MEMORANDUM OPINION
September 20, 2017 [Dkt. ##94, 95, 96, 97]
In 2001, the United' States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) promulgated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule—commonly referred to as the “Roadless Rule”—which limits road construction and timber harvesting in national forests. It is this Rule—and its application to the Ton-gass National Forest (the “Tongass”)— that the State of Alaska (“Alaska” or “plaintiff’) challenges today. In essence, Alaska argues that the Roadless Rule was promulgated in an unrealistic time frame, without considering the needs of individual states and without weighing the potentially devastating consequences to multiple-use management on national forest lands. Specifically, Alaska alleges that the Roadless Rule violates the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-70 (“NEPA”), the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-59, 701-06 (“APA”), the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-36 (“Wilderness Act”), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-31 (“MUSYA”), the Organic Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. § 475 (“Organic Act”), the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-14 (“NFMA”), the Tongass Timber Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 101-626, 104 Stat. 4426 (1990) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C.) (“TTRA”), and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3101-233 (“ANILCA”). Upon consideration of the record, the relevant law, and the briefs submitted by the parties, I find that plaintiff has not shown that the USDA violated any federal statute in promulgating the Roadless Rule. Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are therefore GRANTED, and Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
A. Statutory Framework
The National Forest System (“NFS”) currently contains approximately 192 million acres of land. AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 3-111. This land includes 155 proclaimed or designated national forests,
In 1897, Congress enacted the' Organic Act, which set forth a multiple-use mandate for the management of the National Forests. The Act mandated that National Forests may .be established and administered only for the following purposes: (1) “to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries”; (2) to “secur[e] favorable conditions of water flows”; or (3) “to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.” 16 U.S.C. § 475. Over sixty years later, after the Forest Service was transferred to the Department of Agriculture, Congress codified the Organic" Act’s multiple-use mandate by enacting the MUSYA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-31. The MUS-YA directs the Forest Service to “adminfe ter the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield.” Id. § 529, Specifically, the MUSYA identifies “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes” as. the purposes for which the national forests are to be established and administered. Id. § 528.
Four years after Congress enacted the MUSYA, it passed the Wilderness Act, which “established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as “wilderness areas.’” 16 U.S.C. § 1131(a). Importantly, the Act explicitly retained Congress’s authority to designate which areas qualify as “wilderness areas.” Id. § 1132. But to aid Congress in its task of designating wilderness areas, the Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to “review, as to its suitability or 'nonsuitability' for preservation as wilderness, each área in the national forests classified ... as ‘primitive.’ ” Id. § 1132(b). The Act also delegated to the Forest Service the responsibility of “preserving the wilderness character of the area” and “administering] such area” for “the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” Id. § 1133.
In 1976, Congress passed the NFMA, which requires the Forest Service to “develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans .for units of the National Forest System.” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a). The Act imposes requirements on NFMA’s land and resource management plans, including the requirement that any plan for the NFS must “provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained therefrom in accordance with the (MUSYA].” Id. § 1604(e)(1). ■
Finally, any time the Forest Service exercises its authority under any of these statutes, it is required to comply with NEPA, which mandates that, federal agencies must “carefully consider[ ] detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts” of their proposed actions. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council,
B. History of the Rule
The origins of the Roadless Rule date back over four decades, when in 1972 the Forest Service embarked on a Roadless Area Review and Evaluation project (“RARE I”) to identify roadless areas on NFS lands and determine their suitability for designation as wilderness, pursuant to its authority under the Wilderness Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1132(b); see 66 Fed. Reg. 35,918, 35,919 (July 10, 2001) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 219, 294) (describing RARE I efforts). As part of this effort, the Forest Service inventoried approximately 56 million acres that it deemed suitable for designation as wilderness areas. See Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
Four years later, the Forest Service began a more extensive Roadless Area Review and Evaluation project (“RARE II”), which also created an inventory of roadless areas that the Forest Service deemed suitable for designation as wilderness. Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
In the late 1990s, the Forest Service revisited its road-management policy, noting that: (1) use of the National Forests had “shifted substantially toward recreation,” (2) there were insufficient funds to maintain existing roads, and (3) there was an “accumulation of new scientific information” suggesting that “ecological impacts from existing roads are more extensive than previously thought.” 63 Fed. Reg. 4350, 4350 (Jan. 28,1998) (to be codified at
Later that year. President Clinton ordered the Forest Service to develop a plan to protect IRAs and determine whether non-invehtoried roadless -areas also needed protection. AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 1-6. Within a week' of the President’s directive,the Forest Service published a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to prepare a draft EIS (“DEIS”). 64 Fed. Reg. 56,306 (Oct. 19,1999). Not surprisingly, President Clinton demanded an uncharacteristically fast timeline for government work; he directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish the final Rule before the President left office. AR Doc. 0193, at 23. The Forest Service acknowledged that this would require a very short timeframe for the public to respond to the NOI. AR Doc. 2315, at 7. Id. As a result, the NOI provided for a 60-day scoping and public comment period.
During the 60-day scoping period, the Forest Service received more than 517,000 comments in response to the NOI, held 187 meetings around the nation (which were attended by approximately 16,000 people), and launched a Roadless Area Conservation website (www.roadless.fs.fed. us) to provide information about the rule-making. 66 Fed. Reg. 3243, 3248 (Jan. 12, 2001) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 294); AR. Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1, 4-1), at 497. Despite multiple requests to extend the scoping period beyond the 60 days provided for by the NOI, the Forest Service declined to do so. AR Doc. 4485, at 1; AR Doc. 4111 (FEIS Vol. 4), at 80-81,161, 500, 589.
After assessing the information gathered during the scoping period, the USDA released a proposed rule and DEIS on May 10, 2000. AR Doc. 1362 (DEIS. Vol. 1); 65 Fed. Reg. 30,276 (proposed May 10, 2000) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 294). The DEIS .declared that the purpose of the proposed action was: (1) “to immediately stop activities that have the greatest likelihood of degrading desirable characteristics of inventoried roadless areas”; ■ (2) “to ensure that ecological and-social characteristics of inventoried roadless and other un-roaded areas are identified and considered through local forest planning efforts”; and (3) “to consider the unique social and economic situation of the Tongass National Forest.” AR Doc. 1362 (DEIS Vol. 1), at S—4;
The DEIS identified 54.3 million- acres of IRAs that were subject to, the proposed rule.
In November 2000, as scheduled, the Forest Service issued the final EIS (“FEIS”). AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Yol. 1). The FEIS contained four material departures from the DEIS. First, the USDA had revised its IRA maps, which increased the total acreage of IRAs subject to the Prohibition Rule from 54.3 million acres to 58.5 million acres. AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 2-23. The revised figure included 4.2 million acres of IRAs not identified in the DEIS or proposed rule. Id. Second, it eliminated the distinction between “roaded” and “unroaded” portions of IRAs so that the Rule would apply to all portions of IRAs, not just the unroaded portions. ■ Id. Third, the FEIS changed the preferred alternative with respect to the Prohibition Rule. Id. at 2-13 to 2-14, The DEIS chose the alternative that prohibited road construction and reconstruction in IRAs, but the FEIS selected the alternative that prohibited road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest, except for stewardship purposes, in IRAs. Id. And fourth, the FEIS eliminated the Procedural Rule portion of the Roadless Rule on the ground that the procedural aspects of the Rule would be addressed in a separate rulemaking. Id. at ES-2, Like the DEIS, the FEIS considered several alternatives for the Prohibition Rule. Id. at 3-21 to 3-403. As to the Tongass, while the DEIS considered three alternatives, the FEIS considered four: (1) Tongass Not Exempt—which would apply the Rule to the Tongass; (2) Tongass Exempt—which would exempt the Tongass from the Rule; (3) Tongass Deferred—which would defer the decision as to the Rule’s applicability to the Tongass until the 5-year review of the Tongass,land management plan; and (4) Tongass Selected Areas—which would apply the Rule only to selected areas of the Tongass identified in the Tongass’s land management plan. Id. at 2-10 to 2-12.
On January 12, 2001, in the final hours of the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service published the final Roadless Rule and the Record of Decision (“ROD”) on the rule. 66 Fed. Reg. 3243 (Jan. 12, 2001) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 294). The final Rule—applicable to the 58.5 million acres of IRAs identified in the FEIS— prohibits road construction in IRAs, as contemplated by the preferred, alternative from the FEIS. Id. at 3272-73. This prohibition is subject to several exceptions, including when a road is needed “in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral lease.” Id. The Rule
C. Litigation History
As one might expect for a far-reaching environmental regulation such as this, the Roadless Rule faced several judicial challenges immediately after it was promulgated. Indeed, despite the USDA’s hopes that the Rule would reduce litigation about forest management, id. at 3244, 3246, within a year of its adoption, a federal judge in Idaho granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Rule on the ground that it violated NEPA. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, No. CV01-10-N-EJL,
The State of Alaska has also challenged the Roadless Rule once before. In a complaint filed in the District of Alaska just 19 days after the'Rule was published, Alaska alleged that the Roadless Rule violated, inter alia, NEPA, the APA, the ANILCA, and the TTRA. Complaint, Alaska v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 3:01-cv-00039-JKS (D. Alaska Jan. 31, 2001), ÉCF No. 1. That case settled, and Alaska’s complaint was dismissed. In exchange for Alaska’s voluntary dismissal of its case, however, the USDA agreed to publish a proposed rule that.would temporarily exempt the Ton-gass, from the application of the Roadless Rule, as well as an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to permanently exempt the Tongass from the Rule. 68 Fed. Reg. 41,865, 41,866 (Jul 15, 2003) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 294); see Organized Vill. of Kake v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
The Tongass Exemption was challenged in the District of Alaska in 2009 on. the
D. Procedural History of this Case
Alaska filed the present action in this Court in 2011, in which it challenges the Roadless Rule under several federal statutes, including the APA and NEPA. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Various interest groups intervened as both plaintiff-interve-nors and defendant-intervenors, and this Court granted their motions. See ECF Nos. 11, 17, 25, 27. On March 25, 2013, this Court held that plaintiffs claim was barred by the statute of limitations and accordingly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. See ECF Nos. 58, 59. Plaintiff appealed, however, and our Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiff had timely filed its complaint. See ECF No. 66. Both parties moved for summary judgment, but before this Court issued its opinion, the Ninth Circuit decided Organized Village of Kake,
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because NEPA, the NFMA, the MUS-YA, the TTRA, ANILCA, the OAA, and the Wilderness Act do not create a private right of action for violations of those statutes, I review the Forest Service’s promulgation of the Roadless Rule as a final agency action under the APA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-59. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is warranted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Because this case challenges a final agency action under the APA, my review “is based on the agency record and limited to determining whether the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously.” Rempfer v. Sharfstein,
In conducting my review, I am mindful of the fact that “the role of the agency [is] to resolve factual issues,” whereas the sole “function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459
DISCUSSION
A. Standing
I begin this case—as I do all cases—by assessing whether I have jurisdiction to review the merits of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors’ claims. In their cross motion for summary judgment, the federal defendants argue that plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors have failed to satisfy their burden on standing because “neither parties’ opening brief contains even the briefest averment as to standing.” Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. <& in Opp’n to Pl.’s & Pl.-Intervenors’ Mots. Summ. J. 12, ECF No. 76-1 (“Defs.’ Mem.”). In particular, they cite Sierra Club v. EPA, in which our Circuit stated that a plaintiff must set forth “its arguments and any affidavits or other evidence” in its motion for summary judgment, “and not ... ■ in reply to the brief of the respondent agency.”
In American Library Association v. FCC, the Court clarified that plaintiffs “should explain the basis for their standing at the earliest appropriate stage in the litigation” when they “have good reason to know that their standing is not self-evident.”
Alaska, too, had reason to believe that it did not need to submit additional eviden-tiary support for its Article III standing. The injuries Alaska will suffer as a result of the Roadless Rule are extensively documented in the administrative record for the rulemaking, which is a part of the record in this case. See, e.g., AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 3-380 (estimating that the application of the Roadless Rule to the Tongass would result in between 864 and 895 lost jobs and,between $37.3 million and $38.7 million in lost personal income). Indeed, the very fact that the USDA treated the Tongass Forest differently from any other national forest—and considered four different alternatives for the Tongass in its
Having decided .that plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors did not waive their right to argue standing, I now turn to the question whether plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors have, in fact,- established standing.
As to the plaintiff-intervenors, all of them filed motions to intervene, 'along with
B. Res Judicata
Before turning to the substance of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors’ claims, there is one more procedural hurdle this Court must scale:. whether the doctrine of claim preclusion bars Alaska from raising its claims in this Court. After the en banc Ninth Circuit vacated the 2003 Tongass exemption to the Roadless Rule, see Organized Village of Kake,
Upon review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Organized Village of Kake, it is clear that the Court did not address whether the Roadless Rule is valid as applied to the Tongass. Instead, the Court’s review was limited to deciding whether the Tongass Exemption—a regulation promulgated two years after the Roadless Rule— was valid. In ruling that the Tongass exemption violated the APA, the Court did not hold that the Roadless Rule should be applied to the Tongass; rather, the Court held that the USDA’s record of decision (“ROD”) did not provide a reasoned explanation for its change of course. Organized Village of Kake,
Relevant to this question is the fact that the USDA and Alaska were litigating in favor of the same position in Organized Village of Kake. In that case, the USDA was defending the Tongass exemption to the Roadless Rule, and Alaska intervened as a defendant. See Defs.’ Suppl. Br., Ex. 7. Thus, Alaska’s and the USDA’s interests were aligned. To raise its challenges to the Roadless Rule, Alaska would have had to bring a crossclaim against the USDA. But neither the parties nor this Court have found authority to support the notion that a defendant' who failed to file a crossclaim against a co-defendant is barred by claim preclusion from later raising that claim in a new case. Indeed, crossclaims are permissive by definition. See 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1431 (3d ed. 2016) (“A party who decides not to bring a claim under Rule 13(g) will not be barred by res judicata, waiver, or estoppel from asserting it in a later action, as the party would if the claim were a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a).”). Indeed, it would be quite the rigid rule to require Alaska to challenge an older version of the Roadless Rule in a litigation focused solely on the new version of the rule. And it would be an even harsher remedy to hold that Alaska forfeited all of its claims by failing to do so. Fortunately for plaintiff, this Court has no reason to conclude that the doctrine of claim preclusion is so unforgiving as that. I accordingly hold that Alaska’s claims are not barred by
C. Alaska’s General Challenges to the Roadless Rule Nationwide
1. Alaska’s Challenge under NEPA
Alaska raises several challenges to the Roadless Rule under NEPA, each of which I address below. Under NEPA, federal agencies must “consider fully the environmental effects of their proposed actions.”' Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar,
a. The Purpose and Need Statement
In light of the fact that the Forest Service reported that 2.8 million acres of IRAs had been roaded "in the 20 years prior to the rulemaking, the stated purpose of the Roadless Rule was to avoid further loss of roadless areas. AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 1-14 (“The purpose of this action is to conserve and protect the increasingly important values and benefits of roadless areas .... ”). Alaska insists, however, that the stated objective for the Roadless Rule was arbitrary ’and capricious “because it was founded on a fundamental. assumption, that ran contrary to evidence then known to USDA, ie., that inventoried roadless areas were, being increasingly lost to roadbuilding.” Pl.’s P. & A. Supp. Summ. J. 10, ECF No. 72 (“Pl.’s Mem.”). According to Alaska, the Forest Service failed to disclose in the DEIS— and did not adequately disclose in the FEIS—that “even without the Roadless Rule, [Forest Service] wilderness experts conservatively estimated that the amount of unroaded national forest land would increase by at least 8.4 million acres over the next 40 years due to road decommissioning.” Id.-, AR Doc. 6004, at 690. Upon review of the administrative record, I disagree.
Our Circuit has made clear that it is the prerogative of the agency to define the purpose of a rulemaking, and I must uphold an agency action “so long as the objectives that the agency chooses are reasonable.” Citizens Against Burlington, Inc, v. Busey,
b. The Cumulative Effects of the Roadless Rule
Alaska’s next attack on the Road-less Rule is that the USDA unlawfully failed to disclose the cumulative effects of other roads policies. Under NEPA, an agency’s EIS is required to examine- a proposed project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. 40 C.F.R. §.§ 1508.7, 1508.8; see also 42 U.S.C. § 4332; - 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.25. As part of this process, the agency “must also assess the impact the proposed project will have in conjunction with- other projects in the same and surrounding areas ... and must include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship,
Despite plaintiffs claims of intentional • withholding of the Forest Service’s Roads Policy, the FEIS contains an extensive review of the cumulative effects of the Roadless Rule, including a discussion of the Roads Policy. AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 1-8 to 1-20, 3-34 to 3-39, 3-240 to 3-241, 3-397 to 3-398. For example, the FEIS makes clear that the decommissioning of roads under the Roads Policy— along with the ongoing trend of building fewer roads—would likely result in a reduction of the existing road system from 386,000 miles to between 260,000 and 300,-000. miles by 2040. Id. at 3-34 to 3-36. Although, the FEIS notes that there is uncertainty regarding precisely- how many unroaded areas will be created as a result of the road decommissioning, it discloses that the USDA “estimates that the un-roaded area acres are likely to increase 5% to 10% by the time NFS roads stabilize at 260,000 miles to 300,000 miles nationally.” Id. at 3-38. Alaska insists that this disclosure is not enough, and that the Agency failed to disclose the crucial estimate that 8.4 million acres of new unroaded areas would be created in the near future. Pl.’s Mem. 17. But it is clear from the record that the FEIS identified the 8.4 million acre estimate at least three times. See, e.g., AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 3-221, 3-230, 3-241. As such, this Court finds no evidence that the USDA intentionally misled the public as plaintiff suggests. PL’s Mem. 15,18.
c. Informed Comment and Decisionmaking
Plaintiff also challenges the rule-making on the ground that the USDA failed to gather informed comment and thus failed to make an informed decision in violation of NEPA. Alaska seems to want this Court to presume that, because the USDA conducted such a far-reaching rule-making in an extraordinarily short time period, the USDA necessarily did not satisfy NEPA’s goals of adequate public disclosure and informed decision-making. Id. at 20. Indeed, the fact that the USDA issued a rule affecting a whopping 2 percent of all land' in the United States in less than 15 months is alarming, especially in
First, Alaska insists that the USDA’s rushed effort to gather information made it impossible for individual forests to contribute to the decisionmaking process. PL’s Mem. 21-23. As evidence of this, Alaska cites a memorandum to regional foresters that required them to provide “information on the inventoried roadless areas in their forests” in just two days, information on the existing roads in the forest and “the estimated number of roads” to be constructed or closed for timber projects in four days, and other information in fifteen days. Id. at 21. Alaska also cites an email that, in its view, “epitomizes the rushed nature of the entire ruletaaking.” Id, at 22. This email required information “on an aspect of impacts” by close of business, and acknowledged that “many of you may not read this prior to COB today.” Id. Based on this evidence, Alaska concludes that the USDA’s rushed approach led to “significant internal issues ... regarding the accuracy of the data.” Id. Unfortunately for plaintiff, however, the pace of the information-gathering process does not necessarily bear upon the adequacy or reliability of the information gathered.
Although the USDA sought extensive contributions from Forest Service field offices on a relatively abbreviated timeline, the information the USDA sought was generally already in the possession of those field offices. For example, the USDA requested existing acreage data, but IRAs had been mapped for more than 30 years and were included -in individual forest plans. See AR Doc. 2315, at 7. This Court cannot conclude that such requests were unreasonable in light of the fact that the information was readily accessible to the field offices. And Alaska has not proffered any other evidence that shows a meaningful inaccuracy in the evidence the USDA relied upon during the rulemaking process.
Second, Alaska argues that the USDA erred in denying Alaska’s request to participate in the rulemaking as a “cooperating agency” pursuant to NEPA; Pl.’s Mem. 24-25. The law is clear, however, that the decision whether to' grant cooperating agency status is committed to the discretion of the agéncy and is not judicially renewable under the APA. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.6, 1508.5. This Court’s role in reviewing Alaska’s argument on this point therefore ends here.
Third,'Alaska complains that the. USDA erred in declining ,to extend the periods for public .comment during scoping and on the DEIS. PL’s Mem. 25. While it is not surprising—given the scope of the proposed rule and the condensed timeframe for the rulemaking—that ■ many state and local governments' sought extensions on the comment period, the USDA. was not required to grant those requests. NEPA’s implementing regulations establish a minimum requirement of only 45 days for public comment. 40 C.F.R. §- 1506.10(c). The 69-day period the USDA provided here is more than 50 percent beyond the minimum requirement. And it is clear from the record that the Forest Service garnered significant public input during that time. During that 69-day period, the Forest Service held over 400 public meetings (including over 30 in Alaska), which were attended by over 23,000 people. AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 1-7; AR Doc. 3604. The Forest Service also received over 1.1 million written comments on the DEIS during this
Finally, Alaska avers that the USDA’s failure to disclose adequate maps identifying IRAs to the public undermined the validity of the rulemaking process. Pl.’s Mem. 27. According to Alaska, “[without such critical information that goes right to the heart of the need (or lack therefore [sic]) for the Roadless Rule, the comments received from the public were not informed comments and the USDA decision was not an informed decision process.” Id. Based on the record before me, however, I cannot agree. Contrary to Alaska’s assertions, the Forest Service made available state-wide maps of all IRAs four months prior to the release of the DEIS. AR Doc. 76. And with both the DEIS and the FEIS, the Forest Service produced both a state-level map for each state and a more detailed forest-level map for each forest within the state. See, e.g., AR Doc. 1364 (DEIS Vol. 2), at 1, 5-10; AR Doc. 4110 (FEIS Vol. 2), at 1, 5-10. Both of these maps showed IRAs in detail. Id. And while Alaska identifies a handful of comments criticizing the mapping, see Pl.’s Mem. 22, 29, these isolated issues fall far short of demonstrating that the alleged deficiencies in the maps violated NEPA.
d. The Supplemental EIS
Alaska’s final challenge to the Rule under NEPA is that the differences between the DEIS and FEIS were so significant as to require the USDA to prepare a supplemental EIS for additional public comment. Id. at 30. Indeed, supplemental NEPA analysis is required if there are “significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). But our Circuit has emphasized that a “supplemental EIS is only required where new information ‘provides a seriously different picture of the environmental landscape.’” City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA,
Alaska’s claim that seven million additional acres became subject to the Rule refers to two changes that occurred between the DEIS and the FEIS: (1) the decision to eliminate the 2.8 million acres of IRAs that had been roaded after their designation as IRAs; and (2) the addition of 4.2 million acres that occurred after the Forest Service corrected IRA maps. AR Doc. 5091. With respect to the 2.8 million acres, the DEIS proposed excluding them from the road-building prohibition because they had become “roaded.” AR Doc. 1362 (DEIS Vol. 1), at 2-13. After public comment revealed confusion regarding the division between “roaded roadless areas”
The Forest Service was similarly not required to prepare a supplemental EIS when it revised the maps to include an additional 4.2 million acres in the IRAs that would be subject to the Rule. The Forest Service indicated in the proposed rule that “[p]rior to finalizing this pro- • posed rule, map. adjustments may be made for forests and grasslands currently undergoing assessments or land and resource management plan revisions,” thereby increasing or decreasing the total acreage of IRAs affected.
With respect to the Tongass alternative, there is nothing in NEPA that requires a supplemental EIS when an agency switches the' alternative it identifies as the preferred alternative. Indeed, the Council on Environmental Quality has specifically instructed that, “[i]f [the chosen alternative] is qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed in the draft, a supplemental draft will not be needed.” Id. Here, the USDA provided a range of alternatives for the Tongass in both the DEIS and the FEIS, and after engaging in the NEPA process and evaluating the public comments and impacts of the alternatives, it decided to switch its preferred alternative. See AR Doc; 1362 (DEIS Vol. 1), at 2-10 to 2-13; AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 2-10 to 2-123. Importantly, the USDA disclosed in the DEIS the alternative of not exempting the Tongass, and it received public comment on this alternative. The USDA therefore was not required to prepare a supplemental EIS when it changed the preferred alternative, for the Tongass.
2. Alaska’s Challenge Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Although Alaska concedes that it may not bring a claim under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-12, it argues that the USDA’s disregard for the RFA concerns of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) during the rulemaking process demonstrates that the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious. PL’s Mem. 34. The RFA “obliges federal agencies to assess the impact of their regulations on small businesses.” U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC,
The record makes clear that the USDA disclosed the potential impacts the Rule would have on small businesses, as well as the SBA’s views, during the NEPA process. The USDA sought public comment on economic issues during the scoping period, and as a result of comments concerning the economic effects on small entities, the SBA prepared an RFA analysis that was publicly disclosed with the DEIS. See
D. Alaska’s Challenges to the Roadless Rule as Applied to the Alaska Nar tional Forests
In addition to its challenges to the general rulemaking process of the Roadless Rule, Aaska levels specific challenges to the Rule as it applies to Aaska. I will address each of these arguments in turn below.
1. The TTRA
Aaska urges this Court to find that the Roadless Rule violates the TTRA because, “[t]hroughout the rulemaking, USDA was well aware that if the Roadless Rule was applied to the Tongass, there would be no possibility of meeting timber demand.” Pl.’s Mem. 38 (citing AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 3-378 to 3-379. Under the TTRA, the Forest Service must seek to meet market demand for timber on the Tongass National Forest. 16 U.S.C. § 539d(a). Specifically, Congress directed the Forest Service to seék to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass that would “(1) meet[] the annual market demand for timber from the forest; and (2) meet[ ] the market demand from the forest for each planning cycle.” Id. Aaska and plaintiff-intervenors allege that the Road-less Rule makes “so much suitable acreage on the Tongass off limits to timber harvest” such that it is impossible to comply with the statute. Pl.-Interveriors’ Br. Supp. Summ. J. 8,10,14 (“Pl.-Intervenors’ Br.”), EOF No. 73-1; PL’s Mem. 40-41. While plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors are correct that the TTRA imposes additional planning requirements for the Tongass, they fail to accurately state the Forest Service’s obligations under that statute. Indeed, the TTRA does not obligate the Forest Service to actually meet market demand. Instead, the statute requires the Forest Service .to consider and seek to meet market demand, consistent with its multiple-use management obligations. See 16 U.S.C. § 539d(a); see also Se. Conference v. Vilsack,
As set forth in my earlier discussion of the statutory framework above, the Organic Act, the MUSYA, and the NFMA authorize and direct the Forest Service to establish and adjninister the national forests for multiple uses. See 16 U.S.C. § 551; 16 U.S.C. § 528; 16 U.S.C. § 1600. Given the competing obligations the Forest Service must balance, and the significant discretion it has to make these decisions, “the courts are reluctant to overrule its decisions” as long as “the Forest Service considers the other competing, uses.” Wind River Multiple-Use Advocates,
Here, the record reveals that the USDA complied with its duty to seek to meet market demand while balancing the other ■ competing land uses in the Tongass. The USDA performed an extensive analysis specific to the Tongass, which it did not do for any other national forest. See AR Doc. 1362 (DEIS Vol. 1), at 3-226 to 3-239; AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 3-371 to 3-392; AR Doc. 6004, at 696-711;
Alaska hangs its hat on the fact that “when USDA chose to impose a prohibition on road construction and timber harvest in Tongass roadless areas, the agency did so with full knowledge of the TTRA consequences.” Pl/s Mem. 40. But the fact that the USDA was aware of the consequences the Roadless Rule would pose to the timber market does not “render meaningless the congressional directive on Ton-gass timber supply” as Alaska suggests. Id. at 40-41. Indeed, this Court would be more concerned if the USDA were unaware of the consequences of its actions, because the USDA was tasked with making an informed decision. Although Alaska is disappointed with the decision the USDA reached, there can be no doubt that the USDA considered market demand and sought to meet market demand under the TTRA while balancing its obligations to consider multiple uses under the MUSYA, the NFMA, and the Organic Act. Accordingly, I find that the Roadless Rule does not violate the TTRA.
2. ANILCA
Alaska next challenges the Rule on the ground that it constitutes an unlawful withdrawal of public land, in violation of ANILCA. Id. at 43. Section 1326(a) of ANILCA prohibits “executive branch action which withdraws more than five thousand acres, in the aggregate, of public lands within the State of Alaska” without the approval of Congress. 16 U.S.C. § 3213. According to plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors, the USDA’s designation of 9.6 million acres of IRAs on the Tongass and 5.2 million acres of IRAs on the Chugach National Forest—another national forest in Alaska—are unlawful withdrawals under Section 1326 because the USDA did not obtain congressional approval. PL’s Reply 20. Defendants - counter that these land designations are not withdrawals under Section 1326. Defs.’ Mem. 55. Indeed, defendants note that no court has ever applied Section 1326 to invalidate a federal agency’s • multiple-use management decision-making, and they counsel this Court against doing so today. Id. at 55-56. Unfortunately for plaintiffs, defendants are correct.
Our Circuit has defined a withdrawal as an action that “exempts the covered land from the operation of public land laws.” New Mexico v. Watkins,
3. NEPA
In addition to- its general challenges to the rulemaking under NEPA, Alaska and plaintiff-intervenors raise distinct challenges to the. NEPA process as the Rule applies to Alaska. I -will assess each of these claims in turn below. , ■
a. The Purpose and Need Statement
Plaintiff-intervenors contend that there have been three “national” and “whole picture” reviews of the Tongass (the first through ANILCA in 1980, the second through the TTRA in 1990, and the third through the Tongass Land Management ROD in 1999), and thus there was no need for another Forest Service review of Alaska’s national forests in conjunction with the Roadless Rule rulemaking process. Pl.-Intervenors’ Br. 24. They insist that, had the USDA disclosed these comprehensive reviews of land management on the Tongass, it would have made clear that there was no permissible purpose or need to apply the Roadless Rule to Alaska’s national forests. Id. Defendants counter that “neither the Tongass’s unique statutory status nor its recent Forest Plan amendment demonstrate that the purpose and need for the Roadless Rule is not applicable to the Tongass.” Defs.’ Reply 20. On the record before me, I must agree with defendants.
While both parties acknowledge the unique status of the Tongass, the administrative record makes clear that IRAs provide the same ecological and- social values on the Tongass as they do throughout the rest of the country. AR Doc. 1362 (DEIS Yol. 1), at 3-371 to 3-373. And the FEIS projected that, in the absence of the Road-less Rule, 61 miles of roads would be constructed on the Tongass by 2040. AR Doc. 4609 (FEIS Vol. 1), at 3-253. Indeed, the USDA’s analysis concluded that, by applying the Rule to the Tongass, it would “greatly reduce[ j much of the incremental loss of habitat.and species abundance.” AR Doc. 4240. Put simply, it is clear that the USDA considered the unique circumstances of the Tongass, and the USDA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by finding that there was, in fact, a legitimate purpose and need to' apply the rule to the Tongass.
b. The Decision to Focus Mitigation Efforts on Timber
As I noted in my discussion of Alaska’s challenge pursuant to the TTRA, the USDA opted to help mitigate the Roadless Rule’s impact, on the Tongass by allowing timber harvesting projects already planned in IRAs on .the Tongass to be grandfathered in and proceed as planned.
c. Whether the USDA Considered the Social and Economic Impacts of the Rule as Applied to the Tongass
Finally, plaintiff and plaintiff-interve-nors assert that the USDA violated NEPA by failing to consider the social and economic impacts of the Rule on various resources and industries. In particular, plaintiffs take issue with the USDA’s failure to consider: (1) the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan; (2) Executive Order 12866 and the Rule’s impacts on renewable energy resources; (3) the Southeastern Alaska Intertie, which provided funds for constructing transmission lines in Southeastern Alaska; (4) the impact on geothermal resources and leasable minerals; and (5) the impact on mining. See Pl.-Intervenors’ Br. 33-45. Upon review of the record, however, I find that the USDA adequately considered each of these concerns in its decision to apply the Roadless Rule to Alaska. See AR Doc. 5567, at 2 (finding that future major road transportation projects in Alaska would not be impacted by the Rule because it allows for the construction of Federal Aid Highway projects in IRAs);
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ and defendant-intervenors’ cross motions for summary judgment are GRANTED and plaintiffs and plamtiff-intervenors’ motions for summary judgment are DENIED. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of defendants and this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
An order consistent with this decision accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Notes
. After the en banc Ninth Circuit vacated the 2003 Tongass exemption to the Roadless Rule, see Organized Vill. of Kake,
. The Supreme Court has previously held that the protection of the environment falls within NEPA’s zone of interests. Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy,
. Defendants" alternatively argue that they were not required to make these disclosures. Fed, Defs.' Reply Supp, Summ. J. 13-14, ECF No. 83 (“Defs.1 Reply”). Because I conclude that the disclosures Were adequate, I do not address defendants’ argument on this point.
. ' And the Forest Service is afforded similar discretion as to what constitutes market de- • mand for Tongass timber. See Se. Conference,
. Plaintiff-intervenors—-joined by Alaska— also challenge the USDA’s decision not to issue a supplemental EIS to explain the shift among preferred alternatives for the Tongass from the DEIS to the FEIS. See Pl.-Interve-nors’ Br. 25-28. Because I addressed and disposed of this challenge in my earlier discussion of plaintiff’s and plaintiff-intervenors’ general challenges to the rulemaking, above,. I do not revisit these substantially similar arguments here.