Opinion ID: 3052236
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reliability of the Forest Service’s Analysis

Text: Concerning The Effects Of Treating Old-Growth Habitat On The Flammulated Owl [9] Lands Council argues that the Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing to demonstrate the reliability of the scientific methodology underlying its analysis of the Project’s effect on wildlife, specifically the flammulated owl and its habitat. But the Forest Service supported its conclusions about LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR 8255 the impact of the Project on the flammulated owl and its habitat with studies it deemed reliable. Moreover, the Forest Service did conduct on-the-ground analysis of the flammulated owl in an area straddled by the Mission Brush Project Area, even though, by overruling Ecology Center, this opinion confirms that such analysis is not required. See supra Part III.A.2. [10] These studies, together with the Forest Service’s reasonable assumption that enhancing the amount of flammulated owl habitat in the long-term will maintain the flammulated owl population, lead us to conclude that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that the Project met the substantive requirements of the NFMA and the IPNF Forest Plan regarding species diversity. See Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council, 88 F.3d at 760 (“In deference to an agency’s expertise, we review its interpretation of its own regulations solely to see whether that interpretation is arbitrary and capricious . . . . This is especially true when questions of scientific methodology are involved.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided that Lands Council is not likely to succeed on this aspect of its NFMA claim. The Forest Service has provided studies evidencing that flammulated owls prefer old-growth habitat. See Montana Partners in Flight, Bird Conservation Plan—Flammulated Owl (2001) [hereinafter Montana Partners], at 2 (noting “a strong association between Flammulated Owls and oldgrowth ponderosa-pine/Douglas-fir habitat”); Idaho Partners in Flight, Idaho Bird Conservation Plan-Version 1.0; Implementation Schedule (2000), at 144 (“Old-growth trees are strongly correlated with nesting, singing, and foraging sites [of flammulated owls].”); R. Reynolds & B. Linkhart, Flammulated Owls in Ponderosa Pine: Evidence of Preference for Old Growth (1992), at 167 (“[Flammulated] owls settled into areas having greater proportions of old-growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir.”). 8256 LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR The Forest Service has also provided studies supporting its determination that the Project will maintain flammulated owl habitat because flammulated owls live in old-growth habitat post-treatment. One study on the habitat selection of flammulated owls in British Columbia notes that “most [flammulated] owls were found in mature-old (100-200 yr) growth stands of Douglas fir that had been selectively harvested 2030 years prior to [the] surveys.” R. Howie & R. Ritcey, Distribution, Habitat Selection, and Densities of Flammulated Owls in British Columbia (1987), at 251. While the study does not conclude that logging improves flammulated owl habitat, it documents flammulated owl presence within logged old-growth stands.7 Other studies document this presence as well. See Montana Partners, supra, at 3 (acknowledging presence of flammulated owls in selectively logged sites in the Northern Rockies and stating that “[t]he Forest Service has an opportunity to manage restored acres to meet both the microhabitat and landscape parameters of identified wildlife species, including the Flammulated Owl”). Moreover, although it was not required to, the Forest Service conducted an on-the-ground analysis of flammulated owls in the Bonners Ferry Ranger district within the IPNF. Dawson Ridge Flammulated Owl Habitat Monitoring (June 30, 2006). The Dawson Ridge study monitored five 1/5 acre plots of flammulated owl habitat in an area that was treated with thinning and underburning in the mid-1970s, logged in 2000, and underburned in 2002. Id. at 1, 3. The researchers received one flammulated owl response in the 2006 survey, and recorded additional responses in 1999 and 2000. Id. at 1. It is within the Forest Service’s expertise, not ours, to determine the significance of these responses. 7 Lands Council’s briefs repeatedly suggest that the Forest Service must improve wildlife habitat but, as our discussion of the NFMA and the IPNF Forest Plan makes clear, neither the NFMA nor the IPNF Forest Plan require the Forest Service to establish that its plans will improve the habitat of a particular species. LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR 8257 Although we acknowledge that this record is relatively sparse and approaches the limits of our deference, we nevertheless conclude that there is sufficient evidence to defer to the Forest Service’s conclusion that this survey response indicates that flammulated owls are using the monitored area. To determine whether deference is warranted, we look to the sufficiency of the evidence, not the size of the record. The Dawson Ridge study concluded that “[m]onitoring surveys confirm that owls are using the area after harvest,” and stated: Although it is inappropriate at this time to assume that any of these silvicultural treatments improved (i.e., changed habitat from an unsuitable to suitable condition) flammulated owl habitat[,] it is encouraging given the management history of Dawson Ridge that owls are using the area. However, these positive responses do imply that our dry forest silvicultural practices are at least maintaining suitable habitat. Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). Of course, neither the NFMA nor the IPNF Forest Plan require the Forest Service to improve a species’ habitat to prove that it is maintaining wildlife viability.8 Finally, the Forest Service used a habitat suitability model to analyze the potential effects of the proposed Project on the flammulated owl. Studies in the record reference the required size and continuity of habitat that the owls need to survive. 8 Lands Council observes that the Forest Service has conducted other surveys in the Project Area and has failed to locate any flammulated owls. While it is true that these studies did not record the presence of flammulated owls, nothing in the SFEIS suggests that these particular surveys were performed to determine if flammulated owls occupy treated oldgrowth habitat. Rather, the SFEIS is clear that these studies were performed when the Forest Service was examining suitable habitat for the flammulated owls. Contrary to Lands Council’s suggestion, we cannot infer from these studies anything about the impact of the proposed Project on flammulated owls. 8258 LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR The habitat suitability model predicted the change in suitable habitat9 that would result from the treatment proposed in each of the Forest Service’s alternatives for the Project. The Forest Service explained its methodology for calculating the amount of habitat that would be suitable for the flammulated owl after the treatment. The Forest Service used vegetation characteristics to determine stands that were currently suitable habitat for the flammulated owl, and wildlife biologists conducted site visits and interpreted aerial photographs to determine the suitability of stands deemed “capable.” Based on its analysis, the Forest Service concluded that, though the disturbance imposed by the Project may have short-term negative impacts in the immediate vicinity of harvesting, there would be no decrease in suitable habitat in the short-term, and the Project “would promote the long-term viability of suitable Flammulated Owl habitat.” The Forest Service also concluded that the Project’s effects “would not indicate local or regional change in habitat quality or population status, allowing Flammulated Owls to maintain their current distribution,” and that it would not contribute to a trend toward a “Federal listing” under the Endangered Species Act or cause a loss of viability. [11] Today, as we have in the past, we approve, based on the record before us, of the Forest Service’s use of the amount of suitable habitat for a particular species as a proxy for the viability of that species. See, e.g., Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council, 88 F.3d at 761. We therefore find “eminently reasonable” the Forest Service’s conclusion that the Project will maintain a viable population of flammulated owls because it will not decrease suitable flammulated owl habitat in the 9 The SFEIS defines “suitable habitat” as habitat “that currently has both fixed and variable stand attributes for a given species’ habitat requirements.” This differs from “capable habitat,” which refers to a site’s “inherent potential . . . to produce essential habitat requirements of a species” though the site does not currently have all that a species requires. LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR 8259 short-term and will promote the long-term viability of suitable flammulated owl habitat. See id. In Inland Empire Public Lands Council, the plaintiffs challenged the Forest Service’s analysis of a timber sales project’s impact on seven sensitive species in the Kootenai National Forest. Id. at 757. The plaintiffs, several environmental groups, claimed that the Forest Service did not satisfy the NFMA because its population viability analysis was insufficient to ensure viable populations of the relevant species. Id. at 759-60. We approved of the Forest Service’s “habitat viability analysis,” which measured the amount of suitable habitat for the species at issue and then used that figure as a proxy to estimate a species’ population. Id. at 763. Using this “habitat as a proxy approach,” the Forest Service concluded that a species would remain viable on the basis of whether “the threshold percentage of each type of habitat remaining in the chosen alternative [after harvesting] was greater than the percentage required for that species to survive.” Id. at 759.10 We characterized the Forest Service’s assumption that maintaining acreage necessary for survival would ensure a species’ survival as “eminently reasonable” and deferred to the Forest Service’s methodology. See id. at 760-61.11 10 We have also allowed the Forest Service to use habitat as a proxy to measure a species’ population, and then to use that species’ population as a proxy for the population of other species (proxy-on-proxy approach). See Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1017. 11 Some of our sister circuits have been skeptical when the Forest Service has relied only on habitat analyses to satisfy its requirements under 36 C.F.R. § 219.19. Compare Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council, 88 F.3d at 763, and Ind. Forest Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 325 F.3d 851, 863 (7th Cir. 2003) (upholding the Forest Service’s use of data on habitat availability to approximate the population of MIS instead of “going into the field and actually counting all of the birds” and noting that none of the relevant regulatory sources imposed a specific methodology on the Forest Service for ensuring species diversity), with Sierra Club v. Martin, 168 F.3d 1, 4-7 & n.10 (11th Cir. 1999) (rejecting Inland Empire and concluding that the Forest Service violated the NFMA by using habitat informa8260 LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR To always require a particular type of proof that a project would maintain a species’ population in a specific area would inhibit the Forest Service from conducting projects in the National Forests. We decline to constrain the Forest Service in this fashion. Were we to do so, we may well be complicit in frustrating one or more of the other objectives the Forest Service must also try to achieve as it manages National Forest System lands. See 16 U.S.C. § 528 (noting Congress’ policy that the National Forests are to be “administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes”). The case before us resembles Inland Empire. As explained, the record includes studies describing the quality and quantity of habitat necessary to sustain the viability of flammulated owls, and the Forest Service has determined what habitat is currently suitable for the flammulated owl and what habitat would be suitable after the proposed project. While the project involves a disturbance in the forest to some extent, it is for the Forest Service to determine how the Project will affect the habitat of flammulated owls. In this case, the Forest Service has concluded that the current amount of suitable habitat will be maintained and that flammulated owls will be able to maintain their current distribution. That a proposed project involves some disturbance to the forest does not prohibit the Forest Service from assuming that maintaining a sufficient amount of suitable habitat will maintain a species’ viability. Indeed, the project in Inland Empire involved a plan to harvest trees, and that disturbance did not render the habitat as a proxy approach inapplicable. 88 F.3d at 759. tion as a proxy for viability when the Forest Plan specifically required population data and the Forest Service had not collected any information on many sensitive species in the project area), and Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, 372 F.3d 1219, 1225-26 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 requires population data to establish viability of an MIS). LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR 8261 [12] To the extent we suggested in Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 1998), that habitat cannot be used as a proxy when there is an “appreciable habitat disturbance,” id. at 1154, Thomas is overruled. A habitat disturbance does not necessarily mean that a species’ viability will be threatened. Thus, a planned disturbance to a habitat does not preclude the Forest Service from using the habitat as a proxy approach to establish a species’ viability when the disturbance does not reduce the suitable habitat so as to threaten that species’ viability. [13] Of course, a reviewing court still must ensure that the Forest Service’s use of “habitat as a proxy” is not arbitrary and capricious. We therefore hold that when the Forest Service decides, in its expertise, that habitat is a reliable proxy for species’ viability in a particular case, the Forest Service nevertheless must both describe the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the species in question and explain its methodology for measuring this habitat. See Earth Island Institute II, 442 F.3d at 1175 (rejecting the use of habitat as a proxy, in relevant part, because there was “no indication of the methodology used in determining what constitutes suitable habitat”); Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1250 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Our case law permits the Forest Service to meet the wildlife species viability requirements by preserving habitat, but only where both the Forest Service’s knowledge of what quality and quantity of habitat is necessary to support the species and the Forest Service’s method for measuring the existing amount of that habitat are reasonably reliable and accurate.”); Inland Empire, 88 F.3d at 762 (holding the Forest Service did not need to engage “in a more extended analysis of the owl’s nesting and feeding habitat requirements because such data were unavailable”). We will defer to its decision to use habitat as a proxy unless the Forest Service makes a “clear error of judgment” that renders its decision arbitrary and capricious. See Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378 (describing arbitrary and capricious review). 8262 LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR Though some of our cases limit the use of habitat as a proxy, see, e.g., Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. Goodman, 505 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2007) and Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d at 972-73, these cases do not reject the habitat as a proxy approach. Rather, these cases reasonably limited the Forest Service when, based on the particular facts before the court, the use of habitat as a proxy was arbitrary and capricious. See Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d at 972-73 (“We hold that under the facts of this case, the Forest Service’s use of habitat as proxy . . . was arbitrary and capricious.”) (emphasis added). Thus, our cases are instructive that the Forest Service’s use of habitat as a proxy may be arbitrary and capricious if, for example, the EIS states that the relationship between the species at issue and the habitat is unclear, see Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund, 505 F.3d at 891, the record fails to describe the type or amount of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the species in question, cf. Native Ecosystems Council, 428 F.3d at 1250, or the record indicates that the Forest Service based its habitat calculations on outdated or inaccurate information, see Lands Council I, 395 F.3d at 1036; Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d at 971-72. As explained, in this case, the Forest Service detailed the methodology it used for determining the amount of suitable habitat and acknowledged the assumptions underlying its use of habitat as a proxy. Although it is true that no flammulated owls were located in suitable habitat in a number of presence surveys, the Forest Service acknowledges that the nesting boxes used may have been placed too low on trees in some of these surveys. Moreover, the Forest Service has represented that it is difficult to detect flammulated owls, and we recognize that “monitoring difficulties do not render a habitatbased analysis unreasonable, so long as the analysis uses all the scientific data currently available.” See Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1018 (citing Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council, 88 F.3d at 762). [14] In light of the discussion above, the rule we set forth in Native Ecosystems Council remains good law: the Forest LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR 8263 Service may meet wildlife “viability requirements by preserving habitat, but only where both the Forest Service’s knowledge of what quality and quantity of habitat is necessary to support the species and the Forest Service’s method for measuring the existing amount of that habitat are reasonably reliable and accurate.” 428 F.3d at 1250. But we construe the phrase “preserving habitat” broadly so as to include not only those projects where the Forest Service is increasing or preserving the same amount of suitable habitat but also those projects where the Forest Service is maintaining a sufficient amount of suitable habitat to support a species’ viability, even if its plans will disturb some suitable habitat. [15] On the basis of the studies provided by the Forest Service and the Forest Service’s reasonable assumption that maintaining suitable habitat for the flammulated owl will also maintain a viable population of flammulated owls, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that Lands Council is not likely to succeed on this aspect of its NFMA claim. 4. Forest Service’s Compliance With Standard 10(b) Of The IPNF Forest Plan The NFMA requires the Forest Service to comply with its established forest plan in all subsequent actions. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i); Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council, 88 F.3d at 757. Standard 10(b) of the IPNF Forest Plan requires the Forest Service to maintain at least ten percent old-growth throughout the forest. Lands Council argues both that the Forest Service will not meet Standard 10(b) after the Project’s completion, and also that the IPNF is currently out of compliance with Standard 10(b). These arguments fail. [16] The Forest Service has shown that it has complied with Standard 10(b), and Lands Council’s contentions to the contrary are not supported by reliable evidence. The Forest Service presented two independent monitoring tools to deter8264 LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR mine the percentage of old-growth acres in the IPNF, each of which found that the forest contained approximately twelve percent old-growth. The first tool, the National Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, “provides a congressionally mandated, statistically-based, continuous inventory of the forest resources of the United States.” The program’s design and methods are “scientifically designed, publicly disclosed, and repeatable. . . . There are also stringent quality control standards and procedures.” Using the FIA data, the Forest Services concluded that 11.8 percent of the IPNF is old-growth. The second tool, the IPNF stand-level old-growth map, found a similar percentage using a method that “was designed and implemented independently from the FIA inventory.” This method utilizes stand information gathered by Forest Service personnel, which is inputted into the Timber Stand Management Record System (TSMRS) database.12 Using this database, the Forest Service concluded that 12.1 percent of the IPNF is old-growth. Lands Council’s argument that the Forest Service is not currently meeting Standard 10(b) is based on its own report. The report, Lost Forests, documented the results of a sampling, performed by Lands Council under the direction of a forest pathologist, of 3,000 acres that the Forest Service claimed to be old-growth. The report concluded that seventy 12 In Lands Council I, 395 F.3d at 1036, we found the TSMRS database inaccurate due, in relevant part, to its use of outdated data. Until oral argument before this panel, Lands Council had not contested the reliability of the TSMRS database on appeal. In any case, the SFEIS acknowledges the questions raised in Lands Council I and states that since Lands Council I, “the Bonners Ferry Ranger District has undertaken an extensive review of all the old growth stands in the Mission Brush Project area.” Indeed, according to Dr. Arthur Zack, the forest ecologist who reviewed Lands Council’s own report on old-growth in the IPNF, it was Lands Council that was “inexplicably using an obsolete version of the Forest Service TSMRS database, even though they knew the IPNF was in the process of updating its old growth data” and had been provided with more recent data. LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR 8265 percent of the surveyed area did not meet the Forest Service’s own standards for old-growth. The Forest Service’s expert, Dr. Arthur Zack, a forest ecologist, disagreed with the methodology and findings of the report. Dr. Zack found the report “contradictory and unclear about what criteria [it] used for making old growth determinations.” Dr. Zack called the report “not credible” because Lands Council used outdated versions of Forest Service databases and did not use “a representative, non-biased sample design.” [17] “When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378. Thus, mindful of the Forest Service’s discretion, we conclude that it did not act arbitrarily and capriciously “in relying on its own data and discounting the alternative evidence offered” by Lands Council. See Earth Island Inst. I, 351 F.3d at 1302. [18] The Forest Service has also established that it will not harvest any old-growth trees as a part of the Project. Despite its plans to perform treatments within old-growth stands, the treatment will not involve harvesting allocated old-growth. The Forest Service represented in the SFEIS that the IPNF has not harvested allocated old-growth for several years, and that its “focus is on maintaining [existing] old growth stands.” [19] In Lands Council I, we held that “[b]ecause no old growth forest is to be harvested under the Project, . . . it cannot be said that the Project itself violates the IPNF Plan’s requirement to maintain ten percent of the forest acreage as old growth forest.” 395 F.3d at 1036. Though we reach the same holding here, we acknowledge, as does the Forest Service, that old-growth percentages may decline due to “disturbances such as fire, insects, [or] pathogens” even if the Forest Service never authorizes harvesting of old-growth in the IPNF. Because the current old-growth exceeds ten per8266 LANDS COUNCIL v. MCNAIR cent, we need not discuss whether the Forest Service has an obligation to preserve mature, not-yet-old-growth trees in order to work toward the required amount of old-growth in the future. [20] The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Lands Council was not likely to succeed on the merits of this aspect of its NFMA claim.