United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Interior Board of Land Appeals N . Quincy Street, Suite 300

Arlington, Virginia 22203

703-235-3750 703-235-8349 (fax)

T A K E E R I C A

June 19, 2014

2013-40

MYRTLE CREEK RURAL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP

White Castle Timber Sale

Decision Affirmed

ORDER

Myrtle Creek Rural Community Partnership (Myrtle)1 has appealed from and petitioned to stay2 a November 2, 2012, decision of the Field Manager, South River (Oregon) Field Office, Roseburg District, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), denying its protest of the August 13, 2012, Decision Record (DR) and Finding of No Significant Impact approving the White Castle Variable Retention Harvest (VRH) Timber Sale on 187 acres in southwestern Oregon. The DR and FONSI were based on the April 3, 2012, Roseburg District Secretarial Demonstration Pilot Project Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOI-BLM-OR-R050-2011-0006-EA).3

"MCRCP represents about 50 affected citizens who live and have livelihoods dependent upon the natural resources of the Myrtle Creek watershed. . . . MCRCP consists of past timber mill workers, loggers as well as ranchers, farmers, business owners, land owners along North and South Myrtle Creek, and citizens living in the city of Myrtle Creek all downstream of the project." Administrative Record (AR) 4 (Protest at unpaginated (unp.) 2). Cindy Haws states she is a professional wildlife biologist with extensive experience regarding the management of forests in and around the sale area and represented the group throughout the scoping process. Id. at unp. 10.

By order dated May 13, 2013, this Board denied Myrtle's petition for stay. BLM has since awarded the White Castle VRH Timber Sale contract to the highest bidder. See BLM Letter dated May 2, 2013. Though the absence of a stay allows timber harvesting and related activities to proceed, the Board was advised that the sale has not been implemented. We therefore dispose of the appeal on its merits.

BLM prepared the EA pursuant to section of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 § 4332(2)(C) (2006), and its implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.1-1518.4. The environmental impacts of the White

(continued...)

2013-40

Our review of the record4 leads us to conclude there is no basis for overturning the decision below. We affirm.

Background

The lands included in the White Castle VRH timber sale are Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands that were reconveyed to the United States by the early 20th century.5 Congress enacted legislation in 1937 declaring that those revested lands

shall be managed . . . for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principle of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities.

Act of Aug. 28, 1937, 50 Stat. 874, 43 § 1181a (2006) Act). Under the Act, the Secretary has broad discretion to determine how to manage forest lands

on a sustained-yield basis that provides for permanent timber production over the long term.

Castle VRH and Buck Rising VRH were analyzed in the EA. BLM approved the Buck Rising timber sale by decision dated June 25, 2012. Myrtle's protest challenging that decision was denied and appealed to this Board. The appeal was docketed as IBLA 2012-278, and upon notice that the sale had been completed and the contract was being closed, was dismissed as moot by Order dated Apr. 30, 2014.

BLM compiled the AR in three volumes of numbered exhibits, each of which was individually numbered. For example, AR Ex. 41-3 is Ex. 41 at manually paginated 3. Because some documents have introductory pages and/or tables of contents that are separately paginated (e.g., i , i i , i i i , etc.), the manual pagination does not always coincide with the actual page numbers of each document. For accuracy, we wi l l initially identify both a document's title and AR number, but thereafter cite the AR exhibit and the actual page numbers thereof. After initially citing the tide and AR exhibit number of key documents (EA, DR, FONSI, Protest, and Protest Decision), subsequent citations wi l l be by document name and actual page numbers.

The lands at issue are located in 31, 32 and 33, T. 28 S., R. 2 23, 25, and 26, T. 28 S., R. 3 W.; and sec. 4, T. 29 S., R. 2 W., Willamette Meridian, Douglas County, Oregon.

2

IBLA 2013-40

In 1994, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture jointly approved the "Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl" (1994 The 1994 ROD was incorporated into the "Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl," known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP).7 1994 ROD, Attachment A. The NFP provides for managing timber and other natural resources on approximately 24.5 million acres of Federal lands in California, Oregon, and Washington. Id. at A-4. Recognizing that not all forest lands are suited for timber production, the NFP created seven management categories and objectives for densely-wooded areas.8 Matrix lands are allocated to production of sustained timber yields. Riparian Reserves are designed to "protect the health of the aquatic system and its dependent species," and are subject to greater activity restrictions. Id. at A-4 to A-5. Lands along streams, lakes, wetlands, and unstable and potentially unstable areas are designated and managed as Riparian Reserves to act as a buffer from potential ecological degradation. Id. at A-5.

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is part of the NFP and comprises components and objectives for managing "riparian-dependent and seeks

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of the Interior listed the northern spotted owl (NSO), Strix caurina, as a threatened species in 1990. 55 Fed. Reg. (June 26, 1990). The species is native to coniferous forests in the Pacific Northwest. 7

Most of the documents we refer to in this case are in the record and can also be found online at http://www.reo.gov. g

Those categories are: (1) Congressionally Reserved Areas, (2) Late-Successional Reserves, (3) Adaptive Management Areas, (4) Managed Late-Successional Areas, (5) Administratively Withdrawn Areas, (6) Riparian Reserves, and (7) Matrix (General Forest Management Areas and Connectivity/Diversity Blocks). ROD, Attachment A at A-3.

The ACS has nine The ACS strives to maintain or restore (1) watersheds to ensure protection of the aquatic systems; (2) spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds; (3) the physical integrity of the aquatic system; (4) water quality; (5) the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved; (6) flows; (7) the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands; (8) the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands; and (9) habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. 1994 Rod, Attachment A at

(continued...)

3

IBLA 2013-40

"to maintain the existing condition or implement actions to restore conditions" within designated Reserves on public lands. 1994 ROD at 9; id., Attachment A at

to B-32. The four components of the ACS are riparian reserve determinations, key watershed allocations, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration. The first two components are on-the-ground designated areas that meet certain criteria. Id. at

The third component identifies and evaluates the and ecological processes operating in a watershed and establishes a baseline for maintaining or restoring riparian conditions. Id. at "Management actions that do not maintain the existing condition or lead to improved conditions in the long term would not 'meet' the intent of the [ACS] and thus, should not be implemented." Id. at B-10 (emphasis added). The last component addresses the processes for restoring degraded ecosystems.11 See Roseburg RMP at 19.

BLM completed a watershed analysis for Myrtle Creek in 2002 (AR 43). In general terms, the watershed was found to be in poor to fair condition, depending on location. AR 43 at 14. Improvement recommendations included commercial thinning treatments and efforts to reduce the effects of existing roads on water quality. Id. at 199, Appx. L at 20, 38; see also AR 42 (Geyer, Nancy A., MYRTLE CREEK

WATERSHED ANALYSIS AND WATER QUALITY RESTORATION PLAN , Umpqua Basin Watershed Council, June 2003) at 52-62 (also finding the watershed to be in fair to poor condition).

B-9 to B-32. The 5th field watershed (i.e., the fifth subdivision of a region-sized area that drains to a common point) is the scale of analysis used when determining whether activities retard or prevent attainment of ACS objectives. See AR 43 (Myrtle Creek Watershed Analysis and Water Quality Restoration Plan, Roseburg District (October 2002)) and Appx. L (Water Quality Restoration Plan).

On Mar. 22, 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and issued an ROD to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. It was subsequently set aside in Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 482 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1251 (W.D. Wash. 2007).

In 1995, BLM incorporated the NFP into the governing Roseburg District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (Roseburg RMP). On Dec. 30, 2008, BLM updated the Roseburg RMP by incorporating the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR). See generally 76 Fed. Reg. 63720, 63745 (Oct. 13, 2011). The Federal district court vacated the WOPR and reinstated the original RMP. See Order, Pac. Rivers Council v. Shepard, No. 2012 WL 950032 (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2012). The RMP is available at

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/exrmp/roseburg/toc.html (last viewed June 18, 2014).

4

IBLA 2013-40

Experts considered the question of how BLM could better manage public lands while simultaneously restoring "forest ecosystems to more functional and sustainable conditions in contrast to management programs that focus on singular objectives, such as fuel, fire suppression, wood production, or provision of habitat for NSOs." AR 41 (Franklin, Jerry F., & Johnson, K . Norman, APPLYING RESTORATION PRINCIPLES ON

THE BLM FORESTS I N SOUTHWEST OREGON 2 (Nov. 30, 2010)) at In particular, Franklin and Johnson considered how "ecological forestry"13 could be used to achieve ACS and other objectives. Id. at 3. Under their proposed silviculture, thinning a stand on moist forest Matrix lands by commercial harvest would reduce overall stand densities to a more sustainable level, allow tree diameter to increase, shift stand composition toward greater diversity and more fire- and drought-tolerant species, and create small canopy gaps to encourage development of understory vegetation. The premise of variable retention regeneration harvesting is that retaining large living trees, snags, and logs from a harvested stand wi l l produce a post-harvest ecosystem that w i l l maintain species and structures, provide new forest habitat1 4 for listed, candidate, and sensitive species, reduce stand densities and risks of wildfire and insects, and protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Id. at 7-8.

BLM proposed the Roseburg Pilot Project to test the merits of the Franklin and Johnson forest restoration strategy on Act lands. Of the 76,000 acres comprising the Myrtle Creek 5th field watershed, BLM administers 31,000 acres, of which 26,730 are considered forest lands. AR 18 (EA) at 10. Stands less than

were eliminated as too young (9,000 acres), and stands aged to were considered old-growth and eliminated (13,300 acres). Stands

considered "dry site" were eliminated (4,100 acres). Id. Of the 4,600 acres that

Dr. Franklin is a professor of ecosystem science at the University of Washington, and Dr. Johnson is professor of forestry resources at Oregon State University. They proposed a program in part based on analysis presented in Johnson, K. Norman & Franklin, Jerry F., Restoration of Federal Forests in the Pacific Northwest: Strategies and Management Implications (Aug. 15, 2009), available at http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/evans/files/FranklinJohnson.pdf (last visited on Nov. 4, 2013).

13

"Ecological forestry utilizes principles of natural forest stand development, including the role of natural disturbances in the initiation, development, and maintenance of forest stands and landscapes, and operates on temporal scales consistent wi th recovery of desired structures and processes." AR 41 at 3.

The Roseburg RMP defines early-seral stage as the "period from disturbance to crown closure of conifer stands, usually occurring from 0-15 years. Grass, herbs, or brush are plentiful." Roseburg RMP (glossary). Early-seral forest habitat is conducive to prey animals for the NSO. EA at 63-64.

5

IBLA 2013-40

remained after applying those criteria, another 1,500 acres were eliminated because they presented major impediments to access, are within the home range of known reproducing NSO pairs, consist of stands wi th trees generally less than 10" in mean diameter, or contain less than 20,000 board feet per acre. Id. Finally, another 800 acres were eliminated because they are either too isolated or too close to designated Riparian Reserves, leaving 349 acres suitable for timber harvest. Id. Field and stand examinations verified suitability for harvest. Id.

Using an interdisciplinary team of resource experts, BLM prepared its final EA on April 3, The purpose of the Pilot Project was three-fold:

The first objective is to demonstrate a variable retention harvesting model [that is] designed to create complex, habitat that w i l l function for up to 30 years and: support birds . . . , provide forage for ungulates . . . , provide habitat for cavity-nesting birds, provide forage for a variety of moths and butterflies, and provide forage and habitat for small mammals . . . that may provide greater prey abundance for the [NSO].

The second objective is to design the sale with participation of the for the purpose of applying Recovery Actions from the [NSO]

Recovery Plan.

The third objective is to design and offer timber sales that w i l l provide jobs and contribute lumber for manufacturing.

The need for the proposed action was explained as follows.

In the Myrtle Creek 5th-field watershed the BLM administers approximately 26,730 acres of forested land in the Matrix . . . and Riparian Reserve land allocations. There has been no regeneration harvest in the watershed for over a decade. There are only 393 acres harvested under the standards and guidelines of the [NFP] that would be considered complex early-successional habitat, accounting for slightly more than one percent of the forest land base administered by

The EA was tiered to the October 1994 Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared in connection wi th the promulgation of the Roseburg RMP and, in

turn, the February Final Supplemental EIS prepared in connection wi th the ROD for the NFP. EA at 8, 34; AR 7 (FONSI) at 2; AR 3 (Decision) at 2.

6

IBLA 2013-40

the BLM. No regeneration harvest has occurred in the Little River and Middle South Umpqua River-Dumont Creek watersheds in over a decade. On BLM-administered lands there are no stands in the 10-year age-class in the Little River watershed and only four percent in the Middle South Umpqua River-Dumont Creek 5th-field watershed.

The need for early successional habitat is addressed in the following [ROD/RMP] objectives

Populations of the [NSO] are in decline across the species' range. There is a need to incorporate Recovery Actions into the design and implementation of timber management activities consistent wi th the following [ROD/RMP] objectives . . . .

Through statute and land use planning decisions, there is a need for forest lands administered by the Roseburg District BLM to provide a predictable and sustainable supply of timber that can be efficiently and economically harvested.

Id. at 2-3.

BLM considered a no action alternative under which no timber harvesting would occur (Alternative 1). Only one percent of BLM-administered acres in the Pilot Project area contains 10-year age-class trees. Under the no action alternative, those trees would age, stands would eventually become crowded with dense canopy cover competing wi th smaller trees for sunlight, water, and nutrients. Understory vegetation would be repressed, depriving dependent species of sustainable habitat. EA at 38-40. Dead wood and other fuels would continue to accumulate, increasing the likelihood of damage by wind, ice, insects, and disease. Id. at 10, 38. Existing roads in the proposed project area would not be renovated or improved, so that erosion and drainage deficiencies could restrict the natural meandering of streams and harm the watershed's already-degraded habitat conditions. Id. at

Finally, the no-action alternative would not provide a predictable and sustainable supply of timber. Id. at 40.

The proposed action (Alternative 2), was analyzed as two sub-alternatives that incorporated project design features (PDFs) and best management practices (BMPs). EA at 10-24.

7

IBLA 2013-40

Under Alternative 2, BLM proposed to harvest a total of 349 acres of upland stands in 11 sale units ,1 6 containing a total of approximately 485 acres. Regeneration Harvest (RH) would occur on approximately 206 acres in the 9 Units identified in Table 1 of the DR, with a total of 1.2 miles of new road construction, and 7.6 miles of existing road improvement, renovation, and maintenance. Under Alternatives 2A and 2B, the number of riparian acres subject to Density Management Thinning (DMT) varied from 0 (Alternative 2A) to 21 acres (Alternative 2B).

BLM considered two other alternatives that provided for timber harvesting only by means of commercial thinning in upland areas (with DMT in riparian areas), or only RH in appropriate areas, but since they did not satisfy the purpose of the proposed action, they were rejected. EA at 24-31.

Nine of those units are the subject of this appeal. The Units are as follows: 28-2-32A (Unit 1); 28-2-32A [sic] (Unit 2); 28-2-32B (Unit 3); 28-2-32B [sic] (Unit 4); 28-2-32C (Unit 5); 28-2-32D (Unit 6); (Unit 7); 28-2-25A (Unit 8); and 28-3-23A (Unit 9). AR 6 (DR) at 2, Table 1, Unit Description. The remaining Units and acreage were included in the Buck Rising VRH timber sale, which was the subject of the appeal in IBLA 2012-278.

8

IBLA 2013-40

Alternative 2A considered VRH applied to 206 acres of uplands only. Timber in upland areas would be felled away from Riparian Reserves, and no yarding or equipment would be allowed within such Reserves, though with special authorization, yarding through the Reserves could be permitted. EA at 12. The units would retain a "minimum of 20 percent of the pre-harvest stand basal area" by retaining aggregates one-quarter acre or more in size, wi th the remainder in dispersed retention, i.e., scattered individual trees or groups on less than one-quarter of an acre. Id. Aggregates would be distributed throughout the harvest units, and consist of patches of pre-harvest stands, structurally complex forest, older trees, trees wi th unusual characteristics ("e.g., deformed boles, cavities, etc."), concentrations of large down wood and snags, special habitat, Riparian Reserves, and patches dominated by hardwood trees. Id.

In 28-2-32A (Units 1 and 2), 52 acres would be harvested, and 6 acres would be retention aggregates wi th green tree retention of 11 trees per acre (TPA) with a minimum of 14" diameter at breast height (DBH), on a total of 71 acres in the units. No Riparian Reserves would be treated.

In 28-2-32B (Units 3 and 4), 14 acres would be harvested and 2 acres would be retention aggregates wi th green tree retention of 8 TPA with a minimum DBH of 14", on a total of 45 acres in the units. Under Alternative 2A, 29 acres of Riparian Reserves would be treated.

In 28-2-32C (Unit 5), 7 acres would be harvested and 1.4 to 2 acres would be retention aggregates wi th green tree retention of 7 TPA with a minimum DBH of 20", on a total of 9 acres in the unit. Under Alternative 2B, 29 acres of Riparian Reserves would be treated.

In 28-2-32D (Unit 6), 15 acres would be harvested and 3 acres would be retention aggregates wi th green tree retention of 8 TPA wi th a minimum DBH of 20", on a total of 18 acres in the unit. No Riparian Reserves would be treated.

In (Unit 7), 22 acres would be harvested and 4 acres would be retention aggregates wi th green tree retention of 18 TPA with a minimum DBH of 14", on a total of 26 acres in the unit. No Riparian Reserves would be treated.

In 28-2-25A (Unit 8), 93 acres would be harvested and 31 acres would be retention aggregates wi th green tree retention of 25 TPA wi th a minimum DBH of 20", on a total of 138 acres in the unit. No Riparian Reserves would be treated.

In 28-3-23A (Unit 9), 3 acres would be harvested and 5 acres would be retention aggregates wi th green tree retention of 26 TPA with a minimum DBH of 20", of 45 total acres in the unit. No Riparian Reserves would be treated. DR, Table 1 (AR Ex. 6-2).

Our summary adds the green tree and DBH data from Table 1 in the DR at 2. There are slight discrepancies between the EA's Table 2-1 at 11 and Table 1 in the DR that, overall, do not appear to be of consequence to the quality of the environmental analysis.

9

IBLA 2013-40

Harvest would be subject to numerous seasonal restrictions mandated by BMPs or consultation wi th FWS pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 §§ 1531-1544 (2012), including those designed to protect NSO nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within one-quarter of a mile of known or estimated NSO sites or unsurveyed suitable habitat. EA at 18-19.

Prescribed would be applied in all harvest units in the White Castle sale to reduce fuels and mimic natural disturbance. BLM provided for perimeter control lines. Units would be broadcast burned using hand ignition to better control the fire spread, and selective burns would be employed. Id. at 19-20.

The EA presented and analyzed reforestation and stand maintenance to achieve mixed species of variable density of 150 to 200 TPA at age 10 to 20 years, the minimal goal set forth in the Roseburg RMP. Stand density would be monitored and controlled as necessary to promote an "extended period of early-seral condition." EA at 21 , Table 2-3 (Recommended Species Composition Percentage for Planting).

Alternative 2B also considered VRH on approximately 349 upland acres and treating 21 acres of Riparian Reserve in the manner described under Alternative 2A. 1 8

The Riparian Reserves would be treated by variable density thinning to "accelerate or enhance achievement of [ACS] objectives and increase habitat diversity" for non-fish species. EA at 22. Thinning would be confined to areas beyond streamside no-treatment zones with the objective of achieving a relative density of 25 to 30 TPA based on stand conditions, with an average stand canopy cover of 50 percent. Id. at 23. BLM planned to use canopy gaps and skips to encourage structural and habitat components. Conifers would be retained in numbers corresponding to historic percentages in stand composition, and hardwood trees greater than 10" DBH would be prioritized for retention as well. Id.

Like Alternative 2A, Alternative 2B would retain structures, organisms, and conditions from the pre-harvest forest stand for incorporation in the post-harvest ecosystem, wi th the goal of establishing complex early-seral forest conditions through the regeneration of trees and other vegetation. Retention can include individual structures (dispersed retention) such as live trees (green trees), down logs and snags, and/or untreated areas (aggregated retention areas or aggregates). See EA at 34, 35. By providing for the creation of complex early-seral habitat, the Pilot Project would generally benefit early-seral and other wildlife species. Id. at 83-86, 87-88, 90-91, 92.

Riparian treatment would occur in Unit 28-3-17A (5 acres), Unit 28-3-17B (7 acres), and Unit (9 acres). EA at 22.

10

IBLA 2013-40

The EA next considered how implementing Alternative 2B would affect the current and future condition of resources present or potentially present in the watershed. BLM's scale of analysis included approximately 74 miles of perennial streams and 268 miles of intermittent streams covering about 37,713 acres, of which 12,384 acres are managed by B L M . 1 9 EA at 103, 109. It also included, for purposes of ACS objectives, the entire Myrtle Creek watershed. EA, Appx. E (Consistency of the Proposed Action with Objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy).

BLM fisheries and hydrology specialists surveyed streams adjacent to and downstream from designated harvest units and designated haul routes. See AR 20, 21 (Hydrologisfs and Fisheries Biologist's field notes). The only fish-bearing stream in the project area has a moderate to high gradient wi th a cobble and gravel streambed and very little fine sediment. EA at 105. Felling trees and hauling timber could disperse sediment into surrounding streams, where i t would affect the visibility, foraging ability, and breathing capacity of fish.

The agency did not anticipate that these actions would have any direct or cumulative effects on any fish species inhabiting streams adjacent to or downstream from the proposed VRH units because the harvests would be outside the established riparian area buffer zones. EA at 108-09; see AR 42 at 63-65 (maps illustrating riparian zone classification in the Myrtle Creek Watershed). Moreover, the potential for sediment to reach streams or be transported from headwater streams to downstream fish-bearing reaches would be minimal, because no new road segments would cross fish-bearing streams. EA at 106, 108. Improved drainage systems would direct sediment-laden water away from streams at existing stream crossings. Id. at

Nevertheless, riparian buffers, 160 feet20 from any non-fish-bearing stream in the Myrtle Creek watershed, and twice that length for any fish-bearing stream, would apply to any tree harvest. This prohibition would sufficiently trap and retain any overland transport of sediment before it could reach streams and increase turbidity levels. Id. at 108, The EA identified multiple PDFs that could be implemented to further reduce the potential for sediment reaching streams and being transported to downstream fish-bearing reaches. Id. at 114, 118.

These areas encompass the Buck Fork, Curtin, South Myrtle, Riser, Upper South Myrtle, and Weaver Creeks 7th field drainages of the Myrtle Creek watershed; the Cultus and Middle Cavitt Creeks 7th field drainages of the Little River watershed; and the Middle Fork Creek 7th field drainage of the Middle South Umpqua River-Dumont Creek watershed. EA at 103, 109. 20

This figure was derived from tree height at potential sites in the Myrtle Creek watershed. See Roseburg RMP at 24; AR 42 at 48.

11

IBLA 2013-40

Consistent wi th the watershed restoration component of the ACS, BLM stated that the Pilot Project would involve applying prescribed to small patches of Riparian Reserve areas. Fire, an important tool for maintaining biological diversity, would promote ecological diversity and create snags and increase aquatic productivity by stimulating increased deciduous shrub and plant growth. Id. at 118-19. Water quality would not be affected and there would be no cumulative degradation of water quality in the analysis area. Id. at

Though roads can increase peak flows by delivering water to the streams faster than roadless areas, the EA concluded that new and existing roads within the analysis area were not likely to increase peak stream flow changes because the road network affected less than 12 percent of the watershed area. Id. at 109, 124; see also id. at 112 ("Statistically significant increases in peak flows have only been shown when roads occupy at least 12 percent of the watershed. Roads in the analysis area occupy an estimated 3.43 percent of the land base, and no perceptible increase in peak flows would be expected.") (internal citation omitted). As for the impacts of canopy reduction following harvest and tree removal for new road construction on peak flows, BLM stated that forest canopy openings would not affect peak flows in the rain-dominated South Myrtle Creek 6th field subwatershed, which contains 26,625 acres, until the Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) exceeded 29 percent. The ECA is a metric used to determine the effective total percentage of the watershed that has been, and has been proposed to be, harvested.21 Based on an ECA of 4,376 acres, BLM determined that the post-harvest ECA would be 16.4 percent, well below the 29 percent threshold for peak flow enhancement. Id. at 120.

BLM also analyzed whether, consistent wi th ACS goals, the Pilot Project would help maintain and/or restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales and considered actions that could be implemented so that habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species would be protected. Id., Appx. E at 3-7. BLM concluded that even the timber harvest would maintain the project site and surrounding sub-watershed. Id. at 7-10. Though the watershed's aquatic habitat conditions were poor to fair, BLM concluded the Pilot Project would foster attainment of ACS objective 1 at both the site and watershed scales, would restore water quality, sediment regime, plant species composition and structural diversity, and riparian habitat, pursuant to

The Forest Service, USDA, established this 29 percent threshold. See EA at 120 (citing Gordon E. Grant, et Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response in Western Oregon: a State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-760. Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR (2008)). The dataset included greater than two percent roads in most studies. This study is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr760.pdf (last visited on Nov. 15, 2013).

12

IBLA 2013-40

ACS objectives 4, 5, and 9, and maintain all other objectives. BLM determined that the proposed action therefore was consistent wi th the ACS. Id. at 11.

The EA addressed sale revenues that would help support local county government and social services, and generate Federal revenue to help defray Federal land management costs. EA at 48.

Following the end of the public comment period, on August 13, 2012, BLM issued the DR for the White Castle VRH timber sale.22 Based on factors set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27, BLM determined that the action was not likely to result in any significant impacts to the human environment and issued the FONSI, concluding an EIS was not required. FONSI at 9-10. It also held that the Pilot Project was in conformance wi th the Roseburg RMP and NFP/ACS, as required by section 302(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 § 1732(a) (2006). See FONSI at 10.

The DR approved implementation of Alternative 2B, authorizing VRH on 187 acres on Matrix lands. DR at 1-4. No timber would be removed from Riparian Reserves, but prescribed fire would be applied to Riparian Reserves in Unit 28-2-32B to accomplish multiple ecological goals. Id. at 27. The entire project would be subject to seasonal restrictions, specific PDFs and BMPs to avoid or minimize adverse environmental consequences of the sale while testing the Franklin and Johnson VRH model. The sale would yield an estimated 6,395 thousand board feet of timber. EA at 22, 27-28.

Myrtie filed a timely protest. According to Myrtie, the watershed suffers from high water temperatures, stream flow modifications, stream bank erosion, sediment inundation, and a lack of large woody debris, which all contribute to its poor water quality, quantity, and native aquatic biota. Myrtle asserts the Myrtie Creek watershed is in "very degraded condition." AR 4 (Protest) at unp. 4, 5-8. It argues timber harvest, road construction and occupancy of the now constructed logging roads, and agricultural and domestic uses" caused these degraded conditions. See Protest at unp. 4, 8 ("Much of what has led to the current situation is management actions, not natural disturbance regimes, within the watershed.").

Myrtie further asserted that BLM violated section 102(2)(C) of NEPA when the agency failed to adequately consider the likely cumulative effects of the sale on regional water resources because BLM's environmental analysis was focused only on the proposed harvest unit sites. Id. at unp. 5. Myrtle reasons that had BLM expanded

While BLM acknowledges that Myrtie filed scoping comments, they are not a part of the record.

13

IBLA 2013-40

its analysis to include the entire Myrtle Creek watershed, it would have discovered that logging road systems and "continued clearcut harvest throughout the watershed" would "add to the existing degraded watershed conditions." Id. Myrtie claimed that BLM inappropriately relied on the ECA "model" to assess current on-the-ground conditions and therefore the agency's conclusion that expanding road density and harvesting trees would not impact the watershed's current peak flow cannot be correct. Myrtle contended these actions wi l l certainly cause stream flow variations and create increased sediment generation. Id. at unp. 7.

Myrtie maintained "BLM by law is required to ensure that all actions and existing conditions maintain (where functioning properly) and restore (where impaired) aquatic conditions to their normal range," implicitly alleging a violation of section 302(a) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (2006). Protest at unp. 2. Myrtle disputed BLM's conclusion to the contrary, characterizing i t as "grossly inaccurate." Id. at 6; see also id. at 5-7. Moreover, Myrtie generally questioned the need to foster early-seral growth within the Myrtie Creek watershed. Id. at unp. 9-10.

BLM denied Myrtle's Protest on November 2, 2012 (Decision). AR 4. It did so by parsing and extracting each contention and responding in exhaustive fashion, well supported citations to the EA that provided the relevant facts, analysis, and reasoning. Briefly, the Decision identified where in the EA pages aquatic conditions were described, acknowledging some streams within the watershed and sub-watershed are severely eroded, temperatures exceed cold water habitat thresholds, and sedimentation is a serious problem in the watershed's reaches. Decision at 4 (citing EA at 105, 107, 112, 118-19, 161, Appx. E-6). BLM stated, however, that the streams within or adjacent to the White Castle VRH sale units had no signs of sediment inundation or unnatural erosion. Id. at 4, 7 (citing EA at 113,

The Decision maintained no harvesting would occur in Riparian Reserves, and that rising temperatures associated wi th shade loss would not be an issue. Id. at 5. Moreover, the PDFs would prevent or greatly minimize stream damage associated wi th the harvest and road construction, use, improvement, and decommissioning. Id. at 4 (citing EA at 15-16, 113-14). BLM therefore adhered to its conclusion the sale would not incrementally add to those degraded conditions and, consequently, would not result in any cumulative effects at either the harvest site or watershed scales. Id. at 6-7.

BLM also defended its ECA calculations, noting that Myrtie had offered no analysis or documentation of its own to demonstrate error in BLM's conclusions

Indeed, BLM's 20-page Decision is remarkable for its thorough treatment of all of the issues. The Board's review was greatly facilitated by the completeness of BLM's responses at each stage of review below.

14

IBLA 2013-40

regarding peak flow. It rejected Myrtle's economic and social views as outside the scope of the EA analysis and not subject to protest. Id. at 14.

With respect to Myrtle's objections concerning the creation of early-seral habitat, BLM stated its expectation that the sale wi l l promote achievement of RMP goals to create a forest containing a variety of structures, trees of varying age and size, and an assortment of canopy configurations that would maintain and enhance biological diversity and ecosystem health. Id. at 15-16.

BLM rejected Myrtle's complaints concerning compliance with ACS objectives, concluding that the "ACS only requires that a proposed action maintain (not further impair) that condition." Id. at 8. This appeal followed.

Myrtle's Notice of Appeal/Petition for Stay/Statement of Reasons (SOR) maintains its objections to the decision to approve the Pilot Project.24 It contends BLM's Decision does not show the DR conforms wi th the land use plan requirements of section 302(a) of FLPMA or comply wi th section (C) of NEPA.25 As we explain below, Myrtle has not objectively shown that the EA's analysis failed to consider an environmental impact of the White Castle VRH timber sale that should have been considered.

We note at the outset that BLM takes issue wi th Myrtle's characterization of the White Castle timber sale as a clearcut. Decision at 7 (citing EA at 12-14). We agree a clearcut harvest is not presented in this appeal and therefore disregard Myrtle's claim to the contrary.

25

Myrtle also argues i t submitted comments regarding the EA and that BLM failed to acknowledge receipt of those comments, and "refused to fully consider and incorporate them as issues in the NEPA process." SOR at 2. Myrtle does not elaborate on the "issues" BLM omitted and cites no specific rule, regulation, or precedent establishing a requirement that BLM provide written responses to comments received. We need not consider this dispute further, because regardless of whether BLM received the EA comments or not, we assume those comments were pursued in Myrtle's protest and preserved for appeal to this Board. I f Myrtle did not raise the concerns voiced in its EA comments, they are properly deemed abandoned. In such circumstances, we perceive no prejudice to Myrtle, and Myrtle has not alleged or shown why the situation might be otherwise.

15

IBLA 2013-40

BLM Complied with NEPA

We briefly set forth our standard of review before addressing Myrtle's NEPA arguments. A BLM decision to proceed wi th a proposed action based on an EA that is tiered to a programmatic EIS wi l l be upheld where the record demonstrates that BLM has considered all relevant matters of environmental concern, taken a "hard look" at potential environmental impacts, and made a convincing case that any significant impacts were analyzed in the EIS or they wi l l be reduced to insignificance by the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures. Center for Native Ecosystems, 182 IBLA 37, 50 (2012); Wyoming Outdoor Council, 173 IBLA 226, 235 (2007).

In assessing the adequacy of an EA, the Board is guided by a "rule of reason," bearing in mind that an EA need only briefly discuss the impacts of a proposed action: nature, i t is intended to be an overview of environmental concerns, not an exhaustive study of all environmental issues which the project Bales Ranch, Inc., 151 353, 358 (2000) Don't Ruin v. Stone, 802 F. Supp. 1239, 1247 (M.D. Pa. 1992)).

An appellant challenging a FONSI bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating, wi th objective proof, that BLM failed to consider an environmental question of significance to the proposed action, or otherwise failed to comply wi th section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. Bales Ranch, Inc., 151 IBLA at 357. The assessment of environmental impacts "implicates agency expertise." Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers, 359 F.3d 1257, 1274 (10th Cir. 2004). BLM properly relies on the professional opinion of its technical experts, provided such opinion concerns matters within the realm of their expertise and is reasonable and supported by record evidence. Accordingly, an appellant challenging BLM's reliance on its experts must demonstrate error in their data, methodology, analysis, or conclusions, by a preponderance of the evidence. Wyoming Outdoor Council, IBLA at 235 (citing Fred E. Payne, IBLA 69, 77-78 (2003)). A mere difference of opinion among experts w i l l not suffice to show that BLM failed to fully comprehend the true nature, magnitude, or scope of the likely impacts. Id.

Myrtle first questions the alleged failure to determine whether "models used and assumptions made in regards to aquatic and terrestrial habitat do in fact reflect reality on the ground for both existing condition and cumulative effects analysis. This renders both analyses unreliable." SOR at 2.

BLM disputes the premise of Myrtle's assertion, averring that "[n]o models were used in the analysis in lieu of field-verified data," and that the verified data "validated the best available science." Answer at 8 ("BLM resource specialists conducted thorough on-the-ground analysis, inventory, and reporting."). BLM notes

16

IBLA 2013-40

that i t previously refuted Myrtle's argument in the Decision, where it provided specific citations to the EA and administrative record to support its responses. Id. at 8-9; Decision at 5; see, e.g., EA at 103-09; Pilot Project Field Notes of BLM Fisheries Biologist (June 8 to July 27, 2011); Hydrology Notes of BLM Hydrologist (June 8,

Moreover, BLM used the October 2002 Watershed Analysis to ascertain existing conditions in the Upper North Myrtle Creek and other sub-watersheds of the Myrtle Creek watershed. DR at 20 ("In developing the project, the Myrtle Creek . . . Watershed Analys[i]s w[as] used to evaluate existing conditions, establish desired future conditions, and assist in the formulation of appropriate alternatives."). Though Myrtle has a different opinion, i t has not shown why BLM's explanations, or the documents it relies on, should be rejected by this Board.

Myrtle appears to argue, however, that BLM focused on existing conditions in the Sale area and failed to consider existing conditions throughout the Upper North Myrtle Creek sub-watershed, contending that i t is "readily apparent" that the existing conditions of the aquatic ecosystems in the sub-watershed and watershed are "seriously degraded." SOR at 3. In support, Myrtle alleges water quality "throughout much of the [Myrtle Creek] watershed" has led to "listing as impaired under section 303(d) of the Oregon Clean Water statutes for several factors." Id. at 9. In its Decision at 4 and again in its Answer at BLM acknowledged stream reaches within the watershed have been listed, but disputed the suggestion that conditions are properly attributed solely to BLM actions, stating that most conditions are due to the effects of timber removal to make way for agricultural and consumptive uses of water, and that no timber cutting or removal wi l l occur in Riparian Reserves, which are 160- to 180-feet wide. All vegetation providing primary and secondary shade for perennial streams would be maintained, and the microclimate would be preserved. Answer at 16. Myrtle nonetheless notes populations of native salmon and other native cold water species in the sub-watershed and watershed have greatly declined because of the degradation of spawning and rearing habitat. SOR at 4, 5-6. Myrtle therefore claims BLM failed to adequately assess the cumulative effects of the Sale. Id. at 7-8. We cannot agree.

The record amply confirms BLM considered existing conditions and the contributions of past and ongoing actions. Answer at 24-25, 29-30; see also Decision at 5-7 (citing EA at 11, 14, 16, 34, 113-14, 116, 118, 119, 123, Appx E; Roseburg RMP EIS at 4-56). As discussed, BLM acknowledged aquatic conditions in the watershed are degraded as a consequence of past Federal activities and ongoing private activities. Answer at 12-13 (citing EA at 54-55, 117, 128; AR 20 (Hydrologisf s field notes), AR 36 (Scoping notification to the Acting Forest Supervisor, Umpqua National Forest)). We find Myrtle has not shown a failure to recognize existing conditions.

17

IBLA 2013-40

Myrtle argues BLM did not adequately discuss the aquatic cumulative effects of the timber sale. SOR at 7-8. We again do not agree. Section (C) of NEPA and its implementing regulations require BLM to consider the potential cumulative impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.25; see, e.g., Muckleshoot Indian Tribe U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 809-10 (9th Cir. 1999); Klamath-Siskiyou Center, 182 IBLA 199, 215 (2012), and cases cited; Howard B. Keck, Jr., 124 IBLA 44, 53 (1992), Keck v. No. S92-1670-WBS-PAN (E.D. Oct. 4, 1993). Such impacts are those that result from the incremental impact of the proposed action "when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.

In this case, the record plainly shows BLM fully considered the likely effects of timber harvesting and related activities on water resources, fish, and aquatic habitat. See EA at 103-30; Decision at 5-7; Answer at 24. The agency expressly concluded "[f]ish species . . . and aquatic habitat would continue to be indirectly affected by existing conditions on BLM-administered lands, and ongoing activities on adjoining private lands," but "[n]o direct effects to any fish species inhabiting streams adjacent to or downstream from proposed variable retention harvest in upland stands would be anticipated." EA at 110. There would be "no cumulative degradation of water quality in the analysis area." Id. at 113. The Decision reiterated at length the responses provided in the EA to refute Myrtle's objections. Decision at 5-8. BLM responded to each element of Myrtle's challenge, and concluded Myrtle had failed to identify any specific foreseeable future action that BLM should have considered, instead alluding to maintaining or increasing the existing road system and the allegedly continuing "clearcut harvest throughout the watershed." BLM stated that no such actions were planned in the foreseeable future. Decision at 6 (quoting Protest at unp. 5); Answer at 25. Rather than making an effort to respond to BLM's explanations, Myrtle merely repeated its argument. SOR at 7-8.

Myrtle's cumulative impacts argument rests in significant part on its claim that BLM's post-harvest ECA calculation is incorrect because the "modeled conclusions are not representative of reality and . . . the cumulative effects to aquatic resources in the Myrtle Creek watershed from all past and ongoing management is not accurately portrayed by the model." SOR at 10.

Myrtle in general terms describes the work of Dose and Roper (1994) and recent analyses of salmon populations in the Tiller Range District of the Umpqua National Forest (C. Baldwin, FS Fisheries Biologist) to conclude i t has shown that the cumulative impacts analysis is inadequate. Id. at

18

IBLA 2013-40

BLM explained that the ECA is not a model, but a "description of the current conditions in the watershed." Decision at 12; Answer at 32. BLM further explains that the ECA is used to determine whether the average canopy cover in an area falls above or below the threshold at which the peak flow of water in the area is expected to be enhanced. Decision at 12 (citing EA at 120); Answer at 32. BLM is obviously familiar wi th the work of Dose and Roper, and agrees that past road construction and timber harvest activities are primarily responsible for current watershed conditions. BLM notes the Upper North Myrtle Creek sub-watershed currently has an ECA of

well below the 29% threshold where increases in peak flows associated wi th ECA would be noticeable. EA at 120 (Table 3-22 (Effects of Alternative Two, Sub-Alternative A on ECA in the Project Area)), 124; DR at 7 ("No thresholds, for either equivalent clearcut area or road density, for potential effects to the flow regime would be exceeded by the project"), 19; Decision at 12; Answer at 32. We are not persuaded that Myrtle has demonstrated error in using the ECA to assess present conditions or that BLM otherwise failed to consider the cumulative impacts of going forward wi th the Sale.

Myrtle next presents arguments questioning the need to foster early-seral habitat within the Myrtie Creek watershed. Myrtie asserts BLM failed to show that the sale area has a deficiency in complex early-seral habitat because the agency did not conduct a "multiple scale and pattern analysis of early on the ground" and therefore going forward wi th the Pilot Project is not justified. SOR at 12, 13. Myrtle also suggests that BLM could create early habitat without a timber sale and so avoid adverse consequences to water resources, aquatic habitat, and other aspects of the human environment. These arguments are without merit.

Departmental regulations implementing NEPA specify that an EA must brief discussions of "[t]he need for the proposal." 43 C.F.R. § 46.310(a)(2). BLM states in the EA that the Roseburg Pilot Project has three primary purposes, one of which was to move forward wi th ecosystem restoration, which includes the creation of post-harvest complex early-seral habitat. EA at 1-2; 38-40 (stating that only one percent of the Pilot Project area contained habitat). Nothing in NEPA requires the statement of purpose to be objectively verifiable or supported by scientifically verifiable evidence before an action can be studied or implemented. See Backcountry Against Dumps, 179 IBLA 148, 165 (2010); see Powder River Basin Res. Council, 183 IBLA 242, 248 (2013) ("Agencies enjoy considerable discretion to define the purpose and need of a project.") (internal quotation and citations omitted). While Myrtle may have a different opinion, i t has not established error in BLM's statement of purpose or determination that the Project is needed.

19

IBLA 2013-40

The purpose of the Project is not simply to create complex early-seral habitat, but to do so while promoting timber harvests on public lands in a manner that is designed to demonstrate the viability of the Johnson/Franklin harvest prescriptions. EA at 2, 36 (Table 3-4), 37, 38-40. BLM expects that the Sale wi l l create complex early-seral habitat for up to 30 years and promote achievement of RMP goals by fostering a forest containing a variety of structures, trees of varying age and size, and an assortment of canopy configurations that maintain and enhance biological diversity and ecosystem health. EA at 1-2; Decision at 15-16; see also Decision at 19.

Myrtle argues the desired early-seral habitat can be created without implementing the Pilot Project. That contention implicates section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § (E) (2006), which requires BLM to consider "appropriate alternatives" to the proposed action that wi l l accomplish its purpose, are technically and economically feasible, and have a lesser impact on the surrounding environment. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 183 IBLA 97, 124-25 (2013); see 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9; 43 C.F.R. § 46.310(a), (b). However, those alternatives must appropriately reflect BLM's goals and objectives. NEPA simply does not require an agency to discuss alternatives proposing actions different from the action BLM has determined is needed in a given circumstance. Oregon Chapter Sierra Club, 176 IBLA 336, 349 (2009).

Myrtie further asserts such conditions are created only by wildfires and other natural disturbances. That argument overlooks BLM's provision for a minimum retention of 20% of the pre-harvest stand by leaving aggregate and dispersed retention trees that would include snags and large down wood, as well as larger and older trees that are likely to become snags or large down wood within the harvest areas. EA at 12, 13, 41 , 43 ("The composite effects of harvest types and distribution suggest that over the next 50 to 100 years, many attributes found in unmanaged mature and old-growth forest stands would be maintained or created."), 44-47, 48-50. BLM provided for retaining, where practical, all snags 20 or more inches DBH to maintain a minimum average of 1.2 snags per acre to support cavity-nesting birds at 40% of their potential population levels. EA at 13; NFP ROD, Attachment A, at C-42; Roseburg RMP at 34, 38, 64. BLM stated that i f i t later determined i t to be necessary, it would create more snags through mechanical treatment. In addition, a minimum average of 120 linear feet of large down wood or more inches DBH and 16 feet long) per acre would be retained. EA at 13; NFP ROD, Attachment A, at C-40; Roseburg RMP at 34, 38, 65. Further, the quantity of snags and large down wood to be retained was defined by the standards set forth in the NFP and RMP. It is likely true that the number of snags and large down wood wi l l not come close to the number that would occur naturally, but "natural disturbances are unpredictable and may not occur for decades." EA at 115.

20

IBLA 2013-40

In effect, Myrtle is again urging no action, an alternative that BLM considered and rejected because no action would neither address the need to test the Franklin and Johnson timber harvest regime nor achieve the other objectives enumerated in the EA. Myrtle has merely reiterated its preferred action alternative; i t has not shown that BLM violated the procedural requirements of NEPA. See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 182 IBLA 377, 391 (2012), and cases cited; see also Klamath-Siskiyou Center, 182 IBLA 293, 310 (2012). Myrtle obviously does not agree with BLM's findings and conclusions, but we find nothing that requires BLM to manage the Sale area to reproduce or mimic the processes that would naturally occur. BLM need only adhere to the requirements of the NFP and RMP.

BLM Complied with FLPMA's Land Use Plan Conformance Requirement

Section 302(a) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (2006), requires BLM to manage the public lands in accordance with the applicable land use plan. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a) ("All future resource management authorizations and actions . . . shall conform to the approved plan."); Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 69 (2004) (These statutory and regulatory provisions "prevent BLM from taking actions inconsistent wi th the provisions of a land use plan."); Tom Van Sant, 174 IBLA 78, 91-92 (2008); Ong, 165 IBLA 274, 278 (2005).

A proposed management action wi l l be held to be in conformance wi th a land use plan where i t is "specifically provided for in the plan, or i f not specifically mentioned, [is] . . . clearly consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan." 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(b). Where ACS compliance is concerned, the record must demonstrate that there is a rational basis for BLM's determination that an action is consistent wi th ACS objectives. Bark (In re Rusty Saw Timber Sale), 167 IBLA 48, 77 (2005) (citing Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, 157 IBLA 322, 328 (2002)). Id. The party asserting otherwise must present facts that show why an action is inconsistent wi th specific provisions of the ACS, or that show the analysis failed to consider a material environmental impact that affects the ACS. Id. The appealing party bears the ultimate burden of proof, which must be satisfied by objective proof rather than expressions of opinion. Id.

As noted, the harvest areas are located on revested lands that are to be managed for permanent timber production and are designated Matrix lands under the NFP and incorporated into the Roseburg RMP. The Pilot Project objectives and activities are clearly consistent wi th the land use plan.

With respect to the ACS portion of the RMP, Myrtle argues that BLM's decision to approve the timber sale violated section 302(a) of FLPMA because the timber

21

IBLA 2013-40

harvest purportedly does not comply with ACS objectives. See SOR at 3-10. It asserts BLM's analysis and conclusion that the sale would not attain ACS objectives is "deeply flawed," and that, in general, the assertion that the White Castle sale is consistent wi th the ACS is "incorrect and unsubstantiated." Id. at 8, 11. The record belies the argument. The ACS does not require BLM management decisions at the watershed level to improve or restore the watershed as a condition precedent to approving timber sales. The timber sale must, at minimum, maintain the existing condition. In Deal Timber Sale, 165 IBLA 18, 22 (2005); Umpqua Watersheds,

158 IBLA 62, 77-78 (2002).

In this case, "the variable density thinning prescriptions are considered to be a watershed restoration project." EA, Appx. E at 3. Only a small prescribed wi l l take place in a Riparian Reserve area; no logging w i l l occur in such areas pursuant to the White Castle VRH timber sale and, consequently, there exists no mechanism to affect ACS objectives on Riparian Reserves. A number of stream enhancement projects have been implemented on public and private lands. Id. BLM concluded that implementation of the timber sale would maintain some and advance or restore many of the watershed's existing characteristics, thereby advancing several ACS objectives, the details of which are set forth in Appx. E and depicted in Table Though Myrtle unarguably disagrees, it has not presented any specific facts that would cause the Board to that a Project component or activity wi l l degrade watershed conditions or lead us to conclude that BLM overlooked an environmental impact materially affecting ACS objectives. Consequently, no violation of section 302(a) of FLPMA has been shown. See Bark v. United States, 643 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1233-35 (D. Or. 2009); Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 71 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1070 (W.D. Wash. 1999), affd in part and vacated in part, 265 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2001); In Re Red Top Salvage I Timber Sale, 142 IBLA 109, 115 (1998).

For the foregoing reasons, we no basis for disturbing the Decision here appealed.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior, 43 C.F.R. § 4 .1, the Decision appealed from is

Conclusion

affirmed.

22

IBLA 2013-40

I concur:

23