Opinion ID: 742736
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Artificial Openlands (Count III)

Text: 101 The plaintiffs argue that the ALRMP's provisions for creating and maintaining openland areas do not constitute a rational policy. More specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the Forest Service improperly justified its decision on the regulatory mandate requiring the Forest Service to ensure the viability of native species, including those species that prefer openland habitat. Although the plaintiffs agree that the viable population requirements apply to openland species, they contend that openland areas are abundant on the private lands surrounding the Shawnee. Therefore, they argue that the Forest Service should have taken these lands into account when projecting the populations of openland species. 102 The plaintiffs' argument presents a novel issue without an obvious resolution. As set forth above, section 219.19 of the Forest Service regulations require that [f]ish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (1992) (emphasis added). The regulations define the term planning area as [t]he area of the National Forest System covered by a regional guide or forest plan. 36 C.F.R. § 219.3 (1992). The most logical interpretation of this definition is that the planning area refers to lands within the formal boundaries of a designated national forest. 103 The plaintiffs point out, however, that the Forest Service has defined the planning area for the Shawnee to include the private lands immediately adjacent to the forest. (FSEIS at 4-79 (The cumulative effects analysis, then, covers all land within the proclamation boundary of the Shawnee NF, and that land immediately adjacent which could potentially be affected by Shawnee NF management, that is, the planning area.).) When discussing the viability projections for certain openland species, the Forest Service based its population projections only upon Forest Service land acreage and did not consider the private lands in the calculations. (See FSEIS App. at H-30 to H-31.) But the FSEIS acknowledged that adjacent private lands contain openland habitat that might have increased the population levels for openland species. (FSEIS App. at H-31.) The Forest Service thus concluded that while forest lands alone were not projected to maintain viable populations of two openland species, the prairie warbler and the great crested flycatcher, careful monitoring of the two species would help determine the actual population trends to ensure that viable populations are maintained. (FSEIS App. at H-31.) 104 In short, the Forest Service itself appears willing to consider, at least to a limited extent, the availability of suitable habitat on surrounding private lands. The Court need not determine, however, whether the Forest Service should have evaluated these lands to the extent that the plaintiffs would desire, i.e., to determine whether openland species would remain viable if no artificial openings were created within the forest itself, because the Regional Forester's decision was not based solely on the issue of maintaining viability of openland species. Rather, as pointed out in an extended discussion above, the regional forester's decision was also based upon a desire to maintain sufficient numbers of openland species on public lands for recreational purposes, such as hunting and wildlife watching, and to ensure appropriate habitat for the continuation of a program to reintroduce ruffed grouse in the Plank Hill area. Moreover, the Forest Service considered the openland habitat on surrounding lands to be inferior to that which could be maintained on the forest itself. 105 Thus, the Forest Service would be justified in seeking to maintain viable populations of openland species within the actual forest boundaries even if the forest regulations could be interpreted as allowing the Forest Service to consider whether surrounding private lands would provide habitat to ensure viability of openland species. The Court, therefore, rejects the plaintiffs' objections to artificial openlands, as set forth in Count III.