Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, No. 16-35856 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in an action regarding the North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project in the Colville National Forest. The panel held that Alliance has not demonstrated serious questions, much less a likelihood of success, with respect to the merits of any of its National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claims. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. In this case, Alliance has not shown either serious questions or a likelihood of success on the merits of a NFMA or NEPA claim based on the Forest Service's use of the "habitat as a proxy" approach for assessing the viability of the pine marten; the "proxy-as-proxy" approach for assessing the viability of fisher; the Forest Service's snow-intercept cover analysis; the open road density analysis; and the sediment analysis.
Court Description: Environmental Law / Preliminary Injunction. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in an action challenging the North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project in the Colville National Forest in Washington. The A to Z Project is a forest restoration project, and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed an action challenging the United States Forest Service’s decision to approve the A to Z Project. The panel held that Alliance had not demonstrated serious questions, much less a likelihood of success, with respect to any of its National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) and National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) claims. The panel concluded, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alliance’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the panel held that the Alliance had not shown either serious questions or a likelihood of success on
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.