Judge rejects forest-plan lawsuit

A lawsuit filed by Montanans for Multiple Use against the Flathead National Forest nearly five years ago has been rejected on all counts by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit was largely aimed at the Flathead Forest's adoption of 23 amendments to its forest plan since 1986. The suit claimed the amendments amounted to a "piecemeal" de facto revision of the forest plan - a major policy change that did not involve adequate review.

But the March 31 ruling from Thomas Hogan, chief judge in the Washington, D.C., district court, found that Montanans for Multiple Use did not adequately pursue administrative appeals as the amendments were proposed and adopted.

Hogan wrote that the plaintiffs "had either 45 or 90 days to file a notice of appeal from the date specified in the public legal notice, depending on whether they chose to challenge the amendments as advertised … or as they alleged them to be - de facto revision masquerading as a mere series of non-significant amendments. They did neither."

Fred Hodgeboom, the multiple use group's president, could not be reached for comment Monday.

Rob Carlin, the Flathead Forest's lead planner, was pleased with the outcome.

"We are pleased with the court's ruling and will continue working to achieve the balance that multiple use management requires on National Forest System lands," Carlin said.

It was the second court victory for the forest in the last couple of weeks; the Flathead won on all counts in another lawsuit from two environmental groups that challenged the forest's application of road management standards for grizzly bear habitat security.

Those standards were adopted in 1995 through Amendment 19 to the forest plan. That amendment has required systematic road closures and road reclamation to improve bear habitat security, and it has long been derided and opposed by Montanans for Multiple Use.

The group's lawsuit challenged road closures in a roundabout way, claiming the forest does not have the authority to close roads that are public right-of-ways that "are required to ensure that adequate protection and care of the forest can proceed."

Hogan disagreed, citing a string of previous cases to reject the claim.

The lawsuit also claimed that the Flathead Forest had unlawfully failed to revise its forest plan within 15 years as required by the National Forest Management Act. The 1986 plan is still in effect, and the Flathead Forest and several other national forests in Montana are currently engaged in a revision process.

Hogan acknowledged the 15-year deadline.

"However," he wrote, "Congress repeatedly passed legislation extending the statutory deadline. In 2007, Congress extended the deadline through Oct. 1, 2008."

He went on to say that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Flathead Forest is not acting "expeditiously and in good faith" in its efforts to develop a new forest plan.

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com