Opinion ID: 3039428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the flpma claim

Text: The Federal Land Policy & Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1785 (2006), establishes requirements for land use planning on public land, including the land covered by the NWFP. FLPMA requires that BLM, under the Secre18232 KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS v. BLM tary of the Interior, “develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans” to ensure that land management be conducted “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.” 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7), 1712(a); see also Kern v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that FLPMA “requires the BLM to prepare [resource management plans] for the various districts under its control.”). The process for developing, maintaining, and revising resource management plans is controlled by federal regulations at 43 C.F.R. §§ 1601.0-1610.8 (2006). [6] Under FLPMA, if BLM wishes to change a resource management plan, it can only do so by formally amending the plan pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5. Section 1610.5-5 states, in pertinent part: . . . An amendment shall be initiated by the need to consider monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, a change in circum- stances or a proposed action that may result in a change in the scope of resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions and decisions of the approved plan. An amendment shall be made through an envi- ronmental assessment of the proposed change, or an environmental impact statement, if necessary, public involvement as prescribed in § 1610.2 of this title, interagency coordination and consistency determination as prescribed in § 1610.3 of this title and any other data or analysis that may be appropriate. . . . Id. Thus, BLM must amend a management plan when an action is proposed that changes either “the scope of resource uses” or the “terms, conditions and decisions” of the plan. [7] Not all changes to a plan, however, require formal amendment. BLM may take steps to “maintain” plans under 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-4, which permits maintenance KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS v. BLM 18233 as necessary to reflect minor changes in data. Such maintenance is limited to further refining or documenting a previously approved decision incorporated in the plan. Maintenance shall not result in expansion in the scope of resource uses or restrictions, or change the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan. Maintenance is not considered a plan amendment and shall not require the formal public involvement and interagency coordination process described under §§ 1610.2 and 1610.3 of this title or the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Maintenance shall be documented in plans and supporting records. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-4. BLM concedes it did not take formal steps to amend the 2001 ROD. Instead, BLM asserts the ASR Decisions maintain the 2001 ROD in accordance with § 1610.5-4, and that the requirements of § 1610.5-5 are inapposite. Accordingly, BLM argues it was not required to formally amend the resource management plans, nor was it required to comply with the environmental assessment, environmental impact statement, public disclosure, and interagency coordination requirements in § 1610.5-5. [8] We disagree. It is clear the 2001 and 2003 ASR Decisions amended the resource management plans. They resulted from the need to consider new information regarding the red tree vole and they changed the terms and conditions of the plans without complying with § 1610.5-5. Therefore, the ASR Decisions violated FLPMA. [9] As explained in Part II, supra, the 2001 ASR Decision downgraded the red tree vole’s Survey and Manage designation from Category C to Category D, and the 2003 Decision removed the red tree vole from Survey and Manage protection entirely. The ASR Decisions cannot reasonably be defined as 18234 KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS v. BLM “plan maintenance” under FLPMA because the decisions— even if made pursuant to the ASR process—do nothing short of “amend” the resource management plans. First, §§ 1610.5-4 (defining plan maintenance actions) and 1610.5-5 (defining plan amendments) are not equal in scope: the former is more narrow. Section 1610.5-4 limits plan maintenance to actions that “reflect minor changes in data” and are “limited to further refining or documenting a previously approved decision incorporated in the plan.” In contrast, § 1610.5-5 requires plan amendments whenever there is a “need to consider monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, [or] a change in circumstances.” BLM states the ASR Decisions were based on data 80% of which was new. It is plainly unreasonable to assert that this qualifies as a minor change in data under § 1610.5-4. Moreover, by comparing § 1610.5-4 with § 1610.5-5, it is evident the latter captures a wider spectrum of agency action. These provisions were created as complements, and taken together they ensure that whenever resource management plans are changed in any meaningful way, the changes must be made via amendment (i.e., supported by scientific environmental analysis and public disclosure). This is consistent with FLPMA’s requirement that BLM ensure the “views of the general public” and “third-party participation” are adequately incorporated into the land planning process. See 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(5); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.2. This interpretation is also supported by provisions of FLPMA that require BLM to manage public lands in accordance with resource management plans once they have been established. See 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a); see also Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 69 (2004) (observing that the statutory directive in 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) “prevent[s] BLM from taking actions inconsistent with the provisions of a land use plan.”). Second, § 1610.5-5 clearly requires a formal plan amendment anytime a proposed action changes a “term, condition, KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS v. BLM 18235 or decision” of a resource management plan. BLM argues that the Survey and Manage designations created by the 2001 ROD were not intended as a rigid set of requirements that would remain the same over the life of the resource management plans, and that the ASR Decisions did not change the terms of the 2001 ROD because shifting species between Survey and Manage designations was expected. BLM is partly correct: the 2001 ROD contemplated that moving a species from one survey strategy to another or dropping Survey and Manage protection for any species whose status is determined to be more secure than originally projected could occur under the plan. However, merely because the 2001 ROD contemplated this type of change, it does not necessarily follow that all contemplated changes fall under the narrow definition of plan maintenance in § 1610.5-4. If that were the law, BLM could circumvent the mandates of § 1610.5-5 (i.e., requiring environmental assessments and impact statements, public disclosure, etc.) by merely designing a management plan that “contemplates” a wide swath of future changes. Not only would such a strategy flip the regulatory scheme created by §§ 1610.5-4 and 1610.5-5 on its head by defining plan maintenance broadly and plan amendments narrowly, it would render nugatory the provisions of FLPMA requiring BLM to act in accordance with established resource management plans. 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3. It is readily apparent that the ASR Decisions altered the terms and conditions of the Roseburg and Medford districts’ resource management plans. Prior to the decisions, BLM was required to manage high-priority red tree vole sites, conduct pre-disturbance surveys to discover additional sites, and create a ten-acre buffer zone around each known site for every proposed timber sale. In contrast, after the decisions, BLM is not required to take steps to discover vole sites within a proposed harvest area. When it announced the Cottonsnake timber sale, BLM even recognized that vole surveys were no 18236 KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS v. BLM longer required prior to logging, and if any undiscovered vole nests occurred within the units to be logged, they would likely be destroyed. If BLM can modify the protection afforded a species under a resource management plan as dramatically as it has here— without complying with § 1610.5-5—BLM could ultimately remove all the Survey and Manage designations without ever conducting another EA or EIS, and without providing public disclosure. Such steps would undoubtedly run contrary to both the goals and language of FLPMA. KS Wild urges us to also hold that the ASR Decisions violate § 1610.5-5 because changing the vole’s Survey and Manage status resulted in a “change in the scope of resource uses.” Because the ASR Decisions potentially increased the amount of timber to be harvested (measured as the Probable Sale Quantity (“PSQ”)), KS Wild argues that the ASR Decisions should be deemed “amendments” on this basis alone. We disagree. The PSQ is only a “rough approximation” of annual average timber sale volume. Although eliminating Survey and Manage protections for the vole will likely affect the PSQ, the 2000 FSEIS noted that “Alternatives 1 and 2 of this SEIS are estimated to achieve 94 and 96 percent of the declared PSQ level, respectively, well within the ‘rough approximation’ and ‘uncertainty’ parameters” set forth in the NWFP. See FSEIS for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, Volume I - Chpts. 1-4 at 88 (“2000 FSEIS Standards and Guidelines”). The 2001 ROD ultimately adopted Alternative 1, and Alternative 2, as explained infra, closely resembles the 2001 and 2003 ASR Decisions. While the ASR Decisions may change the PSQ, the “scope of the resource uses” is still within the “rough approximation” set forth in the resource management plans and contemplated in the 2000 FSEIS Standards and Guidelines. KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS v. BLM 18237 [10] Therefore, while we conclude the ASR Decisions violated § 1610.5-5, we do not base that finding on the “change in resource uses” provision. Changing the terms and conditions of the resource management plans are alone sufficient to require compliance with § 1610.5-5. Third, the crux of BLM’s argument is that the ASR process, and all decisions made pursuant to it, satisfy the environmental assessment, environmental impact statement, public involvement, and interagency cooperation requirements of FLPMA because the ASR process is supported by the 2000 FSEIS. However, even if adaptive management modifications were contemplated by the 2000 FSEIS, there must be limits to how dramatic “modifications” can be before they are deemed “amendments.” Otherwise, as explained above, resource management plans could be designed in such an open-ended manner as to render § 1610.5-5 ineffectual. More importantly, although BLM emphasizes the 2000 FSEIS expected Survey and Manage designations to be adjusted over the short-term for some species under the ASR process, there is no indication the red tree vole was one of those species. In fact, the opposite is true. The 2000 FSEIS clearly stated that red tree voles require extensive additional research and protection before any conclusions regarding the impact of logging could be reached. Before ultimately deciding to designate the vole as a Category C species, the 2000 FSEIS conducted an extensive taxonomical analysis of voles. The experts considered four possible strategies, one of which, “Alternative 2,” would have initially placed voles in Category D then phased them out of Survey and Manage protection after five years. The 2000 FSEIS resoundedly rejected this strategy, stating that: Alternative 2 results in substantial effects and uncertainty on the future status of the red tree vole. . . . The requirement to only manage known sites . . . and to not conduct pre-disturbance surveys for future 18238 KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS v. BLM habitat-disturbing activities would increase the risk of losing sites needed to maintain connectivity throughout all three red tree vole distribution zones. This, in turn, would increase the risk of isolation of red tree vole populations and likely reduce gene flow. . . . [Thus,] Alternative 2 would provide inadequate habitat to maintain stable populations of the species in all three red tree vole distribution zones due to the lack of connectivity . . . . 2000 FSEIS Standards and Guidelines at 392. Notably, BLM’s 2001 and 2003 ASR Decisions change the vole’s Survey and Manage designation in the same way it would have changed under Alternative 2, which was flatly rejected in the 2000 FSEIS. It is unreasonable for BLM to argue that the 2000 FSEIS supports the ASR Decisions, and that the decisions do not amount to changes in the “terms” or “decisions” of the resource management plans, given the unequivocal rejection of Alternative 2. Finally, BLM emphasizes that adaptive management is at the heart of the NWFP, and flexibility is a necessary element of this strategy. BLM contends that pursuant to this adaptive management approach, new information, which was discovered after the 2000 FSEIS, prompted the ASR Decisions. Not only does this weaken BLM’s argument that the 2000 FSEIS supports the ASR Decisions, but the 2000 FSEIS clearly stated that even if changes to the vole’s Survey and Manage designation are made, the data necessary to make such changes would not be available for several years: Alternative 2 creates uncertainty in how the species would be managed following the five-year interval. Given our limited knowledge of red tree vole popu- lation dynamics and ecology, the five-year time- frame is not likely to be sufficient for completion of the studies necessary to make an informed recom- KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS v. BLM 18239 mendation to the species[’] future disposition. . . . Information on the genetic variation between these small isolated populations, combined with studies of red tree vole population trend[s], longevity, demographics, and population densities require collection of data over several generations of red tree voles (more than five years). 2000 FSEIS Standards and Guidelines at 392-93. Given the 2000 FSEIS’ unequivocal rejection of Alternative 2, BLM cannot sustain the argument that the FSEIS supported the ASR Decisions, especially when the 2001 ASR Decision came within a matter of months of the 2001 ROD, and both ASR Decisions occurred well before data sufficient to warrant an amendment in the vole’s status was available. [11] BLM’s ASR Decisions, even if ostensibly plan maintenance actions made pursuant to the ASR process, violate FLPMA because the dramatic change in policy regarding the vole’s Survey and Manage designation cannot be reasonably defined as anything other than a change in a “term or condition” in the resource management plans.