Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

726

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

Syllabus

OHIO FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. SIERRA CLUB et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

No. 97-16. Argued February 25, 1998—Decided May 18, 1998

Pursuant to the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the

United States Forest Service developed a Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) for Ohio's Wayne National Forest. Although the Plan makes logging in the forest more likely—it sets logging goals, selects the areas suited to timber production, and determines which probable methods of timber harvest are appropriate—it does not itself authorize the cutting of any trees. Before the Service can permit logging, the NFMA and applicable regulations require it to: (a) propose a particular site and specific harvesting method, (b) ensure that the project is consistent with the Plan, (c) provide affected parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard, (d) conduct an environmental analysis of the project, and (e) make a final decision to permit logging, which affected persons may challenge in administrative and court appeals. Furthermore, the Service must revise the Plan as appropriate. When the Plan was first proposed, the Sierra Club and another environmental organization (collectively Sierra Club) pursued various administrative remedies to bring about the Plan's modification, and then brought this suit challenging the Plan's lawfulness on the ground that it permits too much logging and too much clearcutting. The District Court granted the Forest Service summary judgment, but the Sixth Circuit reversed. The latter court found the dispute justiciable because, inter alia, it was "ripe for review" and held that the Plan violated the NFMA.

Held: This dispute is not justiciable, because it is not ripe for court review. Pp. 732-739.

(a) In deciding whether an agency decision is ripe, this Court has examined the fitness of the particular issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding review. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 149. Such an examination in this case reveals that the relevant factors, taken together, foreclose court review. First, withholding review will not cause the plaintiffs significant "hardship." Ibid. The challenged Plan provisions do not create adverse effects of a strictly legal kind; for example, they do not establish a legal right to cut trees or abolish any legal authority to object to trees being cut. Cf. United States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. Co., 273 U. S. 299, 309-310.

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007