Blm

concurring in part:

I concur in the result. I write separately, however, to express my concern about the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 , 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 , 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008).

I agree with the majority that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the project’s construction is unlikely to cause irreparable harm to *279 bats or sage grouse. Nor did the district court err when balancing the equities in Defendants’ favor or when considering the public’s interest in the project.

In my view, however, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because the BLM failed adequately to consider the potentially significant cumulative impacts of the project and other reasonably foreseeable future actions. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42…

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1). We agree with the reasons thoughtfully expressed by the district court and find no abuse of discretion.

We have pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order striking the declaration of Plaintiffs’ expert. Hendricks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 408 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir.2005). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT No. 11-15799 and CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00053-HDM-

VPC

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,

Defendant - Appellee, and

SPRING VALLEY WIND LLC,

Intervenor-Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 11, 2011 San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for a

preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

We agree with the reasons thoughtfully expressed by the district court and find no

abuse of discretion.

We have pendent…