Federal judge halts logging plan in Oregon

Hillel Aron

(CN) — A judge on Thursday put the brakes on a plan to harvest commercial timber on more than 13,000 acres of federal land in Oregon, pending a detailed environmental analysis.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai found that the Bureau of Land Management failed to take a "hard look" at the Siuslaw Plan's environmental impacts, performing a more cursory "environmental assessment," rather than the more thorough environmental impact statement.

In his ruling, Kasubhai found that the BLM had based some of its analysis of the logging's impact on "guesswork," which "distorted the data" in the analysis, rendering it "irrational and inadequate" under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bureau also failed to gather site-specific data with regards to the logging plan's impact on animals that are considered threatened or endangered, such as the bald eagle and spotted owl.

"The court finds that several intensity factors raise substantial questions over whether the Siuslaw Plan may have significant impacts," Judge Kasubhai wrote, which ordered the BLM to prepare a more thorough environmental impact statement, using site-specific data.

Approved in March 2022, The Siuslaw Plan would allow for two decades of commercial logging on BLM-administered forestland west of Eugene, Oregon. The plan — a strategic outline for managing the area — would allow for logging on up to 2,305 acres per decade, much of that through a process called "regeneration harvesting" — or clearcutting, as environmental groups call it.

The legal challenge to the logging plan was filed by two Oregon-based nonprofit environmental advocacy groups: Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands. They argued the logging would disrupt 10 different watersheds and destroy old-growth forest habitats, harming a number of endangered and threatened species.

"Major changes to the forest canopy will have impacts on the habitat of imperiled species," said John Persell, a staff attorney for Oregon Wild. "This ruling says the agency has to account for those impacts. This is a good outcome for endangered species."

Attorneys for the federal government did not respond to an email requesting comment on the ruling.