FOREST SERVICE: Judge tosses industry challenge to 2012 planning rule
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter: E&E News: Thursday, April 30, 2015
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., this week rejected a lawsuit by more than a dozen logging, grazing and off-highway vehicle groups that sought to overturn the Forest Service's 2012 planning rule, marking a major win for the Obama administration and conservation groups.
Groups including the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, BlueRibbon Coalition and National Cattlemen's Beef Association had sued in August 2012 claiming that the Forest Service had overstepped its authority by requiring that new forest plans provide "ecological sustainability" and "ecosystem services" and use best available science in decisionmaking, among other charges (Greenwire, Aug. 14, 2012).
Such provisions elevated environmental protection above economic uses of the forests and violated the Forest Service's founding statute, the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and National Forest Management Act of 1976, the groups claimed.
But Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on Tuesday ruled that industry groups did not have standing to challenge the rule because they failed to prove they had been harmed by it or could be harmed in the near future.
Claims that the Forest Service rule would harm plaintiffs' livelihoods by reducing timber harvests, motorized recreation and grazing are based on "sheer speculation," Brown Jackson ruled.
"Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the 2012 planning rule actually will cause the harmful reduction in timber harvest and land use that plaintiffs maintain will be so detrimental to their membership, much less that any such reduction would follow 'imminently' from implementation of the rule or that any such reductions would occur with respect to the land management plans that govern the particular forests that the members of plaintiffs' organizations currently use," the judge said.
The ruling is a significant -- though possibly temporary -- victory for the Forest Service, which finalized the rule in March 2012 to great fanfare after more than 2½ years of public meetings, consultation with federal, state and tribal officials, and more than 300,000 public comments (E&ENews PM, March 23, 2012).
The rule was closely watched by forest users because it dictates how the agency crafts land-use plans that identify where logging, drilling, grazing and habitat protections take place on 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands.
While some environmentalists opposed the rule, on balance it was well received by green groups that hailed its commitment to science, wildlife preservation and public collaboration.
The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Oregon Wild intervened in the industry lawsuit to defend the Forest Service rule.
"This ruling clears the way for constructive efforts to move forward with forest plans that restore the ecological health of our national forests and deliver all of the benefits the American people expect from these special places," a statement today by Pete Nelson of Defenders said.
But the legal battle may not be over yet.
Brown Jackson did not rule on any of the merits in the case. Plaintiffs in the coming years will be watching several national forests that are using the 2012 planning rule to update their land-use plans. First movers include forests in Alaska, California, Idaho, New Mexico and Puerto Rico.
If plaintiffs feel they are harmed by any of those plans, they may have new grounds to sue.
"We're looking at options on how to best defend our members' interests from the serious flaws we see in the planning rule," said Bill Imbergamo, executive director of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, which represents companies that rely on timber from national forests.
The Forest Service's attempts to update its 1982 planning rule have been dogged by lawsuits since 2000.
Previous attempts to update the planning rule in 2000, 2005 and 2008 drew lawsuits from the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups and were either enjoined or abandoned, leaving the Reagan administration's rule in place.
The National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service to have a planning rule.
The Forest Service declined to comment on this week's ruling.
