ELR Citation: ELR 20666
No(s). 88-197-M-CCL (D. Mont. Aug 8, 1990)

The court holds that environmental groups lack standing to challenge a forest plan and draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. Plaintiffs allege that the Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the Administrative Procedure Act by not considering relevant factors in its decision to recommend against wilderness designation for 43 roadless areas. Plaintiffs also allege that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not evaluating reasonable alternatives and not disclosing relevant information in the EIS. The court holds that plaintiffs have not established sufficient injury to support standing. The court holds that the plaintiffs have shown that their interests fall within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the relevant statutes. However, the court holds that the threatened injury to plaintiffs' recreational use of roadless areas caused by the adoption of the forest plan allocating those areas to development was too remote and speculative. The plan does not propose any specific development and the Forest Service will be required to prepare an EIS that is specific to any future development. The court holds that two of plaintiffs' claims must also be dismissed because plaintiffs failed to raise these issues in the administrative appeal. Neither plaintiffs' statement of reasons presented at the administrative appeal nor the Forest Service's duty to evaluate roadless areas for recommendation as wilderness areas put the Service on notice that plaintiffs objected to its explanation of the roadless area decisions.

On the merits, the court holds that the Forest Service considered relevant economic and environmental factors in developing the land and resource management plan under the NFMA. The court holds that the discussion of alternatives in the EIS was adequate. Plaintiffs contend that the EIS should have considered the alternative of allowing all roadless areas to be recommended for wilderness designation while sustaining timber harvest levels in existing roaded areas. The Forest Service is entitled to rely on the reasonable opinion of its experts, which concluded that this is not a viable alternative.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Todd D. True
Sierra Club Legal Defense Foundation
216 First Ave. S., Ste. 330, Seattle WA 98104
(206) 343-7340

Joan Jonkel
250 Station Dr., Missoula MT 59801
(406) 721-1835

Counsel for Defendants
Allan D. Brock
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000