422 F.Supp.3d 184
D.D.C.2019Background
- The Oregon and California Railroad (O&C) Act requires O&C timberlands to be "managed . . . for permanent forest production" and that timber "be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principle of sustained yield." 43 U.S.C. § 2601. BLM administers the statute and sets an annual productive capacity/allowable sale quantity (ASQ).
- Historically ASQs approached 1.1 billion board feet; after ESA protections for the northern spotted owl and related management changes in the 1990s, ASQs dropped to roughly 200 million board feet.
- BLM's 2016 Resource Management Plans (RMPs) designated only ~498,597 acres as a ‘‘harvest land base’’ (about 20% of O&C land) and placed the remainder into reserves where sustained-yield commercial harvest is generally excluded, producing an ASQ of ~205 million board feet.
- President Clinton originally designated the Cascade‑Siskiyou National Monument in 2000 (including some O&C land); President Obama’s Proclamation 9564 (Jan. 2017) expanded the monument by ~47,660 O&C acres, directing that the added area be managed as unsuited for timber production.
- Plaintiffs (timber industry groups and O&C counties) sued, alleging the 2016 RMPs and Proclamation 9564 conflict with the O&C Act; the court concluded both the RMPs and the Proclamation are unlawful under the O&C Act and granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment (government and intervenors’ cross-motions denied). The court ordered supplemental briefing on remedies for the RMP claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 RMPs lawfully exclude large tracts of O&C timberland from sustained-yield harvest | RMPs violate the O&C Act because the Act mandates all lands classified as timberlands be managed for permanent forest production and harvested under sustained-yield principles | BLM has discretion in selecting ASQ and management allocations; RMPs reasonably balance O&C Act duties with other statutory obligations | Court: RMPs violate the O&C Act; BLM cannot reserve timberland from sustained-yield harvest inconsistent with the Act's mandatory "shall" commands |
| Whether ESA §7(a)(2) can justify limiting O&C mandated harvest | Plaintiffs: mandatory O&C directives are non-discretionary and cannot be overridden by ESA §7 | Gov't: ESA duties require BLM to limit harvest to avoid jeopardy to listed species | Court: National Ass'n of Home Builders controls—§7(a)(2) does not excuse non-discretionary statutory duties; ESA cannot justify contravening O&C Act |
| Whether Proclamation 9564 (Antiquities Act) may lawfully remove O&C land from sustained-yield calculations | Plaintiffs: Presidential proclamation cannot nullify Congress’s mandatory O&C harvest directives | Gov't/intervenors: Antiquities Act grants broad presidential authority to reserve lands as monuments | Court: Proclamation 9564 is ultra vires to the extent it directs management inconsistent with the O&C Act; a general grant under Antiquities Act cannot nullify a specific statutory mandate |
| Remedy procedure for the invalidated 2016 RMPs | Plaintiffs seek relief appropriate to restore compliance with O&C Act | Gov't requests opportunity to propose remedy; parties agreed to supplemental briefing | Court: Parties ordered to submit supplemental briefing on remedy (opening briefs due in 30 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (courts enforce plain statutory language; "shall" signals mandatory action)
- Nat. Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (ESA §7(a)(2) does not displace non‑discretionary statutory mandates)
- Chamber of Commerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (an executive action is preempted where it conflicts with a specific statute)
- Mountain States Legal Found. v. Bush, 306 F.3d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (courts ensure Presidential proclamations stay within statutory and constitutional limits)
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987) (a specific statute ordinarily controls over a general one)
- Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 914 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir. 1990) (statutory "forest" understood as aggregation of timber resources; interprets O&C Act duties)
- Gillan v. Winter, 474 F.3d 813 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (the word "shall" limits agency discretion)
- Portland Audubon Soc. v. Babbitt, 998 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1993) (O&C Act leaves some discretion to BLM but does not eliminate statutory limits)