Opinion ID: 217548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 2004 Framework: Species Viability

Text: My conclusion that the Basin Project is consistent with the forest plan leads me to disagree with Judge Reinhardt's conclusion that Sierra Forest's challenge to the 2004 Framework as applied in the Basin Project is not ripe. Sierra Forest's framework-level NFMA claim is premised on application of the 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R § 219.19 (1982), the restrictive regulation I described above, to the 2004 Framework. Before advancing to the substance of Sierra Forest's claim, I must first assess the extent to which that decades-old provision continues to govern LRMPs. The transitional provisions of the 2000 Rule (the 2000 Transition Rule) govern the revision and amendment of LRMPs by the Forest Service. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.35 (2009); see also National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning, 74 Fed.Reg. 67059-01, 67060 (Dec. 18, 2009) (noting that the 2000 Transition Rule remains in place pursuant to an injunction). Under the 2000 Transition Rule, a responsible official may elect to continue or to initiate new plan amendments or revisions under the 1982 [Rule]. 36 C.F.R. § 219.35(b); see also Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 965-68 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining development of the 2000 Rule and the role of its transition provisions); 74 Fed.Reg. at 67060 (explaining that all substantive NFMA regulations concerning LRMPs since the 1982 Rule have been superseded or enjoined). The Forest Service promulgated the 2004 Framework using the 1982 Rule and does not challenge its applicability in this suit. Moreover, in a separate suit we specifically held that the 2004 Framework is governed by the 1982 Rule under the 2000 Transition Rule. See Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1174 (9th Cir.2006), abrogated on other grounds by Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 375. Therefore, I proceed on the assumption the 1982 Rule applies here. The procedural impediments and regulatory amendments described in Parts A and B, supra, whittle away Sierra Forest's NFMA claims to one narrow issue: whether the 2004 Framework violates NFMA and causes harm through implementation in the Basin Project. Specifically, Sierra Forest contends that the 2004 Framework fails to ensure compliance with its own adaptive management goals, violating the 1982 Rule's requirements concerning species viability. At the project level, Sierra Forest argues that the Basin Project exemplifies a broader failure to conduct MIS monitoring necessary for a rigorous adaptive management compliance mechanism. Because the Chief of the Forest Service concluded that managing habitat to maintain viable populations of the California spotted owl, the Pacific fisher, and the American marten can only be assured by using subsequent site-specific evaluations and the adaptive management and monitoring strategy, the Forest Service has conceded that the 2004 Framework's NFMA compliance is contingent on a treatment, feedback, and adjustment system to carefully manage risks to habitats. As a preliminary matter, NFMA requires sufficient disclosure for a court to be able to ascertain from the record that the Forest Service is in compliance with the statute and regulations. Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 418 F.3d 953, 963 (9th Cir.2005). In response to the Chief's prioritization of adaptive management, the Regional Forester published a 10-page supplemental adaptive management and monitoring strategy setting a review and feedback process and establishing research questions concerning old forest species. This plan provides adequate assurances that adaptive management will occur, fulfilling NFMA's disclosure requirement. Sierra Forest urges that adaptive monitoring is ineffective without fixed guidelines concerning when or how the 2004 Framework will be altered if monitoring reveals that the plan is impacting old forest wildlife. However, the fixed regime that Sierra Forest demands would eliminate use of new information learned through management, undermining the basic premise of adaptive management. The formal outline of adaptive management goes one step further than mere notice that a monitoring plan will be developed and implemented through an iterative process, which a district court has found insufficient to satisfy NFMA. Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 05-189, 2006 WL 292010, at  (D.Idaho Feb. 7, 2006). Sierra Forest also urges that quantified objectives and required mitigation measures are required, based on Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne, 506 F.Supp.2d 322 (E.D.Cal. 2007). However, Kempthorne applied the ESA, which contains the more stringent requirement that mitigation measures are certain to occur. Id. at 350, 356; see also Animal Welfare Inst. v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, 675 F.Supp.2d 540, 580 (D.Md.2009) (finding that entirely discretionary adaptive management is insufficient to eliminate impermissible risk under the ESA). No such certainty is required under NFMA unless and until species viability is threatened. According to the Chief Forester, monitoring and adaptive management provide an assurance that management under the 2004 Framework will not reach a point where species viability is threatened at the framework level, although if adaptive management were ineffective, long-term viability would not be assured. The remaining question is whether the Basin Project demonstrates that monitoring necessary to adaptive management will not be carried out in the absence of more enforceable guidelines. Sierra Forest contends that this case is identical to Earth Island Institute v. U.S. Forest Service, 442 F.3d at 1173-76. In Earth Island Institute, we addressed two forest restoration projects undertaken pursuant to the El Dorado National Forest LRMP, which is in turn subject to the 2004 Framework. See id. at 1153-54. Earth Island alleged that the projects violated NFMA by failing to monitor two native bird species that the 2004 Framework expressly subjected to population monitoring. See id. at 1173, 1175. We held that reliance on stale monitoring data without current or accurate field studies or a factual basis for determinations of critical habitat levels constituted arbitrary and capricious action under NFMA. Id. at 1175-76. The crucial distinction between Earth Island Institute and the instant case is that there is no indication that  at least at the project level  habitat monitoring is insufficient to provide needed information for adaptive monitoring. Although the 2004 Framework, through adoption of 2001 Framework MIS rules, originally allow[ed] for a very limited degree of habitat monitoring in lieu of actual population monitoring, id. at 1173, the 2007 Amendment shifted project-level monitoring to a habitat model. The 2007 Amendment also reduced the list of MIS to those species subject to [p]roven monitoring protocols and whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of land management activities. Although the 2007 Amendment continues to list the California spotted owl and American marten as MIS, it does not require monitoring of fisher or northern goshawk populations. A high level of uncertainty concerning the effects of management or existing population trends for these two species reasonably eliminates them from use as indicators of forest health, but the elimination of those species as MIS generates concerns regarding the ability of the 2004 Framework adaptive monitoring protocols to protect their viability, as required by NFMA. Cf. Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell, 599 F.3d 926, 933 (9th Cir.2010) (requiring particular scrutiny for reliability and accuracy when the Forest Service engages in proxy-based monitoring). On the other hand, the 2004 Framework SEIS indicates that the fisher and northern goshawk share habitat preferences with the California spotted owl and marten, requiring large trees, canopy cover, snags and coarse, woody debris. Most importantly, the 2004 Framework continues to require population monitoring at the framework level, which is the level at which the 1982 Rule continues to apply. Because adaptive management is an area involving a high level of technical expertise, a court must defer to the agency's determination of the amount of monitoring necessary to support that policy, so long as some firm commitment is made. Therefore, the adaptive monitoring protocols contained in the 2004 Framework are sufficient to protect species viability, as required by NFMA and the 1982 Rule. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent on the resolution of the NFMA claim and would affirm the district court.