Opinion ID: 182478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NFMA and NEPA Claims

Text: The NFMA requires that site-specific projects be consistent with the applicable forest plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). Under the Kaibab Forest Plan, this requires the Forest Service to “document the effect of the selected action on the viability of the population of . . . sensitive species,” including the Allen’s lappetbrowed bat. A “viable population” is defined, in turn, “as one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure [sic] its continued existence and is well distributed in the planning area.” As the district court emphasized, the Ninth Circuit has held that the Forest Service may rely solely on habitat information in analyzing whether a project maintains species viability. Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 996 (9th Cir. 2008), overruled on other grounds by Am. Trucking Ass’ns Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The Forest Service must also “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.” Id. at 998 (citations omitted). This approach provides that a showing of sustained habitat operates as a “proxy for the viability of that species.” Id. This Court “will defer to [the] decision to use habitat as a proxy unless the Forest 5 Service makes a ‘clear error of judgment’ that renders its decision arbitrary and capricious.” Id. at 998 (citations omitted). The Forest Service’s decision to use habitat as a proxy for species viability was consistent with NFMA. First of all, the Forest Service pointed out that “[p]onderosa pine has the type of bark most suitable to provide roosting habitat” for bats, and “[f]ield reviews in the summer of 2007 noted that many of the ponderosa pine still had bark attached.” Though “[l]ittle is known about microsite conditions related to site selection by roosting bats,” “[a]ssuming loose bark is the only criteria, the [project] area could support an increase in bat numbers due to the large numbers of standing dead trees.” When it comes to numbers, the Forest Service noted the fact that “at least five to seven snags per acre will be retained on mixed conifer sites, with three to five large snags per acre retained elsewhere.” Either figure exceeds (1) the Forest Plan’s requirements, calling for the retention of “at least 2 snags per acre” of ponderosa pine, (2) the mean levels that the Rabe study found adequate for bats (2.6-4.3 snags/acre; 6.5-10.6 snags/hectare), and (3) historical levels in Geographical Area 13. The Forest Service’s methods for making these determinations are clear from the record, and its actions comply with the requirements of NFMA. 6 Finally, “NEPA exists to ensure a process, not to mandate particular results.” Neighbors of Cuddy Mt. v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002). “It requires agencies . . . to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) whenever they propose to undertake any major Federal action [] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The goal of NEPA is two-fold: “(1) to ensure that the agency will have detailed information on significant environmental impacts when it makes decisions; and (2) to guarantee that this information will be available to a larger audience.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, the Forest Service produced a lengthy EIS in which it provided the public with the detailed data and analysis underlying its determination regarding the Allen’s lappet-browed bat. This EIS satisfies the Forest Service’s obligations under NEPA. AFFIRMED. 7