Opinion ID: 3049493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the flpma claims

Text: [1] The Federal Land Policy & Management Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1785 (2006), establishes requirements for land use 8938 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS planning on public land. FLPMA requires that the BLM, under the Secretary 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. U.S. 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). Once a land use plan is developed, “[a]ll future resource management authorizations and actions . . . shall conform to the approved plan.” 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a). The land use plan governing the Timbered Rock Project is the Medford District Resource Management Plan (“Medford RMP”), as amended significantly by the Northwest Forest Plan (“NFP” or “Plan”).6 The BLM interpreted the NFP as permitting the Timbered Rock Project. For the following reasons, however, we disagree. A. The BLM’s Interpretation of the Northwest Forest Plan is Inconsistent with the Plan’s Mandate to Prioritize the Maintenance and Preservation of LateSuccessional Ecosystems. Because the NFP embodies the substantive management directives with which the BLM must comply under FLPMA, our review must start with, and remain anchored in, an understanding of the NFP. A careful reading shows that while the NFP as a whole seeks to strike a balance between environmental protection and resource extraction, its management 6 The official title of the Plan is the “Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.” Except where otherwise noted, we refer to the mandates of the Plan and the Medford RMP collectively. OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS 8939 directives for specified reserve areas give priority to environmental concerns. The BLM’s interpretation of the Plan is plainly inconsistent with these directives. Consider the NFP’s history. The Plan is a comprehensive response to a long and bitter legal battle over the scope of logging in old-growth forests, home to the endangered northern spotted owl. See Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291, 1300-01 (W.D. Wa. 1994), aff’d, Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Indeed, “[i]t should be borne in mind that the NFP is not an ordinary government land-management strategy; instead, the history and care in its creation bespeak the massive effort that led to its birth.” Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2004). To ensure that national forest timber sales would comply with legal conservation requirements, the NFP divided the approximately 24.5 million acres of federal land within the northern spotted owl’s range into several hierarchical allocations designated by the type of land use in each allocation. See id.; Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (“NFP S&G”)7 at A-1-A-7, B-1. This hierarchy is the fundamental means by which the NFP achieves its primary goal of protecting and enhancing habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest-related species. See Seattle Audubon Soc’y, 871 F. Supp. at 1304-05; NFP S&G at A-1. Six of the allocations are “reserve areas in which logging and other grounddisturbing activities are generally prohibited.” Seattle Audubon Soc’y, 871 F. Supp. at 1304-05; see also NFP S&G at A- 7 The Plan’s Standards and Guidelines are officially entitled “Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and OldGrowth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl; Attachment A to the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.” 8940 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS 4-A-5 (summarizing what activities are permitted within each classification). The Plan designates the remaining “unreserved areas as ‘matrix,’ in which timber harvest may go forward subject to environmental requirements.” Seattle Audubon Soc’y, 871 F. Supp. at 1305. [2] As explained in Section I, supra, the Timbered Rock Project would permit logging in the Elk Creek Watershed (“Elk Creek”). Elk Creek is designated as a Late-Successional Reserve (“LSR”)—a protected area—under the NFP. LSRs lie at the heart of the NFP’s ecosystem-based conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl and other endangered species. “The objective of Late-Successional Reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and oldgrowth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl.” NFP S&G at C-9. The NFP plainly states that LSRs “are to be managed to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems.” NFP S&G at C-11; see also Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (“NFP ROD”)8 at 8 (“Late-successional reserves are to be managed to protect and enhance old-growth forest conditions.”). [3] Pursuant to these goals, the NFP makes programmed “stand management” activities, such as logging, impermissible in LSRs. See NFP ROD at 8 (“No programmed timber harvest is allowed inside the reserves.”). The NFP recognizes a narrow exception, however, following a stand-disturbing event, such as a massive fire. In these specific circumstances, the Plan contains “Guidelines for Salvage”9 that prescribe the 8 The official title of the decision is “Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.” 9 Salvage logging “is defined as the removal of trees from an area following a stand-replacing event such as those caused by wind, fires, insect infestations, volcanic eruptions, or diseases.” NFP S&G at C-13. OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS 8941 extent to which limited logging within the LSRs is permitted. NFP S&G at C-13-C-16. We must determine whether the Timbered Rock Project’s salvage plan is consistent with these guidelines. [4] Of crucial importance, however, is that the NFP does not in any way relax its LSR management goals for salvage operations. Instead, the LSR salvage guidelines reiterate that “[b]ecause Late-Successional Reserves have been established to provide high quality habitat for species associated with late-successional forest conditions, management following a stand-replacing event should be designed to accelerate or not impede the development of those conditions.” Id. at C-14; see also NFP ROD at 8 (“Salvage guidelines are intended to prevent negative effects on late-successional habitat.”). Moreover, the guidelines state that “[w]hile priority should be given to salvage in areas where it will have a positive effect on late-successional forest habitat, salvage operations should not diminish habitat suitability now or in the future.” Id. at C- 13. Thus, while it permits salvage logging in limited circumstances, the NFP clearly prioritizes the preservation of LSR ecosystems over commercial benefits. [5] The BLM’s interpretation of the LSR salvage guidelines is inconsistent with the NFP’s clear direction. The BLM construes the guidelines as balancing environmental concerns and economic factors equally. To be sure, the Forest Service may consider economic interests in choosing how it will conduct LSR salvage operations; that it may do so is not only a matter of common sense, but it is also something explicitly contemplated by the Plan. See NFP S&G at C-13-C-14 (“[M]anagement planning for Late-Successional Reserves must acknowledge the considerable value of retaining dead and dying trees in the forest as well as the benefits from salvage activities.”). However, the NFP does not permit a salvage project in an LSR for the purpose of recovering the economic value of timber without at least explaining—in the administrative record—how such action is compatible with 8942 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS the NFP’s direction to protect and enhance late-successional ecosystems. Not only would doing so run afoul of the NFP’s clear priority of protecting LSR ecosystems, but it would contradict the Plan’s directive: In all cases, planning for salvage should focus on long-range objectives, which are based on desired future condition of the forest. Because Late- Successional Reserves have been established to provide high quality habitat for species associated with late-successional forest conditions, management following a stand-replacing event should be designed to accelerate or not impede the development of those conditions. Id. at C-14. [6] In sum, “[s]alvage activities must be intended to prevent negative effects on late-successional habitat,” NFP ROD at 63, and the BLM’s interpretation is inconsistent with this directive. Therefore, it is not entitled to deference, Native Ecosystems, 418 F.3d at 960, and we must independently evaluate the Project to determine whether its specific elements comply with the NFP. B. The Timbered Rock Project Violates the NFP. ONRC challenges four components of the Timbered Rock Project, two of which warrant attention here: snag retention and research logging.10 Because the BLM relied on an erroneous interpretation of the NFP’s managing directives for LSRs when developing the Project, it is not surprising that both of these components are inconsistent with the Plan and, consequently, violate FLPMA. 10 We do not decide ONRC’s claims regarding riparian reserves and non-suitable woodlands because we find the Project unlawful under the NFP on other grounds. OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS 8943
[7] As we explained in Section I, supra, the Timbered Rock Project proposes substantial salvage logging in the acreage affected by the fire in an effort to recover economic value from the timber therein. The salvage would remove from the Elk Creek LSR a significant number of large, standing dead or dying trees, known as “snags.”11 This is significant because snags play an integral role in the ecology of old-growth forests. Indeed, the NFP expressly states: Tree mortality is an important and natural process within a forest ecosystem. Diseased and damaged trees and logs are key structural components of latesuccessional and old-growth forests. Salvage of dead trees affects the development of future stands and habitat quality for a number of organisms. Snag removal may result in long-term influences on forest stands because large snags are not produced in natural stands until trees become large and begin to die from natural mortality. Snags are used extensively by cavity-nesting birds and mammals such as wood- peckers, nuthatches, chickadees, squirrels, red tree voles, and American marten. Removal of snags fol- lowing disturbance can reduce the carrying capacity for these species for many years. NFP S&G at B-8; see also id. at B-9 (“[T]rees injured by disturbance may develop cavities, deformed crowns, and limbs which are habitat components for a variety of wildlife species.”). [8] Given the importance of snags in late-successional eco11 Specifically, the Project would only leave up to six snags per acre greater than twenty inches in diameter at breast height (“dbh”) in the research units, and between eight to twelve snags per acre greater than fourteen dbh in the non-research units. 8944 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS systems, it is not surprising the NFP restricts removal of snags in LSRs. In fact, the NFP’s salvage guideline no. 3 expressly limits the removal of such snags: Snags provide a variety of habitat benefits for a variety of wildlife species associated with late- successional forests. Accordingly, following standreplacing disturbance, management should focus on retaining snags that are likely to persist until latesuccessional conditions have developed and the new stand is again producing large snags. Late- successional conditions are not associated with stands less than 80 years old. Id. at C-14 (emphasis added). Despite this clear directive against removing large snags (i.e., those likely to persist until late-successional conditions have developed), the BLM asserts that the Project, which entails the removal of a significant number of large snags in late-successional areas, is nonetheless consistent with the NFP. We disagree, and find the BLM’s reasoning lacking in multiple respects. The BLM asserts that removing a significant number of large snags is consistent with the NFP because leaving some large snags—between eight and twelve per acre in the nonresearch units—would provide sufficient habitat for species that rely upon large snags for survival (i.e., a “some-isenough” standard). The BLM supports this conclusion with data produced by the DecAID Wood Advisor. DecAID is a newly-developed model designed to “help managers evaluate effects[ ] of forest conditions and existing or proposed management activities on organisms that use snags and down wood.” Timbered Rock FEIS at D-16. However, “DecAID does not specifically address effects of fire,” id. at D-17, and it “is not intended to predict occurrence of wildlife species at the scale of individual forest stands or specific locations,” id. at D-19. OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS 8945 ONRC argues that the BLM’s use of DecAID is arbitrary and capricious,12 yet even if we assume, arguendo, that using DecAID is permissible, the BLM’s argument that the Project, in employing the model’s recommended snag-retention levels, complies with the NFP still fails for two principal reasons. First, the BLM can point to no part of the NFP to support its argument that using the some-is-enough standard satisfies the Plan. In light of the Plan’s clear directive against removing snags that will remain until the late-successional forest regenerates, this is not surprising. Indeed, the salvage guidelines expressly state that snags likely to persist “until latesuccessional conditions have developed and the new stand is again producing large snags” should not be removed. NFP S&G at C-14.13 Moreover, the importance of developing and retaining snags is emphasized in other parts of the NFP. For example, when discussing the role of silviculture in preserving LSRs, the Plan states that the “development of old-growth forest characteristics including snags” is a “principal objective.” NFP S&G at B-5. The Plan similarly states that “[d]esired late-successional and old-growth characteristics that will be created as younger stands change through successional devel12 The district court agreed with ONRC, finding the use of DecAID arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, a violation of NEPA. Because we find the Project’s proposal for retaining only “some” large snags a violation of the NFP, we need not decide whether the use of the model was itself unlawful. 13 Our dissenting colleague seems to suggest that the burden is on us to show that retaining “some snags is never enough.” Dissenting Opin. at 8958. However, by mandating that land management agencies must “focus on retaining” large snags, the Plan clearly places a burden on the BLM to (at least) explain how retaining only a handful of large snags per acre is sufficient to sustain late-successional habitat. The dissent’s colorful assertions notwithstanding, we do not “divine an ‘express limitation’ ” on removing large snags. Id. We merely endeavor to ensure that the BLM complies with the requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan and that its actions do not substitute economic interests for the paramount goal of preserving late-successional ecosystems. 8946 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS opment include . . . moderate-to-high accumulations of large logs and snags.” Id. Again, the NFP’s emphasis on retaining snags in LSRs is not surprising given the Plan’s clear prioritization of preserving LSR ecosystems, see Section III.A, supra, and the key role snags play in that process. Second, the amount of large snag retention the BLM claims to be “enough” to satisfy the NFP is only achieved by averaging salvaged and non-salvaged areas together across all the acres included in the logging. The Timbered Rock FEIS states: The snags would be concentrated in portions of the units that receive no harvest. Approximately 1,004 acres would be included as harvest units, with 679 acres receiving harvest of all fire-killed trees and the remaining 325 acres retaining all trees, accounting for the 8-12 snags per acre. Timbered Rock FEIS at 3-112. Thus, the BLM’s representation that between eight and twelve large snags per acre will still be standing after the logging occurs is grossly misleading, as over two-thirds of the affected acreage will be completely stripped of all salvageable trees. The BLM’s attempt to dilute the effects of its proposed activities by averaging the snag retention over such a wide area is inconsistent with the NFP and improper under our precedent. See Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 265 F.3d 1028, 1035-37 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that an agency cannot try to “minimize” the environmental impact of an activity by simply adopting a scale of analysis so broad that it marginalizes the site-level impact of the activity on ecosystem health). In fact, if using such an approach was permitted, the Project could clear-cut all 1,004 acres and still claim to be retaining eight to twelve snags per acre by merely expanding the Project to “include” OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS 8947 more land.14 Clearly, this would be unreasonable, as any adverse environmental effect could be “diluted to insignificance.”15 Id. at 1036. Furthermore, even if the DecAID recommendations for snag density happen to approximate the density actually required to sustain late-successional forests, the BLM offers no evidence that a wide-scale averaging approach is compatible with these recommendations. The BLM notes it relied on two studies that recommended leaving snags in clumps rather than scattered across the landscape. The BLM does not explain, however, how it achieves the desired distribution of clumps by leaving roughly thirty large snags per acre in less than one-third of the land covered by the Project while clearcutting the remaining lion’s share. The BLM cites a specific passage in the NFP to support its argument that salvaging large snags at the level proposed in the Project is consistent with the Plan. The passage states: Salvage is not required to be beneficial, but is designed to permit the recovery of timber volume in those instances where catastrophic events clearly kill more trees (resulting in more snags and down logs in the short and long term) than are needed to maintain late-successional conditions. For example, if a major blowdown event leaves dead trees 15 feet deep over the landscape, a determination could be made that only a portion of those logs are needed to meet the 14 Although the dissent attempts to mitigate the illustrative import of this example by characterizing it as a “straw man,” Dissenting Opin. at 8958, the fact remains that averaging snag removal in this fashion is grossly misleading. 15 Justice Brandeis creatively captured the illogic of this approach: “I abhor averages. . . . A man may have six meals one day and none the next, making an average of three meals per day, but that is not a good way to live.” THE WORDS OF JUSTICE BRANDEIS 32 (Solomon Goldman ed., 1953). 8948 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS objectives of the reserve. The rest . . . might be available for salvage. NFP ROD at 66. Thus, under certain limited circumstances, salvage can occur in LSRs; indeed, we noted this in Section III.A, supra. However, the BLM does not claim or offer evidence to demonstrate that the Timbered Rock Fire “clearly kill[ed] more trees than are needed to maintain latesuccessional conditions,” or that only a portion of dead trees “are needed to meet the objectives of the reserve.” Instead, the BLM relies on its some-is-enough argument without making the threshold findings required by the NFP. The BLM also cites the NFP’s statement that “some commercial wood volume removal” is permitted in LSRs. See NFP S&G at C-13. But again, the NFP clearly states that salvaging should be minimal, that environmental concerns ought to take priority over potential commercial benefits, and that large snags should be retained so as to ensure the development and preservation of late-successional habitat. Despite these numerous mandates emphasizing that logging snags should not harm LSRs, the BLM neglects to explain how the Timbered Rock Project avoids doing just that. [9] In sum, we require an agency to “present a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made.” Native Ecosystems, 418 F.3d at 960 (internal quotation marks omitted). The BLM’s decision to preserve a baseline number of snags is insufficient in a fundamental way: it neglects to explain why the snag removal it does authorize, which undisputably harms late-successional habitat in the short term, will somehow maintain overall habitat suitability now or in the future, as expressly required by the NFP. See NFP S&G at B-8, C-14. Consequently, the Timbered Rock Project violates FLPMA. OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS 8949
[10] ONRC also challenges the Project’s proposed research logging, which would occur on 282 acres of land affected by the fire within the Elk Creek LSR.16 The NFP establishes narrow guidelines identifying the circumstances in which research is permissible in LSRs, similar to the guidelines regarding salvage logging. Specifically, the Plan states: A variety of wildlife and other research activities may be ongoing and proposed in late-successional habitat. These activities must be assessed to determine if they are consistent with Late-Successional Reserve objectives. Some activities (including those with experimental forests) not otherwise consistent with the objectives may be appropriate, particularly if the activities will test critical assumptions of these standards and guidelines, will produce results important for habitat development, or if the activities represent continuation of long-term research. These activities should only be considered if there are no equivalent opportunities outside Late-Successional Reserves. NFP S&G C-18. Thus, the NFP creates a two-step inquiry for assessing whether research activities are permitted in an LSR. [11] First, the research activity is examined to determine whether it is “consistent with Late-Successional Reserve objectives.” One of the NFP’s stated goals for LSRs is “the development of old-growth forest characteristics including snags.” NFP S&G at B-5. However, the research logging pro16 The study would include twelve research units, each of thirty acres or more, in which three treatment levels would be implemented: no salvage (control group); moderate salvage, resulting in the retention of timber on thirty percent of the unit; and heavy salvage, which would entail logging the entire unit. Timbered Rock ROD at 3. 8950 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS posed in the Project would itself result in the removal of hundreds (if not thousands) of snags, a fundamental component of LSRs. Moreover, the BLM states it is attempting to ensure that two-thirds of the dead trees in all size classes greater than twenty inches dbh would be maintained, but the BLM presents no evidence to support a claim that removing the remaining one-third would in fact assist with the “development of old-growth forest characteristics.” Thus, for the same reasons the Project falls short with regard to snag retention, it is also lacking with regard to its proposed research activities. [12] Under the second step of the inquiry, even if the proposed activities are inconsistent with these objectives, they might still be permitted if they “test critical assumptions . . . , produce results important for habitat development, or . . . represent continuation of long-term research” and there are “no equivalent opportunities outside Late-Successional Reserves.” The NFP mandates that while “[a]n important component of [the Plan] is the facilitation of research activities to gather information and test hypotheses in a range of environmental conditions, . . . every effort should be made to locate non-conforming [research] activities in land allocations where they will have the least adverse effect upon the objectives of the applicable standards and guidelines.” NFP ROD at 15. The BLM has failed to satisfy this requirement. [13] Even if the BLM is correct that the Project would test various assumptions in the NFP,17 it has provided no evidence that equivalent opportunities are unavailable in non-LSR areas. What is more, although the Project’s “research proposals are related to post-fire conditions and must be conducted 17 For example, the BLM argues that the “wildlife-snag research will evaluate snag levels that may be more appropriate to the drier portions of the NFP area,” and “reforestation research will address method of reforestation that may be more appropriate in land use allocations.” Timbered Rock FEIS at 1-12. OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. TIMBER PRODUCTS 8951 in a recently burned area,” the BLM concedes “a number of these areas exist within southwest Oregon,” and the BLM makes little more than the conclusory statement that “conducting this research in an LSR is appropriate” in supporting its proposed research projects. Timbered Rock FEIS at 1-12. Thus, the research proposed under the Project fails to comply with the NFP’s guidelines. [14] In sum, the BLM’s interpretation of the Plan is plainly inconsistent with the NFP’s directives regarding LateSuccessional Reserves. As a result, the snag removal and research activities proposed in the Timbered Rock Project are at odds with the Plan and, consequently, violate FLPMA.