Opinion ID: 793549
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sage-nester guild: sage grouse as MIS

Text: 27 UEC maintains that the Forest Service (1) did not determine the presence of sage nesters in the Project area and (2) did not explain why it chose the sage grouse as the guild's sole representative. The Forest Service concluded, based on a July 2000 field survey and unpublished radio telemetry data, that sage grouse are not present in the Project area. 1 AR 000079, 2 AR 000773, 001247. It also used aerial photos and vegetation mapping to conclude that the Project includes no sagebrush habitat. The EA noted that the Project's road reconstruction would occur along an existing road through potential sage nesting habitat. 1 AR 000079. However, because sage nesters have not been documented along the road and the additional disturbance would involve only.01% or less of total available sagebrush habitat on Thousand Lakes Mountain, [effects] to sage nesting species [are] expected to be minimal as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. Id. 28 We first look to our treatment of the Forest Service's sage grouse monitoring in UEC I, as the same Forest Plan and regulations governed the agency's responsibilities for that project. In UEC I, the Forest Service acknowledged that sage grouse were potentially present and referenced unconfirmed sightings in the Monroe project area. 372 F.3d at 1229. We also recognized that the MIS selected for the plan were chosen, in part, due to relative ease of monitoring. Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). While not all MIS designated in the Fishlake Forest Plan are necessarily present within [a project] area, the Forest Service must show good faith efforts to confirm the absence or presence of an MIS species under § 219.19. Id. at 1229-30 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In UEC I, the record reflect[ed] no attempt by the Forest Service to confirm the presence of the sage grouse, and we therefore concluded that the agency did not comply with § 219.19. Id. at 1230. 29 The Thousand Lakes Project on this appeal is governed by the same Forest Plan as in UEC I, and the Forest Service similarly selected the sage grouse in part due to its [r]elative ease of monitoring. 1 AR 000157 (FEIS at III-34). The agency provides no evidence of any sage grouse population or even a single sighting in the Project area. Importantly, however, UEC does not contest the Forest Service's finding of virtually no sagebrush habitat within the Project area. Based on the Forest Service's field survey, aerial photos, and vegetation mapping, we conclude that the agency has demonstrated good-faith efforts to confirm the absence of the MIS guild representative from the Project area. Accordingly, the Forest Service need not collect population data of the sage-nester guild for this project. See UEC I, 372 F.3d at 1230 ([W]e do not require the Forest Service to attempt to track a species where no population exists.) (internal quotation marks omitted). 30