ELR Citation: ELR 21596
No(s). s. 92-3701, -3796 (8th Cir. Jun 23, 1994)

The court affirms a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the U.S. Forest Service from proceeding with two proposed timber sales in the Ouachita National Forest, and holds that an environmental group and the state of Arkansas lack standing to challenge the land and resource management plan (LRMP) for the forest except in the context of a proposed site-specific action. The court first holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in denying the preliminary injunction, and affirms the denial without further discussion. The court next holds that the environmental group and the state of Arkansas lack standing to challenge the LRMP except in the context of its application to a particular site-specific action such as a proposed timber sale. The mere existence of the LRMP does not produce an imminent injury-in-fact necessary to establish standing. The LRMP does not effectuate any on-the-ground environmental changes, nor does it dictate that any particular site-specific action causing environmental injury must occur. The court holds that only when a site-specific action is proposed and all administrative remedies are exhausted may persons threatened by an imminent injury-in-fact seek judicial review of the proposed action and assert that it is not consistent with the LRMP, or that the LRMP as it relates to the proposed action is inconsistent with the governing statutes, or both. The court notes that under the LRMP, the Ouachita National Forest remains in status quo except insofar as site-specific actions are proposed and approved. The court holds that standing can accrue only when the factual components are fleshed out by some concrete action applying the LRMP in a fashion that harms or threatens to harm. Turning to a de novo review of the merits in case the state and environmental group do have standing, the court notes that the LRMP is not arbitrary and capricious and that it fully comports with the statutes and regulations that govern it. Finally, the court affirms the district court's denial of the environmental group's motion for leave to file a second supplemental complaint.

[Prior decisions in this litigation are published at 22 ELR 20195 and 23 ELR 20620.]

Counsel for Appellant
Mary Rowlins
500 Mena St., Mena AR 71953
(501) 394-5989

Counsel for Appellees
Robert L. Klarquist
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.