Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00397/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00397-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIERRA CLUB et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DALE BOSWORTH et al,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-00397 CRB

Related Case No. C 05-00898 CRB

Related Case No. C 04-02588 CRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Now before the Court is a motion for preliminary injunction filed by several

environmental groups asking the Court to temporarily halt the execution of a logging contract

in the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. On September 9, 2005, the Court issued a

preliminary injunction temporarily stopping a different yet similar logging project because of

uncertainty about its potential impact on the habitat of the Pacific fisher, a mink-like animal

that may be facing extirpation in that area. See Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 2005 WL 2204986

(N.D. Cal. Sep 09, 2005) (NO. C 05-00397 CRB) (“Saddle Order”). The Court now

addresses the application of the same concerns expressed in the Saddle Order to a different

contract in the same region. After carefully considering the record in this matter, and with

the benefit of an extended hearing which included live testimony, the Court hereby GRANTS

the motion for a preliminary injunction.

//

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs, a consortium of environmental groups, file this motion for a preliminary

injunction of the Ice Timber Sale (“Ice Project”) and request the Court to suspend defendantintervenor Sierra Forest Project’s logging operations related to this project until the merits of

the case can be decided. The Ice Project, which covers 1,160 acres within and around the

Giant Sequoia National Monument, includes units subject to environmental reviews in both

the Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (“Ice

EA”) and the Revised White River Environmental Assessment (“White River EA”). The Ice

EA was released on September 11, 1998 and a decision notice and finding of no significant

impact (“Ice DN/FONSI”) was completed on December 11, 1998. Def. Opp. at 7. The

White River EA was published in July 1997 and was authorized by the November 14, 1997

decision notice and finding of no significant impact (“White River DN/FONSI”). Id. Both

DN/FONSIs incorporated the findings of separate Biological Evaluations (“BEs”) on

sensitive species in the region, including the fisher. The original EAs for all projects (Ice,

White River and Saddle) generally rely on the same information, most important of which is

the 1993 California Spotted Owl Interim Guidelines (“CASPO”), which were implemented

to preserve the habitat of the spotted owl and are thought to apply to the fisher, as well. 

Among other things, the original environmental analyses concluded that the relevant logging

projects “may affect individual[s]” fisher, but are not likely to “result in a trend toward

federal listing or loss of viability” of the Pacific fisher. See Ice EA at *59. The Forest

Service concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) was not necessary

because the impact of the Ice Project on “plant and animal habitat” would be “beneficial, but

not significant.” Def. Opp at 1. 

On November 15, 1999, the Ice contract was awarded to intervenor. In 2001 and

2004, amendments to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (“SNFPAs”) were passed. A review of

the consistency of the 2001 SNFPA with the Ice Project was released on June 14, 2001 and

found that the CASPO Interim Guidelines were not called into question by the 2001 SNFPA. 

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

There was no review of the 2004 SNFPA until a Supplemental Information Report dated

August 29, 2005 (“August 29 SIR”).

Although the Ice Project contract was initially slated to be completed by March 31,

2004, its termination date was extended twice by statute because of the low price of timber

and then two more times for other reasons. On August 31, 2005, intervenor moved its

equipment from the Saddle Project to the Ice Project and commenced logging. On

September 9, the Court issued a preliminary injunction suspending the Saddle Fuels

Reduction Project (“Saddle Project”) because the United States Forest Service (“Forest

Service” or “Service”) had failed to conduct a ‘hard look’ at the environmental impact of a

project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) when significant

new information emerges. There, the Court determined that serious questions remained as to

whether the Forest Service properly performed the requisite environmental analysis of new

information regarding the project’s effect on the Pacific fisher, and that balancing the

potential for serious environmental harms with the financial harm from delay tipped in favor

of plaintiffs. On October 18, 2005, plaintiffs filed this motion to preliminarily enjoin the Ice

Project. Then, “in light of the Court’s ruling on September 9, 2005,” defendants submitted

more thorough SIRs dated October 26, 2005, the same day they submitted their Opposition. 

The October SIRs purport to satisfy the Forest Service’s obligation under NEPA to conduct a

proper ‘hard look’ at the Ice Project’s environmental impact on the Pacific fisher. On

November 4, the Court heard extensive oral argument from all parties.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs contend that the new information that has emerged on the fisher since the

contracts were awarded in 1999 is ‘significant’ such that it triggers a requirement to conduct

a NEPA-authorized supplemental review. Pl. Reply at *3. Plaintiffs assert that, like the

Saddle Project, defendants 1) have failed to take a ‘hard look’ at new information in order to

reassess its previous conclusions that the Project would have “no significant impact” on the

fisher, and 2) have failed to assess the cumulative effects of all of the logging projects in the

region: the Saddle, Ice, White River and Frog projects. Pl. Mot. at *3. Moreover, plaintiffs

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 3 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

argue that the October SIRs are “facially deficient” because they are akin to litigation

affidavits. Pl. Reply at *3. In addition, plaintiffs contend that the SIRs are further deficient

because the habitat analysis conflicts with that of the original NEPA documents without

explanation, and the cumulative effects analysis fails to adequately explain how the impacts

are insignificant. Id. at *6-8. Finally, plaintiffs argue that the balance of hardships tips in

their favor because environmental injury cannot be repaired in the same manner that

economic injury can. Id. at *8-10.

Defendants counter that the new information is not significant and that the October

SIRs adequately conducted a ‘hard look.’ The SIRs conclude that, like the original FONSI,

additional NEPA review is not necessary because a reduction in the threat of wildfire results

will yield an insignificant yet beneficial impact on the fisher. Def. Opp. at *2. They also

argue that the importance of the project is underscored by the proximity of the logging areas

to residential communities and the added importance of avoiding wildfires (as distinguished

from the Saddle Project, which was not located as close to residential areas). Id. Finally,

defendants argue that the October 26 SIRs properly evaluate the cumulative effects of all the

logging projects on the Southern Sierra fisher sub-population and determined that the

analysis of the new information is consistent with the original analysis. 

In addition, defendant-intervenor argues that the Ice Project is distinct from the Saddle

Project in important ways not mentioned in defendants’ brief. First, the Project has already

been awarded. This, in comparison to projects that have merely been proposed, prompts a

different, more stringent standard in evaluating whether a preliminary injunction is

appropriate because it alters the hardship analysis. Intv. Opp. at *6. Second, the project is an

integral part to a larger fuels reduction initiative in the region, which has already started. Id.

at *4-5. As a result, intervenor argues that it is in the public interest to reduce the threat of

catastrophic wildfire. Id. Third, intervenor and its employees will suffer considerable

financial harm if the injunction is granted. Id. at *5-6. Finally, intervenors argue that, unlike

the Saddle Project which had no record of the size of trees to be removed, the Ice Project

maintains such a record because it has already commenced. This record reveals that less than

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 4 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

1 percent of 9,000 logs are greater than 22 inches in diameter. Id. at *3. Since fishers’

preferred habitat consists of larger trees, intervenor argues, the effect on the fisher will be

minimal. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

I. Preliminary Injunction

The traditional criteria for granting preliminary relief are: 1) a likelihood of success on

the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable injury, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the

plaintiff, and 4) that the preliminary relief be in the public interest. See Barahona-Gomez v.

Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999). This test has evolved into the modern standard that the

plaintiff must “demonstrate either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and

the possibility of irreparable injury if relief is not granted, or (2) the existence of serious

questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” First

Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1987). While this test is

phrased in the disjunctive, many courts view it as essentially a single test. Viewed as a single

test, the greater the showing of likely success the lighter the burden in terms of the relative

hardship, and vice versa. See Regents of Univ. of Calif. v. ABC, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515

(9th Cir. 1984). 

II. NEPA

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) is a procedural statute

designed to ensure that federal agencies taking major actions affecting the quality of the

human environment “will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its decision after

it is too late.” Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989). A

federal agency has a continuing duty to gather and evaluate new information relevant to the

environmental impact of its actions and then “make a reasoned determination whether it is of

such significance as to require implementation of formal NEPA filing procedures.” Warm

Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017, 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1980). The Ninth

Circuit has held that an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) “must be prepared if

substantial questions are raised as to whether a project ... may cause significant degradation

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 5 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1There is no dispute here that the Ice Project and the similar logging projects in the region are

“major federal actions.” Cf. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 72-73 (2004).

6

of some environmental factor.” Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1149

(9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Yet a plaintiff need not show that

“significant effects will in fact occur;” rather, merely raising “substantial questions whether a

project may have a significant effect is sufficient.” Id. at 1150 (emphasis added). The inquiry

whether to conduct a supplemental NEPA analysis and an initial analysis is the same: “If

there remains major federal action to occur, and if the new information is sufficient to show

that the remaining action will ‘affect the quality of the human environment’ in a significant

manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a supplemental EIS [or EA] must be

prepared.” Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 558-558 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citing Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374).1 A proper evaluation under NEPA must also include an

analysis of the cumulative effects of the individual project and others like it. See Blue

Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding

that a determination whether a project has a ‘significant’ impact on the environment must

consider “[w]hether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts”) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7))). 

The Court must determine whether the Forest Service adequately satisfied its duty

under NEPA; it must not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. See Friend of

the Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 556. The Court may conclude that a proper ‘hard look’ was not

conducted only if the agency’s analysis is “arbitrary and capricious or contrary to the

procedures required by law.” Inland Empire Public Lands Council v. United States Forest

Service, 88 F.3d 754, 763 (9th Cir. 1996). This amounts to a two-part inquiry: First, a

challenge to the facial adequacy of a NEPA review requires a court to employ a ‘rule of

reason’ to determine whether the review contains a “reasonably thorough discussion of the

significant aspects of probable environmental consequences.” Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain.

v. United States Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372, 1376 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted); see

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 6 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

also Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that “agency

action taken without observance of the procedure required by law will be set aside”). 

Second, if the environmental review satisfies the initial facial challenge, the reviewing

court must determine whether the analysis therein satisfies the proper standard under NEPA. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that analyses of primarily legal questions – such as the legal

meaning of ‘significance’ – are governed by a standard of ‘reasonableness.’ See Northcoast

Envtl. Ctr. v. Glickman, 136 F.3d 660, 667 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that “the less deferential

standard of ‘reasonableness’ applies to threshold agency decisions that certain activities are

not subject to NEPA’s procedures”). A review of factual disputes, however, requires the

application of the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard. Id. (citing Greenpeace Action v.

Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1331 (9th Cir. 1992). In practice, however, this distinction is

immaterial. See Thomas, 137 F.3d at 1149 (noting that courts have held that the arbitrary

and capricious and reasonableness standards under NEPA do not materially differ). 

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Court is not concerned here with whether the original environmental evaluations

and FONSI regarding the Ice Project properly satisfied NEPA. The Court’s analysis centers

on whether plaintiffs have raised serious questions regarding their claim that the Service has

not conducted a proper ‘hard look’ at information that has been discovered or published on

the Pacific fisher since the Ice Project was approved and awarded to intervenor. In its Saddle

Order, the Court determined that plaintiffs had met their burden of raising serious questions

as to the existence of new information about the Pacific fisher that required a “hard look”

under NEPA. Because the same underlying claim is at issue here as in the Saddle Order --

that the Service did not conduct a proper NEPA analysis of new information on the viability

of the Pacific fisher in the Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains -- the Court hereby adopts its

reasoning and analysis in the Saddle Order pertaining to the existence of new information on

the fisher. See Saddle Order at *6-10. That finding triggers a duty under NEPA for the

Forest Service to conduct a ‘hard look’ at the new information to determine if it is

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 7 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2Because the two October 26 SIRs are very similar, the Court relies primarily on the Ice SIR

since it is more extensive and directly related to the Ice Project.

8

significant, which would then require a supplemental EA or EIS. To that end, all parties

agreed in open court that the narrow issue before the Court is to determine whether the two

Supplemental Information Reports (“SIR”) dated October 26, 2005, satisfy the federal

government’s duty under NEPA to conduct such a ‘hard look.’ In sum, the Court’s inquiry

is twofold: (1) as a threshold matter, are there serious questions as to whether the October

SIRs are in “observance of the procedures required by law?”; and if so, (2) should the

Service’s decision not to conduct a supplemental EA or EIS be set aside as arbitrary and

capricious or unreasonable?

DISCUSSION

I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

1. Validity of October 26 SIRs

The Service argues that, upon the direction of the Court in its Saddle Order, it

conducted an appropriate review of the environmental impacts of the Ice Project on the

Pacific fisher and found that no significant impact exists. The October SIRs purports to

analyze “information available subsequent to [the decision] to implement the [Revised Ice

EA].” October Ice SIR at *1.2 The evaluation determined that “because there is negligible

change in analysis of effect on the fisher, no new or supplemental NEPA analysis is required

and[] the original decision is affirmed.” Id.

Plaintiffs argue that the October SIRs are essentially litigation affidavits that were

prepared after logging commenced. Pl. Reply at 3 n.2. Plaintiffs contend that they “facially

lack the objectivity that would warrant this Court’s deference.” Id. at 3. Further, plaintiffs

argue that “no agency has prepared an in-depth, revised biological evaluation that takes a

detailed look at the fisher’s current status and the ramifications of short-term habitat

degradation.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that findings in the October Ice SIR, largely based on an

unpublished 2001 study made for intervenor, contradict the Ice BE in a manner that the Court

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 8 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

It is not necessary to address plaintiffs’ arguments about the factual underpinnings of the

October 26 SIRs since the Court is only concerned here with their facial validity.

9

deemed unsatisfactory in the Saddle Order. Id. at 4-5. To that end, the Ice SIR also fails to

analyze the short-term effect on the fisher, relying instead on long-term rehabilitation of the

area. Plaintiffs also argue that the October SIR has developed new theories for optimal fisher

habitats that do not have the proper scientific underpinnings. In sum, plaintiffs contend that

this latest round of SIRs do not amount to a proper ‘hard look.’

Three aspects of the October SIR require close scrutiny: (1) whether under these

circumstances, a SIR is sufficient to satisfy NEPA; (2) that it was evidently written in six

weeks in direct response to the Saddle Order as part of the Opposition to plaintiffs’ motion;

and, most importantly, (3) the fact that it was prepared after the Ice Project had commenced.3 

Supplemental Information Reports are the Forest Service’s formal instruments for

documenting whether new information is sufficiently significant to trigger the need for a

supplemental EIS (“SEIS”). See Friends of the Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 555 (citing Forest

Service Handbook 1909.15 § 18.1). Although SIRs are not mentioned in NEPA or in the

regulations implementing NEPA, “courts nonetheless have recognized a limited role within

NEPA’s procedural framework for SIRs.” Idaho Sporting Congress v. Alexander, 222 F.3d

562, 565, 566 (9th Cir. 2000). In particular, courts have condoned the use of SIRs for the

specific purpose proffered here by defendants: to determine whether new information or

changed circumstances require a supplemental EA or EIS. See id. at 566 n. 3 (noting that a

SIR “is the appropriate means by which to make an initial evaluation of the significance” of

new information); see also Price Rd. Neighborhood Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of

Transportation, 113 F.3d 1505, 1508-09 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a supplemental EA

is required if the environmental impacts of changed circumstances “are significant or

uncertain”). The Supreme Court has found that a SIR satisfies an agency’s NEPA

obligations where the SIR demonstrates that the agency had “determined based on careful

scientific analysis that the new information was of exaggerated importance,” therefore

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 9 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

indicating that the agency had “conducted a reasoned evaluation of the relevant

information....” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378. 

The Court is skeptical about the feasibility of satisfying this standard in a little more

than one month’s time, as the Forest Service purports to do. NEPA sets out strict criteria that

federal agencies must satisfy when analyzing new information to determine its significance.

See Thomas, 137 F.3d at 1151 (“Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and

public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.”) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b))

(emphasis in original). Although SIRs, with their more relaxed criteria, have been upheld as

appropriate in situations similar to this, they should not be approved where they do not

properly satisfy the fundamental objectives and requirements of NEPA. At the very least, a

careful scientific analysis would likely entail more than a cursory evaluation of a sprinkling

of the recent publications on topic, and would include some explanation for a conclusion that

directly conflicts with that of the expert federal agency in this area. See “Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the West Coast

Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher,” 69 Fed. Reg. 18770, 18790 (April 8, 2004)

(“FWS Finding”) (finding that the southern Sierra Pacific fisher is in danger of extirpation);

see also Cuddy Mountain, 137 F.3d at 1379 (noting that a NEPA review requires “some

quantified or detailed information”). As a result, the Court is not satisfied that the October

SIR amounts to a “careful scientific analysis” of the new information on the Pacific fisher.

Second, the Ninth Circuit has determined that an agency can rectify a violation of

NEPA by conducting an appropriate analysis while the case is still pending. See Friends of

the Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 560-561 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that an injunction was

inappropriate because the Forest Service remedied their failure to satisfy NEPA). In Friends

of the Clearwater, however, the Forest Service prepared several documents after the

inception of litigation: “a new SIR, several Biological Assessments and Biological

Evaluations, and other documents, all of which contained additional data and analyses....” Id.

at 561. Furthermore, in Warm Springs, beginning one month after trial, the federal agency

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 10 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

conducted a 10-month study that was then reviewed by independent experts and the state of

California before determining that supplemental environmental evaluations were

unnecessary. See Warm Springs, 621 F.2d at 1025-1026. Here, the Court notes obvious

distinctions between the SIRs submitted in this case and the documents and analysis

conducted in Warm Springs and Friends of the Clearwater. After the Court determined in the

Saddle Order that the Forest Service had not conducted a proper hard look, the Service

submitted two very similar SIRs a mere six weeks later that appear to incorporate sections of

previous declarations and even portions of the original NEPA documents. The submission’s

lack of thoroughness and reasoning does not satisfy this Circuit’s precedent, as it does not

amount to a proper level of review that has been approved in other cases.

Finally, and most importantly, the SIR documents purportedly were created after the

Saddle Order. See October Ice SIR at *2 (“This SIR attempts to address the Court’s

concerns in the Saddle Decision.”). Yet intervenor testified in open court that logging

commenced on August 31, 2005. The Ninth Circuit has held that NEPA evaluations must be

prepared “early enough” so that they “will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions

already made.” Save the Yaak, 840 F.2d at 718; see also Alexander, 222 F.3d at 568

(defining “early enough” to mean “at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and

decisions reflect the environmental values”). In Save the Yaak, for example, the court held

that the Forest Service violated NEPA’s timing requirement by preparing EAs for a road

building project after the project had already begun. 840 F.2d at 718-719. This case falls

squarely under this precedent, as the October SIR was prepared after the project had begun

and is therefore susceptible to improper incentives to “rationalize or justify” the decision not

to conduct a supplemental EA or EIS. As a result, the Court finds that the Forest Service

violated the timing requirement of NEPA.

The Court acknowledges that the Ninth Circuit has upheld SIRs as satisfactory NEPA

evaluations in this context, and that proper NEPA evaluations conducted during the pendency

of litigation have been approved. But in the totality, where the Service rushed the creation of

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 11 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4The Court refrains here from analyzing the factual disputes at issue regarding the SIRs.

Although Ninth Circuit law indicates that a pure legal analysis – such as the legal meaning of

‘significance’ at issue here – should warrant a review under a ‘reasonableness’ standard, the Court

nevertheless adopts the more deferential ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard because of some confusion

in this Circuit’s precedent. As noted above, however, the distinction is merely incidental.

12

two SIRs in order to oppose a motion for preliminary injunction while the project moves

forward, plaintiffs have raised serious questions as to whether the Service has acted “contrary

to the procedures required by law” and has failed to conduct a proper ‘hard look’ at the new

information on the Pacific fisher.

2. Analysis of the SIRs

If the October SIR does satisfy NEPA’s ‘hard look’ requirement, then the Court must

defer to the agency’s decision if is “fully informed and well considered.” Blue Mountains,

161 F.3d at 1211.4 The Supreme Court has held that in this context, courts should not

automatically defer to the agency without careful scrutiny to ensure “that the agency has

made a reasoned decision based on its evaluation of the significance -- or lack of significance

-- of the new information.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378. The reviewing court “must consider

whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there

has been a clear error of judgment.” Id. (citations omitted). Relevant factors include: 

1) the environmental significance of the new information; (2) the probable

accuracy of the information; (3) the degree of care with which the agency

considered the information and evaluated its impact; and (4) the degree to which

the agency supported its decision not to supplement with a statement of

explanation or additional data.

Warm Springs, 621 F.2d at 1024. If the relevant new information raises “substantial

questions whether a project may have a significant effect” on the fisher, plaintiffs have met

their burden of showing that serious questions exist whether the Forest Service conducted a

proper hard look. See Thomas, 137 F.3d at 1150.

A. New Information

In the Saddle Order, the Court determined that new information had been discovered

in the six years since the Ice Project was approved. The Court noted that academic studies

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 12 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

and the thorough FWS Finding called into question some of the Forest Service’s assumptions

and conclusions found in the original NEPA documents. In particular, the new information

appeared to show that: 1) the Pacific fisher in the Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains is a

genetically unique species; 2) there is a real danger of its extirpation due to dwindling

population numbers and increased isolation such that Fish and Wildlife recommended listing

it as endangered but lacked the resources to do so due to other higher listing priorities; 3) the

effect of the Saddle Project on a few individual fishers may actually have a significant impact

on the viability of the species; and 4) new information indicates that the fisher’s ideal habitat

may be dramatically different than that identified in the BE and its incorporating documents. 

See Saddle Order at *6-10. The October SIR attempts to evaluate this new information, and

the Forest Service determined that its evaluation supported the findings of the original NEPA

documents. As a result, the SIR concludes, “[B]ecause there is negligible change in analysis

of effect on the fisher, no new or supplemental NEPA analysis is required and, [sic] the

original decision is affirmed.” October Ice SIR at *1. Notably, however, there is no mention

in the SIR whether the new information is ‘significant;’ rather, the Forest Service merely

asserts that the “impacts on the fisher are beneficial but not significant.” Def. Opp. at *19. 

B. Significance

The central concern of the Court’s analysis is not whether the new information

supports the Forest Service’s original conclusions, or whether the effect of the project on the

fisher is more likely to lead toward listing, but whether there are “significant new

circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the

proposed action or its impacts.” Friends of the Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 557 (emphasis

added). If so, NEPA requires the agency to conduct a supplemental environmental analysis. 

Id.; see also Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374. Regulations promulgated pursuant to NEPA by the

Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) define ‘significantly’ as “requir[ing]

considerations of both context and intensity.” Friends of the Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 557 n.4

(quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27). Context means that “the significance of an action must be

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 13 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

analyzed in several contexts,” including both site-specific, regional and national. Id.

Intensity “refers to the severity of the impact,” and, in relevant part, the following factors

should be considered: 

(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are

likely to be highly controversial; (5) The degree to which the possible effects on

the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks;

and (7) whether the action is related to other actions with individually

insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. 

Id.

(1) Highly Controversial

The Ninth Circuit has defined the term ‘controversial’ to refer “to cases where a

substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effect of the major Federal action rather

than to the existence of opposition to a use.” Sierra Club v. United States Forest Service, 843

F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1988). In that case, the Sierra Club introduced affidavits and

testimony of experts in the field who disputed the Forest Service’s conclusion that there

would be no significant effects from logging. The court then explained, “This is precisely

the type of ‘controversial’ action for which an EIS must be prepared.” Id.

Here, plaintiffs have presented declarations, affidavits, testimony and other evidence

that vigorously attacks the Forest Service’s conclusion that the Ice Project “may affect

individual fisher but would not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of

viability of the fisher.” See October Ice SIR at *19. In particular, plaintiffs point to the FWS

Finding which found that the southern Sierra Pacific fisher is genetically distinct from other

fisher, and that it meets the criteria to be placed on the endangered species list but could not

be listed at the time because of higher priority listings. See FWS Finding at 18777, 18791. 

In addition, the FWS Finding stated: “Fuels reduction treatments, including thinning and the

removal of down woody debris, dense understory, snags, and low overstory tree crowns may

significantly affect fishers in the immediate area.” FWS Finding at 18779 (emphasis added). 

Notably, the SIR does not address or confront these conclusions, even though the Fish and

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 14 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

Wildlife Service deserves significant deference as the expert consulting federal agency for

land-based species under the Endangered Species Act. See Gifford Pinchot Task Force v.

United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1063 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994). Rather, the

government declared in open court that the SIR instead analyzes the academic publications

underlying the Fish and Wildlife report. While the Court refrains from assessing the

accuracy of the analysis in the SIR, it does observe that the 55-page FWS Finding mentions

numerous academic studies published since 1999 that were not included in the SIR. In

addition, plaintiffs proffered affidavits and testimony in the Saddle motion from Dr. Reginald

Barrett that include several other recent studies and his own expert analysis, all of which

directly contradict the SIR conclusions. See Saddle Order at *7 (noting Dr. Barrett’s

testimony that the “best science” on the fisher is a 2000 report by Lamberson et al. finding

that the fisher “may face imminent extinction”). The Court does not “take sides in a battle of

the experts,” Native Ecosystems Council v. United States Forest Service, 2005 WL 2931893,

at *9 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2005), but finds that plaintiffs’ well-documented and well-supported

arguments against the cursory analysis and conclusory assertions of the SIR satisfies this

Circuit’s ‘highly controversial’ standard under the ‘significance’ requirement. Cf. Blue

Mountains, 161 F.3d at 1213 (“We do note that failure to discuss and consider [an

independent] report’s recommendations lends weight to [plaintiff’s] claim that the Forest

Service did not take the requisite ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences....”).

(2) Highly Uncertain

The Ninth Circuit has determined that “[t]he purpose of an EIS is to obviate the need

for speculation by insuring that available data are gathered and analyzed prior to the

implementation of the proposed action.” Native Ecosystems, 2005 WL 2931893 at *5

(quoting Sierra Club, 843 F.2d at 1195). Plaintiffs note that the October SIR admits that

“implementation of the proposed project is not without risk” and calls for post-project

monitoring. October Ice SIR at *11; see also id. at *8 (noting that “[r]esearch literature

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 15 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

documenting habitat parameters associated with natal den sites has been limited”). The

Ninth Circuit has repeatedly “warned that general statements about ‘possible’ effects and

‘some risk’ do not constitute a ‘hard look’ absent a justification regarding why more

definitive information could not be provided.” Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d at 1213; see also

Cuddy Mountain, 137 F.3d at 1380. Given the abbreviated analysis on the potential effect on

the fisher in the October SIR, and the Service’s admissions regarding the risks of the project,

the Court concludes that there are serious questions concerning the degree of certainty about

the project’s impact on the fisher. A proper ‘hard look’ would result in greater certainty

about the risks involved for the fisher, particularly as they relate to the cumulative impact

findings below. 

C. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts may result from “individually minor but collectively significant

actions taking place over a period of time.” Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d at 1214 (quoting 40

C.F.R. § 1508.7). Morever, when there is the potential for cumulative harm, “an assessment

of connected actions is necessary even if the impact of the proposed action is not significant.”

Save the Yaak, 840 F.2d at 720 (emphasis added). 

Here, there are at least four similar logging projects within the southern Sierra

Mountains that may have a cumulative effect on the fisher. The October SIR provides a one

paragraph summary of the cumulative impacts analysis of the original EAs, which primarily

asserts that if each individual project maintains an appropriate habitat quality such that the

fisher would not be affected, then there would be “no adverse cumulative effect that would

affect population viability.” October Ice SIR at *18. This is plainly contrary to this Circuit’s

precedent. The federal agency must conduct a hard look at all of the projects in the aggregate

even if the individual project does not have a significant effect.

The SIRs attempt to cure this defect by adding an analysis of the “fisher sub

population in the southwestern portion of the Sequoia National Forest,” where the four

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 16 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5At oral argument, government counsel referred the Court to the author’s definition of “may

affect.” See October Ice SIR at *11. There, the SIR author analogizes the application of this definition

to a fisher to that of a human being stubbing her toe. Id. While the Court generally defers to the

expertise of the federal agency on issues of environmental and biological science, it need not do so with

regard to lay issues. It is sufficient to merely dispute the notion that a stubbed toe and a disrupted habitat

can be properly analogized.

17

projects are located. October Ice SIR at *18. A Forest Service analysis reveals that this area

could “support up to 80 female fisher.” Id. at 19; see also FWS Finding, 69 Fed. Reg. at

18790 (“Female survival has been shown to be the most important single demographic

parameter determining fisher population stability.”). The SIR then states: “Based on similar

analysis there could be up to 23 female fisher directly affected by all of the projects currently

approved or reasonably foreseeable.”5 Plaintiffs have presented evidence that there may be

as few as 50 female fishers remaining in the region, see Saddle Order at *7, and the

government conceded at oral argument that it cannot accurately estimate how many female

fishers currently exist in the southern Sierra Nevadas, but that it may be as few as 50. Even if

the cumulative area encompassing the logging projects can support up to 80 female fishers,

the potential to directly affect 23 appears to be quite a significant finding. At the very least,

it reveals a substantial degree of uncertainty regarding the cumulative effects on the fisher of

logging in this area. Moreover, the SIR does not include a reasoned or substantive analysis

or explanation as to why this is not a significant finding worthy of supplemental evaluation,

although they do state that anticipated impacts on individual fishers “will be documented in

supplemental reviews for each individual NEPA decision.” October Ice SIR at *19. It is

unclear to the Court how the Forest Service reconciles this statement with its ultimate

determination that no additional environmental reviews are necessary. Nevertheless, the

Court finds that there are substantial questions remaining about the cumulative effects of the

logging projects on the Pacific fisher. 

The Court issues no ruling on whether the Forest Service properly evaluated the

environmental significance of the new information or its probable accuracy. Rather, the

Court finds that the Forest Service has failed to show the adequate degree of care in

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 17 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

considering this information and evaluating its impact, and that the degree to which the

agency supported its ultimate decision not to supplement its analysis lacked the proper

explanation and analysis. See Warm Springs, 621 F.2d at 1024. Based on the Forest

Service’s failure to thoroughly consider and analyze the environmental impact of the Ice

Project on the Pacific fisher in a timely, well-reasoned and fully-informed manner, the Court

finds that plaintiffs have raised serious questions about the Forest Service’s decision to

bypass supplemental environmental reviews under NEPA. 

II. Balance of Hardships

Timber cutting that has an environmental impact always has a strong potential of

causing irreparable harm justifying preliminary relief. See Amoco Production Co. v. Village

of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 544 (1987) (stating that, although there is no presumption of

irreparable harm from environmental degradation, such injuries are often not compensable by

money damages and can be irreparable). The Ninth Circuit has reviewed several injunction

motions regarding timber cutting and has often found that it fulfills the irreparable injury

requirement. Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest Service, 351 F.3d 1291, 1299 (9th

Cir. 2003). When environmental injury is “sufficiently likely, the balance of harms will

usually favor the issuance of an injunction to protect the environment.” Alexander, 222 F.3d

at 569 (quoting Sierra Club, 843 F.2d at 1195).

First, defendants and intervenor argue that plaintiffs’ delay in filing this motion

underscores the paucity of irreparable harm that would occur if an injunction is denied. They

point to the fact that plaintiffs have known about the Ice Project for a long time. Def. Opp. at

*16. Alternatively, they argue that plaintiffs waited more than a month before filing this

motion, well after the project commenced. Id. Yet “[c]ompliance with NEPA is a primary

duty of every federal agency; fulfillment of this vital responsibility should not depend on the

vigilance and limited resources of environmental plaintiffs.” Friends of the Clearwater, 222

F.3d at 559 (quoting City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 1975)). 

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 18 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

Furthermore, plaintiffs do not contend in this motion that the original NEPA documents are

unsatisfactory; rather, they merely contend that the Forest Service should be required to

conduct a more thorough supplemental review of the newly available information on the

fisher. A five-week delay in filing this motion is reasonable, particularly considering the sixyear delay that occurred before the project commenced.

Second, intervenor urges the Court to determine that the significant economic damage

that would be exacted by an injunction outweighs plaintiffs’ claims about the dangers to the

fisher of the Ice Project. It is axiomatic that environmental damage cannot be undone,

whereas economic injury can almost always be rectified. Moreover, this is not a permanent

injunction. At most, intervenor would have to wait until next summer to resume its project if

the Court rules in its favor at a trial on the merits. In light of the fact that intervenor has

waited six years to execute the contract because of unfavorable timber prices, an additional

delay of less than one year cannot be devastating. See Saddle Order at *18. Permanent

damage to a sensitive species, however, may indeed be irreparable. See Alexander, 222 F.3d

at 569 (holding that a preliminary injunction was warranted to preserve the status quo when

balancing financial hardship against the sufficiently likely environmental harm from

logging).

Third, defendants argue that fuels treatment is of “highest priority” that “takes

precedence over other forest priorities.” Def. Opp. at *8. In this respect the Ice Project

differs from the Saddle Project because of its proximity to residential communities and the

fact that much of the project exists in wild land-urban interface (WUI) where wildfires are of

utmost concern. The Forest Service asserts that the unique area poses “a serious threat to

life, property, and valuable forest resources.” October Ice SIR at *6. Yet if the project was

urgent because of these dangers, it likely would have been regulated by 36 C.F.R. §

223.52(c)(1), which applies when “the Forest Service determines that the timber is in need of

urgent removal.” Cf. Decl. of Paul S. Miller at ¶ 3 (noting that the Ice Project is authorized

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 19 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2005\0397\order 3a ice pi.wpd 20

by 36 C.F.R. 223.52(c), which allowed a contract extension as a matter of right when a

drastic reduction in wood prices occurs). Defendants’ argument falls hollow given the

economic factors that have driven the Ice Project to date.

In sum, the Court finds that the balance of hardships tips sharply plaintiffs’ favor. 

Intervenor requests a bond if the Court determines to enjoin their current logging operation. 

But based on its testimony at oral argument, intervenor likely will be able to continue

working right up until the “snow flies,” which should occur soon. In addition, intervenor can

continue clean-up and removal of work already completed. Therefore, the current bond of

$5,000 is sufficient.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that plaintiffs have raised serious questions about both the facial

validity of the October SIRs and the adequacy of the Forest Service’s analysis. There remain

substantial questions about the effect of the Ice Project on the Pacific fisher which require a

more thorough, careful and well-reasoned analysis in order to satisfy NEPA. Because the

balance of hardships plainly tip toward plaintiffs, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’

motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants and intervenor to this action, and their

contractors, are hereby enjoined from taking any further action to implement the Ice Timber

Sale within the Sequoia National Forest, including permitting, commencing or continuing

any timbering activities such as the cutting or logging of trees in any part of the project area. 

Intervenor may remove what has already been cut or logged. This injunction shall remain in

effect until it is altered or discharged by a further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 20 of 21
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2005\0397\order 3a ice pi.wpd 21

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 147 Filed 11/14/05 Page 21 of 21