## Facts

- Northwest Forest Resource Council (NFRC), an Oregon nonprofit representing timber and forest-products interests in Oregon and Washington, sued federal officials, including the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior.
- The dispute arose from Executive Branch efforts to develop forest policy for more than 24 million acres of federally owned forest land in Oregon and Washington, including issues involving northern spotted owl habitat and related environmental and economic effects.
- The Administration assembled the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), described as a multi-agency group of federal employees tasked with providing scientific and technical assessment materials to inform forest management planning.
- NFRC alleged FEMAT functioned as an advisory body whose creation and operations were required to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), including chartering, balanced membership, open meetings, and public access to records.
- NFRC sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including declarations that FEMAT was a FACA “advisory committee,” that its proceedings were invalid due to noncompliance, and an injunction preventing the government from relying on FEMAT’s report and recommendations.
- The court resolved the merits through cross-motions, addressing whether FEMAT was subject to FACA and whether relief was available.

## Issues

1. Whether FEMAT qualified as an “advisory committee” under FACA, triggering FACA’s procedural requirements.
2. Whether NFRC was entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating FEMAT’s work or barring federal reliance on FEMAT’s report.

## Decision

- The court held FEMAT was not an “advisory committee” within FACA’s meaning.
- Because FACA did not apply, the court denied NFRC’s requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Judgment was entered for the defendants, and the Executive Branch was not barred from using FEMAT’s report in policy formulation.

## Legal Principles

- FACA’s definition of “advisory committee” is construed narrowly where broader readings would raise serious separation-of-powers concerns regarding the President’s ability to seek confidential collective advice.
- A group composed of federal officers or employees conducting internal executive-branch deliberations does not become a FACA advisory committee absent the statutory elements that bring it within FACA’s coverage.
- The government’s later reliance on a group’s work product does not, by itself, convert an internal executive working group into a FACA “advisory committee”; the threshold inquiry centers on the group’s establishment, composition, and statutory status.

## Conclusion

The court concluded FEMAT was an internal, multi-agency team of federal employees rather than a FACA-regulated advisory committee, so no FACA violation occurred and NFRC was not entitled to invalidate FEMAT’s work or prevent federal policymakers from using its report.


Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Espy, 846 F. Supp. 1009 (D.D.C. 1994)