Opinion ID: 175356
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Claims under NFMA

Text: NFMA imposes procedural and substantive requirements on the Service's management of national forests. Procedurally, NFMA requires the Service to develop and maintain forest resource management plans. See Ecology Ctr. v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652, 656 (9th Cir.2009) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a)). After a forest plan is adopted, all subsequent agency actions must comply with that plan. Id. The Gallatin National Forest Plan (Gallatin Plan or Plan) is the relevant forest plan in this case. Substantively, NFMA requires that the forest plans adopted by the Service provide certain protections, such as protection of forest habitat and diversity of wildlife. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3).
Plaintiffs argue that the Project violates NFMA's prohibition on timber harvesting that irreversibly damages soil. Under NFMA, the Service may harvest timber from national forests only where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(E)(i). Because the Gallatin Plan does not itself provide specific standards to implement this requirement, the Service applies soil standards developed for the Northern Region as a whole. The Northern Region Soil Quality Standard prohibits logging that results in more than 15% detrimental soil disturbance in affected areas. In areas where more than 15% detrimental soil conditions already exist from prior activities, the standard allows harvesting only if it does not result in a net increase in soil disturbance. Due to previous logging, 408 acres of the Project already exceed 15% detrimental soil disturbance. On these acres, and on an additional 28 acres, the Project would employ ground-based harvesting, resulting in an additional 3.5% soil disturbance on average. This represents the equivalent of an additional 15 acres of disturbance. The Service estimates that approximately 15 acres of land would be treated by its woody debris restoration method, thus resulting in no net increase in soil disturbance in the areas. Plaintiffs respond that it is merely speculative that the Service will follow through on the soil-disturbance mitigation measures described in the EA. The Service has not yet set aside funding for all of its proposed mitigation activities, and the Service has failed to follow through on mitigation in past projects. However, the woody debris restoration method is one of the least expensive proposed mitigation measures, costing only $12,300 over a five-year period. Most of the unfunded mitigation methods in the Project are road treatments that are unrelated to soil disturbance. Lack of funding therefore does not appear to be a serious problem for the soil restoration plans. We therefore conclude that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the Service to conclude that its mitigation measures will ensure that the Project does not violate the Northern Region soil standards.
The Gallatin Plan requires that designated management indicator species (MIS) be monitored to determine population changes. The designated MIS for the habitat impacted by the Project are the northern goshawk and pine marten. Plaintiffs argue that the Service violated the Gallatin Plan, and therefore NFMA, by failing to monitor northern goshawk and pine marten. They also argue that the Service violated NFMA by not accurately determining the effect of the Project on those species. [2] We reject both arguments. The EA identifies a number of efforts to monitor the populations of both the northern goshawk and the pine marten in the region. Montana conducts annual studies of pine marten population trends that look at snow tracks of the birds. The studies have detected an average of 75 pine martens per 100 transect miles in southwest Montana over a ten-year period. A recent Service study on species viability in the Gallatin Forest concluded that habitat to support the pine marten is abundant in the Project area. The Service has also conducted habitat surveys and population monitoring for northern goshawks in the Gallatin Forest. The Service relied in its EA on several independent surveys concluding that goshawk viability is not a concern. One 2005 study involved a systematic random survey that showed that the goshawk is relatively common and well-distributed in the Northern Region. Another study from 2005 concluded that short-term viability of the goshawk in the Northern Region is not an issue. In evaluating the effect of the Project on MIS populations, the Service appropriately relied on management of the species' habitat as a proxy for management of the species themselves. In Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 996, we approved of the Forest Service's use of the amount of suitable habitat for a particular species as a proxy for the viability of that species. We concluded that such a method was appropriate even where the Service is taking actions that will disturb some suitable habitat. Id. at 999. We review the Service's application of the proxy approach under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Id. at 997-98. The Service must both describe the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the species in question and explain its methodology for measuring this habitat. Id. at 998. We conclude that the Service's reliance on habitat as proxy in this case was not arbitrary and capricious. In the EA, the Service adequately demonstrated a knowledge of what quality and quantity of habitat is necessary to support the species, and its method for measuring the existing amount of habitat [was] reasonably reliable and accurate. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 998-99 (quotation omitted). The EA describes in detail the habitat necessary for the viability of both the pine marten and the goshawk. It adequately describes existing habitat in the Gallatin Forest and the Project area, as well as the Project's limited effect on the habitat's ability to sustain MIS. Further, the EA provides for substantial mitigation measures to ensure that a nest is not disturbed in the unlikely event that one is located during implementation of the Project. The Service reasonably concluded that sufficient habitat currently exists for both species and that the Project would have [n]o direct effects on the pine marten, and little, if any, direct affect [sic] on goshawks. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the Service's methodology for measuring existing habitat was flawed because the Service failed to adequately field-verify old growth stands. The Service conducted extensive examinations of stands in the field in the 1980s, as well as additional subsequent field verification. The Service is not required to use on-the-ground verification so long as alternative methodologies are reliable. To always require a particular type of proof that a project would maintain a species' population in a specific area would inhibit the Forest Service from conducting projects in the National Forests. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 997. The Service used multiple databases containing old growth stand information and multiple methods to verify its old growth information in the Project area. This analysis led the Service to predict a range of between 21.7% and 29.3% old growth in Gallatin Forest, with a 90% confidence interval, which places the old growth area well above the 10% minimum required by the Gallatin Plan. We therefore conclude that the Service's conclusion that the Project would comply with the Gallatin Plan's monitoring requirements is not arbitrary and capricious.
The Gallatin Plan requires that [h]abitat that is essential for [Yellowstone cutthroat trout] be managed to maintain the[ ] species. As the Service recognized in the EA, streams in the Project area are extremely important to conservation and recovery of the species. Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the area are at risk from non-native fish and from habitat degradation due to roads and timber harvest. In particular, the Service noted that any increase in sediment yield from this proposal would perpetuate degraded spawning habitat conditions. Plaintiffs argue that the Project would violate the Gallatin Plan by increasing sediment levels in the streams due to ground disturbance from harvesting and increased road use. We disagree. The Project, along with its associated road improvements, would reduce rather than increase long-term sediment levels. Plaintiffs argue that some of the improvements in sediment levels will result from pre-Project road improvements that have already been completed, and therefore are no longer considered part of the Project. But even putting those improvements aside, the Project would reduce long-term levels through other road improvements. Plaintiffs argue that these improvements are not yet fully funded, and therefore not guaranteed. But Plaintiffs fail to show any likelihood of increased long-term sediment levels from the Project even if the road improvements are not completed. We therefore find that the Service was justified in concluding that the Project does not present a threat to cutthroat trout through increases in long-term sediment levels. The Service has also adequately taken short-term sediment increases into account. We have held agency decisions to be unlawful where they focused only on long-term effects, ignoring short-term effects that jeopardize species. See Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2005) (the agency failed to provide analysis showing that the coho would receive sufficient protection against jeopardy under the proposed plan); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 935 (9th Cir.2008) (proposal at issue would have significant negative impacts on each affected species' critical habitat and the agency analysis failed to demonstrate that these impacts would not affect the fishes' survival and recovery, in light of their short life-cycles and current extremely poor habitat conditions). But the Project incorporates a number of mitigation measures intended to limit short-term increase in sediment levels. All ground-based harvest activities using tractors or skidders would be done over snow or frozen ground, limiting soil disturbance that might eventually reach the streams; the Project would limit harvest activities within 100 feet of any stream; and the Project would leave untouched those trees identified as most likely to provide stability to soil around streams. The EA explains that any small short-term increases in sediment levels that nonetheless occur despite the Service's mitigation efforts would not threaten the viability of the Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Current sediment levels vary by location. In the most severely affected areas, sediment levels are predicted to be 26% above natural levels over the short term. According to Service studies, such levels permit a stream to provide for a population of cutthroat trout 90% the size of its inherent capability. We therefore conclude that the Service was not arbitrary and capricious in concluding that the Project would not threaten Yellowstone cutthroat trout through either long-term or short-term increases in sediment levels.
Prior to 2006, the Gallatin Plan limited road density in the forest in order to protect elk habitat. The Plan ensured at least 70% elk effective cover, limiting road density to 0.75 miles/square mile. It did so based on the recommendations of scientists who stated that [r]oads are undoubtedly the most significant consideration on elk summer range. The road density restriction was intended to meet the NFMA requirement that the Service provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B); see also 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (2000) (Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations.). In 2006, the Gallatin Plan was amended to remove the road density restriction. The Forest Supervisor concluded that the restriction was not scientifically supportable or logical and that it caused unjustifiable problems. The Supervisor explained that the standard compelled more timber harvests in some areas than was desired, led to disagreements over its application, was ineffective in protecting elk, and was already violated in many areas. The Plan amendment placed all road development decisions within the Travel Management Plan and the Service's discretion. The current road density in the Project area is 2.1 miles of road/square mile, which well exceeds the previous 0.75 limitation. Plaintiffs argue that the 2006 amendment to the Gallatin Plan violated NFMA. They claim that the Project therefore violates NFMA because it would be implemented subject to an unlawful plan. The Service responds that the 2006 amendment did not violate NFMA because it was justified by new scientific data and by the circumstances prevailing in the Gallatin National Forest. We need not decide whether the 2006 amendment violated NFMA because the Project would reduce, not increase, longterm road density in the area. We consider challenges to the lawfulness of a forest plan only to the extent that the contested portion of the plan plays a causal role with respect to the [Project]. Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 734, 118 S.Ct. 1665, 140 L.Ed.2d 921 (1998); see also Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir.2002). The Project would use only existing roads, some of which would be permanently closed and rehabilitated at the end of the Project. Because road density in the Project area would not be increased as a result of the 2006 amendment, we have no occasion to evaluate its lawfulness.
Plaintiffs' single meritorious argument on appeal concerns the Gallatin Plan's elk-cover requirement. The Gallatin Forest Plan requires that the Service [m]aintain at least two thirds of the hiding cover associated with key habitat components over time. Subsequent timber sale activity will be allowed after regeneration provides hiding cover. Elk are designated in the Plan as an indicator species of the Gallatin National Forest, for which two-thirds hiding cover must be maintained. Plaintiffs argue that the Project violates the Plan because it would reduce elk cover to under two thirds. We agree. In preparing the EA, the Service did not measure elk cover according to the definition provided in the Gallatin Plan. The Gallatin Plan defines elk cover as [v]egetation, primarily trees, capable of hiding 90 percent of an elk seen from a distance of 200 feet or less. In the EA, the Service relied on two separate measurements of elk cover. One calculation of cover was based on the current prevalence of various tree classifications in the Project area. The Service measured 70-90% elk cover under this definition but does not explain what percent cover this translates to under the Plan definition. The other calculation suggested 62% elk cover under a canopy cover definition. According to a table in the Helena National Forest Plan, 60% elk cover as measured under the canopy cover definition translates to 42% elk cover as measured under the Gallatin Plan definition. The Project therefore violates the Gallatin Plan's two-thirds elk-cover requirement. The Service's failure to measure elk cover as defined by the Gallatin Plan renders us unable to determine from the record that the agency is complying with the forest plan standard. Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953, 962 (9th Cir.2005). The Service argues that the Gallatin Forest Plan does not require that elk cover exceed 67% at all times, but only that any Service action retain two thirds of then-existing elk cover. The Service claims, in other words, that the Plan prohibits only timber sales that would reduce now-existing elk cover by more than 33%. The Service bases its argument on the wording of the Plan, which requires the Service to maintain two thirds of the hiding cover as opposed to merely two thirds hiding cover. Because the Project would reduce now-existing elk cover by less than 33% under any measure, the Service claims that the Project complies with the Gallatin Plan. Agencies are entitled to deference to their interpretation of their own regulations, including Forest Plans. Native Ecosystems Council, 418 F.3d at 960. [W]e have effectively treated forest plan directives as equivalent to federal regulations adopted under the APA, deferring to the Forest Service's interpretation of plan directives that are susceptible to more than one meaning unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the directive. Siskiyou Reg'l Educ. Project v. U.S. Forest Serv., 565 F.3d 545, 554-55 & n. 9 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997)). But the Service's interpretation of the elk-cover requirement in the Plan is plainly erroneous. The Plan requires that the two-thirds cover be maintained over time. It further provides that [s]ubsequent timber sale activity will be allowed after regeneration provides hiding cover. The Service's interpretation would allow iterative Service actions to whittle elk cover down to nearly nothing so long as each individual action removed only 33% of then-existing cover. Alternatively, the Service argues that even if the Project violates the Gallatin Plan's elk-cover requirement, the error is harmless given the large elk populations in the Project area. But [i]t is well-settled that the Forest Service's failure to comply with the provisions of a Forest Plan is a violation of NFMA. Native Ecosystems Council, 418 F.3d at 961. If the Forest Service thinks any provision... of the Plan is no longer relevant, the agency should propose amendments to the ... Plan altering its standards, in a process complying with NEPA and NFMA. Id. Although current elk populations may meet or exceed Montana objectives, those objectives cannot replace federal management objectives. The Service's own research scientists have written, in guidelines for elk management, Reducing habitat effectiveness should never be considered as a means of controlling elk populations. A population over target is not a Forest Service habitat problem. We therefore conclude that the Service has violated the Gallatin Plan, and NFMA, by not ensuring that the Project complies with the current Gallatin Plan elk-cover requirement. We remand to the Service to remedy this error.