Opinion ID: 615771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MUSYA Claim

Text: Although Wyoming claimed below that the Roadless Rule violated MUSYA, the district court declined to rule on that issue [a]s the court ha[d] already found that the Roadless Rule was promulgated in violation of NEPA and the Wilderness Act. Wyoming, 570 F.Supp.2d at 1350 (stating that because it was unnecessary,. . . the Court will refrain from deciding at this time whether the Roadless Rule also violates [MUSYA]). On appeal, Wyoming reasserts its MUSYA claim as an alternate ground for affirming the district court's decision. [43] Specifically, Wyoming makes three arguments in regard to its MUSYA claim: (1) that [a]lthough maintenance of wilderness characteristics is consistent with MUSYA purposes, the Roadless Rule is not because it applies a one size fits all approach to over 30% of national forest lands and directs identical treatment of those lands; (2) the rule precludes administration of renewable resources for multiple use in violation of MUSYA; and (3) the rule gives no consideration to `various resources' in `particular areas.' Wyo. Br. at 44. In response, the Forest Service and the Environmental Groups argue that these three arguments are without merit and that promulgation of the Roadless Rule did not violate MUSYA. We agree. First, contrary to Wyoming's assertions, the Roadless Rule is not a one size fits all regulation requiring identical treatment of all IRAs. Although the rule does provide broad, uniform prescriptions for IRAsthrough the general prohibitions on road building and commercial logging, 66 Fed.Reg. at 3272-73 (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. §§ 294.12(a), 294.13(a))it does not compel identical treatment of all IRAs. The seven exceptions enumerated in § 294.12(b) and the four enumerated in § 294.13(b), allow the Responsible Official for each IRA to permit road building and timber cutting in a variety of situations. Application of the exceptions will permit varied managements actions and strategies depending on the particularized and localized conditions unique to each IRA. For example, responsible officials may permit the cutting, removal, and sale of small diameter timber to occur within a particular IRA in order to improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat of the area or to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure of the area. 66 Fed.Reg. at 3272-73 (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. § 294.13(b)(1)(i)-(ii)). Road construction may also be authorized by the Responsible Officialfor example, if it is determined that a Federal Aid Highway project . . . is in the public interest, or if needed to implement a road safety improvement project, or if needed to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from the design, location, use, or deterioration of a classified road . . . [but] only if the road is deemed essential for public or private access, natural resource management, or public health and safety. Id. at 3272 (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. § 294.13(a)(4)-(6)). Application of these exceptions will likewise be specific to the particular IRA in question. Furthermore, the Roadless Rule does not prohibit the development of new rules specific to individual IRAs through the NFMA forest-planning process, which would be tailored to address local forest conditions. Moreover, it leaves in place pre-existing forest plans governing individual IRAs, at least to the extent that they do not conflict with the Roadless Rule. These examples demonstrate that the Roadless Rule will not require identical treatment of all IRAs. To the contrary, it permitsthrough the rule's exceptions and through the NFMA forest-planning processindividualized treatment of IRAs. [44] Second, the Roadless Rule does not preclude[] administration of renewable resources for multiple use in violation of MUSYA. Wyoming correctly states that MUSYA mandates that the Forest Service develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use, 16 U.S.C. § 529, including for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes, id. § 528. However, contrary to Wyoming's argument, the Roadless Rule fulfills this mandate; that is, the rule conforms to the multiple-use mandate of MUSYA, including management of NFS lands for outdoor recreation, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. Id. § 528. Although the Roadless Rule does not permit all uses specifically identified in MUSYAnamely, timber purposesthis is not required under MUSYA. In defining multiple use, Congress acknowledged that some [NFS] land will be used for less than all of the resources identified. 16 U.S.C. § 531(a); see also id. (stating that multiple use management means making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services (emphasis added)). Therefore, although the Forest Service is directed to manage the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use, id. § 529, the agency has broad discretion to determine the proper mix of uses permitted within those lands. See Bergland, 695 F.2d at 484 (describing MUSYA as more permissive and aspirational than mandatory); Perkins, 608 F.2d at 806-07 (stating that the language found in MUSYA can hardly be considered concrete limits upon agency discretion because it breathe[s] discretion at every pore. (alteration in original) (quoting Strickland, 519 F.2d at 469) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Wind River Multiple-Use Advocates v. Espy, 835 F.Supp. 1362, 1372-73 (D.Wyo. 1993), aff'd, 85 F.3d 641 (10th Cir.1996) (Courts that have considered this issue have held that the MUSYA grants the Forest Service `wide discretion to weigh and decide the proper uses within any area.' (quoting Big Hole Ranchers Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 686 F.Supp. 256, 264 (D.Mont.1988))); Intermountain Forest Industry Ass'n v. Lyng, 683 F.Supp. 1330, 1337-38 (D.Wyo.1988) (stating that the MUSYA places all uses and resources on equal footing but does not direct how such various uses should be allocated). Wyoming argues that multiple use cannot be seriously contemplated when access to forests is effectively cut off by the roads prohibition. Wyo. Br. at 44 (citing Wyoming, 570 F.Supp.2d at 1350). However, as discussed supra, these multiple uses will be permitted to continue through the use of existing roadsmeasuring approximately 386,000 miles, 65 Fed.Reg. at 30,277and roads built or reconstructed under any of the exceptions enumerated in the rule, as well as through measures not requiring the construction or reconstruction of roads. See 66 Fed.Reg. at 3249-50. Accordingly, we conclude that the Roadless Rule does not violate MUSYA's multiple-use mandate. Lastly, we disagree with Wyoming's contention that the Forest Service failed to give due consideration . . . to the relative values of the various resources in particular areas. 16 U.S.C. § 529. In support of this argument, Wyoming relies heavily on the Forest Service's alleged failure to take a site specific and genuinely hard look at the impacts of the Roadless Rule during the NEPA process. Wyo. Br. at 44. However, as discussed supra, this allegation is incorrect; we have already concluded that the Forest Service took the requisite hard look at the environmental impacts and consequences of the Roadless Rule during the NEPA process. This assertion therefore lends no support to the MUSYA claim. Furthermore, a review of the record demonstrates that the Forest Service adequately considered the relative values of the various resources within IRAs. In promulgating the Roadless Rule, the Forest Service assessed the value of the various resources found within IRAs, including consideration of, among other things: (a) timber, see FEIS at 3-193 to 3-207, 3-295 to 3-308 (evaluation of timber harvests); (b) recreational uses, see id. at 3-207 to 3-227, 3-271 to 3-280 (evaluation of dispersed recreation activities and developed and road-based recreation activities); (c) wilderness, see id. at 3-237 to 3-242, 3-271 to 3-280 (evaluation of wilderness); (d) watersheds and water quality, see id. at 3-46 to 3-55 (evaluation or water quantity, water quality, drinking water source areas, and stream channel morphology); and (e) wildlife and fish, see id. at 3-142 to 3-171 (evaluation of biodiversity in general, including terrestrial and aquatic habitat and animal and plant species, as well as threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species). We therefore cannot agree with Wyoming's argument that the Forest Service failed to give due consideration . . . to the relative values of the various resources within IRAs when promulgating the Roadless Rule. As stated above, the ultimate mix of uses chosen by the Forest Service after consideration of the competing resource values is largely left to agency discretion. In sum, we find that Wyoming's arguments pertaining to the alleged violation of MUSYA are without merit. We conclude that the Forest Service did not violate MUSYAor otherwise act arbitrarily and capriciously under MUSYAin promulgating the Roadless Rule.