Opinion ID: 3054099
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Connective Habitat Corridors

Text: Finally, LOWD alleges that the Project fails to maintain connective habitat corridors in the planning area, as required by the NFMA5 and the applicable Ochoco LRMP. LOWD points to the fact that many of the connective corridors in the Project planning area already fail to meet the Ochoco LRMP, and that further timber harvest in those corridors will only exacerbate the problem. The Forest Service responds that LOWD incorrectly focuses the inquiry on each corridor as a whole rather than on the particular stands within a connective corridor. The Ochoco LRMP, as amended by the Eastside Screens interim standards, directs the Forest Service, in pertinent part, to: (a) Maintain or enhance the current level of con- nectivity between LOS stands and between all Forest Plan designated “old growth/MR” habitats by maintaining stands between them that serve the purpose of connection as described below: (1) Network pattern — LOS stands and MR/ Old Growth habitats need to be connected with each 5 See 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i) (requiring consistency between site-specific projects and the applicable LRMP). LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS v. USFS 16225 other inside the watershed as well as to like stands in adjacent watersheds in a contiguous network pattern by at least 2 different directions. (2) Connectivity Corridor Stand Description — Stands in which medium diameter or larger trees are common, and canopy closures are within the top one-third of site potential. Stand widths should be at least 400 ft. wide at their narrowest point. The only exception to stand width is when it is impossible to meet 400 ft with current vegetative structure, AND these “narrower stands” are the only connections available; (use them as last resorts). Standard 6(d)(3)(a)(1)-(2). The Ochoco LRMP explains that “[h]arvesting within connectivity corridors is permitted if all the criteria in [subparagraph] (2) can be met, and if some amount of understory (if any occurs) is left in patches or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover.” Standard 6(d)(3)(a)(4). The Ochoco LRMP also states that, “[t]o reduce fragmentation of LOS stands, or at least not increase it from current levels, stands that do not currently meet LOS that are located within, or surrounded by, blocks of LOS stands should not be considered for even-aged regeneration, or group selection at this time.” Standard 6(d)(3)(a)(4)(b). Meanwhile, the FSEIS states that, “[o]f the 3,966 acres identified in connectivity corridors, 23% currently are in the upper one-third of site potential,” meaning that 77% of the planning does not comply with the connectivity requirements. The Forest Service—interpreting the language of Standard 6(d)(3)(a)(2) to mean that “harvesting within a particular stand is permissible whe[n] the stand has a canopy closure within the top one-third of site potential and if the stand is at least 400 feet at its narrowest point”—asserts that all of the individual stands proposed for harvest in the Project, regardless of which corridor they are in, meet the necessary criteria. LOWD, by contrast, interprets Standard 6(d)(3)(a)(2) to mean 16226 LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS v. USFS that all stands within the corridor as a whole must be in the top one-third of site potential for harvesting in that corridor. Accordingly, LOWD argues, “[b]ecause none of the corridors meet the requirement, none of the timber stands—which comprise the corridors—meet the connectivity corridor requirements.” We find the Forest Service’s interpretation persuasive for the following reasons. First, as noted above, an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference, and our review is limited to ensuring that the agency’s interpretation is not “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Auer, 519 U.S. at 461-62 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Standard 6(d)(3)(a)(2) refers to “Stand” or “Stands” instead of every stand or all stands, and because Standard 6(d)(3)(a)(4) refers to “[h]arvesting within connectivity corridors”—as opposed to “harvesting a connectivity corridor” or simply “harvesting connectivity corridors” —the Forest Service’s interpretation does not appear plainly erroneous or inconsistent. Rather, LOWD’s interpretation appears plainly erroneous, as it would prohibit harvesting in any watershed governed by the connectivity requirements, an impractical result almost certainly unintended by the Forest Service. Second, the FSEIS relies on data collection and findings made by the Deep Creek EIS Interdisciplinary Team, which identified and mapped the connection acreage, assessed the harvesting proposed within each corridor, and certified that the silvicultural prescriptions will ensure that the stands remain within the top one-third of their site potential. [11] Finally, the Forest Service points out—and LOWD does not dispute—that no change in the connectivitycompliance percentages will result from implementation of the Project, thereby fulfilling the connectivity requirements’ directive that the agency “maintain” connective corridors. See Standard 6(d)(3)(a). As a result, the district court properly LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS v. USFS 16227 concluded that the Project does not violate the connectivecorridor requirements of NFMA and the Ochoco LRMP.