## Facts

- Congress enacted the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act (HCNRA Act) to preserve ecological and recreational values in the Hells Canyon area on the Oregon–Idaho border.
- The U.S. Forest Service proposed a timber sale in the Duck Creek area within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, on federal land in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
- Environmental plaintiffs challenged the sale as inconsistent with the HCNRA Act, relying principally on § 8(f) (claimed limits on where timber harvesting may occur) and § 10 (agency rulemaking duties).
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the sale and a mandatory injunction compelling the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations governing timber harvesting under § 10.
- The district court dismissed the § 8(f) claim as barred by laches and failure to exhaust administrative remedies and ruled for the federal defendants on the § 10 claim, concluding regulations were not required before allowing timber harvesting.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the § 8(f) challenge to timber harvesting was barred by laches and/or failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
2. Whether HCNRA Act § 10, and specifically § 10(e), imposes a nondiscretionary duty on the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate timber-harvesting regulations for federal lands in the recreation area.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 8(f) claim on procedural grounds, including laches and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The court reversed the judgment on the § 10(e) claim, holding that § 10(e) mandates promulgation of regulations governing timber harvesting (including selective cutting) on federally owned lands within the recreation area.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the holding that the Secretary has a mandatory duty to issue the required regulations.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute uses both discretionary language (e.g., authorizing action “as [the official] deems necessary”) and mandatory language (e.g., the official “shall” take specified action), the mandatory text creates a binding duty for the specified subject matter.
- A statutory command that an agency “shall promulgate regulations” for a particular program can impose a nondiscretionary duty enforceable through equitable relief.
- Environmental and administrative challenges may be barred by laches and failure to exhaust when plaintiffs unreasonably delay raising objections or bypass available administrative processes, especially where the challenged practice has been long-standing.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit left the plaintiffs’ § 8(f) theory unaddressed on the merits because it was procedurally barred, but held that the HCNRA Act § 10(e) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue timber-harvest regulations for federal lands in the recreation area, reversing and remanding for relief consistent with that mandatory duty.


Oregon Nat. Res. Council v. Lyng, 882 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1989)