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. C HR ISTOPHER

SAVAGE, Koote na i Nationa l Fore st Supe rvisor; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-35035 D.C . No. 9:09-c v-00160-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 Oc tobe r 25, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : C LIFTON, IKUTA, a nd B ENNETT, 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 2018 orde r dissolving the

pe rm ane nt injunc t ion a ga inst theM ille r W e st Fishe r Proje c t (M i lle r Proje c t), a

n d c e rta in of the distric t c ourt’ s rulings in its 2010 sum m ary judgm e nt orde r. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 1292(a)(1). 

# FIL ED
N OV 04 2019 M OLLY C. 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.The c onc l usion of theUnite d State s Fore st Se rvic e (Fore s t Se rvic e ) and the Fish a nd W ildlife Se rvic e (FW S) (c olle c tive ly , the Age nc ie s) tha t the M ille r Proje c t “ m a

y a ffe c t, but is not like ly

to a dve rse l y a ffe c t” griz z ly be ars in the C a bine t-Ya ak

re c ove ry z one wa s not a

rbitra ry and c a pric ious. Afte r the FW S issue d a biologic a l opinion a

nd inc ide nta l ta

ke sta te m e nt for the Fore st Pla

n Am e ndm e nts for M otoriz e d Ac c e ss M an a ge m e nt (Ac c e ss Am e ndm e nts), the Age nc ie s c onc lude d tha

t the M ille r Proje c t’ s e ffe c ts fe ll within the range ana ly z e d within the se Enda

nge re d Spe c ie s Ac t (ESA) doc um e nts. To the e xte nt the M ille r Proje c t would im

pose e ffe c t s be y ond wha

t wa s pre v iously

ana ly z e d, the Age nc ie s de te rm i ne d tha

t thosea dditional e ffe c ts we re “ not like l y to a dve rse ly

a ffe c t” griz z ly be ars. The re fore , the Fore st Se rvic e wa s not re quire d to obtai n a biologic a l opinion spe c ific to the M ille r Proje c t’ s a c tivitie s tha t will oc c ur in the C a

b ine tYa ak re c o ve ry

z one . Se e Gifford Pinchot Task Forc e v . U.S. Fish and W ildlife Se rv . , 378 F.3d 1059, 1067–68 (9th C ir. 2004), supe rse de d on othe r grounds by De finition of De struc tion or Adve rse M odific ation of C ritic a l Ha bita t, 81 Fe d. R e g. 7214 (Fe b. 11, 2016). W e ta ke judic ia l notic e of Allianc e for the W ild Roc k ie s v . Probe rt , No. C V 18-67, 2019 WL 4889253 (D. M ont. Oc t. 3, 2019), which he ld tha t the Age nc ie s
m ust re initia

te c onsulta

tion re ga rding theim

ple m e ntation of theAc c e ss
2Am e ndm e nts be c a use the Fore s t Se rvic e wa s e x c e e ding theAc c e s s Am e ndm e nts’ inc i de nta l ta

ke sta t e m e nt in B OR

Z a re a s. S e e Fe d. R . Evid. 201. B e c a use the distric t c o urt’ s 2018 orde r dissolving the pe rm ane nt injunc tion wa s ba se d in pa rt on the M ille r Proje c t’ s c om p lia nc e with theAc c e ss Am e ndm e nts’ inc i de nta l ta ke sta te m e nt in theC a

bine t Fa c e B OR

Z, Probe rt ’ s c onc lusion tha t the Fore st Se rvic e is not c om

ply ing with tha

t inc ide nta l ta

ke sta te m e nt in theB OR

Z a re a pote ntia lly unde rm ine s the distric t

c ourt’ s ruling. 1 W e “ m ay re m a nd a c a se to the distric t c ourt for furthe r c onside ration whe n ne w c a se s or la ws tha t a re like ly to influe nc e the de c ision ha

ve be c o m e e ffe c tive a fte r the initia l c onside ration.” W hite Mountain Apac heTribev . State

of Ariz., De

p’t of Game

& Fish , 649 F.2d 1274, 1285–86 (9th C ir. 1981). Ac c ordingly , we re m and to thedistric t c ourt for the lim ite d purpose of re c onside ring whe the r the M ille r Proje c t c om plie s with theESA in the C a bine t Fa c e B OR

Z. Se e id. This limite d re m and is without pre judic e , m e a

ning Allia nc e is not pre c lude d from filing a ne w a c tion in district

c o urt c ha l le nging the

1 Probe rt is limite d to theAc c e ss Am e ndm e nts’ e nvironm e nta l e ffe c ts in B OR Z a re a s. Se e 2019 W L 4889253, a t *6. The re fore , Probe rt

doe s not c a st doubt on the

distric t c ourt’ s dissolution of the pe rm a n e nt injunc tion a ga inst the M ille r Proje c t’ s a c tivitie s tha t will oc c ur in the C a

b ine t-Ya ak re c ove ry z one . 3Fore st Se rvic e ’ s e nvironm e nta l c om plia nc e . W e will re t a in jurisdic tion ove r any subse q ue nt a ppe a ls. 2 W e re je c t Allia nc e ’ s argum e nt tha

t the Fore s t Se rvic e ’ s ana ly sis of the M ille r Proje c t doe s not c om ply with the Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (NEPA). In pre pa

ring the e nvironm e nta l im p a c t sta te m e nt (EIS) and supple m e nta l EIS for the M ille r Proje c t, the Fore st Se rvic e a ggre gate d the im pa c ts of roa d
c losure bre a c he s into its a n a ly sis of thee nvironm e nta l ba se line , and c onc lude d tha t
roa d c losure bre a c he s we re not a funda m e nta l fa c t or. Allia

nc e ha s pointe d to no
e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t the M ille r Proje c t will inc re a se the fre que nc y of roa d
c losure bre a c he s. The re fore , the Fore st Se rvic e c ould re a sona bly c onc lude it wa s not re quire d to provide a

se pa rate ana ly s is of the c um

ulative im pa c ts of roa d
c losure bre a c he s. Se e Le agueof W ildne rne s s De fs./Blue Mountains Biodiv e rsity Proje c t v
. C

onnaughton , 752 F.3d 755, 762 (9th C ir. 2014). AFFIRM E D IN PART ; RE M ANDE D IN PART . 3

2 Allia nc e ’ s m otions to ta

ke judic i a l notic e are DENIED (Doc ke t Entry Nos. 13 a nd 43). TheAge nc ie s ’ m otion to subm it a de c la ration is DENIED (Doc ke t Entry No. 54).

3 Ea c h pa rty sha l l be ar its own c osts. 4