Opinion ID: 793847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Likelihood of Success on the Merits of Earth Island's Challenge under the NFMA

Text: 121 Earth Island argues that the FEISs' reliance on the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) does not satisfy its obligations under the NFMA to conduct population surveys for certain Management Indicator Species (MIS) bird species. The NFMA requires that a forest plan comply with substantive requirements of the [NFMA] designed to ensure continued diversity of plant and animal communities and the continued viability of wildlife in the forest. . . . Austin, 430 F.3d at 1063; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B). The 2001 Framework identifies certain birds as MIS species, for which increased population monitoring is required. The 2004 Supplement incorporates the 2001 Framework's population-monitoring requirements. 122 The El Dorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as well as both the Freds and Power FEISs, list cavity-nesting birds, including the black-backed woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and Williamson's sapsucker, as MIS species. An MIS species is a bellwether, or class representative, for other species that have the same special habitat needs of population characteristics. Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 762 n. 11 (9th Cir.1996). The 2001 Framework states, [p]opulation and/or habitat monitoring will be conducted for all MIS and species at risk. Varying levels of monitoring will be conducted depending on the level of concern associated with each species; as the level of concern about a species increases, the investment in monitoring increases. The 2001 Framework allows for a very limited degree of habitat monitoring in lieu of actual population monitoring, stating that coarse habitat relationships constitute a relatively insensitive index to the status of populations and would only be appropriate for species with a lower level of concern or for which the status of the population were also being monitored. 123 According to the 2001 Framework, the hairy woodpecker and Williamson's sapsucker are low-vulnerability MIS species. Low-vulnerability species are monitored to determine changes in their distribution. Distribution data consist of changes in the presence of species across a number of sample locations and is a spatially explicit version of frequency of occurrence data. In addition, the 2001 Framework notes that in an area as large as the Sierra Nevadas, changes in the distribution of species represent ecologically significant information on the status and change of populations. Appendix E of the 2001 Framework makes explicit that population data must be collected for the hairy woodpecker and Williamson's sapsucker. The black-backed woodpecker is not specifically mentioned in the 2001 Framework, but it is designated as an MIS species in the LRMP and in the two FEISs. 124 As a preliminary matter, we conclude that NFMA regulations promulgated in 1982 apply to the 2001 Framework and 2004 Supplement. These regulations require population monitoring. See 36 C.F.R. § 219. Because the 2001 Framework and 2004 Supplement were developed based on regulations in effect before November 9, 2000, transitional rules, now contained at 36 C.F.R. § 219.14, govern this case. The applicable regulation provides: 125 For units with plans developed, amended, or revised using the provisions of the planning rule in effect prior to November 9, 2000, the Responsible Official may comply with any obligations relating to management indicator species by considering data and analysis relating to habitat unless the plan specifically requires population monitoring or population surveys for the species. Site-specific monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity area is not required, but may be conducted at the discretion of the Responsible Official. 126 36 C.F.R. § 219.14(f) (emphasis added). 127 The district court found that in light of the hairy woodpecker and Williamson's sapsucker's classification as low vulnerability species, a lower level of monitoring is envisioned for these birds, and that the use of BBS data satisfies this lower level of monitoring. Earth Island argues that the district court erred because the BBS data are insufficient and inaccurate. 128 The BBS is a cooperative program sponsored by the governments of the United States and Canada to monitor several North American bird species. Under the BBS, the Williamson's sapsucker and black-backed woodpecker are listed in the red category, meaning that the results are very imprecise and the data suffer from low regional abundance and small sample sizes. The hairy woodpecker is listed in the blue category, which reflects data of moderate precision and of moderate abundance, but which still may not provide valid results. The BBS notes other potential problems in its overall data collection, specifically that the trends do not take into account activity outside of the range of the survey; that the surveys are only conducted by roadside, and may not be representative of regional habitat changes; and that within the range of the survey, many habitats are not well covered and that species within those habitats are consequently poorly sampled. 129 Although not controlling on this court, Sierra Club v. Eubanks, 335 F.Supp.2d 1070 (E.D.Ca.2004), is instructive. In Eubanks, the same district judge as in this case granted a preliminary injunction against the logging and proposed timber sale provided in the Red Star Restoration Project. Id. at 1073. The Tahoe Forest Plan expressly provided for annual population monitoring of MIS species, and it listed each species `for which population trend data is expected to be obtained.' Id. at 1081 (quoting the administrative record). The USFS argued that population survey information was not required as long as MIS habitats were adequately analyzed, and that because the Red Star Restoration Project would not diminish the habitat for MIS species, actual monitoring was not required. Id. The district court agreed with this premise, stating that [h]abitat analysis is an acceptable substitute for population trend data if there is enough underlying data to support such an analysis. . . . Id. at 1082. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that the Red Star Restoration Project failed to comply with the El Dorado LRMP, the Sierra Nevada Framework, and the NFMA because underlying data for MIS species that could provide the necessary information for a habitat analysis did not exist. Id. 130 In its order denying Earth Island's request for a preliminary injunction, the district court distinguished Eubanks by concluding that in this case, such underlying data, in the form of the BBS, do exist. In support of this conclusion, the district court relied upon Forest Conservation Council v. Jacobs, 374 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1207 (N.D.Ga.2005). In Jacobs, the district court found that the BBS provided sufficient data. However in Jacobs, the USFS relied on other data in addition to the BBS. Id. at 1205. 131 We do allow the USFS to conduct habitat analyses in place of population monitoring under certain circumstances. In Inland Empire Public Lands Council, various environmental groups claimed that an EIS did not perform a proper population analysis under the NFMA for several sensitive species living in a project area, including the black-backed woodpecker. 88 F.3d at 759. We upheld the USFS's use of a habitat management analysis where the USFS had (1) consulted field studies showing how many acres of territory an individual species needed; (2) assumed that the amount of acreage remained constant no matter the actual size of the individual species' territory; and then (3) examined the proposed alternatives to see how many acres of necessary habitat remained after the timber was harvested. Id. We also upheld the USFS's decision to not engage in a detailed analysis of one species because nesting and feeding habitat requirements were not available, stating that an analysis that uses all the scientific data currently available is a sound one. Id. at 762. 132 The USFS relies upon Inland Empire to argue that by analyzing the amount of habitat affected, rather than direct population counts of the birds, it has satisfied the NFMA. This argument fails for two reasons. First, a plain reading of the regulations does not support the USFS's argument. The transitional rules state that the USFS may use habitat analysis in lieu of population monitoring only when a forest plan does not specifically require population monitoring. The 2001 Framework and 2004 Supplement provide that the USFS may use population monitoring and/or habitat analyses. However, in discussing the hairy woodpecker and Williamson's sapsucker, the Framework expressly requires population monitoring, specifically in the form of distribution data. It is difficult to see how distribution data could effectively be gathered in the absence of actual population monitoring, and we reject the USFS's argument that it is under no obligation to determine population trends for the hairy woodpecker or Williamson's sapsucker. 133 Second, although we agree that the USFS could have relied on habitat monitoring for the black-backed woodpecker, the USFS has not conducted a habitat analysis on the level of that found satisfactory in Inland Empire. See Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.1998) (allowing habitat analysis under the NFMA in certain circumstances). The FEISs discuss various studies of black-backed woodpeckers that confirm their preference for burned forest habitat. Table 3-52 of the Power FEIS groups cavity-nesting birds into three different species groups, lists the areas included in the project areas that are assumed to provide high and moderate capability habitat, and then lists the number of available acres of high and moderate capability habitat. There is no indication that the USFS consulted current or accurate field studies to arrive at these numbers, and there is no identification of the methodology used in determining what constitutes suitable habitat. 134 As we stated in Native Ecosystems Council, [o]ur 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. 428 F.3d at 1250. In Austin, we noted that the black-backed woodpecker is particularly dependent upon post-fire landscapes. 430 F.3d at 1065. There, we concluded that the USFS had failed to provide a factual basis sufficient to satisfy the NFMA because the EIS did not indicate how the USFS determined that habitat levels were not critically low or how it planned to generate additional habitat to counteract losses from logging. Id. at 1068. We likewise conclude here that because the USFS's habitat analysis of the black-backed woodpecker has not provided a factual basis for determining the quantity or quality of suitable habitat, its analysis does not satisfy the NFMA. 135 We also conclude that the USFS's reliance on BBS data to meet its population monitoring obligation was arbitrary and capricious. Table 3-53 in the Power FEIS (Table 3-54 in the Freds FEIS) is entitled Population trend of cavity-nesting birds. Immediately beneath the table, the FEIS states, NOTE: based upon Breeding Bird Survey routes in the Sierra Nevada physiographic province, from 1996-2003. Table 3-53 then proceeds to list the population status of the hairy woodpecker as Decreasing and the population status of the Williamson's sapsucker as Unknown. The population status of the black-backed woodpecker is also listed as Unknown. A footnote to the hairy woodpecker figure states, Data is not statistically significant; tendency is estimated using the population trend classification system described in Siegel and deSante (1999). 136 The 2004 Supplement specifically mentions the need for annual monitoring of MIS species, stating that only after a period of annual monitoring will there be sufficient understanding of important habitat characteristics that we can confidently monitor habitat without annual monitoring of species' distribution and abundance. We therefore disagree with the USFS that annual monitoring is not required. The USFS has not complied with 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 because it has not sufficiently monitored the population of the hairy woodpecker and Williamson's sapsucker. We hold that the BBS alone cannot satisfy the population monitoring requirement, and the USFS has acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the NFMA in relying upon it. Cf. Colo. Wild v. U.S. Forest Serv., 299 F.Supp.2d 1184, 1189 (D.Colo. 2004) (holding that where an FEIS stated that it lacks qualitative data for one species, had no specific data for another, and was currently in the process of establishing a monitoring program for a third, the USFS had not met its monitoring obligations under the 1982 regulations); Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 180 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1282 (D.N.M.2001) (holding that under the 1982 regulations, the BBS did not satisfy the monitoring requirement where the district court could not tell whether population surveys had been conducted for the area at issue). With respect to the black-backed woodpecker, we also hold that the USFS has acted arbitrarily and capriciously by relying on inadequate habitat monitoring data. See Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1036 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the USFS violated the NFMA where the data for a habitat analysis were outdated and featured inaccurate estimates). 137 The USFS's approval and implementation of both Projects without appropriate or sufficient population and habitat data is contrary to the NFMA and governing provisions of the forest plan. The district court erred in finding otherwise. 138