76 



by special interest environmental groups. These groups attempted to by-pass the legislative process 

 and affect change through agency or court ordered action. 



A partial settlement was reached in August of 1988, and the Plan moved forward with the 

 settlement agreement in place. In the interim, the unresolved issues were reviewed and denied by 

 the Chief of the Forest Service in December 1990. 



At the time, most of us thought that would end the matter, however after 1 8 months of no 

 action. The Wilderness Society (TWS) decided to proceed with litigation on the remaining issues 

 denied in the administtative appeal. Having failed to persuade the Forest Service, TWS decided to 

 try and persuade the courts. 



Now, having already worked over 10 years on the Plan, the Tennessee Forestry Association 

 had to go to court to ask for intervenor status in the pending legal battle. I am happy to report the 

 litigation is finally over, although it has not been a short process. Ironically, work had already begun 

 on the next ten year plan, before the present one was finally approved. 



At the District Court level. Judge Evans dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs, 

 TWS, lacked standing. TWS appealed the Judge Evans decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of 

 appeals. On May 22, 1996, ten years after the original appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the 

 dismissal of the challenge to the CNF Plan. 



In the Eleventh Circuit's opinion, the environmental group's 'claimed injury is not ripe for 

 judicial review" because: (1) it is uncertain whether the Forest Plan will be implemented by a site 

 specific action that injures plaintiffs, and (2) judicial review would be more manageable if it takes 

 place in the context of a concrete timber sale, rather that at the abstract level of a Forest Plan. 



No one would disagree that TWS was within their right to appeal and subsequently litigate 

 the Forest Plan. However, within the context of this testimony, it is relevant to ask how the appeals 

 process might have adversely affected the operations of the CNF. 



It is possible to conclude that the appeals process may have significantly reduced the amount 

 of timber for sale from the CNF. Anxious to avoid further litigation. CNF staff may have sought 

 to lessen their chances by reducing the volume of timber offered for sale. 



In 1989, the CNF sold 36.2 MM bd. ft. (million board feet) of timber, however by 1995 the 

 amount sold had fallen to 12.1 MM bd. ft. The CNF now harvest timber on less than 1/2 of 1 



