Opinion ID: 2737007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: VEG S6 for Lynx

Text: Wild Swan contends that the project violates Standard VEG S6 in the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. This standard prohibits logging and burning that reduces “snowshoe hare [a favorite prey of the lynx] habitat in multi-story mature or late successional forests” except in “areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover.” The Lynx Direction defines “winter snowshoe hare habitat” as “places where young trees or shrubs grow densely–thousands of woody stems per acre–and tall enough to protrude above the snow during winter, so snowshoe hare can browse on the bark and small 20 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER twigs.”5 It also defines “multi-story mature” as a forest stage of development similar to “old multi-story structural stage” but with trees that are generally not as old and less abundant decaying trees. The parties agree that portions of both projects involve “multi-story mature” forests, but disagree as to whether there is snowshoe hare habitat within such areas. See Friends of the Wild Swan v. USFS, 875 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1204–05 (D. Mont. 2012) (to trigger VEG S6 project must occur in multistory mature forest and reduce snowshoe hare habitat). The Forest Service analyzed lynx habitat maps, computer GIS analysis, and aerial photographs, and then performed on-theground field inspections to verify whether habitat existed within the proposed treatment units. Areas found to have quality snowshoe hare habitat were dropped from the project. Wild Swan contends, however, that in conducting this analysis, the Forest Service used a new methodology that contravenes the definitions of VEG S6. Wild Swan argues that the Lynx Direction considers only two variables: stand structure (mature or young) and stem density (number of trees per acre). The Forest Service, however, also analyzed the amount of “horizontal cover” provided, which is defined in the Lynx Direction as “visual obscurity or cover provided by habitat structures that extend to the ground or snow surface primarily provided by tree stems and tree boughs, but also includes herbaceous vegetation, snow, and landscape topography.” Pursuant to a draft guidance for assessing horizontal cover, if the percentage of horizontal cover was more than 35% in winter or 48% in summer then the area was 5 Low density includes approximately 1000–2500 trees per acre and high density includes approximately 2500 trees per acre. FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 21 considered snowshoe hare habitat and VEG S6 applied. While Wild Swan argues this is a significant change that required public notice and an amendment to the Forest Plan, the Forest Service contends the new guidance was merely a means of assessing compliance with the existing standard. The analysis in the Lynx Direction under “[e]valuating the amount of winter snowshoe hare habitat” primarily focuses on stand and stem density, but it does not appear that these are the only factors to be considered. For example, even in multi-storied forests with high tree density, the Lynx Direction indicates it “may provide good foraging habitat where small trees occur in dense, irregular clumps underneath the overstory.” Likewise, in multi-story forests with lower density, the Direction indicates there may be quality habitat “depending on how the trees are distributed.” Further, as noted above, areas with poorly developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover are excepted from VEG S6. In light of the deference we must apply to the Forest Service’s scientific judgments regarding methodology and its interpretation of its own forest plans, see Weldon, 697 F.3d at 1053, the Forest Service’s use of a methodology for assessing the amount of quality horizontal cover within these areas of potential hare habitat is not likely a change from VEG S6 but more likely a means of assessing compliance with the existing standard. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining Wild Swan has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its NFMA claim regarding VEG S6, nor has Plaintiff raised serious questions on the merits of this claim. 22 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER