Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten, 334 F. Supp. 3d 1124

Background

Plaintiffs (Alliance for the Wild Rockies) challenged the U.S. Forest Service’s North Hebgen Project in the Custer‑Gallatin National Forest, arguing Forest Plan Amendment 51 reduced protections for old‑growth and therefore "may affect" Canada lynx (a threatened species).
Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction and submitted Amendment 21 (excerpt) to show the Forest Service considers lynx an "old growth associated species." A temporary restraining order issued, then a hearing was held.
Defendants argued no ESA Section 7 consultation was required because the Lynx Amendment still governs lynx management and Amendment 51 made no changes requiring consultation.
The Court allowed supplementation of the administrative record with Amendment 21 to explain that lynx are old‑growth associated, denying Defendants’ motion to strike.
Applying the ESA‑adjusted Winter test (balance and public interest favor the species), the Court found plaintiffs showed a fair chance of success on the merits and irreparable harm and enjoined implementation of the North Hebgen Project pending resolution on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment 51 "may affect" lynx triggering ESA §7 consultation	Amendment 51 replaces an "old growth" standard with a looser "over‑mature" standard and USFS statements admit potential effects on old‑growth wildlife (including lynx), so consultation is required	Lynx Amendment remains in effect and controls lynx management; Amendment 51 caused no direct effects to lynx, so no consultation required	Court: fair ground for litigation that Amendment 51 "may affect" lynx; likelihood of success on merits supports preliminary injunction
Admissibility/supplementation of Amendment 21 to administrative record	Amendment 21 shows USFS views lynx as old‑growth associated; supplementation fits exception to explain technical/agency statements	Defendants moved to strike the extra‑record exhibit	Court: allowed limited supplementation under the exception to explain that lynx are old‑growth associated; Motion to Strike denied
Whether plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm absent injunction	Logging would irreversibly degrade old‑growth habitat used/viewed by plaintiffs and could harm lynx populations; irreparable injury standard in ESA cases is not onerous	Plaintiffs delayed and did not concretely show probable lynx deaths or species‑level impacts	Court: Garrity declaration and ESA precedent suffice to show irreparable harm; delay was not fatal; injunction appropriate
Scope of injunction (whole project vs portions affecting lynx habitat)	Amendment 51 could reduce old growth across entire project and lynx may be present beyond mapped habitat, so entire project should be enjoined	Injunction, if any, should be limited to portions that could affect lynx habitat	Court: enjoined full North Hebgen Project to preserve status quo pending merits because effects may occur outside mapped lynx habitat

Key Cases Cited

Karuk Tribe of California v. U.S. Forest Service, 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012) (agency must consult under ESA §7 for any discretionary action that may affect a listed species)
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service, 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) (in ESA cases equities and public interest favor protected species; irreparable‑harm standard should not be onerous)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1988) ("serious questions" standard for injunctions: fair ground for litigation)
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 450 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards for supplementing administrative record)
Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973) (judicial review of agency action under APA limited to administrative record)
Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses scope of record supplementation in APA/ESA review)