EUGENE (LN) — U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai on Thursday vacated the Bureau of Land Management’s Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and associated decision record for the Blue and Gold Harvest Plan, ruling the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act by failing to adequately consider the presence of old-growth trees in Western Oregon’s Coast Range.

The 2016 Resource Management Plan directed BLM to retain all trees greater than or equal to 40 inches in diameter at breast height that were established prior to 1850, except where falling is necessary for safety or operational reasons. Kasubhai found the agency’s Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact were "specious" because they relied on average stand ages that obscured the existence of these protected trees.

"BLM’s decision to authorize specific amounts of harvest based on average stand ages and average DBH measurements, without identifying protected trees or describing how its plan is consistent with the binding RMP Tree Retention Rule, is arbitrary," Kasubhai wrote.

The Plan Area, located in Douglas County, covers 2,625 acres and was allocated for timber harvest under the Harvest Land Base designation. BLM’s Environmental Assessment concluded the stands were suitable for treatment because they exhibited a "single, dominant cohort of Douglas-fir" ranging from 40 to 140 years old.

The judge found that data created by BLM itself contradicted this characterization. A marbled murrelet habitat spreadsheet obtained by plaintiffs showed stand ages as high as 239 years. Additionally, merchantable tree plot summaries revealed numerous trees exceeding 40 inches in diameter, with some plots containing trees ranging from 43.4 to 81.1 inches.

Plaintiffs Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild, and Umpqua Watersheds argued in their complaint that BLM’s analysis was "incomplete and cursory and intentionally obscured the presence of ancient trees and forests."

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to complete the administrative record, ordering BLM to include a spreadsheet of marbled murrelet habitat data and factual survey results for northern spotted owls that had been withheld. The judge rejected BLM’s attempt to supplement the record with a post-decision declaration from a forest analyst, noting that agencies cannot supply new rationalizations for their actions after the fact.

While Kasubhai agreed with BLM that its analysis of carbon storage and climate change was sufficient because it tiered to a 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement, he ruled the agency failed to take a "hard look" on old-growth trees.

The court found that BLM’s failure to explain how it would identify and retain protected trees raised substantial questions about the plan’s potential effects on the environment, necessitating the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

The case is remanded to BLM to comply with federal environmental and land management laws.

Kasubhai, a George W. Bush appointee, issued the ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.