Court Cases Pertaining to the O&C Act

Scoping Report
Scoping Report Home
Issues Identified
Alternatives Suggested
Preferred Alternative Criteria
Questions & Responses, Clarification
Definition and Explanation of Terms
Full Scoping Report

There are three federal court cases, two in the Ninth Circuit Court and one in the Western Washington District Court that provide interpretation of the O&C Act. A summary of those cases follows:

Headwaters v. BLM 1990 -

In an opinion by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 1990, 914F.2d 1174, the court ruled that the O&C Act was a dominant use act and that such interpretation was consistent with the Act.

“… the provisions of 43 USC 1181a make it clear that the primary use of the [O&C Act] lands is for timber production to be managed in conformity with the provision of sustained yield.”

“There is no indication that Congress intended “forest” to mean anything beyond an aggregation of timber resources.”

“It is entirely consistent with these goals to conclude that the O&C Act envisions timber production as a dominant use and that Congress intended to use “forest production” and “timber production” synonymously. Nowhere does the legislative history suggest that wildlife habitat conservation or conservation of old growth forest is a goal on a par with timber production, or indeed that it is a goal of the O&C Act at all. The BLM did not err in construing the O&C Act as establishing timber production as the dominant use.”

Portland Audubon Society v. Lujan 1993 –

“We find that the plain language of the Act (O&C Act) supports the district court’s conclusion that the Act has not deprived the BLM of all discretion with regard to either the volume requirements of the Act or management of the lands entrusted to its care.”

“… there does not appear to be a clear and unavoidable conflict between statutory directives [O&C Act and NEPA], we cannot allow the Secretary to utilize an excessively narrow construction of its existing statutory authority to avoid compliance (with NEPA).”

Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons 1994 (Judge Dwyer) –

This is not a Ninth Circuit Court decision and only controls decisions in the Western District of Washington. Outside the Western District of Washington, this decision is only effective where it is persuasive.

Referring to Portland Audubon Society v. Lujan 1993, “The court further held that O&CLA does not allow the BLM to avoid its conservation duties under NEPA or ESA …”

“An agency’s construction of the laws it administers is accorded considerable weight. The management decision made here [Northwest Forest Plan] in regard to the O&CLA lands was a lawful exercise of the Secretary’s discretion. If this ruling were to be reversed on appeal, the ROD would have to be reconsidered because of the loss of important LSOG and riparian reserves.”

more>>