Native Ecosystems Council v. Webber

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 25-4008
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL; No. 25-4008 ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES; D.C. No. COUNCIL ON WILDLIFE AND FISH, 9:25-cv-00025-DLC Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v.

AARON WEBBER, Townsend District Ranger, Helena Lewis & Clark National Forest; EMILY PLATT, Supervisor, Helena Lewis & Clark National Forest; LEANNE MARTEN, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service Northern Region; UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees,

SUN MOUNTAIN LUMBER, INC.,

Intervenor-Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 12, 2026

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Native Ecosystems Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Council on

Wildlife and Fish (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for

a preliminary injunction enjoining logging and road construction operations

associated with the U.S. Forest Service’s Wood Duck Project (“the Project”).

Plaintiffs raise several claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5

U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C.

§§ 1600 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 4321 et seq.

We review the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction for abuse of

discretion. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish that he is likely to

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction

is in the public interest.” Earth Island Inst. v. Muldoon, 82 F.4th 624, 631 (9th Cir.

2023) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Plaintiffs alternatively can satisfy

the first element “by raising serious questions going to the merits if the balance of

hardships tips sharply in [their] favor.” Id. (citation modified). Because Plaintiffs

fail to raise at least serious questions going to the merits, we affirm. See id. at 640.

2 25-4008 1. Plaintiffs allege multiple procedural violations under NEPA and NFMA.

First, Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service failed to disclose required information

in the Project’s Decision Notice, in violation of NFMA. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.15(d)

(“A project or activity approval document must describe how the project or activity

is consistent with applicable plan components . . . .”). But the Forest Service’s

decision document incorporates by reference a “Consistency Table” that identifies

and explains that the Project complies with all relevant Forest Plan desired

conditions and guidelines. At the time of the project’s approval in April 2024, no

more was required. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.12 (2024) (NEPA authorizing

incorporation by reference); 36 C.F.R. § 219.14(a) (2024) (NFMA regulations

requiring decision documents to utilize NEPA procedures).

Second, Plaintiffs assert that the Forest Service failed to satisfy NEPA by

failing to adequately consider and address the comments received from Montana

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (“Montana FWP”) during the initial public comment

period. But the Forest Service disclosed Montana FWP’s comments in a public

comments table incorporated by reference within the Project’s Environmental

Assessment. And the Forest Service responded to the comments, including by

making several alterations to the final project design. This was sufficient under

NEPA and the APA.

2. Next, Plaintiffs challenge the Forest Service’s substantive compliance with

3 25-4008 NFMA. Plaintiffs assert that the Project does not comply with the Forest Plan’s

Desired Conditions 1 and 4 and Guideline 1.

Desired Conditions 1 and 4 relate to the management of elk. A project

complies with a desired condition if it “contributes to the maintenance or attainment”

of the condition or “does not foreclose the opportunity to maintain or achieve” the

desired condition “over the long term.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.15(d)(1). As reflected in

the Consistency Table and the project Elk Report, while elk security in the area is

low, the Forest Service reasonably concluded that the Project would not foreclose

achievement of either Desired Condition over the long term. Further, the Forest

Service considered Montana FWP’s comments (which did not contend that the

preliminary project design would foreclose future attainment of the two desired

conditions), made alterations to the Project’s scope and design, and offered reasoned

bases for concluding the Project would comply with the Forest Plan’s desired

conditions.

Guideline 1 directs the Forest Service to coordinate with Montana FWP to

reduce the displacement of big game species during the archery and rifle hunting

seasons and to follow scientific information and current agency and interagency

efforts, such as the Eastside Assessment. A project complies with a forest plan’s

guideline if the project “[i]s designed in a way that is as effective in achieving the

[guideline’s] purpose.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.15(d)(3). The record shows that the Forest

4 25-4008 Service provided a reasoned basis for concluding that the Project would comply with

Guideline 1. The Consistency Table describes the agency’s commitment to

“coordinate with” biologists at Montana FWP prior to implementation. Other design

features limit the public’s access to roadways and limit project activity during

portions of the rifle and archery hunting seasons. And the Forest Service consulted

the Eastside Assessment in analyzing canopy cover and determining elk analysis

units. Other scientific studies were considered in mapping habitats and analyzing

elk security. Further, Montana FWP’s comments do not show noncompliance with

Guideline 1. The guideline requires consultation, not approval. And the Forest

Service revised the project design to address recommendations raised by Montana

FWP. Montana FWP declined to object to the revised project plan.

AFFIRMED.

5 25-4008