Opinion ID: 742736
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relative Values Analysis (Count I)

Text: 22 As discussed above, the MUSYA requires the Secretary to coordinate management of the various renewable resources on forest lands with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 16 U.S.C. §§ 529, 531(a) (1988). The plaintiffs argue that a proper relative values analysis requires the Forest Service to consider whether such renewable resources are being supplied from the private lands surrounding and intermingled with the Shawnee National Forest. The plaintiffs argue that the ALRMP fails to conduct this type of analysis and, as a result, overemphasizes resource uses such as artificially maintained openland areas, logging, oil and gas leasing, and ATV use and underemphasizes such resource uses as wilderness and wildlife habitat for neotropical migratory birds. 23 In support of their argument, the plaintiffs point to the Congressional findings enacted as part of the NFMA, which state, in relevant part, that: 24 Congress finds that ... to serve the national interest, the renewable resource program must be based on a comprehensive assessment of present and anticipated uses, demand for, and supply of renewable resources from the Nation's public and private forests and rangelands, thorough analysis of environmental and economic impacts, coordination of multiple use and sustained yield opportunities as provided in the [MUSYA], and public participation in the development of the program[.] 25 16 U.S.C. § 1600(3) (1988) (emphasis added). Based upon this directive, the plaintiffs argue that the ALRMP should have emphasized resources such as wilderness and neotropical bird habitat that can be provided only by the Shawnee and should have discounted those Shawnee resources such as timber that can and are readily produced on surrounding private lands in the state. 26 The legislative history for the NFMA supports the plaintiffs' argument that Congress intended to have the Forest Service consider the resources available on private lands when developing forest management plans. In explaining the new provisions in the NFMA, the Senate Report states that [t]he findings further emphasize ... the role of private as well as public lands in meeting national needs, and the responsibility and opportunity for the Forest Service to provide leadership in managing and conserving natural resources. S.Rep. No. 893, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6662, 6663. 27 Contrary to the plaintiffs' view, however, this directive is not limited to the supply of and demand for resources in the immediate vicinity of a particular national forest or of the state in which the forest is located. Rather, the findings refer to the Nation's public and private forests and the Senate Report refers to the resources available to meet national needs (emphasis added). Certainly the Forest Service may, indeed should, consider resource supply and demand in its local area as part of this national analysis but the agency is not limited to a localized review. 3 Therefore, even though private lands in Illinois may be able to supply 100 percent of the timber needs of its own citizens, the Forest Service could properly determine that the timber resources of the Shawnee should be utilized to respond to a national demand. That is exactly the rationale provided by Regional Forester Marita in selecting an alternative that allowed for timber harvest in the Shawnee. (ROD for ALRMP at 19 (I selected alternative 5 because it provides timber products to help supply the nation's need for quality hardwood sawtimber and veneer.)); (ROD for ALRMP at 20 (alternative 4 was not selected because it does not provide a sustained-yield of quality hardwood products that the nation desires and needs, and that can be provided from the Shawnee National Forest in an environmentally sound manner.)) 28 Although not cited by the plaintiffs, the legislative history to the MUSYA provides more persuasive support for the plaintiffs' demand for a relative values analysis focusing on localized conditions. In explaining the Act's multiple-use directive, the House Report discusses the relative values analysis as follows: 29 One of the basic concepts of multiple use is that all of these resources in general are entitled to equal consideration, but in particular or localized areas relative values of the various resources will be recognized.... 30 In practice, the priority of resource use will vary locality by locality and case by case. In one locality timber use might dominate; in another locality use of the range by domestic livestock; in another outdoor recreation or wildlife might dominate. Thus, in particular localities the various resource uses might be given priorities because of particular circumstances. This is the meaning of the last sentence of section 2 of the bill. But no resource would be given a statutory priority over the others. The bill would neither upgrade nor downgrade any resource. 31 H.R.Rep. No. 1551, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. --- (1960), reprinted in 1960 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2377, 2379. 32 Based upon this discussion, it would appear that the plaintiffs are correct in suggesting that a proper relative values analysis would require the Forest Service to consider the particular circumstances of the local area in determining how to prioritize resource use in each national forest. However, while this type of analysis might suggest that one use might logically predominate over others because of localized needs or conditions, it does not require that the forest be managed solely for that one particular use. Nor does it require the Forest Service to focus entirely upon localized needs at the expense of ignoring the national demand for resources that can be supplied by a particular forest. 33 To the contrary, the MUSYA empowers the Forest Service with wide discretion to give equal consideration, but not necessarily equal weight, to all of these values. Wind River Multiple-Use Advocates v. Espy, 835 F.Supp. 1362, 1372 (D.Wyo.1993) ( 'Due consideration' does not mean equal consideration.). Indeed, since 'Congress has given no indication as to the weight to be assigned each value, ... it must be assumed that the decision as to the proper mix of uses within any particular area is left to the sound discretion of the Forest Service.'  Id. (quoting Sierra Club v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 99, 123 (D.Alaska 1971); Bighole Ranches Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 686 F.Supp. 256, 264 (D.Mont.1988) (stating that the MUSYA grants the Forest Service wide discretion to weigh and decide the proper uses with any area.). 34 There can be no dispute in this case that Forest Service gave ample consideration to the resource uses advocated by the plaintiffs, such as wildlife habitat and wilderness areas. In fact, the ALRMP provides that these uses be protected and expanded. What the plaintiffs object to, however, is the fact that the Forest Service has not prioritized such uses to the exclusion of other uses such as logging, oil and gas leasing, and ATV use; rather the Forest Service has attempted to provide a balanced approach to meeting the various public desires for uses products and conditions on the Shawnee National Forest. (ROD for ALRMP at 9.) 35 The Forest Service was well within its discretion to attempt to achieve the identified uses in whatever mix the agency found suitable for the Shawnee. As long as the Forest Service has given each use equal consideration, this Court has no authority to second-guess the precise weight that the agency has given to each use, at least as it relates to the relative values analysis of the MUSYA, as alleged in Count I of the plaintiffs' complaint. 4 Other requirements of the MUSYA, NFMA, and NEPA are discussed in the sections that follow. 36