Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Christopher Savage, 897 F.3d 1025

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies sued the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to enjoin the East Reservoir Project on the Kootenai National Forest, which authorizes logging, thinning, and road work in areas used by Canada lynx and the Cabinet‑Yaak grizzly bear.
Alliance raised multiple claims under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and NEPA; on appeal two claims remained: (1) the Forest Service relied on the 2007 Lynx Amendment without first reinitiating ESA §7 consultation after FWS later designated lynx critical habitat, and (2) the Forest Service failed to comply with the Access Amendments (motorized access limits) protecting grizzly habitat by not properly evaluating road‑mile baselines in a BORZ polygon.
While the appeal was pending the Forest Service reinitiated consultation and FWS issued a new biological opinion on the Lynx Amendment; the parties agreed this mooted Alliance’s lynx reconsultation claim.
The district court had granted summary judgment to defendants on both claims; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and under the APA arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard for NFMA issues.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the lynx reconsultation claim as moot and instructed the district court to dismiss it; it reversed the district court on the grizzly/Access Amendment claim and remanded that issue to the Forest Service for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Forest Service unlawfully relied on the Lynx Amendment without reinitiating ESA §7 consultation after FWS designated lynx critical habitat	Alliance: Reconsultation was required; relying on the Lynx Amendment before FWS completed reconsultation was arbitrary and capricious	Defendants: Reconsultation was completed (or aspects satisfied) and post‑decision events remove live controversy	Moot — reconsultation was later completed; claim dismissed and district court order addressing it vacated
Whether the Forest Service complied with the Access Amendments' road‑mile baseline requirement for the Tobacco BORZ polygon when approving the Project	Alliance: Forest Service failed to analyze whether the Project would increase permanent road miles beyond the Access Amendments baseline; that failure is arbitrary and capricious under NFMA	Defendants: Forest Service surveyed existing roads and concluded no net increase; Alliance waived the issue by not raising it administratively	Reverse — Alliance did not waive it (objection first possible after FEIS); Forest Service failed to measure project impact against the Access Amendments baseline and thus acted arbitrarily and capriciously; remand for further proceedings

Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) (Forest Service required to reinitiate ESA consultation on Lynx Amendment)
Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005) (failure to follow forest plan violates NFMA)
Hapner v. Tidwell, 621 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency must apply forest plan standards and explain its analysis)
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 698 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts will not accept post hoc rationalizations to cure lack of agency explanation)
Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 697 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2012) (agency action arbitrary when the record shows clear error in concluding a project meets plan requirements)