Zinke bill takes aim at 'frivolous' timber lawsuits

A bill sponsored by Rep. Ryan Zinke calls for limiting lawsuits filed by environmentalists against  Forest Service timber projects while encouraging collaboration between stakeholders and making changes to forest project and rural school funding.

The National Forest Collaborative Act of 2015 was introduced on June 3. Zinke said the idea for the proposed bill grew out of concerns expressed by his constituents and Forest Service officials that timber project litigation was hurting forest health and increasing the likelihood of serious wildfires.

“In Montana, we have a number of forests in rough shape and impending fire danger that should be a deep concern to every Montanan,” Zinke said. “After I was elected, I went around and talked to every aspect of the wood products industry, as well as recreation and watershed protection. And it was clear that the collaborative process is the best vehicle, in the short term, to restore our healthy forests.”

Zinke said he hopes the bill, which he introduced into the House Natural Resources Committee, will receive bipartisan support. He said he spoke with Sen. Steve Daines about the bill and plans to brief Sen. Jon Tester within the next few days.

Both senators have criticized the current state of timber sale litigation and expressed support for increased timber harvest in Montana’s federal forests.

Zinke’s bill would restrict the ability of groups to file lawsuits he characterizes as “frivolous” by requiring they post a bond equal to the amount the Forest Service will need to spend defending a timber project. If the plaintiff wins, the bond would be returned, but if the plaintiff loses, it would forfeit the bond money to the Forest Service.

The bonding requirement would only apply to those plaintiffs who did not engage in the collaborative process to develop the project.

“This bill does not prevent lawsuits,” Zinke said. “It rewards the collaborative process and gives an incentive to participate.”

A press release from Zinke’s office said the bill was developed with the support of environmental and recreation groups, the timber industry and current and former Forest Service officials, including former Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth.

Expressing concern about Zinke’s bill was Arlene Montgomery, program director of Friends of the Wild Swan. She said the proposed bill would obstruct people’s right to recourse when they disagree with a federal plan.

“I think bonds are a bad idea. They bar the courthouse from citizen oversight,” Montgomery said. “Not everybody can participate in every collaborative project. These lands belong to all Americans, and just because there are some local people that can attend meetings, that doesn’t mean that everybody else who really owns this land shouldn’t have a say.”

Zinke said he intended that the language determining what is or isn’t participation in a collaborative group to be vague in order to encourage broader participation by stakeholders. The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, for example, would be invited to participate in a collaborative group, and showing up at meetings would constitute participation, Zinke said.

Zinke’s bill also would clarify the ability of states to contribute money for specific forest projects on National Forest lands and allow up to 25 percent of proceeds from the resulting timber sales to be placed in a revolving fund to pay for future project planning.

“Some questioned whether or not the Forest Service had the authority to do that, and this clarifies that the state can come in and contribute funds for the planning process, or another outside organization,” Zinke said. “There was some concern that the priorities of a state are sometimes not the priorities of the U.S. Forest Service, so this is a way for the state to bring the ball up the field.”

One of the main thrusts of Zinke’s bill is to make more money available for wildfire suppression.

“There’s a lot of frustration in our Forest Service that they no longer manage forests, but they spend most of their money fighting forest fires, followed by litigation,” Zinke said.

Montgomery criticized that approach to wildfire mitigation as unlikely to make a real difference, noting that most of Northwest Montana is within a wildfire ecosystem.

“I think fire management is best done around structures and around communities, if you’re trying to mitigate losses of homes and infrastructure,” she said. “It will do a better job of reducing the fire’s damage to homeowners, rather than if you pick a spot way out in the forest and guess where the fires are going to be.”