Opinion ID: 175356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Old Growth Indicator Species

Text: The Gallatin Plan requires that designated management indicator species (MIS) be monitored to determine population changes. The designated MIS for the habitat impacted by the Project are the northern goshawk and pine marten. Plaintiffs argue that the Service violated the Gallatin Plan, and therefore NFMA, by failing to monitor northern goshawk and pine marten. They also argue that the Service violated NFMA by not accurately determining the effect of the Project on those species. [2] We reject both arguments. The EA identifies a number of efforts to monitor the populations of both the northern goshawk and the pine marten in the region. Montana conducts annual studies of pine marten population trends that look at snow tracks of the birds. The studies have detected an average of 75 pine martens per 100 transect miles in southwest Montana over a ten-year period. A recent Service study on species viability in the Gallatin Forest concluded that habitat to support the pine marten is abundant in the Project area. The Service has also conducted habitat surveys and population monitoring for northern goshawks in the Gallatin Forest. The Service relied in its EA on several independent surveys concluding that goshawk viability is not a concern. One 2005 study involved a systematic random survey that showed that the goshawk is relatively common and well-distributed in the Northern Region. Another study from 2005 concluded that short-term viability of the goshawk in the Northern Region is not an issue. In evaluating the effect of the Project on MIS populations, the Service appropriately relied on management of the species' habitat as a proxy for management of the species themselves. In Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 996, we approved 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. We concluded that such a method was appropriate even where the Service is taking actions that will disturb some suitable habitat. Id. at 999. We review the Service's application of the proxy approach under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Id. at 997-98. The Service 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. Id. at 998. We conclude that the Service's reliance on habitat as proxy in this case was not arbitrary and capricious. In the EA, the Service adequately demonstrated a knowledge of what quality and quantity of habitat is necessary to support the species, and its method for measuring the existing amount of habitat [was] reasonably reliable and accurate. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 998-99 (quotation omitted). The EA describes in detail the habitat necessary for the viability of both the pine marten and the goshawk. It adequately describes existing habitat in the Gallatin Forest and the Project area, as well as the Project's limited effect on the habitat's ability to sustain MIS. Further, the EA provides for substantial mitigation measures to ensure that a nest is not disturbed in the unlikely event that one is located during implementation of the Project. The Service reasonably concluded that sufficient habitat currently exists for both species and that the Project would have [n]o direct effects on the pine marten, and little, if any, direct affect [sic] on goshawks. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the Service's methodology for measuring existing habitat was flawed because the Service failed to adequately field-verify old growth stands. The Service conducted extensive examinations of stands in the field in the 1980s, as well as additional subsequent field verification. The Service is not required to use on-the-ground verification so long as alternative methodologies are reliable. 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. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 997. The Service used multiple databases containing old growth stand information and multiple methods to verify its old growth information in the Project area. This analysis led the Service to predict a range of between 21.7% and 29.3% old growth in Gallatin Forest, with a 90% confidence interval, which places the old growth area well above the 10% minimum required by the Gallatin Plan. We therefore conclude that the Service's conclusion that the Project would comply with the Gallatin Plan's monitoring requirements is not arbitrary and capricious.