Western Watersheds Project v. Ken Salazar , 494 F. App'x 740 ( 2012 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT; No. 11-35135
BUFFALO FIELD CAMPAIGN;
TATANKA OYATE; GALLATIN D.C. No. 9:09-cv-00159-CCL
WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION; NATIVE
ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL;
YELLOWSTONE BUFFALO MEMORANDUM *
FOUNDATION; MEGHAN GILL;
CHARLES IRESTONE; DANIEL
BRISTER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, Secretary of
the Interior; SUZANNE LEWIS, Park
Superintendent, Yellowstone National
Park; NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, an
agency of the U.S. Department of Interior;
LESLIE WELDON, Regional Forester, US
Forest Service Northern Region; UNITED
STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
MARY ERICKSON, Gallatin National
Forest Supervisor,
Defendants - Appellees.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Charles C. Lovell, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 6, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Before: NOONAN, GRABER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Western Watersheds Project and others (collectively “WWP”) appeal the
district court’s grant of summary judgment to Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the
Interior and others (collectively the “Agencies”). WWP challenges the Agencies’
bison management in and around Yellowstone National Park under the Interagency
Bison Management Plan (“IBMP”), adopted in 2000. The IBMP established a plan
to adaptively manage Yellowstone bison as wild and free-ranging while also
reducing the risk of transmission of brucellosis to Montana cattle.
Our task in this case was made easier by the district court’s thorough and well-
reasoned opinion. Reviewing the district court’s order de novo, see Or. Natural
Desert Ass’n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 625 F.3d 1092, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010), we
affirm.
We hold that, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. § 4332, the Agencies were not required to prepare a supplemental
environmental impact statement. WWP fails to show that new information
2
concerning genetic diversity, changes in livestock grazing, the bison
seroprevalence rate, development of a brucellosis vaccine, and risk of brucellosis
transmission has affected the quality of the environment “in a significant manner or
to a significant extent not already considered.” Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council,
490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989); see also Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
376 F.3d 853, 873 (9th Cir. 2004). The Final Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by the Agencies anticipated that there would be changes to the bison
habitat and considered how to prepare for such changes.
Additionally, the Forest Service’s adoption and implementation of the IBMP
in the Gallatin National Forest does not violate the National Forest Management
Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600–1614. The law does not require the Forest Service
to provide management direction for all animal species located on a forest. The
record also does not support WWP’s contention that the Forest Service is failing to
ensure bison viability on the Gallatin National Forest.
Finally, the Park Service has discretion to manage the Yellowstone bison at
levels that can be accommodated on the available range. See Intertribal Bison
Coop. v. Babbitt, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1138 (D. Mont. 1998), aff’d sub nom.,
Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Babbitt, 175 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly,
its culling of the Yellowstone bison herd does not violate the National Park Service
3
Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1–4, or the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act,
28 Stat. 73 (May 7, 1894).
AFFIRMED.
4