Court Opinion

ID: 9489941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:28:33.662014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:48.915192
License: Public Domain

BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in this decision because I believe that the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit in Sierra Club v. Marita, 46 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.1995) 4s the better approach to the issues of standing and ripeness in this matter,1 and because I agree that the record before us supports a conclusion that the Forest Service has not complied with the mandates of the National Forest Service Management Act relative to even-aged management practices in adopting the Plan. I write separately because, while I, too, have serious questions and concerns about the management practices and policies of the Forest Service, I do not believe that the majority’s largely undocumented broadside against the Forest Service is appropriate. The issue before us is simply whether the Plan was properly promulgated within the appropriate exercise of the agency’s discretion and is therefore within the law. We conclude that it is not. Our speculation about the motives and biases of the Forest Service, even if accurate, is unnecessary, and therefore, ought not to be voiced in this opinion.

. The Seventh Circuit's reasoning in concluding that the Sierra Club had standing and that the , controversy was ripe for adjudication is essentially summed up by the court's conclusion that "[t]he Sierra Club is appealing the issuance of a final management plan which will, unless amended, direct Service management activities in [the national forests at issue.] ... The Sierra Club 'need not wait to challenge a specific project when their grievance is with an overall planf " Marita, 46 F.3d at 614 (citation omitted).