Opinion ID: 2924517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Coquille Restoration Act

Text: Cascadia argues the Kokwel Project violates the CRA because the project is inconsistent with the FWS Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl. The CRA requires the Secretary of Interior to manage the Coquille Forest “subject to the standards and guidelines of Federal forest plans on adjacent or nearby Federal lands, now and in the future.” 25 U.S.C. § 715c(d)(5) (emphasis added). Multiple federal forest plans cover the Coquille Forest. One, the Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan (the Coos Bay Plan), “describes management of approximately 329,700 acres of land in Oregon,” including the Coquille Forest. 6 Cascadia’s reliance on Klamath-Siskiyou is misplaced. In KlamathSiskiyou, we held an EA was inadequate when “it only consider[ed] the effects of the very project at issue,” and offered only “generalized conclusory statements” regarding cumulative impacts. 387 F.3d at 996. Here, as discussed above, the EA incorporated the Alder/Rasler Project into the baseline against which the cumulative impact of the Kokwel Project was measured, and set forth the baseline and post-harvest data on which its conclusions were based. 7 Because the EA explained it aggregated the Alder/Rasler Project into the No Action Alternative, we reject Cascadia’s argument this was a “post hoc rationalization” by the BIA. 18 The Coos Bay Plan lists as an “[o]bjective[]” to “[p]rotect, manage, and conserve federal listed . . . species and their habitats to achieve their recovery in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, approved recovery plans, and Bureau special status species policies.” Cascadia argues the “objective” should be construed as a “standard and guideline” under the CRA, such that compliance with FWS recovery plans is mandatory in the Coquille Forest.8 We reject that argument. First, the Coos Bay Plan expressly establishes an “objective” of compliance with recovery plans, not a “standard” or “guideline.” The Coos Bay Plan was adopted in 1995, a year before Congress amended the CRA to require compliance with applicable forest plan “standards and guidelines.” Had Congress intended the CRA to require compliance with the “objectives” of the Coos Bay Plan, it could have done so expressly. See Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 229 (1993) (“Had Congress intended the . . . construction petitioner urges, it could have so indicated. It did not, and we decline to introduce that additional requirement on our own.”). 8 It is undisputed that, generally, FWS recovery plans are not mandatory. The Endangered Species Act does not mandate compliance with recovery plans for endangered species. See Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice, 85 F.3d 535, 547-48 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding “recovery plans are for guidance purposes only”). 19 Second, another federal forest plan covering the Coquille Forest, the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), expressly establishes “Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.”9 The NFP governs over 24 million acres of federal land in the Northwest, including the Coquille Forest. The NFP was adopted in 1994 largely in response to concern over the survival of the northern spotted owl. The NFP defines “standards and guidelines” as “[t]he rules and limits governing actions, and the principles specifying the environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and maintained.” Congress is presumed to have been aware of the NFP when it adopted the CRA. See Dir., OWCP v. Perini N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297, 319-20 (1983). That Congress required compliance with the “standards and guidelines” of applicable federal forest plans two years after the largest such plan specifically listed “standards and guidelines” suggests Congress did not intend to use the term in a “generic” way, as Cascadia contends. On the contrary, the more plausible inference is that Congress intended “standards and guidelines” to refer specifically to identified “standards and guidelines” in applicable federal forest plans. 9 It is undisputed the NFP’s standards and guidelines do not require compliance with the Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. 20 Third, we reject Cascadia’s argument that the Coos Bay Plan’s “objectives” should be construed as “standards and guidelines” because the Coos Bay Plan uses similar language to describe its objectives as the NFP uses to define “standards and guidelines.” The Coos Bay Plan’s definition of “objectives” is substantially broader than the NFP’s definition of “standards and guidelines.” As noted, the NFP defines “standards and guidelines” as “[t]he rules and limits governing actions, and the principles specifying the environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and maintained.” The Coos Bay Plan defines “objectives” as “[e]xpressions of what are the desired end results of management efforts.” The NFP’s “standards and guidelines” establish concrete requirements, such as “when an area is cut, 12 to 18 green trees per acre will be retained,” and “[t]here must be 25 to 30 percent of each block in late-successional forest at any point in time.” In contrast, the Coos Bay Plan’s “objectives” establish general, high-level goals, such as “[m]anage for the conservation of state listed species and their habitats to assist the state in achieving management objectives,” and “[s]tudy, maintain or restore community structure, species composition, and ecological processes of special status plant and animal habitat.” Because we hold the CRA does not require compliance with the Coos Bay Plan’s objective of compliance with recovery plans, 21 we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Kokwel Project did not violate the CRA. AFFIRMED. 22 Counsel Nicholas S. Cady (argued), Cascadia Wildlands, Eugene Oregon; Sean T. Malone, Eugene, Oregon; Daniel R. Kruse, Eugene, Oregon, for plaintiffsappellants. Sam Hirsch, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice; Stuart Gillespie, Brian C. Toth and Ellen J. Durkee (argued), Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Mary Anne Kenworthy, Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Portland, Oregon, for defendant-appellee. Edmund C. Goodman (argued), Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP, Portland, Oregon; Brett V. Kenney, North Bend, Oregon, for intervenor-appellee. 23