Opinion ID: 2737007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Viability Standard for Fisher

Text: The fisher is a medium-sized, forest-dependent member of the weasel family. It is a sensitive species and a management indicator species (“MIS”) in the Flathead National Forest. The fisher is “an indicator that the needs of other forest carnivores are met, as well as wildlife that use closed-canopy . . . forests, particularly [moist] forests associated with riparian zones.” As a sensitive species, the Forest Service is required to monitor the “change in population status” and distribution of the fisher and ensure “project decisions will not result in loss of species viability or create significant trends towards federal listing” of the species. The Forest Service indicated in the EA that “fishers are more difficult to detect than most species . . . and monitoring results are often inconclusive.” Wild Swan argues that instead the monitoring methods are failing to confirm the presence of fisher in the area. The Forest Service explains, however, that the fisher is a “low-density carnivore,” which does not live or travel in packs but is a solitary and territorial creature that requires large home ranges of about fifteen square miles. For example, in high-quality habitats in British Columbia, fisher density is estimated at between 0.01 and 0.0154 per km. A 2010 study of historical records indicated that the fisher is one of the lowest-density carnivores in Montana, making “the likelihood of seeing fisher in a specific project area . . . very low.” Nonetheless, the Forest Service used all available population data, including information from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks that its personnel had encountered fisher tracks for the past several years in the FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 23 course of winter track surveys, and available trapping data regarding fisher harvests in the region, which yielded consistent results over the past decade.6 Indeed, there were 481 fisher sightings in Montana, “with numerous sightings in Northwest Montana within the last ten years.” Based on the available data, the agency found no reason to believe that the fisher population in the project area was in decline. The Forest Service acknowledged that the proposed projects would affect small portions of fisher habitat from the removal of mature forest stands (818 acres in Spotted Bear; 1092 acres in Soldier Addition). It concluded, however, that the impacts would be negligible and would not harm population viability because a significant amount of sufficient habitat for fisher would remain in the area. This is commonly referred to as using habitat as a proxy for viability; in turn, if the species is used as an indicator of the population of another species, it is a “proxy-on-proxy” approach. The use of this proxy approach is appropriate “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.” Native Ecosystems Council v. USFS, 428 F.3d 1233, 1250 (9th Cir. 2005). We have generally accepted the use of habitat as a proxy for population “absent some indication in the record that USFS’s underlying methodology is flawed,” Envt’l Prot. 6 The fisher data appear to be statewide in Montana, versus the specific area affected by the project. However, with respect to trapping, the EA explains that the trapping season in the state is December to February, a time at which all roads to the actual project area have been closed for the season. 24 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER Info. Ctr. (“EPIC”) v. USFS, 451 F.3d 1005, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006), that is, so long as the habitat proxy “reasonably ensures that the proxy results mirror reality.” Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USF&WS, 378 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004). For example, in Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell, 599 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2010), we invalidated the use of the proxy-on-proxy approach where there was no data indicating the presence of the species in the area, no suggestion there was difficulty monitoring the species, and a flaw in the Forest Service’s methodology that further undermined the use of the habitat proxy approach. Id. at 933–35. However, “[m]onitoring difficulties do not render a habitat-based analysis unreasonable, so long as the analysis uses all the scientific data currently available.” The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 998 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), overruled in part on other grounds by Winter, 555 U.S. at 20; see also Inland Empire, 88 F.3d at 763 n.12 (noting that there was no reliable and cost-effective method of counting individual members of a small, reclusive species such as the pileated woodpecker).7 Here, in analyzing the habitat, the Forest Service used the best available scientific data to define potential fisher habitat, taking into consideration factors such as the maturity of the forest, proximity to riparian features, and connectivity of habitat areas. With respect to the Spotted Bear Project, the Service determined that approximately 44% of the total 7 Similar to Inland Empire, here the Forest Service indicates that to obtain reliable data, a trapping/telemetry study would be necessary but that there is no ongoing fisher research in the Flathead National Forest on which to rely. FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 25 project area was potential fisher habitat, and that only 3% of that habitat would be affected by the proposed project. With respect to Soldier Addition, approximately 57% of the project area is potential fisher habitat, with only 3–4% being affected by the proposed project. The Service also consulted the primary researcher on fisher populations in Idaho and Montana, who indicated he “could not quantify the effect of such a fine-scale habitat change.” Wild Swan does not level specific criticisms at the Forest Service’s habitat methodology, other than to complain that no fisher were actually detected in the relatively small project area. As explained above, given the creature’s solitary nature and wide dispersal patterns, this is unsurprising and likely due to monitoring difficulties, but not necessarily indicative of a decline in population. See Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070, 1082 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Wild Swan has not shown a likelihood of success on its NFMA claim, nor has Plaintiff raised serious questions on the merits of this claim. See EPIC, 451 F.3d at 1017.