Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, No. 13-35817 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThese consolidated appeals concern challenges to two logging projects in Montana's Flathead National Project: (1) the Weber case challenged the Forest Service's decision to authorize the Spotted Bear River Project, and (2) the Christiansen case challenged the Soldier Addition II Project. Wild Swan appealed the district court's denial of preliminary injunctions in both cases. The court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction because Wild Swan has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., claim where Wild Swan failed to demonstrate that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily in delineating the geographic boundaries of its cumulative effects analysis with respect to the lynx and grizzly bear; the Forest Service sufficiently addressed the effects of each project on the fisheries, but even if the Forest Service should have considered the cumulative impact of both worst-case sediment scenarios on the main channel of the South Fork, there is no immediate risk of irreparable injury justifying preliminary injunction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Wild Swan has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1604, claims, nor has plaintiff raised serious questions on the merits of this claim; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining Wild Swan has not demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits of its Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531, claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of two preliminary injunctions in plaintiff environmental groups’ challenges to the United States Forest Service’s approval of two neighboring logging projects in Montana’s Flathead National Forest. The panel held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an imminent injury in the absence of injunctive relief with respect to their National Environmental Policy Act claim that the Environmental Assessments prepared by the United States Forest Service failed to analyze sufficiently the cumulative impact of the two logging projects in the same segment of the Flathead River’s South Fork at the same time. The panel also rejected plaintiffs’ related claim under NEPA that the Forest Service should have considered the cumulative impact in determining whether or not to prepare a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement. The panel also held that plaintiffs neither showed a likelihood of success on the merits nor raised serious questions on the merits of their National Forest Management Act claims that (1) the logging projects violate a standard set forth in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction that prohibits logging and burning that reduces snowshoe hare, a favorite prey of the lynx; and (2) the Forest Service’s habitat analysis did not account for the fisher, a member of the weasel family. Finally, the panel held that plaintiffs neither showed a likelihood of success on the merits nor raised serious questions on the merits of their Endangered Species Act claim. Specifically, the panel rejected plaintiffs’ argument that, when evaluating the effects of the action on potentially affected species, the Forest Service defined too narrowly the “action area” for the potentially affected species of the lynx, grizzly bear, and bull trout.
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.