N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALLIANC E FOR

THE W ILD R OC KIES, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. DANIEL ASHE, Dire c tor of US Fish a nd W ildlife Se rvic e ; TOM TIDW ELL, R e g iona l Fore ste r, C hie f of the US Fore st Se rvic e ; FAYE KR

UEGER , R e giona l Fore ste r for the Northe rn R e gion of the Unite d State s Fore st Se rvic e ; PAUL B R ADFORD, Supe rvisor of theKoote n a i Nationa l Fore st; UNITED STATES FOR EST SER

VIC E, a n a ge n c y of the US De pa rtm e nt of Agric ulture ; U.S. FISH & W ILDLIFE SER

V IC E, a n a g e nc y of the US De pa rtm e nt of the Inte rior, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-35936 D.C . No. 9:13-c v-00092-DWM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dona ld W . M olloy , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED APR 20 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : FISHER , PAEZ a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Allia nc e for the W ild R oc kie s (Allia nc e ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Unite d State s Fore st Se rvic e (USFS) a nd the Unite d State s Fish a

nd W ildlife Se rvic e (FW S) (c olle c tive ly , the a ge nc ie s). Allia nc e a lle ge s the a g e nc i e s’ a pprova l of the Young DodgeProje c t (Proje c t) in M onta na ’ s Koote na i Nationa l Fore st viola te d the Enda

nge re d Spe c ie s Ac t (ESA) and the Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (NEPA). The Proje c t will pa rtia lly take pla c e on prote c te d ha bita t of the griz z ly

be ar, a thre ate ne d spe c ie s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . The gran t of sum m ary judgm e nt is re vie we d de novo. Se e N ativ e Ec osy ste ms C ounc il v . Dombe c k, 304 F.3d 886, 891 (9th C ir. 2002). Judic ia l re vie w of a ge nc y

a c tion is governe d by

the Adm inistra

tive Proc e d

ure Ac t (APA), and we m ay

se t a side an a ge nc y ’ s de c ision only if it is “ arbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

n a buse o f disc re tion, or otherwise not in a c c orda nc e with la

w.” N w . C oal. for Alts. to Pe stic i de s v . EPA , 544 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting 5 U.S.C . § 706(2)(A)). The arbitra

ry and c a pric ious sta

nda rd is de fe re ntia l, a

nd we will

“ uphold a de c ision of le ss tha

n ide a l c la

rity if the a ge nc y ’ s pa

th m ay re a s ona bly be disc e rne d.” Motor Ve hic leMfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o. , 2463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Bow man Transp., Inc . v . Ark a nsas-Be st Fre ight Sy s., Inc . , 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974)). I. The USFS and the FW S satisfie d the ir obliga tions unde r the ESA. Se c tion 7 of the ESA re quire s a

n a c tion a ge nc y

to e nsure , through c onsulta t ion with e xpe rt wildlife a ge nc ie s, tha

t its a c tions a

re “ not like ly

to je o pa rdiz e the c ontinue d e xiste nc e of a

ny e nda nge re d spe c ie s or thre ate n e d spe c ie s or re s ult in the de struc tion or a dve rse m o dific ation of [c ritic a l] ha b ita t of suc h spe c ie s.” 16 U.S.C . § 1536(a )(2). If the a c tion a ge n c y de te rm ine s tha

t a propose d proje c t is not like ly to a ffe c t a ny liste d spe c i e s or c ritic a l ha bita t, a nd the e xpe rt a ge nc y issue s a writte n c onc urre nc e , “ inform a l ” c onsulta tion m ay be te rm inate d. As long a s a n a ge nc y follows prope r proc e dure s, it is e ntitle d to c ha nge its position during the c onsulta tion proc e ss, a

nd “ fe de ra l c ourts ordina

rily are e m p owe re d to re v ie wonly an a g e n c y ’ s final a c tion.” N at’l Ass’n of Home

Builde r s v . De fe n de rs of W

ildlife , 551 U.S. 644, 659 (2007) (e m pha sis in origina

l). The re c ord shows thea ge nc i e s inde pe nde ntly c onside re d im

pa c ts from

non roa d -re late d a c t ivitie s inc luding post-a nd-pole logging, logging a c tivitie s outside of the re c ove ry

z one , he l ic opte r use an d ove rsiz e d c le a rc uts. The a g e n c ie s ’ ana ly se s of the se pote ntia l im p a c ts we re rationa lly re late d to the ir no-a dve rse 3e ffe c ts c onc lusion. Se eOr. N at. Re s. C ounc il Fund v . Brong , 492 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th C ir. 2007). For e xam ple , the B iologic a l Asse ssm e nt (B A) and the Supple m e nta l B A support thea ge nc ie s’ de te rm ination tha t post-a nd-pole logging in the

re c ove ry z one is not like ly

to a dve rse ly

a ffe c t the griz z ly

be a r. First, the B A e xpla ins tha t logging a c tivitie s only

pa rtia lly e nte r into there c o v e ry z one and so im pa c t only a ne gligibleam ount of a

va ila ble ha bita t. Se c ond, the Supple m e nta l B A furthe r e xpla ins tha

t logging a c tivitie s fa ll within the range -of-e ffe c ts a

na ly z e d by

the 2011 Ac c e ss Am e ndm e nt B iologic a l Opinion (B iOp) in tha t the y would not re sult in c h ange s to roa ds ope n to the public or tota l m otoriz e d route de nsity and do not de c re a se c ore ha

bita t. Although the first e xpla

nation is some what c onc l usory , the a ge nc ie s’ “ path m ay re a s ona bly be disc e rne d ” from

othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord. Se e Motor Ve hic le Mfrs. Ass’n , 463 U.S. a t 43 (quoting Bow man , 419 U.S. a t 286)). This e vide nc e inc lude s re pre se ntations tha t post-a nd-pole logging will oc c ur on only 58 a c re s – a sm a ll fra c tion of the7,074 a c re s dire c tly im pa c te d by the Proje c t. M ore o ve r, the re c o rd c onta ins e vide nc e showing tha t the low de nsity of griz z ly be ars in the are a

re sults in “ g re ate r fle xibility in ha bita t se le c tion” for individual be ars. Although the

B iOp e va luate d only

im pa c ts of roa ds on griz z ly

be ars, it 4note d tha

t so long a s “ roa d de nsitie s a re m ode ra t e and a de quate c ore ha bita t is provide d, it is like ly

tha t the a ffe c te d be ars will find ne e de d food a n d she lte r re sourc e s e lse whe re in the ir hom e range .” B e c a use logging will ne ithe r inc re a se roa d de nsity nor de c re a se c ore ha

bita t, the B Ain c om

bina tion with the B iOp e xpla in tha

t suc h a c tivitie s a

re unlike ly to a dve rse ly

a ffe c t the griz z ly . Furthe r, the Supple m e n t a l B A found tha t tim be r harve sting outside

of the re c o ve ry z o ne would displac e be ars from 17,596 a c re s ove r the Proje c t’ s te rm , but that “ only a portion of the se a c re s would beuna va ila ble at a ny give n tim e de pe nding on how the

tre atm e nt units a

re divide d into tim

be r sa l e s, whic h would not be a c tive sim

ulta ne ously .” Although the

B A doe s not provide

a m e tric for de te rm i ning whe the r sta gge re d logging will lim it displa c e m e nt, the re is suffic ie nt e vide nc e e l se whe re in the re c ord to support the a ge nc ie s’ c onc lusion. The a ge nc ie s c onside re d re s e arc h tha t a n “ a de quate qua

ntity and qua lity

of se c ure ha bita t” a llows griz z lie s to “ susta in disturba nc e within the i r hom e range without injury or de ath,” and he re , a

la rge se c ure are a

of c ore ha

bita t is loc ate d im m e diate ly a dja c e nt to the Proje c t a

re a . This sa

m e re a soning supports the a ge nc ie s’ c onc lusion tha

t ove rsiz e d c le a

rc uts will not a

dve rse ly a ffe c t the griz z ly be ar de spite the a ge nc ie s’ re c ognition tha t the proje c t e xc e e ds re c ove ry pa ram e te rs ge ne ra lly lim iting ope nings to 40 ac re s. 5As to he l ic opte r use , the B A found tha t “ surrounding c ore ha

bita t would se rve a s re fuge for any

be ars tha t m ay be pre se nt during the

pre sc ribe d burning,” pre s c ribe d burning would not be sc he dule d during “ im

porta n t biologic a l pe riods for griz z ly

be ar surviva l,” and he lic opte r units would be “ buffe re d by a one m ile displa c e m e nt z one .” The Supple m e nta l B A m a de c le ar the USFS “ an a ly z e d the a ffe c ts [sic ] from

the use of he lic opte rs to pre sc ribe burn a n d the a ffe c t [sic ] on ava ila ble griz z l y be a

r ha bita t during thepre sc ribe d burn a c tivitie s.” It a dde d tha t he lic opte r use is sc he dule d for a lim ite d duration (e ight hours in one da y ), tha t the re is “ se c ure c ore are a

dire c tly to the we st to a c c om

m odate any disturbe d be ars,” and tha

t the “ [s] e c ure c ore is not im pa c te d by he lic o pte r a c tivitie s be c a use roa d s a re not be ing ope ne d

an d a c tiva

te d .” The Supple m e nta l B A a lso sa id tha t pla nne d m i tiga

tion stra t e gie s for he lic opte r use we re within guida nc e pa ram e te rs. Fina lly , the a ge n c ie s did not a c t a rbitra rily and c a pric i ously in ne g le c ting to distinc tly a d dre s s the e ffe c ts of loc ating ove rsiz e d ope nings ne xt to ope n roa ds. The a ge nc ie s c onside re d the unde rly ing c onc e rns a ssoc i ate d with roa ds a nd ove rsiz e d ope nings, inc luding c ove r and visibility , a nd Allia n c e ha s not shown the c om bine d e ffe c t

of the se two im

pa c ts is a ppre c ia b l y diffe re nt. The a ge nc ie s did not “ e ntire l y

fa il[] to c onside r an im

p orta n t a spe c t of the proble m .” Motor Ve hic le Mfrs. Ass’n , 463 U.S. a

t 43. 6I I.

The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Allia nc e wa ive d its NEPA argum e nt by

fa iling to e xha

ust a dm inistra

t ive re m e die s. Se e Idaho Sporting C ong., Inc . v . Ritte nhouse , 305 F.3d 957, 965 (9th C ir. 2002) (c iting 5 U.S.C . § 704). Allia nc e ’ s sta te m e nts submitte d during a dm inistra tive re v ie w fa ile d to a d e q uate ly a pprise the USFS of Allia

nc e ’ s c onc e rn tha

t the c om bine d e ffe c t of loc ating ove rsiz e d ope nings ne xt to ope n roa ds pose s uniquerisks. III. In sum , we are satisfie d – on a n inde p e n de nt re vie w of the a dm inistra tive re c o rd – tha

t the USFS and the FW S c om plie d with theESA, NEPA a nd the APA. AFFIRM E D .

7