The Forest Service’s decisions to allow grazing that has and continues to degrade bull trout habitat—and to do so without evaluating and describing how these grazing authorizations are consistent with INFISH standards—thus violates the NFMA. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). Case 3:03-cv-00213-PK Document 416 Filed 11/14/16 Page 44 of 75 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 33 a. Baseline conditions on allotments along the Wild and Scenic Rivers are degraded and grazing is further retarding and preventing attainment of RMOs.

Id. at 1190–91 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(4)). The teachings of Friends of Southeast’s Future and Sierra Forest Legacy, as well as the plain language of NFMA, demonstrate that the Forest Service must comply with the Forest Plan in effect at the time it makes a decision.

Congress has rejected this approach by requiring that even important projects intended to address hazardous fire conditions must be consistent with the applicable Forest Plan and comply with NEPA and other Federal law, such as the Endangered Species Act. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1604(a), 6512(b), 6514(a). Case 2:12-cv-00120-MCA-SMV Document 71 Filed 06/04/14 Page 40 of 50 38 Despite New Mexico’s “frustrations” with management of National Forest System lands, “the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” as the Supreme Court recently stated.

See Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1996); see generally 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). Once the Forest Plan is approved, site-specific actions must be consistent with the Forest Plan, 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i), and the Forest Service’s interpretation of its own Forest Plan is entitled to substantial deference. Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089, 1097, 99 (9th Cir. 2003).

Congress has enacted a number of statutes that provide the Forest Service with the jurisdiction and authority over public lands and resources in the National Forest System. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 551 (the Organic Act of 1897, directing the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the use and occupancy of national forests in order to protect the forests from destruction);3 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B) (the National Forest Management Act in 1976, directing the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations for national forests that “provide for the diversity of plant 3 Pursuant to the Organic Act, “the Secretary may make rules and regulations for the protection and preservation of the national forests, and persons entering upon national land must comply with those rules and regulations.” U.S. v. Weiss, 642 F.2d 296, 298 (9th Cir. 1981).

After a Forest Plan is developed, all subsequent actions must be consistent with it. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). The Forest Service is given substantial deference in interpreting its land management plans. League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mts. Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest Serv. (“LOWD”), 883 F. Supp. 2d 979, 990 (D. Or. 2012); see also League of Wilderness Defenders v. United States Forest Serv., 549 F.3d 1211, 1223 (9th Cir. 2008), citing Auer v. Case 3:03-cv-00213-PK Document 435 Filed 02/10/17 Page 11 of 65 6– INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PDX\128656\203426\EEH\19843079.5 Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-62 (1997). Particularly where the agency’s interpretations of its plans involve scientific or technical analysis, the Ninth Circuit has cautioned that courts are to be “most deferential.” Lands Council, 537 F.3d 981, 993.

The plain language of NFMA requires the Forest Service to develop a Forest Plan only for each unit of the NFS. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a). Forest Service regulations define “administrative unit” to mean, a “National Forest,” such as the ENF, “a National Grassland, a purchase unit, a land utilization project, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Land Between the Lakes, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, or other comparable unit of the National Forest System.” 36 C.F.R. § 212.1.

Therefore, the USFS has failed to comply with the MIS monitoring and viability requirements of the SRNF LRMP, and has failed to ensure the diversity of animal communities, which is otherwise not in accordance with the NFMA. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1604(i); 1604(g)(3)(B). VI.

Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003). While NFMA requires that site-specific actions be consistent with the governing forest plan (16 U.S.C. § 1604(i)), USFS’s interpretation and implementation of its own forest plan is entitled to substantial deference. Forest Guardians, 329 F.3d at 1097, 1099.

, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Mont. 2004) .......................................................................... 10 Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 39 Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 850 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (D. Idaho 2012) ..................................................................... 30, 33 Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................... 18 Zhang v. Slattery, 55 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................. 18 Statutes 16 U.S.C. § 1604 .................................................................................................................. 4 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(1)-(3)................................................................................................... 4 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i) .............................................................................................................. 5 16 U.S.C. § 470f (2013) ....................................................................................................... 6 16 U.S.C. §§ 470i ................................................................................................................. 6 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) .................................................................................................. 5, 35 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706............................................................................................................. 8 Case 3:16-cv-08010-SMM Document 49-1 Filed 09/23/16 Page 7 of 55 vii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pub. L. No. 113-287, § 7, 128 Stat. 3272 (2014) ................................................................. 6 Other Authorities Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ...................