Opinion ID: 1359302
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Population Viability

Text: WildWest next argues the KNF has insufficient habitat to support a viable population of pileated woodpeckers, the MIS for old growth habitat. The Forest Plan requires the Forest Service to measure [p]opulation levels of old-growth dependent species in order to [m]aintain viable population[s] of old-growth dependent species. A viable population is defined as a one that is at least forty percent of the potential population for any given species in the KNF. WildWest first claims the minimum viable population for the pileated woodpecker in the KNF is 554 breeding pairs, which represents forty percent of the 1384 pairs the KNF was historically able to support. However, as WildWest notes in its brief, the KNF was historically able to support a range of 335 to 1384 pairs. WildWest does not explain why the standard must be forty percent of the range's upper limit. The Forest Service calculated the viability threshold as a range of 335 to 554 breeding pairs, based on historical data. The lower bound of 335 pairs is reasonable. The potential population was at some time reduced to 335 pairs due to natural disturbances. From that nadir, the estimated population has since grown larger. Therefore, the population was necessarily viable at 335 pairs. The upper bound of 554 pairs represents forty percent of the KNF's historical maximum potential, as suggested by the Forest Plan. Therefore, this range of 335 to 554 pairs is a reasonable interpretation of the Forest Plan's provisions for maintaining species viability. The KNF is currently home to 425 breeding pairs of woodpeckers, well within the permissible range, and the Forest Service's determinations in this respect were not arbitrary or capricious. WildWest also claims seven of the nine challenged projectsMcSutten, Fortine, West Troy, Lower Big Creek, Bristow, Alder Creek, and Cow Creekwill adversely affect the KNF's ability to support a viable number of pileated woodpeckers. Its main argument is that any alteration to the old growth habitat resulting from the approved projects will impair the viability of the pileated woodpecker. We have already rejected this general proposition. As we noted in Lands Council II, [a] habitat disturbance does not necessarily mean that a species' viability will be threatened. 537 F.3d at 997. Though they may have adverse effects on the woodpecker, there is no indication the nine challenged projects would force the woodpecker population below thresholds of viability. The facts in this case are similar to those in Lands Council II. There, the record included studies describing the quality and quantity of habitat necessary to sustain the viability of the MIS. Id. The Forest Service had analyzed the suitability of the habitat for the MIS before and after the proposed project. Id. We concluded, [t]hat 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. Id. The result is the same here. The Forest Service has carefully described both the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain a viable population of the pileated woodpecker and has explained its methodology for measuring old-growth habitat. See Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1250 (9th Cir.2005). It conducted extensive analysis for each project area, considering the effects on indicator species, such as impact on nesting and feeding habitat. It concluded that although the nine projects may affect old-growth species, they do not threaten species viability. For eight of the nine projects, the EIS explicitly addresses the likely effects on the pileated woodpecker and concludes the project will not impair the bird's viability. The only project for which the EIS does not specifically address the effects on the pileated woodpecker is the Pipestone project. However, the Forest Service did engage in extensive analysis of the effects on three other old-growth dependent birds, and concluded there would be no loss of viability. It also found the project design criteria would insure management for sufficient snags and snag replacement trees to maintain viable population of snag dependent species. Snags are one of the pileated woodpecker's listed habitats. This is the sort of scientific prediction to which we give great deference to the agency. See Lands Council II, 537 F.3d at 993 (citations omitted). Based on this extensive analysis, the Forest Service concluded that the challenged projects would leave sufficient old growth to support a viable population of pileated woodpeckers. Therefore, the decision to approve the challenged projects was not arbitrary or capricious.