throbber
Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 11
`
`IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
`MISSOULA DIVISION
`
`FILED
`JUN O 9 2020
`
`NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL,
`ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD
`ROCKIES,
`
`Clerk, U.S. District Court
`District Of Montana
`Mi-9-r,ou!a
`
`CV 18-87-M-DLC
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`ORDER
`
`vs.
`
`LEANNE MARTEN, Regional
`Forester, USFS Region One, U.S.
`FOREST SERVICE, and U.S. FISH &
`WILDLIFE SERVICE,
`
`Defendants,
`
`and
`
`SUN MOUNTAIN LUMBER, INC., a
`Montana Corporation,
`
`Defendant-Intervenor.
`
`In its May 26, 2020 Order ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary
`
`judgment, the Court granted Federal Defendants' request to delay ruling on remedy
`
`in the event the court found a violation in the Forest Service's decision to
`
`implement the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project ("the Project"), and to
`
`allow Federal Defendants the opportunity to provide additional briefing on whether
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 11
`
`to remand with or without vacatur. (Doc. 85 at 41.) Purportedly due to workflow
`
`disruptions from the pandemic, Federal Defendants requested two extensions to
`
`file their brief. (Docs. 86, 88.) Now, instead of squarely addressing vacatur,
`
`Federal Defendants claim that no remedy is required because the agencies have
`
`subsequently corrected all deficiencies found in the Court's prior Order. (Doc. 90
`
`at 2.) Along with their brief, Federal Defendants attach a supplemental
`
`information report ("SIR") recalculating elk hiding cover, a biological assessment
`
`("BA") for wolverine, and a letter of concurrence from the Fish and Wildlife
`
`Service ("FWS"). (Docs. 90-1, 90-2, 90-3.) Plaintiffs claim the newly submitted
`
`work is inadequate because it does not comply with the National Environmental
`
`Policy Act ("NEPA"). (Doc. 92 at 7-8.) Procedurally, this case has become a
`
`mess.
`
`Cognizant of its duty to construe the Federal Rules "to secure the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action," Fed. R. Civ. Pro. I, the
`
`Court will construe Federal Defendants' remedy brief as a motion under Rule 60 to
`
`dissolve the injunction. 1 Because the Court finds the work adequate, the Court will
`
`1 Having concluded that the Project violated various environmental laws, the appropriate remedy
`inevitably required remand, see All.for the Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Serv., 907 F.3d
`1105, 1121 (9th Cir. 2018), the only question was whether to remand with or without vacating
`the record of decision. Vacatur is the presumptive remedy, id, however, where equity requires,
`a court may remand without vacatur upon weighing the "seriousness of the agency's errors
`against 'the disruptive consequences'" of delay, Pollinator Stewardship Council v. US. E.P.A.,
`806 F.3d 520,532 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
`Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146, 150-51 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). Attempting to analyze these factors when the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 11
`
`dissolve its injunction and allow the Project to proceed.
`
`Background
`
`The Project is located within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem on the
`
`Hebgen Ranger District of the Custer-Gallatin National Forest, just north of West
`
`Yellowstone, Montana. (Doc. 85 at 2.) The Project is designed to minimize
`
`damage from fire, improve forest health, and decrease human-grizzly bear
`
`interactions at a popular campground. (Id) Eighty percent of the Project occurs in
`
`wildland urban interface. (Id.)
`
`Plaintiffs brought suit on May I 5, 2018, alleging the following four
`
`violations of federal law: (I) the Forest Service failed to consult on lynx and lynx
`
`critical habitat for Amendment 5 I to the Forest Plan; (2) the Forest Service failed
`
`to conduct a BA for the Project and to receive the FWS 's concurrence; (2) the
`
`Court has already seen the work required on remand is disingenuous. For example, it is difficult
`to construe the agency's failure to conduct a BA-which would ordinarily be considered a
`serious legal error, Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 763 (9th Cir. 1985) overruled on other
`grounds by Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075, 1090 (9th Cir.
`2015)-as anything other than harmless when the agency arrived at the same conclusion either
`way. Similarly, if the newly submitted work is adequate, then any delay, however minor, is
`unnecessarily disruptive to the Forest Service's timeline for Project implementation. Given the
`unique posture of this case, the Court believes it best to analyze Federal Defendants' brief as a
`motion under Rule 60. However, the Court must stress that its expedited review is not a reward
`for Federal Defendants' opportunistic tactics. The Court is troubled that counsel for Federal
`Defendants misrepresented the agencies' need for additional time, exploited the opportunity
`given to them to brief a narrow issue, and put Plaintiffs in the position of responding to the
`adequacy of a substantive issue under a strict word count-a task Plaintiffs accomplished,
`admirably. Finding no unfairness here, the Court will resolve this issue as efficiently as possible.
`In the future, the Court will be increasingly weary of granting counsel's requests that threaten the
`orderly adjudication of cases before it.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 11
`
`Forest Service erroneously calculated elk hiding cover; and (3) the Forest Service
`
`failed to analyze the Project in an environmental impact statement. (Docs. 1, 41.)
`
`Plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction, which this Court granted upon
`
`finding that there was a likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiffs' lynx
`
`consultation claim and that irreparable injury was likely to follow in the absence of
`
`such an injunction. Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten, 334 F. Supp. 3d 1124,
`
`1133 (D. Mont. 2018).
`
`Then, on summary judgment, Plaintiffs ultimately conceded that its lynx
`
`consultation claim was rendered moot by the agencies' subsequent programmatic
`
`analysis and consultation of Amendment 51, (Doc. 85 at 9), yet the Project
`
`remained subject to the injunction throughout this litigation. In its Order ruling on
`
`the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court held that the Forest
`
`Service had violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and the Administrative
`
`Procedures Act ("APA") by failing to complete a BA for wolverine and violated
`
`the National Forest Management Act ("NFMA") and APA with its calculation of
`
`elk hiding cover. (Id. at 41.) Instead of vacating the record of decision in that
`
`Order, the Court granted Federal Defendants' request to provide additional briefing
`
`on the appropriate remedy and imposed a supplemental briefing schedule. (Id.)
`
`After a five-week extension, Federal Defendants submitted their brief along with a
`
`now-completed BA, a letter of concurrence from the FWS, and a SIR with a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 5 of 11
`
`revised calculation of elk hiding cover. (Docs. 90-1, 90-2, 90-3.) The Court must
`
`now decide whether, as a result of the additional work performed by the agencies,
`
`the injunction may be lifted.
`
`Discussion
`
`"A party seeking modification or dissolution of an injunction bears the
`
`burden of establishing that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision
`
`or dissolution of the injunction." Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.
`
`2000). A significant change in fact occurs when a party demonstrates its
`
`compliance with a court's prior order. Id.
`
`A. The Elk Issue
`
`The Court determined that the Project violated NFMA and APA because the
`
`Forest Service failed to use the entire elk analysis unit as the denominator to
`
`determine whether the Project complied with the Forest Plan's two-thirds density
`
`standard. (Doc. 85 at 33.) The Forest Service subsequently recalculated post(cid:173)
`
`treatment elk hiding cover in the SIR. (Doc. 90-1 at 2.) As with the old
`
`calculations, the new calculations demonstrate that the Project amply complies
`
`with the Forest Plan's two-thirds standard and reaches substantially similar
`
`results.2 Plaintiffs do not object to the content of the SIR. Instead, they argue that
`
`2 For example, post treatment coverage under the old method of calculation resulted in 93%
`dense hiding cover in the Buffalo Horn elk analysis unit ("EAU"), 88% in Cabin Creek EAU,
`and 96% in Henry's Mountain EAU. Under the new method, post treatment coverage will result
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 6 of 11
`
`the Forest Service must present the new calculations in a supplemental EA. (Doc.
`
`92 at 5.)
`
`Although Plaintiffs are correct that non-NEPA documents cannot be used to
`
`correct errors in the original NEPA process, Idaho Sporting Congress v.
`
`Alexander, 222 F.3d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir. 2000), the Court must also take "due
`
`account" of the harmless error rule, Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d
`
`1479, 1487 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706). The error here is exceedingly
`
`de minimis---in two of the elk analysis units it amounts to a difference in :fractions
`
`ofa percentage. Moreover, the Forest Service explains that because the new
`
`method arrives at substantially similar results, using the entire elk analysis unit as
`
`the denominator does not cause "any other changes to the site-specific analysis
`
`completed for the North Hebgen Project." (Doc. 90-1 at 1.) Because the analysis
`
`of the Project's impacts on hiding cover remains fully intact despite the very minor
`
`change in percentage, it does not make sense to require the agency to release a
`
`supplemental draft EA for public comment and then issue a new decision notice
`
`and finding ofno significant impact. The error here did not "prevent proper,
`
`thorough, and public evaluation of the environmental impact of the Project," Lands
`
`Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1037 n.25 (9th Cir. 2004), and is therefore
`
`in 93.6% for Buffalo Hom EAU, 87.2% for Cabin Creek EAU, and 94.6% for Henry's Mountain
`EAU. (Doc. 90-1 at2.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 7 of 11
`
`harmless. The Court will not require the Forest Service to issue a supplemental
`
`draft EA on this basis.
`
`B. Wolverine BA
`
`Plaintiffs assert that the wolverine BA is inadequate because it asserts an
`
`erroneous legal standard, "cites only the 2014 programmatic BA and 2013
`
`proposed rule in support" and therefore fails to use the best available science, and
`
`is procedurally improper because the Forest Service did not submit the BA in a
`
`supplemental draft EA. (Doc. 92 at 8-9.)
`
`As an initial matter, the BA is not legally inadequate. Although the Court
`
`agrees with Plaintiffs that it is curious that the Forest Service continues to tout that
`
`no BA is required for proposed species despite the Court's order expressly ruling
`
`to the contrary, the BA is not inadequate for continuing to toe the company line.
`
`The point of a BA is to rely on the agency's scientific expertise not its legal
`
`insight.
`
`Plaintiffs next assert that the BA is deficient because it cites only the 2014
`
`programmatic wolverine BA and 2013 proposed rule and thus fails to use the best
`
`available science. (Id at 9.) Plaintiffs assert that the "BA does not disclose the
`
`threat of the extremely small effective population size, does not disclose how many
`
`reproducing females could be impacted by the Project, and does not disclose any
`
`kind of threshold for safety in terms of the number of reproducing females that can
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 8 of 11
`
`be negatively impacted before the effective population reaches a point ofno
`
`return." (Id. at 10.)
`
`Although the BA relies heavily on the 2014 programmatic BA and related
`
`science, the BA does not exclusively cite these materials. (See Doc. 90-2 at 13, 14,
`
`17.) Nor is it improper for the BA to rely in part on the 2013 proposed rule or the
`
`2014 programmatic BA, as the FWS affirmed its prior concurrence of that BA in
`
`2016 after the FWS's 2014 withdrawal of the 2013 proposed rule and this Court's
`
`vacatur. See Deft. of Wildlife v. Jewell, 176 F. Supp. 3d 975 (D. Mont. 2016).
`
`Plaintiffs complain that the BA does "not disclose the threat of the extremely
`
`small effective population size," but this is because, as the Forest Service explains,
`
`"no systematic population census exists over the entire current range of wolverines
`
`in the contiguous United States, so the current population level and trends are not
`
`known with any certainty." (Id. at 12.) However, this uncertainty does not stop
`
`the BA from discussing the impacts of the Project on fragile population segments.
`
`For example, the BA notes the importance of habitat connectivity to the species
`
`long-term survival. (Id. at 13.) The BA also notes that human disturbance in
`
`occupied wolverine habitat, such as that associated with forest treatment activities,
`
`can affect wolverine's habitat use. (Id. at 14.) Nevertheless, the BA does not find
`
`that the forest treatment activities contemplated in the Project pose a significant
`
`threat to the wolverine's survival because the Project will not cause a significant
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 9 of 11
`
`disruption to the most important kinds of habitat, maternal and primary habitat.
`
`(Id. at 16.) Therefore, the BA concludes that the Project activities will not
`
`jeopardize wolverine despite the small population size. (See id. at 15-17.)
`
`Similarly, it is not fair to say that the BA does not disclose how many
`
`reproducing females the Project is expected to affect. Again, the Forest Service is
`
`unable, not unwilling, to speak about the population size with any precision. And
`
`while the BA acknowledges the importance of genetic diversity, the Project is not
`
`anticipated to interfere with reproduction because "wolverine have been
`
`documented to persist and reproduce in areas with high levels of human use and
`
`disturbance." (Id. at 17 (citing Heinemeyer et al. 2019).) Nor is the Forest Service
`
`required to proscribe a population threshold, particularly when the BA explains the
`
`relatively insignificant effect the Project (and its cumulative effects) are expected
`
`to have on maternal and primary habitat. The BA provides a thorough analysis of
`
`the Project's effects on wolverine in support of its conclusion that the Project will
`
`"not jeopardize the continued existence of the wolverine." (Id. at 1.)
`
`Having concluded the BA is adequate, the Court can find no authority to
`
`support Plaintiffs' general contention that post-decisional ESA consultation must
`
`be presented in supplemental NEPA form when the agency's receipt ofFWS's
`
`concurrence is not a "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
`
`human environment." San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 10 of 11
`
`581, 646 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding only that an agency's adoption ofa biological
`
`opinion is a "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
`
`environment" such that the action agency is required to release subsequently
`
`prepared ESA documents in a supplemental EIS). Although the federal regulations
`
`indicates that "[w]here the consultation or conference has been consolidated with
`
`the interagency cooperation procedures required by other statutes such as NEPA or
`
`FWCA, the results should be included in the documents required by those
`
`statutes," 50 C.F.R. § 402.06, this regulation does not necessarily speak to the
`
`circumstances here, post-decisional ESA compliance. Although the Court is well(cid:173)
`
`aware ofNEPA's purpose to facilitate informed decision-making, Robertson v.
`
`Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348-49 (1989), the Court is
`
`likewise mindful not to interpret NEPA in a way that renders it merely an
`
`"obstructionist tactic," Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1090 (9th
`
`Cir. 2014). Requiring the Forest Service to submit its post-decisional wolverine
`
`BA in a supplemental draft EA-when the original EA already concluded that the
`
`Project does not jeopardize wolverine-does not serve any purpose under NEPA.
`
`This is not to say that the agency's initial failure to prepare a wolverine BA was
`
`not a significant error. This is simply an application of commonsense. In the
`
`absence of any authority that expressly requires the Forest Service to resubmit its
`
`BA pursuant to NEPA's procedures under these circumstances, the Court will not
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 9:18-cv-00087-DLC Document 93 Filed 06/09/20 Page 11 of 11
`
`remand the Project to the agency without some indication of a public value served
`
`by that decision.
`
`The Court now concludes that the SIR and BA are adequate. The Forest
`
`Service has corrected the errors found in the Court's Order. This change in
`
`material facts supports amending the Court's prior Order under Rule 60. The
`
`Court will not remand and lifts its injunction allowing the North Hebgen Project to
`
`go forward.
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Rule 60 Motion (Doc. 90) is GRANTED.
`
`The Forest Service has now fully complied with the Court's Order (Doc. 85).
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's injunction (Doc. 27) is lifted
`
`and the Project may go forward.
`DATED this f_ day of June, 2020.
`
`Dana L. Christensen, District Judge
`United States District Court
`
`11
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket