Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 12-16452 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff sued defendants alleging that they had failed to adequately evaluate the effects of the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project on the Northern Spotted Owl's critical habitat, in violation of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits as to its ESA claim that defendants arbitrarily or capriciously approved the Mudflow Project. Plaintiff's challenge was premised on a misunderstanding of regulatory terms, an unsupported reading of a duty to consider cumulative effects under section 7(a)(2), and selected portions of the record taken out of context.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction which sought to enjoin a federal agency’s authorization of a timber sale known as the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project in the Shasta- Trinity National Forest in California. Plaintiff alleged that federal agencies failed to adequately evaluate the effects of the Mudflow Project on the Northern Spotted Owl’s critical habitat in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The panel held that the appeal was not rendered moot by a new 2013 habitat designation, and subsequent reinstatement of informal consultation between the United States Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits as to its Endangered Species Act claim that federal defendants arbitrarily or capriciously approved the Mudflow Project.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.