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; NATIVE EC O SYSTEM S C OUNC IL, Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s, v. VIC KI C HR ISTENSEN, Inte rim R e giona l Fore ste r of R e gion One of the U.S. Fore st Se rvic e ; UNITED STATES FOR EST SER VIC E, a n a ge n c y of the U.S. De pa rtm e nt of Agric ulture ; UNITED STATES FISH AND W ILDLIFE SER VIC E, a n a ge n c y of the U.S. De pa rtm e nt of Inte rior, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 14-35069

D.C . No. 9:12-c v-00055-DLC M EM O R ANDUM *

ALLIANC E FOR

THE W ILD R OC KIES; NATIVE EC O SYSTEM S C OUNC IL, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. VIC KI C HR ISTENSEN, Inte rim R e giona l Fore ste r of R e gion One of the U.S. Fore st No. 14-35123 D.C . No. 9:12-c v-00055-DLC



# FIL ED NOV 01 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Se rvic e ; UNITED STATES FOR EST SER VIC E, a n a ge n c y of the U.S. De pa rtm e nt of Agric ulture ; UNITED STATES FISH AND W ILDLIFE SER VIC E, a n a ge n c y of the U.S. De pa rtm e nt of Inte rior, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. Appe a ls from

the Unite d

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

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, C h ie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d M ay

3, 2016 Submitte d Nove m be r 1, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TASHIM A, TALLM AN, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Fe de ra l De fe n d ants Unite d State s Fore st Se rvic e (“ Fore st Se rvic e ” ) and Unite d State s Fish & W ildlife Se rvic e (“ FW S” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt e njoining two proje c t s in theGa lla tin Na tiona l Fore s t—

the B oz e m a n M unic ipa l W at e rshe d Proje c t a nd the Ea st B oulde r Proje c t— for viola ting the E nda nge re d Spe c ie s Ac t

(“ E SA” ) by

fa iling to ade quate ly

a s se ss im pa c ts on ly nx c ritic a l ha

bita t . Pla intiffs, Allia

nc e for the W i ld R oc k ie s a nd the Native Ec osy ste m s C ounc il, c ross-a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to the Fe de ra l De fe nda

nts c onc e rning the proje c ts’ c om plia nc e with ESA a

nd the

2Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (“ NEPA” ) a s the y

re l ate to im

pa c ts on griz z ly be ars. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. L y nx The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t the fe de ra l a g e nc ie s m

u st re initia te ESA § 7(a )(2) c onsulta tion on the

Northe rn R oc ky

M o unta ins Ly

n x M an a g e m e nt Dire c tion (“ Ly nx Am e ndm e nts” ) and the spe c ific Ga lla tin Na tiona l Fore st proje c t s . C

ottonw ood Env tl. Law

C tr. v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 789 F.3d 1075 (9th C ir. 2015), c e rt. de nie d , — U.S. — , 2016 W L 2840129 (Oc t . 11, 2016), is c ontrolling. The

re , we he l d tha

t re initia tion wa s re quire d on the Ly nx Am e ndm e nts be c a

use FW S late r de signa

te d a dditiona l c ritic a l ly

n x ha bita t not c onta ine d in theAm e ndm e nts’ c ove ra ge are a . Id. at 1088. Thesa m e c la im re ga rding the Ly

nx Am e n dm e nts is ra i se d he re , a n d be c a use the ha bita t a sse ssm e nts for the proje c ts in this c a se re ly on the pre -de signa

tion ve rsion of the Ly nx Am e ndm e n ts, C

ottonw ood

a p plie s to both c la im s. The Fore st Se rvic e m ust re initia te c o nsulta

tion with FW S. Furthe r, the distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion in gra

nting injunc tive re lie f to Pla intiffs. Se e W
. W ate rshe d Proje c t

v . Mate jk o , 468 F.3d 1099, 1107 (9th C ir. 2006) (sta

nda rd of re v i e w). For a lle ge d ESA viola t ions, thetra ditiona l pre l im ina ry injunc tion sta

nda rd doe s not a

p p ly
. Se e Amoc o Prod. C o. v . Vill. of 3Gambe ll , 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987); Te nn. Valle y Auth. v . Hill , 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978); C ottonw ood, 789 F.3d a

t 1088, 1090. R

athe r, Pla intiffs m

u st only show the y have or will suffe r an irre pa ra ble injury to obta in injunc tive re lie f. C ottonw ood, 789 F.3d a

t 1091. Although the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing a burde n shifting a

pproa c h a nd pre s um ing irre p ara

b le injury , se e id. , the e rror wa s ha rm le s s, a s we are sat isfie d from the re c o rd tha

t Pla intiffs ha

ve suffe re d suc h a

n injury
. Pla intiffs usethe proje c t a re a s for wildlifevie wing, a nd the proje c t s will c le a

rly c a use ha rm to signific ant portions of ly

nx ha bita t . Se e All. for the

W ild Roc k ie s v . C ottre l l , 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th C ir. 2011) (finding irre pa ra ble injury whe re pla i ntiffs’ re c re ationa l use of a

fore st wa s ha

rm e d by logging tha

t im pa c te d portions of the fore st). This injury supports injunc tive re lie f. 2. G r iz z ly B e a r s The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t the 2006 Tra

ve l Pla n B iologic a l Opinion a nd inc i de nta l ta

ke sta te m e nt utiliz e d

the be st a va ila ble sc i e nc e . C ourts gran t c onside ra

ble disc re tion to a ge nc ie s on te c hnic a l issue s a n d do not we igh c om pe ting sc ie ntific ana l y se s. Ec ology C tr. v . C astane da , 574 F.3d 652, 658–59 (9th C ir. 2009). He re , the fe de ra l a ge nc ie s ide ntifie d the “ se c ure ha bita t” sta nda rd a s the be st a

va ila ble sc i e nc e and a dhe re d to it for the Trave l Pla

n’ s inc ide nta l ta

ke 4sta

te m e nt. The Sc hwa

rtzstudy doe s not unde rm ine that finding. Nor doe s it sa y that the be st a va ila ble sc i e nc e ne c e ssa

rily re q uire s the use of “ roa d de nsity ” to m e a sure im

pa c ts on griz z ly

be ar popula

tions. In fa c t , the a ge nc ie s did c o nside r roa d de nsity in the ir a na ly se s of the fore st proje c ts a nd the 2006 pla

n . As suc h, the distric t c o urt prope rly

grante d sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe nda

nts on this issue
. The distric t c ourt a l so prope rly he ld tha t the Ga lla

tin Fore st proje c ts c om

ply with the2006 Tra

ve l Pla n B iologic a l Opinion a

nd inc ide nta l ta

ke sta t e m e nt. B oth proje c ts re pe ate dly

sta t e tha t roa d use will not im

pa rt a ny e ffe c ts on griz z ly

be ars or the ir ha

bita t in a ddition to those

ana ly z e d in the 2006 B iologic a l Opinion. Furthe r, the Fore st Se rvic e is re quire d to m onitor se c ure ha bita t pe rc e n ta ge s on a

n annua l ba sis unde r the inc i de nta l ta ke sta te m e n t. This mo nitoring re quire m e nt m ake s it unne c e ssa

ry for the Fore st Se rvic e to c a lc ulate proje c t-spe c ific e ffe c ts on se c ure ha bita t pe rc e nta g e s. Thus, the Fore st Se rvic e did not a c t a rbitra rily or c a pric iously in de t e rm i ning tha

t the Ga l latin Fore st proje c ts c om ply with the2006 Trave l Pla

n, se e Motor Ve hic le Mfrs. Ass’n v . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (sta

nda rd of re vie w); Frie nds of the W ild Sw a n v . W

e be r , 767 F.3d 936, 943 (9th C ir. 2014) (noting tha t a g e nc ie s m

u st ba la nc e the ne e d for c om pre he nsive ana ly sis a ga inst c onside ra tions of pra c tic a lity ), and the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t in thea ge nc ie s ’ favor. 5The Fore st Se rvic e did, howe ve r, fa il to c om ply with theannua l m onitoring and re porting re quire m e nts of the2006 Tra ve l Pla n. B ut Pla intiffs’ c la im

is m oot. While the 2006 Tra

v e l Pla n origina lly

re quire d the Fore st Se rvic e to use trave l pla nning a re a s a s the unit of m e a sure , the inc ide nta l ta ke sta te m e nt wa s la

te r am e nde d to a l low for use of be a r ana ly sis units. The

re fore , this pa

ne l c a n no longe r provide a

re m e dy , se e Prote c tmarriage .c o m-Yes on 8 v . Bow e n , 752 F.3d 827, 836 (9th C ir. 2014), a nd, notwithsta

nding the distric t c ourt’ s e rror, we a ffirm its gra nt of sum m ary judgm e n t on this issue
. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t the duration of he lic opte r logging wa s a

n a de quate surrogate m e a sure of griz z ly be ar tak e s. In the 2009 B oz e m a n Proje c t B iologic a l Opinion, the Fore st Se rvic e thoroughly disc usse d he lic opte r logging’ s re lative im pa c t on griz z ly be ars, both in roa de d are a s a nd

“ inve ntorie d roa dle ss a

re a s.” The a ge nc y

a lso a de quate ly

e xpla ine d why

griz z ly be ar take s due to he lic opte r logging a re diffic ult to qua

ntify and de te c t , re quiring the u se of a

surroga te m e a sure . From

the se c onside ra tions, the Fore st Se rvic e c onc lude d tha

t the propose d proje c t le ngth— 144 da y s— would like ly

re sult in

“ only a low le ve l of inc ide nta l ta ke ” of fe m a le griz z ly

be ars. It the re fore de c ide d to c a p the sa fe -ha

rbor at tha

t le ngth, triggering thene e d to re initia te c onsulta

tion should he lic opte rs be re q

uire d for m o re tha

n 144 da y s. Se e Ariz. C

a ttle Grow e rs’ 6Ass’n v
. U.S. Fish & W ildlife , 273 F.3d 1229, 1249 (9th C ir. 2001). B e c a use the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i n ation wa s not a rbitra ry and c a pric ious, the distric t c ourt did not e rr. Ea c h pa

rty sha ll be a r its own c osts. AFFIRM E D.

7