Opinion ID: 175356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Elk Cover

Text: 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.