LOWD/BMBP v. Connaughton, No. 13-35653 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseLOWD plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of their motion to preliminarily enjoin the Snow Basin logging project. The court concluded that the LOWD plaintiffs have shown that they were likely to prevail on their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., claim regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement's (FEIS) discussion of elk habitat because that discussion was insufficiently clear; the Environmental Impact Statement's (EIS) analysis of the project's effects on elk failed to satisfy NEPA's requirements; the LOWD plaintiffs have shown that absent a preliminary injunction, they were likely to face irreparable harm; LOWD plaintiffs have shown that the balance of the equities tipped in their favor; and LOWD plaintiffs have shown that the public interest supported the granting of a preliminary injunction. The court reversed the district court's assessment that the LOWD plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on one claim, affirmed the district court's determination that LWOD plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on other claims; and reversed the district court's holding that the LOWD plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction pursuant to Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. The court remanded with instructions.
Court Description: Environmental Law / Preliminary Injunction. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of a motion to preliminarily enjoin the Snow Basin logging project in Oregon, and remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction, the scope of which the district court should determine on remand. The panel held that the plaintiffs had shown that they are likely to prevail on their National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) claim regarding the final Environmental Impact Statement’s discussion of elk habitat because that discussion was insufficiently clear, and therefore the analysis of the project’s effects on elk failed to satisfy NEPA requirements. The panel also held that the plaintiffs had shown that absent a preliminary injunction, they were likely to face irreparable harm. The panel further held that the plaintiffs had shown that the balance of equities tipped in their favor, and that the public interest supported the granting of a preliminary injunction. The panel reversed the district court on this claim, but affirmed the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their remaining claims. The panel remanded with instructions for the district court to enter a preliminary injunction sufficient to protect the status quo while the United States Forest Service completed a supplemental environmental impact statement.
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.