Litigation Procedure Preliminary Injunction. The court denied the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that irreparable harm would occur if construction continued. The plaintiff relied on a FWS map that showed high potential habitat zones for the rusty patched bumble bee near the project. The plaintiff presented an expert affidavit, which stated that the rusty patched bumble bee was “likely found in significant numbers” outside areas designated as high potential habitat zones for the bee on the FWS map. The plaintiff’s expert also stated that construction of the project “is likely to negatively and irreparably affect” the bee. FHWA, meanwhile, presented an affidavit from the environmental programs engineer for the project, who stated that the project section currently under construction was outside the high potential habitat zones for the bee. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not meet its burden to show that irreparable harm would occur. · The court explained that the plaintiff’s expert affidavit did not definitively conclude that the bee would be found in areas under construction, whereas FHWA’s evidence was “much more persuasive” that the bee would not likely be impacted by continuing construction of the project. · The court also noted that FHWA and FWS were still evaluating whether construction of other sections of the project would have any impact on the bee. · Finally, the court concluded that the balance of harms and the public interest did not support an injunction, explaining that “there is a significant and certain daily loss of public funds as compared with a more speculative environmental impact.”