950 F. Supp. 2d 1172
D. Mont.2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed 2012 suit challenging Cabin Gulch Project and Forest Plan under ESA, NFMA, and NEPA.
- Project on Helena National Forest involves timber sales, road construction, and pine restoration, including whitebark pine efforts.
- Plaintiffs allege ESA §7 consultation failures for grizzly bears and lynx; Forest Plan ESA consultation also allegedly inadequate.
- Defendants contend no consultation needed for grizzly/lynx as not present; project relies on best available science and public notice.
- Court denied most summary-judgment claims, but granted summary judgment for lynx ESA claim and remanded/enjoined project for lynx-related issues.
- Administrative-record supplementation was denied; the court remanded for proper lynx analysis and potential reinitiation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lynx consultation trigger | Lynx may be present; ESA §7 requires consultation. | Lynx not present; no consultation required. | Wrong standard used; remand for proper 'may be present' analysis and reinitiation |
| Grizzly bears consultation | Grizzly bears may be present; require consultation. | Not a may-be-present species; no consultation needed. | No error; grizzly not likely present; no formal consultation required |
| NEPA/NFMA compliance on elk habitat and security | EIS misstates habitat effectiveness and security; violates NFMA/NEPA | EIS provides adequate analysis; uses best available science. | No NFMA/NEPA violation; analysis deemed reasonable and supported |
| Administrative-record supplementation | Supplemental materials should be considered for ESA claims | Exceptions not met; materials irrelevant. | Supplementation denied; remains within agency record |
| Forest Plan amendment and MA-T3 handling | Amendment flawed; violated public notice and cumulative effects | Amendment properly noticed; NEPA compliant; no piecemeal impact | Amendment proper; no NEPA/NFMA defect found |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Watersheds Project, 632 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2011) (low threshold to trigger consultation; any possible effect requires review)
- Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012) (defines 'may affect' and need for consultation under ESA §7)
- Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Lyder, 728 F.Supp.2d 1126 (D. Mont. 2010) (reaffirmed concepts of occupancy vs. may-be-present; expert alignment)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. Weldon, 848 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2012) (elaborates on elk habitat and private land considerations under NFMA/NEPA)
- Ecology Center, Inc. v. Austin, 430 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA/forest-plan amendments; agency path must be discernible)
- Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (NEPA arbitrary-and-capricious standard; no clear error of judgment)