Opinion ID: 749420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amendments to LRMPs Under the NFMA

Text: 12 The statute at issue in this case, 16 U.S.C. § 1604, titled National Forest System land and resource management plans, requires the Secretary to develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a). The NFMA provides for a two-stage approach to forest planning. See Inland Empire Public Lands v. United States Forest Service, 88 F.3d 754, 757 (9th Cir.1996). A team first develops a proposed LRMP, together with a draft and final [Environmental Impact Statement]. Id. (quoting Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1511 (9th Cir.1992))(internal quotations omitted). Once approved, direct implementation of the LRMP occurs at a second stage, when individual site-specific projects are proposed and assessed. Id. (quoting Mumma, 956 F.2d at 1512)(internal quotations omitted). These site-specific projects must be consistent with the stage-one, forest-wide plan. Id. (citing Mumma, 956 F.2d at 1512; Sierra Club v. Espy, 38 F.3d 792, 795 (5th Cir.1994); and 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i)). 13 Forest Guardians contend that the Forest Service's decision not to apply the 1996 Plan Amendments retroactively to projects that had already been authorized violates the NFMA because the plain language of the consistency provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i), mandates that pre-amendment approved projects be updated so as to comply with the new standards and guidelines. Section 1604(i) reads: 14 Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans. Those resource plans and permits, contracts, and other such instruments currently in existence shall be revised as soon as practicable to be made consistent with such plans. When land management plans are revised, resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments, when necessary, shall be revised as soon as practicable. Any revision in present or future permits, contracts, and other instruments made pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing rights. 15 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). 16 The Forest Service, however, argues that, in drafting the NFMA, Congress intended to grant the Secretary discretion in amending existing forest plans, including the discretion to determine how those amendments will be implemented. This argument is premised upon section 1604(f)(4), which requires that LRMP's developed in accordance with section 1604 shall: 17 be amended in any manner whatsoever after final adoption after public notice, and, if such amendment would result in a significant change in such plan, in accordance with the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of this section and public involvement comparable to that required by subsection (d) of this section 18 16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(4). 19 We agree with the Forest Service. The plain language of section 1604(f)(4) permits the Secretary to amend existing LRMPs in any manner whatsoever. See id. Since Congress has spoken on this issue, we must give force to its expressed intent. See Conlan, 76 F.3d at 274. In our view, this grant of authority includes the ability to implement the 1996 Plan Amendments prospectively only. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(4); Conlan, 76 F.3d at 274. 20 Significantly, our reading comports with the established legal principle that absent explicit legislative intent to the contrary, congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result. Chenault v. United States Postal Service, 37 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 272, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1500, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994))(internal quotations omitted). The language of § 1604(i) does not explicitly mandate the retroactive application of all amendments. In fact, it expressly precludes the retroactive application of amendments where such retroactive application would impair existing rights. § 1604(i) states in pertinent part: 21 Any revision in present or future permits, contracts, and other instruments made pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing rights. 22 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). 23 Legislative history indicates that this provision was needed to make it clear that the government is not taking any private rights or other interest as part of [its] action in compliance with this section. S.Rep. No. 94-893, at 47-48 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6662, 6706. 24 In this case, the retroactive application of the 1996 Plan Amendments would impair the valid existing rights of parties who held authorizations, permits, or contracts for the use of Forest resources in the Southwestern regional forests prior to the Amendments' adoption. The point is underscored by the losses that Precision Pine has already suffered as the result of this court's temporary suspension of its timber sales contracts with the Forest Service because they do not comply with the new Amendments. 25 Because § 1604(i) does not prohibit prospective-only implementation of plan amendments, the Forest Service activities at issue here are not inconsistent with the newly amended forest plans. Through prospective-only application of the 1996 Plan Amendments, prior existing agreements are indirectly grandfathered into the new forest plans, leaving the new standards applicable only to future agreements. Thus, applying the old standards to prior existing agreements is consistent with the new plans, and does not violate § 1604(i). 26 Accordingly, we cannot say that the Forest Service illegally restricted the application of the 1996 Amendments to new authorizations, contracts, and permits.