Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08163/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08163-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Save the Peaks Coalition; Kristin

Huisinga; Clayson Benally; Sylvan Grey;

Don Fanning; Jeneda Benally; Frederica

Hall; Berta Benally; Rachel Tso; Lisa Tso,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

U.S. Forest Service; Nora Rasure (in her

official capacity as Forest Supervisor for

the Coconino National Forest), 

Defendant. 

Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited

Partnership,

Intevenor Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-8163-PCT-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' The Save the Peaks Coalition,

Kristin Huisinga, Clayson Benally, Sylvan Grey, Don Fanning, Jeneda Bennally, Frederica

Hall, Berta Benally, Rachel Tso, and Lisa Tso's (“Save the Peaks”) Motion for a Injunction

pending appeal. (Doc 150). After reviewing the pleadings, and having determined that oral

argument is unnecessary, the Court issues the following order.

I. Background

This lawsuit concerns challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act

(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 - 4370d to the United States Forest Service’s 2005 decision

Case 3:09-cv-08163-MHM Document 160 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 6
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 -

to allow Intervenor-Defendant Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership to upgrade its

operations by making snow using Class A+ reclaimed wastewater. On December 1, 2010,

this Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs' cross

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 142) The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs' claims were

barred by the doctrine of laches. The Court also ruled against the Plaintiffs on their NEPA

claims, finding that the Forest Service engaged in a reasonably thorough discussion regarding

the human health effects of exposure to snow made from reclaimed water including through

ingestion. On December 23, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

(Doc. 147).

Prior to the ruling, the Plaintiffs had filed a motion for temporary restraining order

asking the Court to order Defendants to cease any ground disturbing activity or building of

the pipeline and snowmaking infrastructure. (Doc. 11) On July 20, 2010, the Court heard

oral argument on that motion, along with the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. On

July 22, 2010, the Parties lodged a Joint Stipulation, which noted that the Save the Peaks

Plaintiffs would be withdrawing their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, along with

any request for other type of injunctive relief. In exchange, the Snowbowl and the Federal

Defendants agreed that there would be no construction of the snowmaking supply pipeline

or snowmaking infrastructure, nor any ground-disturbing activity for such, prior to August

30, 2010, but that the Snowbowl may submit the plans to the United States Forest Service

for all improvements authorized by the permits and the Forest Service may also conduct all

work necessary to review and approve all plans for improvements that are submitted by the

Snowbowl, including snowmaking improvements. (See Doc. 120). The stipulation was

extended until resolution of the motions for summary judgment. 

Plaintiffs have now filed the current motion to stay pending appeal. (Doc. 150) The

Plaintiffs seek to cease any construction/ground disturbing activities in furtherance of

snowmaking pending a determination of the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal by the Ninth Circuit.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs argue that there are significant questions on the merits. They

also argue that they will suffer irreparable harm if Snowbowl proceeds to clear trees and

Case 3:09-cv-08163-MHM Document 160 Filed 02/18/11 Page 2 of 6
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 -

build the supply pipeline necessary for snowmaking. In addition, they claim that the public

interest tips in their favor because they seek to preserve nature and avoiding irreparable harm

to the environment. Plaintiffs also argue that the balance of hardships tips sharply in their

favor because they seek to preserve the status quo and that without an injunction the

Defendants could destroy the subject matter of this case. The Plaintiffs also state that they

are not able to post a bond and argue that because they are acting in the public interest to aid

the enforcement of national environmental policy, only a minimal bond if any should be

considered.

 The Court ordered the Defendants to file a response (doc. 155) and the Defendants

did so. (Docs. 156, 158) In their responses, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs do not

meet the standard for an injunction. Specifically, the Defendants argue that there will be no

snow made from reclaimed water at Snowbowl until November, 2011 at the earliest and that

Plaintiffs' other concerns regarding other impacts do not relate to their ingestion claim. They

also argue that the Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on nor have they presented serious

questions regarding the merits of the case. They also argue that the balance of hardships and

the public interest weigh in favor of the Defendants because the public interest favors moving

forward on this project, citing a number of economic and recreational benefits that will be

delayed if snowmaking does not occur by the next ski season. Defendants also assert that

the Plaintiffs are required to post a bond, even though they are environmental plaintiffs.

On February 16, 2010 the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion to stay, in

which they reiterate many of the same arguments made in the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 159)

II. Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 (c) provides:"[w]hile an appeal is pending from

an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the

court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms

that secure the opposing party's rights." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). In deciding whether to grant

an injunction pending appeal, courts apply the standard used when considering a motion for

a preliminary injunction. Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel, 859 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir.

Case 3:09-cv-08163-MHM Document 160 Filed 02/18/11 Page 3 of 6
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

1

In the alternative, the moving party may show, “serious questions on merits.”

McDermott v. Ampersand Pub., LLC, 593 F.3d 950, 965 (9th Cir. 2010). A plaintiff must

still establish "a strong showing of irreparable harm" as well as a "sharp tipping of the

balance of hardships". Id.

- 4 -

1988); Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). An injunction is an

"extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a

clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v.Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972

(1997) 

To obtain an injunction pending appeal, a movant “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, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Doe

v. Reed, 586 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2009).1

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiff is Unlikely to Suffer Irreparable Harm

To obtain the stay, Plaintiffs must establish that they will suffer immediate and

irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted. Carribbean Marine Serv. co., Inc. v.

Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). Having reviewed the injunctive relief issues,

the Court finds that Plaintiffs will not be injured, much less irreparably so, by any

construction related activity taken in furtherance of snowmaking. While Plaintiffs might be

correct in noting that building an almost 15 mile long pipeline will have a potential impact

on the environment in general, Plaintiffs’ Complaint only concerns whether the NEPA

process adequately considered the threat to human health posed by the ingestion of Class A+

reclaimed wastewater. The Complaint is unrelated to the potential environmental harms

caused by clearing or construction. Consequently, Plaintiff's request for a stay, insofar as it

aims to curb anything except the actual production of and use of snow made from reclaimed

water on Snowbowl, is improper. See Lamb Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd, 941 F.2d

Case 3:09-cv-08163-MHM Document 160 Filed 02/18/11 Page 4 of 6
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 -

970, 974 (9th Cir. 1991) (injunctive relief must be tailored to the specific harms alleged);

Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)("injunctive relief should be no more

burdensome to the defendants than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.")

According to the Defendants, actual snowmaking will not occur for almost a year at the

earliest. Therefore, Plaintiffs will not suffer immediate irreparable harm if the Court does

not issue a stay at this time. 

B. The Balance of Hardships and Public Interest Do not Weigh in

Plaintiffs' Favor

The balance of hardships and the public interest, also do not tip strongly in favor the

Plaintiffs in this case. The Plaintiffs represent the public interest in the environment and

safety as well as an interest in ensuring that the government has engaged in the proper

scrutiny before approving projects with a potential environmental impact on public lands.

The Plaintiffs also assert that the balance of hardships in this case tips sharply in their favor

because they are asking the Court to preserve the status quo pending the appeal and because

without an injunction the Defendants "could destroy the subject matter of this case". They

allege that the Plaintiffs have raised the prospect of irreparable "environmental, recreational,

educational, scientific, historic, cultural and procedural harms." The Defendants, however,

also represent an important public interest in moving forward a project with important

economic and recreational benefits for the Flagstaff area. Snowbowl has also asserted that

it will suffer economic losses and that the community will lose a significant number of

potential jobs if the project is delayed and it is unable to make artificial snow another ski

season. While it is certainly possible for the public interest and hardship asserted by the

Plaintiffs to outweigh those asserted by the Defendants, in this particular case they do not.

The hardships and interests the Plaintiffs claim to represent are broad, stemming generally

from their concerns about the changes to the environment to be made by Defendants well

before they actually produce and dispense snow made from reclaimed water. As such

Plaintiffs are wrong, or at least premature, when they state that the Defendants could "destroy

the subject matter of this case." The subject matter of this case is whether the Forest Service

Case 3:09-cv-08163-MHM Document 160 Filed 02/18/11 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

sufficiently considered the possibility that people would ingest snow made from reclaimed

water. Since there is no immediate threat of such ingestion, the public interests represented

by and hardships to be borne by the Defendants outweigh those of the Plaintiffs. 

Because the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to establish that they will suffer

immediate irreparable harm and that the balance of hardships or public interest tip sharply

in their favor, the Court will not address the likelihood of success on (or serious questions

concerning) the merits. See, Network Industries, Inc. v. Aktiengesellschaft, 2011 WL

219546 at *2 (S.D. Cal. January 24, 2011) ("it is necessary for a plaintiff to demonstrate each

of the four elements for a TRO or a preliminary injunction to issue"); see also, Zopatti v.

Rancho Dorado Homeowners Ass'n, 2010 WL 4537814 at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. November 1,

2010) ("Because the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of irreparable

harm, it does not address the remaining three elements").

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' motion for injunction pending

appeal. (Doc. 150).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the parties' request for oral argument.

DATED this 18th day of February, 2011.

Case 3:09-cv-08163-MHM Document 160 Filed 02/18/11 Page 6 of 6