The US Forest Service prepared
some land-use plans for two National Forests in Wisconsin. As part of the
planning process, they prepared a biodiversity inventory based on the
representative plant and animal communities (aka indicator species), but rejected a proposed biodiversity reserve
system linked by corridors.
Under the plan, the Forest
Service would monitor a few species (like a certain variety of owl or
snake) as proxies, and as long as they could still find those indicator
species they would just assume that
the forest was healthy.
That meant that timber
companies could harvest throughout the forests so long as the indicator
species were maintained.
The Sierra Club sued for an
injunction, claiming that the Forest Service did not have the discretion
to ignore conservation biology.
Basically, the Sierra Club
was worried that the Forest Service plan would effectively split up the
big forest into a number of smaller areas, none of which would be able to
support biodiversity independently.
The Sierra Club argued that
was a violation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Even though the Forest
Service had performed an assessment, Sierra Club argued that it was
insufficient because the scientific methods used were flawed.
The Trial Court found for the
Forest Service. Sierra Club appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed.
The Appellate Court noted
that NFMA (16 U.S.C.
§1604(g)(3)(B)) says that when
preparing a forest management plan, the Forest Service must provide for
diversity.
The Court found that the
Forest Service had done a study that concluded that diversity would be
protected.
The Sierra Club argued that
the study was "junk science" and should not be relied on.
The Court found that the
science the Forest Service used might be arguable, but it was not arbitrary
and capricious, and so the courts
should defer to the Forest Service's judgment.
This case is another example
of how it is very difficult to overturn an Agency decision by arguing that
they are using a bad scientific method as opposed to a good one. As long
as the Agency has a scientific basis for their decision, the courts will
almost always defer to their judgment.
Btw, after this case was
decided, the Forest Service changed their minds and began to monitor
forest heath through conservation biology and not through the use of indicator
species.
For another example, see Inland
Empire Public Lands Council v. United States Forest Service (88 F.3d 754 (1996)).
But, the Agency must have at
least some factual basis for their
decision, they can't just make a decision based on nothing at all.
See Ecology Center, Inc.
v. Austin (430 F.3d 1057 (2005)).
