Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35819/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35819-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel M. Ashe
Appellee
Vicki Christiansen
Appellee
Friends of the Wild Swan
Appellant
The Swan View Coalition
Appellant
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Appellee
United States Forest Service
Appellee
Chip Weber
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN, a nonprofit organization; THE SWAN VIEW

COALITION, a non-profit

organization,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CHIP WEBER, in his official capacity

as Forest Supervisor for the Flathead

National Forest; VICKI

CHRISTIANSEN, in her official

capacity as Acting Regional Forester

for the United States Forest Service,

Region One; UNITED STATES

FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the

United States Department of

Agriculture; DANIEL M. ASHE, in his

official capacity as Director of the

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; U.S.

FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, an

agency of the United States

Department of the Interior,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-35817

D.C. No.

9:12-cv-00029-

DLC-JCL

FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN, a nonprofit organization; THE SWAN VIEWNo. 13-35819

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 27
2 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

COALITION, a non-profit

organization,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

VICKI CHRISTIANSEN, in her official

capacity as Acting Regional Forester

for the United States Forest Service,

Region One; CHIP WEBER, in his

official capacity as Forest Supervisor

for the Flathead National Forest;

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an

agency of the United States

Department of Agriculture; DANIEL

M. ASHE, in his official capacity as

Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service; U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE

SERVICE, an agency of the United

States Department of the Interior,

Defendants-Appellees.

D.C. No.

9:12-cv-00059-

DLC-JCL

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

April 9, 2014—Seattle, Washington

Filed September 24, 2014

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 2 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 3

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson,

and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Hawkins

SUMMARY*

Environmental Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of two

preliminary injunctions in plaintiff environmental groups’

challenges to the United States Forest Service’s approval of

two neighboring logging projects in Montana’s Flathead

National Forest. 

The panel held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an

imminent injury in the absence of injunctive relief with

respect to their National Environmental Policy Act claim that

theEnvironmental Assessments prepared bythe UnitedStates

Forest Service failed to analyze sufficiently the cumulative

impact of the two logging projects in the same segment of the

Flathead River’s South Fork at the same time. The panel also

rejected plaintiffs’ related claim under NEPA that the Forest

Service should have considered the cumulative impact in

determining whether or not to prepare a full-blown

Environmental Impact Statement. 

The panel also held that plaintiffs neither showed a

likelihood of success on the merits nor raised serious

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 3 of 27
4 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

questions on the merits of their National Forest Management

Act claims that (1) the logging projects violate a standard set

forth in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

that prohibits logging and burning that reduces snowshoe

hare, a favorite prey of the lynx; and (2) the Forest Service’s

habitat analysis did not account for the fisher, a member of

the weasel family.

Finally, the panel held that plaintiffs neither showed a

likelihood of success on the merits nor raised serious

questions on the merits of their Endangered Species Act

claim. Specifically, the panel rejected plaintiffs’ argument

that, when evaluating the effects of the action on potentially

affected species, the Forest Service defined too narrowly the

“action area” for the potentially affected species of the lynx,

grizzly bear, and bull trout.

COUNSEL

Matthew K. Bishop (argued), Western Environmental Law

Center, Helena, Montana, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Michael W. Cotter, United States Attorney, and Mark Steger

Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, District of Montana,

Billings, Montana; Christine R. Everett, Office of General

Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture; Kathyrn

Williams-Shuck and AmandaKoehler,Office of the Solicitor,

United States Department of the Interior; Robert G. Dreher,

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Andrew C. Mergen, J.

David Gunter, Paul D. Barker, Jr., Rickey D. Turner, Daniel

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 4 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 5

J. Pollak, and Matthew Littleton (argued), Attorneys,

Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for DefendantsAppellees.

OPINION

HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:

These environmental appeals for injunctive relief bring

virtually identical challenges to two logging projects in

Montana’s Flathead National Forest: the Weber case

challenges the United States Forest Service’s (“Forest

Service” or “Service”) decision to authorize the Spotted Bear

River Project, and the Christiansen case challenges the

Soldier Addition II Project. Plaintiffs Friends of the Wild

Swan and The Swan View Coalition (collectively, “Wild

Swan”) appeal the district court’s simultaneous denial of

preliminary injunctions in both cases. Friends of the Wild

Swan v. Weber, 955 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D. Mont. 2013);

Friends of the Wild Swan v. Christiansen, 955 F. Supp. 2d

1197 (D. Mont. 2013).

Wild Swan contends the district court abused its

discretion by denying its motion for injunctive relief because

the Forest Service’s approval of these projects violated the

National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the National

Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) and the Endangered

Species Act (“ESA”). Wild Swan argues the court abused its

discretion by failing to recognize its likelihood of success on

the merits and in finding a lack of irreparable harm in the

absence of an injunction. For the reasons set forth below, we

affirm.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 5 of 27
6 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Soldier Addition Project was initially proposed in

2008. The project is located in the 2.4 million acre Flathead

National Forest, and would affect approximately 3,285 acres

on the west side of the Flathead River’s South Fork. The

project would entail a prescribed burn of 1,333 acres, harvest

of 1,128 acres of timber, thinning of 823 acres and clearing

flammable vegetation within 1.3 acres. The Soldier Addition

Project’s stated goals are to restore forest and vegetation to a

historical condition that would be more resilient and resistant

to wildfire, disease, and insect infestation, including

improving the availability of seasonal habitats and

proactively treating trees at risk of, or experiencing, high

mortality.

The Forest Service designated an “action area” and then

investigated whether the project would adversely affect

threatened species or critical habitat under the ESA, including

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(“USFWS”). That agency prepared a Biological Assessment

with respect to bull trout and its critical habitat and concluded

the proposed action was not likely to have an adverse effect.

USFWS prepared a formal Biological Opinion addressing the

project’s impact on lynx critical habitat and grizzly bears.

The Forest Service was also required to comply with the

NFMA forest plan for the area, which included directions for

the management of lynx, fisher (a member of the weasel

family), and westslope cutthroat trout. Following NEPA’s

procedural requirements, the Forest Service prepared an

Environmental Assessment (“EA”) to analyze potential

impacts, including compliance with the forest plan, and to

determine whether a full-blown Environmental Impact

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 6 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 7

Statement (“EIS”) was required or whether the agency could

instead issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”).

After proposing the Soldier Addition Project, the Forest

Service received comments from Wild Swan and other

interested parties and issued its decision authorizing the

project in May 2010. Wild Swan challenged the decision in

district court on NEPA and NFMA grounds, and the Forest

Service decided to withdraw its authorization in order to reexamine its environmental analysis. It then issued a new EA,

considered additional comments, and ultimately issued a new

FONSI and reauthorized the project in December 2011.

In the midst of the decision-making process on the Soldier

Addition Project, in 2009 the Forest Service proposed another

nearby project on the other side of the South Fork of the

Flathead River, known as the Spotted Bear River Project. 

Similar to the Soldier Addition Project, the Spotted Bear

Project proposed prescribed burns of 1,346 acres, harvest of

up to 1,193 acres of timber, thinning of up to 660 acres and

added an additional five weeks to the motorized access

season. The Spotted Bear Project also would serve similar

purposes as the Soldier Addition Project, such as improving

habitat and increasing resistance to fire and/or disease.

The Spotted Bear Project followed a similar procedural

path, gathering input from the USFWS in the form of

Biological Assessments and Biological Opinions, comments

on the project from Wild Swan and other interested parties,

and preparation of an EA for the project. The Forest Service

issued a FONSI and authorized the Spotted Bear Project in

August 2011.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 7 of 27
8 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

The initial Soldier Addition Project EA was completed

before the Spotted Bear Project was proposed; however, in its

revised EA (prepared after withdrawing the initial approval

on the Soldier Addition), the Forest Service acknowledged

the Spotted Bear Project, but concluded there would be no

significant cumulative adverse effects. The Forest Service

reached the same conclusion regarding the Spotted Bear

Project.

After unsuccessfully appealing both Forest Service

decisions to the Regional Forester, Wild Swan brought two

suits in district court regarding the two projects, raising

virtually identical claims that the Forest Service had violated

NEPA, NFMA, and the ESA. On cross-motions for summary

judgment, the magistrate judge issued lengthy reports

recommending awarding judgment to the United States on all

claims.

Wild Swan not only objected to the magistrate judge’s

recommendations, but also moved for a Temporary

Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction to halt all

project activity pending disposition of the cases on the merits. 

This motion for injunctive relief was prompted by a Forest

Service notice that it was proceeding with project

implementation by seeking bids for the “Tin Mule” timber

sale, which would involve logging a portion of the units in

each project (ten of sixty-two units in Spotted Bear and thirtytwo of forty-nine units in Soldier Addition). In both cases,

the district court denied the motion for preliminary

injunction, finding Wild Swan had not demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits, had not shown irreparable

harm was likely in the absence of an injunction, and that the

balance of equities tipped in favor of the Forest Service. 

Wild Swan appealed.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 8 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 9

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the denial of preliminary injunctive relief for

abuse of discretion. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d

976, 979 (9th Cir. 2011). An abuse of discretion occurs when

the district court “based its ruling on an erroneous view of the

law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” 

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation

Soc’y, 725 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2013).

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a partymust show that

“he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res.

Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “[I]f a plaintiff can only

show that there are ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a

lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then

a preliminary injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of

hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor,’ and the other

two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v.

Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013)

(quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)).1

1 Plaintiffs suggest that the district court committed legal error by not

expressly applying the alternative Cottrell test. However, any such error

was harmless, as Plaintiffs have not demonstrated either a likelihood of

success or serious questions going to the merits of their claims. See

Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858, 864–65 (9th Cir. 2012) (where district

court analysis conflated Winter and Cottrell factors, this court may review

omitted factor de novo). As discussed in Section I.A.3. below, in the only

claim in which Plaintiffs have possibly raised a serious question on the

merits, they have failed to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm, as

required under both the Winter and Cottrell formulations.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 9 of 27
10 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

Wild Swan’s underlying substantive claims are reviewed

under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows courts

to set aside only those agency actions which are “arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

DISCUSSION

I. NEPA

NEPA is a procedural statute, and requires an agency

proposing a major federal action significantly impacting the

environment to prepare an EIS to analyze potential impacts

and alternatives. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). To determine

whether an EIS is required, the agency typically first prepares

an EA. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). The EA is not an exhaustive

examination of every possible environmental event, but must

provide sufficient evidence and analysis to determine the

reasonableness of the decision not to prepare an EIS. See TriValley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1129

(9th Cir. 2012); Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Nat’l

Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215 (9th Cir.

2008). Here, with respect to both challenged projects, the

Forest Service prepared an EA and determined there was no

significant environmental impact requiring an EIS. 36 C.F.R.

§ 220.7.

A. Cumulative Impacts

Wild Swan’s principal complaint is that the EAs failed to

analyze sufficiently the cumulative impact of the two logging

projects in the same segment of the South Fork at the same

time, especially with respect to sediment in the river and the

effects on the local grizzly bear and lynx populations. NEPA

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 10 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 11

regulations require the Service to consider cumulative effects

which “result[] from the incremental impact of the action

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions” with the goal of making sure that

“individually minor but collectively significant” actions are

properly analyzed. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7; see also Kern v.

BLM, 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) (purpose is to

avoid “the tyranny of small decisions”). We have noted that

the Forest Service must take a “hard look” at all actions, and

give a “sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and

future projects, and provide an adequate analysis about how

these projects . . . are thought to have impacted the

environment.” Te-Moak Tribe v. U.S. DOI, 608 F.3d 592,

603 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A recurring theme in this appeal is whether the agency

gave sufficient reasons for limiting the geographic scope of

its cumulative effects analysis to one side of the river or the

other. “[A]n agency has the discretion to determine the

physical scope used for measuring environmental impacts.” 

Idaho Sporting Congress v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 973

(9th Cir. 2002). Identifying the appropriate geographic scope

“is a task assigned to the special competency of the

appropriate agenc[y],” Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390,

414 (1976), and the agency must balance need for a

comprehensive analysis versus considerations of practicality,

while also keeping in mind that use of a larger analysis area

can dilute the apparent magnitude of environmental impacts. 

See Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944,

958–59 (9th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, the agency’s choice

may not be arbitrary, and it must provide a reasoned decision

and support for its chosen level of analysis. Rittenhouse,

305 F.3d at 973.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 11 of 27
12 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

1. Lynx

In analyzing each proposed project’s effect on lynx, the

agency considered the total effects on lynx analysis units

touched by the project. A lynx analysis unit (“LAU”) is a

large area that approximates the home range of a female lynx

and contains sufficient habitat to support lynx survival and

reproduction. The Soldier Addition Project affected portions

of three LAUs on one side of the river (covering

approximately 122 square miles); the Spotted Bear Project

affects portions of four different LAUs on the other side of

the river (covering approximately 174 square miles).

The LAUs were not determined with reference to either

project. Rather, over a decade ago the agency divided the

Flathead National Forest into LAUs using the best-available

science. The boundaries of the LAUs remain constant and

are not adjusted for individual projects. Because a single

LAU may be too small to assess fully direct, indirect, and

cumulative impacts, and because lynx wander outside the

boundaries of a single LAU, the lynx guidance documents

indicate that “project impacts must be assessed within the

context of two or more LAUs.” As noted, here the Forest

Service used three and four LAUs per project.

The agency did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by

defining the geographic scope for studying cumulative effects

in this fashion. The groups of LAUs for each project cover

several thousand acres, the boundaries were developed

independent of these projects, and there is no overlap between

the three LAUs touched by the Soldier Addition Project and

the four LAUs affected by the Spotted Bear Project. 

Although Wild Swan argues the agency should have also

considered effects from the neighboring project because the

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 12 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 13

lands are adjacent, the agency has to draw a line somewhere

and has offered a reasonable justification for why it drew the

line where it did. See Inland Empire Public Lands Council v.

USFS, 88 F.3d 754, 764 & n.14 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting it

would be difficult to determine when land stops being

“adjacent”).

Lynx may roam beyond the boundaries of an individual

LAU, but that is whythe guidance documents recommend the

use of multiple units, as the Forest Service did here. In

addition, as noted above, expanding the analysis area further

would work to dilute the project’s apparent environmental

impact. See Selkirk, 336 F.3d at 960. The selection of these

geographic areas for considering cumulative effects on lynx

was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and Wild Swan has not

demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious questions

going to its NEPA claim with respect to lynx.

2. Grizzly Bear

The agency analyzed the impacts of the Soldier Addition

Project within the geographic scope of three grizzly bear

subunits that touch the project area (approximately 129

square miles), and the Spotted Bear Project with respect to

three other subunits (approximately 115 square miles). Like

a LAU, a grizzly bear subunit for the Flathead National

Forest approximates a female’s home range and includes a

distribution of habitat by season and elevation. Also like a

LAU, the bear management units and subunits were

developed several years ago by an interagency committee and

are not project-specific.

Wild Swan argues the Forest Service should have

evaluated the cumulative effects with respect to the larger

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 13 of 27
14 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

Bear Management Unit (BMU), rather than the smaller

subunits, relying on our decision in Selkirk, 336 F.3d at

958–60. The agency explains, however, that national forests

in different ecosystems divide grizzly units differently, thus

necessitating different approaches to analyzing cumulative

effects depending on the particular forest/ecosystem. For

example, in Selkirk, this court approved a NEPA analysis at

the BMU level, but in that smaller ecosystem each BMU

approximated the size of a female grizzly’s home range. Id.

at 960; see also id. at 949 (Selkirk Mountains divided into ten

BMUs; InteragencyGrizzlyBearCommittee “considered that

each unit would provide an appropriate area in which to

monitor and analyze the bears”).

In contrast, the Flathead National Forest is part of the 5.7

million acre Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, and

within this larger ecosystem, each subunit approximates a

female grizzly’s home range.2 The agency further points out

that if it analyzed the cumulative effects at the BMU level

instead, the analysis area would be approximately 800 square

miles, which would be impractically large and would dilute

the project’s apparent environmental impact. See Selkirk,

336 F.3d at 960 (expanding the analysis area could dilute the

effects of proposed project).

As with the lynx, the selection of these boundaries for

analyzing the cumulative effects on the grizzly bear was

neither arbitrary nor capricious and Wild Swan has not

2 Although Wild Swan also argues that these subunits were to be used

only to measure compliance with a road access amendment to the forest

plan, the Biological Opinion the Forest Service obtained fromthe USFWS

indicated that the subunits were “the basic scale for the analysis ofimpacts

associated with access management and vegetationmanagement projects.”

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 14 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 15

demonstrated serious questions or a likelihood of prevailing

on this claim.

3. Fisheries

Wild Swan further argues that the Forest Service failed to

analyze adequatelythe potential cumulative impact of the two

projects on the native fishery, particularly the risk of

increased sedimentation on the bull trout and westslope

cutthroat trout within the main channel of the South Fork of

the Flathead River, even though the projects will occur in the

same segment of the South Fork (across the river from one

another).

For its analysis area, the Forest Service selected a roughly

seven-mile stretch along the Flathead River, beginning at its

confluence with the Spotted Bear River and continuing

downstream to the Hungry Horse Reservoir. The upstream

point was chosen because the greatest risk of sediment

discharge from either project would be from the possibility of

runoff from a severe rainstorm shortly after a prescribed burn,

and the substantial majority of burn units and other project

improvements, such as culvert upsizing, are located

downstream of that confluence point.

The endpoint of the Service’s cumulative analysis was the

entrance to the Hungry Horse Reservoir. The Service did not

consider areas downstream of the reservoir because the

reservoir is so large that it would have a “very significant

buffering effect” so that there would be “virtually no

measurable effect of any proposed management activity to

water quality or water quantity” in or downstream from the

reservoir. The Service has offered reasonable justifications

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 15 of 27
16 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

for selecting the beginning and endpoint along the river that

are not arbitrary or capricious. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d at 973.

The EAs also addressed each project’s potential sediment

impact on this main channel of the South Fork,3but

concluded there would be little significant impact because: 

(1) 99% of the potential sediment would occur only in the

“worst-case scenario,” i.e., if there were a high-intensity

rainstorm shortly after a prescribed burn, which the EAs

concluded was not likely based upon recent local fire history4;

and (2) even if the worst-case scenario occurred, it would be

diluted by the considerably larger flow of the South Fork and

“not . . . outside the range of natural variability” in that

system.

Relying in large part on the hydrology discussion, the

EAs also analyzed each project’s impacts on fisheries,

including fish and fish habitat within the agency’s defined

cumulative effects area. The EAs concluded that although

there could be “short-term negative effect[s] on the westslope

cuttroat trout,” in light of the robust population in the area,

the action would not likely contribute towards a loss of

viability to the population or species. Similarly, noting that

bull trout do not spawn within the project area, there would

be “no adverse modification of critical habitat” for that

species, and determined that the projects would actually

improve the habitat quality in the long term.

3 The EA for each project recognized the potential to discharge

additional sediment to the South Fork of the Flathead River.

4 This is because most high-intensity storms occur during the summer,

and the prescribed burns in the project are scheduled for spring or fall.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 16 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 17

Wild Swan correctly points out that the EAs did not

specifically consider the impact to the main channel of South

Fork if the “worst-case” scenario for both projects occurred

and delivered sediment to the main channel simultaneously. 

However, even assuming Wild Swan has shown a possibility

of success on this issue or at least serious questions on the

merits, we nonetheless affirm the denial of the preliminary

injunction because Wild Swan has not established a

likelihood of irreparable harm to the fisheries in the absence

of an injunction. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[P]laintiffs

must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just

possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.”). Both

EAs indicate it is highly unlikely that the “worst-case

scenario” event (intense storm following prescribed burn) for

either project would ever occur because of the seasonal

timing of the burns, and thus it appears doubly unlikely that

all potential sediment discharge from both projects would

occur simultaneously.

Wild Swan has not shown any likelihood that the

prescribed burns for each project would occur at exactly the

same time. In fact, the project decisions state that because

conditions must be ideal, the prescribed burns could take up

to ten years to complete. In addition, according to the Forest

Service declaration submitted in response to the motion for

injunctive relief, at that time only limited thinning/prep work

for some burns was proposed, with the possibility of

prescribed burns in two of the fifteen Spotted Bear treatment

units and four of the seven Soldier Addition treatment units

later that fall, and then only if weather conditions cooperated. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining

Wild Swan has not demonstrated an imminent injury in the

absence of injunctive relief. See Caribbean Marine Servs. v.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 17 of 27
18 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[P]laintiff must

demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to

preliminary injunctive relief.”).

B. Need for an EIS

Wild Swan’s second argument regarding NEPA is

essentially a logical extension of the first: that the Forest

Service should have considered the cumulative impacts from

the neighboring project in determining whether or not to

prepare a full-blown EIS. The agency must prepare an EIS if

substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may

cause significant environmental impacts. Ocean Advocates

v. USACE, 402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir. 2005). One factor for

the agency to consider is “[w]hether the action is related to

other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7).

As discussed above, with respect to the lynx and grizzly

bear, the Forest Service prepared a separate EA for each

project and its FONSI addressed the cumulative effects within

geographic areas that are larger than those affected by the

particular project, but limited to one side of the river. 

Because Wild Swan has not demonstrated that the Forest

Service acted arbitrarily in delineating the geographic

boundaries of its cumulative effects analysis, we affirm the

denial of the preliminary injunction because Wild Swan has

not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its

NEPA claim. Cf. Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins,

456 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir. 2006). As also discussed above,

the Forest Service sufficiently addressed the effects of each

project on the fisheries, but even if the Forest Service should

have also considered the cumulative impact of both worstcase sediment scenarios on the main channel of the South

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 18 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 19

Fork, there is no immediate risk of irreparable injury

justifying a preliminary injunction.

II. NFMA

Under the NFMA, the Forest Service is obligated to

ensure all project decisions are consistent with the general

forest plan, 16 U.S.C. §1604(i), which in this case is the

Flathead National Forest Plan. The “Forest Service’s

interpretation and implementation of its own forest plan is

entitled to substantial deference,” Native Ecosystems Council

v. Weldon, 697 F.3d 1043, 1056 (9th Cir. 2012), but we must

be able to “reasonably discern from the record that the Forest

Service complied” with the plan’s standards. Native

Ecosystems Council v. USFS, 418 F.3d 953, 961–62 (9th Cir.

2005).

A. VEG S6 for Lynx

Wild Swan contends that the project violates Standard

VEG S6 in the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management

Direction. This standard prohibits logging and burning that

reduces “snowshoe hare [a favorite prey of the lynx] habitat

in multi-story mature or late successional forests” except in

“areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare

habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that

lack dense horizontal cover.” The Lynx Direction defines

“winter snowshoe hare habitat” as “places where young trees

or shrubs grow densely–thousands of woody stems per

acre–and tall enough to protrude above the snow during

winter, so snowshoe hare can browse on the bark and small

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 19 of 27
20 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

twigs.”5It also defines “multi-story mature” as a forest stage

of development similar to “old multi-story structural stage”

but with trees that are generally not as old and less abundant

decaying trees.

The parties agree that portions of both projects involve

“multi-story mature” forests, but disagree as to whether there

is snowshoe hare habitat within such areas. See Friends of

the Wild Swan v. USFS, 875 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1204–05 (D.

Mont. 2012) (to trigger VEG S6 project must occur in multistory mature forest and reduce snowshoe hare habitat). The

Forest Service analyzed lynx habitat maps, computer GIS

analysis, and aerial photographs, and then performed on-theground field inspections to verify whether habitat existed

within the proposed treatment units. Areas found to have

quality snowshoe hare habitat were dropped from the project.

Wild Swan contends, however, that in conducting this

analysis, the Forest Service used a new methodology that

contravenes the definitions of VEG S6. Wild Swan argues

that the Lynx Direction considers only two variables: stand

structure (mature or young) and stem density (number of trees

per acre). The Forest Service, however, also analyzed the

amount of “horizontal cover” provided, which is defined in

the Lynx Direction as “visual obscurity or cover provided by

habitat structures that extend to the ground or snow surface

primarily provided by tree stems and tree boughs, but also

includes herbaceous vegetation, snow, and landscape

topography.” Pursuant to a draft guidance for assessing

horizontal cover, if the percentage of horizontal cover was

more than 35% in winter or 48% in summer then the area was

5 Low density includes approximately 1000–2500 trees per acre and high

density includes approximately 2500 trees per acre.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 20 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 21

considered snowshoe hare habitat and VEG S6 applied. 

While Wild Swan argues this is a significant change that

required public notice and an amendment to the Forest Plan,

the Forest Service contends the new guidance was merely a

means of assessing compliance with the existing standard.

The analysis in the Lynx Direction under “[e]valuating

the amount of winter snowshoe hare habitat” primarily

focuses on stand and stem density, but it does not appear that

these are the only factors to be considered. For example,

even in multi-storied forests with high tree density, the Lynx

Direction indicates it “may provide good foraging habitat

where small trees occur in dense, irregular clumps

underneath the overstory.” Likewise, in multi-story forests

with lower density, the Direction indicates there may be

quality habitat “depending on how the trees are distributed.” 

Further, as noted above, areas with poorly developed

understories that lack dense horizontal cover are excepted

from VEG S6.

In light of the deference we must apply to the Forest

Service’s scientific judgments regardingmethodology and its

interpretation of its own forest plans, see Weldon, 697 F.3d at

1053, the Forest Service’s use of a methodology for assessing

the amount of quality horizontal cover within these areas of

potential hare habitat is not likely a change from VEG S6 but

more likely a means of assessing compliance with the

existing standard. The district court did not abuse its

discretion by determining Wild Swan has not demonstrated

a likelihood of success on the merits of its NFMA claim

regarding VEG S6, nor has Plaintiff raised serious questions

on the merits of this claim.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 21 of 27
22 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

B. Viability Standard for Fisher

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

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 22 of 27
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.6Indeed, 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.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 23 of 27
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.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 24 of 27
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.

III. ESA

Section 7 of the ESA requires the Forest Service to

consult with the USFWS to ensure the proposed project is

“not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any

endangered species or threatened species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such

species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). In this case, potentially

affected species include bull trout, lynx and grizzly bear. 

When evaluating the effects of the action, the agency is to

consider direct and indirect effects to the species and/or

critical habitat, together with other activities added to the

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 25 of 27
26 FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER

environmental baseline, which includes “the past and present

impacts of all Federal . . . activities in the action area, [and]

the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the

action area . . . .” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. The choice of

appropriate action areas “requires application of scientific

methodology and, as such, is within the agency’s discretion.” 

Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 902

(9th Cir. 2002).

Similar to its NEPA argument above, Wild Swan

contends the Forest Service utilized an unduly narrow “action

area” and that it should have, instead, considered the Soldier

Addition and Spotted Bear Projects together. With respect to

the lynx and the grizzly bear, the agency’s justification for its

choice of analysis area is the same as in the NEPA analysis

set forth above, and we likewise conclude that Wild Swan has

not demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious questions

on the merits of its ESA claims with respect to these animals.

With respect to the bull trout, Wild Swan argues that the

action area was too narrowly defined to exclude the main

channel of the South Fork. As also discussed above, the

Forest Service did include what it considered to be the

relevant portions of that channel in the bull trout action area,

and gave reasons for selecting the upper and lower limits of

the river that are not arbitrary or capricious. There is no bull

trout spawning habitat within this particular stretch of the

river. Although some critical habitat does exist within this

action area, the Forest Service and USFWS agreed each

project was not likely to affect the habitat or species

adversely. This informal consultation satisfied the

requirements of the ESA and no formal consultation was thus

required. See 50 C.F. R. § 402.13; see also Conservation

Congress v. USFS, 720 F.3d 1048, 1056–57 & n.7 (9th Cir.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 26 of 27
FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN V. WEBER 27

2013). The district court did not abuse its discretion by

determining Wild Swan has not demonstrated a likelihood of

success or serious questions on the merits of its ESA claims.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the district court

did not abuse its discretion by denying Wild Swan’s motion

for a preliminary injunction.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-35819, 09/24/2014, ID: 9261192, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 27 of 27