Friends of the Wild Swan v. Christiansen, 955 F. Supp. 2d 1197

Background

Plaintiffs Friends of the Wild Swan and Swan View Coalition sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to halt logging projects (Spotted Bear River and Soldier Addition) on the South Fork of the Flathead River.
Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; Magistrate Judge Lynch recommended denying plaintiffs’ motions and allowing projects to proceed.
Plaintiffs raised two new arguments in their TRO: (1) Defendants failed to consider “connected/cumulative/similar actions” under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2) when scoping the EIS; (2) this court’s Salix decision requires enjoining the projects for defective lynx-critical-habitat consultation.
District Court limited review: declined to consider the § 1508.25(a)(2) argument raised for the first time post-summary-judgment and found plaintiffs unlikely to meet the Winter standard on NEPA/NFMA claims.
On ESA issues (Salix-based claim), Court held plaintiffs failed to satisfy the ESA 60-day notice requirement, depriving the court of jurisdiction to consider that theory.
Court denied the TRO/PI: plaintiffs failed to show likely success on merits or irreparable harm for NEPA/NFMA claims; balance of equities and public interest favored defendants; ESA-based relief barred by 60-day notice defect.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agency failed to consider connected/cumulative/similar actions under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2) when scoping EIS	Plaintiffs: agency should have considered adjacent projects (Spotted Bear and Soldier Addition) together when determining EIS scope	Defendants: argument was not timely raised and was waived; Magistrate addressed cumulative-effects standards	Court: declined to consider the argument because it was raised for first time after magistrate’s findings and summary-judgment briefing; waived
Whether plaintiffs likely to succeed on NEPA and NFMA claims (Winter likelihood of success)	Plaintiffs: procedural and substantive NEPA/NFMA defects justify injunctive relief	Defendants: Magistrate’s recommendation shows plaintiffs’ claims lack legal sufficiency; impacts are limited and the agency complied	Court: plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits; TRO denied
Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable environmental harm absent injunction	Plaintiffs: logging will irreparably harm recreation, old-growth/hare habitat, and lynx habitat	Defendants: Tin Mule units do not affect old-growth or designated lynx critical habitat; timber activity not inherently irreparable	Court: plaintiffs did not show likely irreparable harm from the Tin Mule sale
Whether Salix requires injunctive relief for ESA consultation defects	Plaintiffs: Salix compels injunction because consultation relied on Lynx Amendment/VEG S6 standards	Defendants: Salix-based argument was not raised in 60-day ESA notice or summary judgment and is jurisdictionally barred; Tin Mule units outside lynx critical habitat	Court: plaintiffs failed to give required 60-day notice; court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Salix-based ESA claim; waived

Key Cases Cited

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (TRO is extraordinary remedy; burden on movant)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2011) (likelihood of success requirement for injunctions)
Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462 (9th Cir. 2010) (environmental impact alone does not automatically establish irreparable harm)
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Burlington N. R.R., 23 F.3d 1508 (9th Cir. 1994) (ESA alters traditional equitable balancing for injunctions)
Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 1996) (ESA standards on injunctive relief)
United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court discretion to consider new arguments on magistrate objections)