Opinion ID: 721400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Population Viability Analysis

Text: 11 Plaintiffs first claim that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their claim that the Forest Service's Upper Sunday EIS violated the National Forest Management Act. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. Nevada Land Action Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 8 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir.1993). 12 As noted above, the NFMA imposes substantive duties on the Forest Service, one of which is the duty to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B). Regulation 219.19, one of the many regulations promulgated to ensure such diversity, states in relevant part that: 13 Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. 14 36 C.F.R. § 219.19. 2 This duty to ensure viable, or self-sustaining, populations, applies with special force to sensitive species. Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lowe, 836 F.Supp. 727, 733 (D.Or.1993) (The Forest Service has interpreted the viable population provision [Regulation 219.19] as requiring additional attention to certain 'sensitive species.' ); Forest Conservation Council v. Espy, 835 F.Supp. 1202, 1206 (D.Idaho 1993) (In keeping with [Regulation 219.19], the Forest Service at times designates 'sensitive species' ... within a particular planning area.), aff'd, 42 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir.1994). Because neither party disputes the Service's ultimate obligation to ensure viable populations, the key to this appeal is deciding what type of population viability analysis the Service must perform in order to comply with Regulation 219.19. 15 Each party suggests its own answer. The Forest Service proposes that its habitat viability analyses were sufficient. For four of the species (the black-backed woodpecker, lynx, fisher, and boreal owl), the Service did the following: It consulted field studies that disclosed how many acres of territory an individual of each species needed to survive and the percentage of that acreage that was used for nesting, feeding, denning, etc. (e.g. a lynx needs a 200 acre territory, 20 acres--or 10%--of which must be suitable for denning). The Service then assumed that these percentages would hold true regardless of the size of the individual's territory (e.g. that a lynx would need 10% of whatever acreage of territory it inhabited to be denning habitat). The Service examined each proposed alternative to see how many acres of each type of relevant habitat would remain after the timber was harvested (e.g. Alternative 1 would leave 2,000 acres of denning habitat). It next determined what percentage of the decision area that the remaining types of habitat constituted (e.g. decision area was 10,000 acres so that remaining denning habitat is 20% of the decision area). The Service concluded a species would remain viable as long as the threshold percentage of each type of habitat remaining in the chosen alternative was greater than the percentage required for that species to survive (e.g. the lynx population would remain viable because Alternative 1 left 20% denning habitat and a lynx needs only 10% of its territory to be suitable for denning). See Final EIS at III:38-39, 41-42, IV:76, 80, 83-87; Biological Assessment, Addendum 2, at 3-7. 3 16 The Service's analysis of the remaining species was not as detailed. As to the flammulated owl, the Service noted that the Upper Sunday area contained 366 acres of habitat suitable for nesting and feeding, enough for three potential owl territories; it noted that the timber sales would reduce the size of one of those territories. Final EIS at III:40. As to the bull charr trout, the Service stated that the trout only marginally used the streams within the decision area, but that the timber sales would not appreciably raise the sediment or carbonate levels in those streams. Final EIS at IV:64-67; Biological Assessment at 21. 4 17 Plaintiffs contend that the Service's manifold habitat viability analyses are insufficient. They argue that Regulation 219.19 also requires the Service to examine: (1) the population of each species; (2) the population dynamics (trends, etc.) of each species; and (3) whether the species could travel between different patches of forest (linkages). Mills Decl. 5 Plaintiffs claim that their form of analysis is the minimum required by law. 18 In deference to an agency's expertise, we review its interpretation of its own regulations solely to see whether that interpretation is arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, 52 F.3d 1485, 1488 (9th Cir.1995). This is especially true when questions of scientific methodology are involved. Inland Empire Public Lands Council v. Schultz, 992 F.2d 977, 981 (9th Cir.1993) (We defer to agency expertise on questions of methodology unless the agency has completely failed to address some factor, 'consideration of which was essential to a truly informed decision whether or not to prepare an EIS.' ) (citation omitted); see Sierra Club v. Marita (Marita II), 46 F.3d 606, 619-20 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that Forest Service's failure to employ conservation biology methodology when conducting population viability analysis was not arbitrary or capricious). Thus, we will uphold the Forest Service's interpretation unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Nevada Land Action Ass'n, 8 F.3d at 717 (citations and internal quotations omitted). 6 19 We start, as we must, with the plain language of the Regulation. Idaho First Nat'l Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 997 F.2d 1285, 1289 (9th Cir.1993) (If the [statutory] language ... is unambiguous, and its literal application does not conflict with the intentions of its drafters, the plain meaning should prevail.). The Regulation specifically provides that the Forest Service may discharge its duties though habitat management as long as habitat [is] provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat [is] well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (emphasis added). 7 20 We do not believe that the habitat management analysis conducted in this case for the black-backed woodpecker, lynx, fisher, and boreal owl was in any way plainly erroneous or inconsistent with this regulatory duty. Regulation 219.19 ultimately requires the Forest Service to maintain viable populations. In this case, the Service's methodology reasonably ensures such populations by requiring that the decision area contain enough of the types of habitat essential for survival. In applying this methodology, the Service recognizes that decision areas are artificial boundaries that change depending on the project at issue, and that the species inhabiting these areas pay no attention to such boundaries. 21 We recognize that the Service's methodology necessarily assumes that maintaining the acreage of habitat necessary for survival would in fact assure a species' survival. The Service is entitled to rely on reasonable assumptions in its environmental analyses. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Marita (Marita I), 845 F.Supp. 1317, 1331 (E.D.Wis.1994) (finding it permissible to assume that population trends affecting one species in a particular habitat will similarly affect other species in the same habitat), aff'd, 46 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.1995); Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1335-36 (9th Cir.1992) (finding it permissible for Service to assume that declines in the Stellar sea lion population would be the same for the harbor seal population, given their similarities). We find the above-stated assumption eminently reasonable and therefore do not find that the Forest Service's habitat analyses for the black-backed woodpecker, lynx, fisher, and boreal owl were arbitrary or capricious. 8 22 Nor do we believe that the less rigorous analysis performed for the remaining three species--the flammulated owl, the bull charr trout, and the wet-sloped cutthroat trout--was arbitrary and capricious. See Final EIS at III:40, IV:81-82; Biological Assessment at 21. The Service's failure to engage in a more intensive analysis for the bull charr trout and the wet-sloped cutthroat trout is understandable, as neither species would be affected by the timber sales. See Final EIS at IV:64-67 (noting that the bull charr trout's habitat within the decision area would not be affected by the timber sales); Biological Assessment at 21 (same); Final EIS at III:37 (listing the 12 sensitive species that possibly occur[ ] in the decision area and omitting the wet-sloped cutthroat trout from that list). 23 The Service's treatment of the flammulated owl is also reasonable. In its EIS, the Service determined that the Upper Sunday decision area contained habitat to support three potential flammulated owl territories and concluded that Alternative E-Modified would shrink the size of the smallest of these territories from 40 to 35 acres. Biological Assessment at 29-30. The Service did not engage in a more extended analysis of the owl's nesting and feeding habitat requirements because such data were unavailable. See Richard T. Reynolds & Brian D. Linkhart, The Nesting Biology of Flammulated Owls in Colorado, Biology & Conservation of Northern Forest Owls 259 (1987) (It spite of its wide distribution, little is known of the flammulated owl's nesting biology and population status.). We believe that an analysis that uses all the scientific data currently available is a sound one. 9 See Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1996) (upholding a viability analysis that was based on the current state of scientific knowledge). We therefore find no fault with the Service's analysis of the flammulated owl. 10 24 Plaintiffs contend that we must still reverse because the Service did not comply with its duties regarding the management indicator species. Regulation 219.19 provides that the Service may select certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area to be management indicator species when those species' population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19. 11 Once an indicator species is selected, the Service is obligated to evaluate planning alternatives for projects that affect that species in terms of both amount and quality of habitat and of animal population trends of the management indicator species. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(2). 25 We believe that the Service has satisfied this obligation. In this case, the Service selected the pileated woodpecker as the indicator species for the old growth habitat. See Final EIS at III:42. The old growth areas provide special feeding and nesting conditions, upon which several species are dependent. The Service evaluated the various planning alternatives for the Upper Sunday timber sales in terms of how they would affect the old growth forest and the number of pileated woodpecker nesting and feeding territories therein. See Final EIS at IV:88-89. Specifically, the Service found that the chosen alternative would reduce the pileated woodpecker's old growth nesting habitat by 11-12% and the feeding habitat by 11-15%. Final EIS at II:33. Such reduction would eliminate one nesting block ... and reduce the number of home ranges that support good amount and distribution of nesting and feeding habitat from 10 to 9. Final EIS at IV:88. Because the number of remaining nesting and feeding territories has a direct impact on the population of the species, the EIS effectively predicts a slight downward population trend in pileated woodpeckers as a result of the timber sales. We therefore do not believe that the Service acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it estimated the effects of the alternatives on the population of the management indicator species by analyzing the amount of the species' habitat that would be reduced by each alternative. In short, the Service complied with Section 219.19(a)(2). 12 26 We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion that the Service's population viability analysis was not arbitrary and capricious.