87 



Finally, the sovereign acts doctrine has had little 



success as a defense to timber contractor's breach of contract 



claims. Summit Contractors . AGBCA Nos . 81-252-1, 83-312-1, 86-1 



BCA 1 18,632 held that deletion of timber to protect eagle and 



osprey nests required the government to compensate the purchaser 



and the sovereign acts doctrine did not apply. The board held 



that although "the Forest Service had the power to modify the 



contract to prevent harm to the osprey nest, [it] was the 



nevertheless obligated to pay the contractor for any damages 



occasioned by the modification". Summit at p. 93,629. 



Similarly, in Everett Plywood v. United States . 227 Ct . CI. 425, 



615 F.2d 723 (1981) the court held that: 



" [E] ven where the Forest Service decided to 

 repudiate some of its contractual obligations 

 in order to protect the environment, it is 

 nevertheless liable to the contractor for 

 damages caused as a result of such 

 repudiation. 



More recently, the Forest Service was held liable for a 

 deletion of timber from a sale to protect the marbled murrelet 

 following the regulatory change listing the murrelet as a 

 threatened and endangered species. The court in Davidson 

 Industries . AGBCA No. 95-166-1, 96-2, BCA 1 26.299 (1996) held 

 that the government was liable to Davidson for a deletion of 

 timber from its contract for the marbled murrelet on the Siuslaw 

 National Forest. 

 III. CONCLUSION. 



In conclusion, federal timber purchasers will 

 successfully rely on the Winstar case in their claims against the 



-9- SWH\»>(hk7T96 



