Wyoming v. United States Department of Agriculture

Majority - Holmes, Circuit Judge

No, the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously or in excess of its statutory authority in promulgating the Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule did not establish de facto wilderness areas in violation of the Wilderness Act, and the Forest Service complied with its obligations under NEPA, MUSYA, and NFMA. First, the district court erred in finding that the Roadless Rule established de facto wilderness areas. A comparison of the Wilderness Act and the Roadless Rule demonstrates that inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are not functionally equivalent or 'essentially the same' as congressionally designated wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act is broader and more restrictive, prohibiting all commercial enterprise, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, mechanical transport, and permanent structures, unless exceptions apply. The Roadless Rule, by contrast, restricts only road construction and commercial timber harvesting (with exceptions), permits various recreational uses (e.g., off-road vehicle use, biking, snowmobiling), allows for the maintenance of all existing classified roads, provides broader exceptions for new road construction (e.g., for statutory rights, CERCLA response actions, Federal Aid Highway projects), and permits commercial grazing and mineral development to a greater extent than the Wilderness Act. The Forest Service acted within its broad authority under the Organic Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. § 551) and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960 (16 U.S.C. §§ 528–31) to regulate NFS lands for conservation purposes, as Congress explicitly stated that nothing in the Wilderness Act interferes with the purposes of the Organic Act and MUSYA. Second, the Forest Service complied with its NEPA obligations. The agency's scoping efforts were adequate, as NEPA regulations do not mandate minimum time limits or map requirements, and the agency received substantial public input and provided sufficient notice. The decision to grant or deny Wyoming's request for cooperating-agency status was committed to the agency’s discretion and is not judicially reviewable under the APA, as no meaningful standard of review exists. The Forest Service also considered a reasonable range of alternatives; it reasonably defined the purpose of the Roadless Rule as protecting IRAs from activities most likely to degrade them and confined its detailed alternatives analysis to those that would further this objective, citing ample evidence that road construction and timber harvesting posed the greatest risks. The cumulative impacts analysis was adequate, as the Forest Service disclosed related rulemakings and discussed their reasonably foreseeable collective effects, noting that more specific impacts were speculative and would be subject to future site-specific NEPA analysis. A site-specific analysis for every affected IRA was not required for this broad nationwide rule, and the Forest Service sufficiently performed a generic evaluation of common environmental impacts. Lastly, a supplemental EIS was not necessary because changes made between the DEIS, FEIS, and final rule (e.g., shifting procedural aspects, applying the rule to 'roaded' portions, increasing acreage, limiting the stewardship exception) were either already considered, qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives discussed, or were not substantial changes that had not been subject to public comment. Wyoming failed to meet the stringent standard for predetermination; the record lacks concrete evidence that the agency 'irreversibly and irretrievably' committed itself to a specific outcome before completing its NEPA analysis, and the rule's evolution throughout the process suggests otherwise. Third, the Roadless Rule does not violate MUSYA. It is not a 'one size fits all' regulation, as its enumerated exceptions allow for individualized management decisions based on local conditions. While the rule restricts timber harvest, MUSYA acknowledges that 'some land will be used for less than all of the resources,' and the Forest Service has broad discretion in determining the proper mix of uses. The rule permits continued multiple uses (e.g., outdoor recreation, watershed, wildlife and fish) through existing roads, exceptions, and non-road-dependent measures, and the Forest Service adequately considered the 'relative values of the various resources' within IRAs. Therefore, the agency did not act arbitrarily and capriciously under MUSYA. Finally, the Roadless Rule was not required to comply with NFMA. The rule was promulgated under the Forest Service's general rulemaking authority granted by the Organic Act and MUSYA, not NFMA. NFMA established a localized planning process for individual forest units but did not repeal or limit the agency's broad authority to issue nationwide conservation rules. Thus, the Forest Service was not required to comply with NFMA's specific procedural provisions. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in permanently enjoining the Roadless Rule, as its action was based on erroneous legal conclusions regarding Wyoming’s claims.