post a bond or other security acceptable to the court equal to the anticipated costs, expenses, and attorneys fees of the Secretary as defendant, as reasonably estimated by the Secretary. All proceedings in the action shall be stayed until the required bond or security is provided.
Requiring a bond is not a new idea, but tying it to management plans developed through collaborative processes is a new twist. And the timber and other resource extracting industries have been trying for years to get around the analysis requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
The collaborative process is political, not scientific. It brings together the so-called reasonable people to reach a largely local consensus on the management objectives for the forest under consideration. But it’s not a substitute for the detailed, project specific analysis that NEPA requires.
Can Zinke’s bill pass? I doubt it. And I doubt he expects it to become law. But it will be good for a hearing in which loggers, mill owners, local officials, and others, testify that citizen lawsuits are closing the forests to responsible management, thus doing economic damage to their communities, and creating a fire hazard, while environmentalists, if any, who testify will be browbeaten, ridiculed, and lectured as though they were juvenile delinquents.
From Zinke’s standpoint, H.R.2644 is good politics. From my standpoint, it’s bad policy that would weaken the environmental review of timber sales while denying practical recourse to the courts to citizens with shallow pockets. The Koch brothers would love it.