ELR Citation: ELR 20903
No(s). 92-CV-0296-B (D. Wyo. Oct 29, 1993)

The court holds that a citizen group interested in promoting multiple uses of public lands lacks standing to challenge the U.S. Forest Service's (Forest Service's) adoption of the final land and resource management plan (LRMP) for the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming. The group claimed that the Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and corresponding regulations by failing to complete a thorough survey of the forest's mineral potential, the LRMP violates the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and the NFMA by failing to meet required timber harvest objectives, and the LRMP's incorporation of interagency guidelines for protecting the grizzly bear violates the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and NFMA requirements that the forest be managed for multiple use. The court holds that plaintiff lacks standing because it fails to establish injury-in-fact with respect to any of the claims. The court first rejects plaintiff's claimed economic injury from difficulty in developing mineral claims. Although plaintiff has a legally protected interest to mine in the forest, it has not shown how its access to the forest for exploration or mineral development has been harmed by the LRMP or the Forest Service's alleged failure to perform an adequate minerals survey. The court next rejects plaintiff's claimed economic injury from the LRMP's reduction in the availability of timber for harvest, because plaintiff has no legally protected right to harvest timber in the forest. The court then rejects plaintiff's claimed economic harm from restrictions on logging, mineral development, and other human acitivties imposed by the grizzly bear guidelines, because plaintiff failed to assert a particularized harm. The court notes that even if it could establish injury-in-fact with respect to this claim, plaintiff has failed to show redressability, because the Forest Service is required to comply with the Endangered Species Act to protect the grizzly, regardless of whether the guidelines are incorporated into the LRMP. Finally, the court notes that plaintiffs have failed to show that the Forest Service's implementation of the LRMP was arbitrary and capricious under §706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and grants summary judgment to defendants on this issue because there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to any of the claims.

Counsel for Plaintiff
John G. Nelson, Todd S. Welch
Mountain States Legal Foundation
1660 Lincoln St., Ste. 2300, Denver CO 80624
(303) 861-0244

Counsel for Defendant
Scott M. Farley, Michael W. Reed
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000