LOWD/BMBP v. Connaughton

LOWD 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. View "LOWD/BMBP v. Connaughton" on Justia Law