Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02220/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02220-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND

INFORMATION CENTER, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-2220 SI 

No. C 05-2227 SI

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On June 22, 2005, the Court heard argument on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Having

carefully considered the arguments of counseland the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’

motion.

BACKGROUND

In 2004, a forest fire burned approximately 4,030 acres of public and private forest land in Northern

California. The fire is commonly referred to as the “Sims Fire.” Among the areas damaged by the fire was the

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

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

Six Rivers NationalForest. On January 7, 2005, the United States Forest Service sent a scoping letter for the

Sims Project, stating its intention to log more than 100 acres offorest burned by the Sims Fire. On February

28, 2005, the Forest Service sent a second scoping notice, which provided information about the proposed

activities and required comment by March 14. Plaintiffs submitted scoping comments in response to the Forest

Service’s proposal.

On May 17, 2005, the Forest Supervisor for Six Rivers National Forest issued his Decision Memo

on the Sims Fire Salvage Project (Decision). AR 1. Specifically, the Decision approved the logging of

approximately 169 acres of the Six Rivers National Forest burned by the Sims Fire. Over 120 acres involved

in the Sims Project are within the Grouse Creek Late Successional Reserve and over 50 acres occur within

an area designated as Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat.

The Decision called for the project to be performed solely by helicopter logging. The Forest

Supervisor also determined that the Decision was categorically excluded from documentation in an

environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmentalassessment (EA) because it fell under an enumerated

exception and there were no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision. 

In response, plaintiff Forest Service Employees forEnvironmentalEthics(FSEEE)filedsuit inthisCourt

against the Forest Service, claiming that the Decision violated the NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)

and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief (No. C 05-2220 SI). The Environmental Protection and

Information Center (EPIC) also filed suit, asserting causes of action under NEPA, the National Forest

ManagementAct(NFMA) and the Forest Service Decision-making Appeals ReformAct(FSDARA); EPIC’s

case was related to 05-2220 SI by the Court on June 17, 2005. See No. C 05-2227 SI. The parties agreed

to forgo litigating a temporary restraining order and instead request that the Court determine whether a

preliminary injunctionis proper. The Forest Service, which has received bids from contractors to carry out the

Sims Project, agreed not to begin logging operations under the Sims Project until the date of the hearing. At

the hearing on June 22, 2005, defendant informed the Court that it would voluntarily stay operations untilJune

24. On June 23, defendant filed a notice with the Court that it was extending the voluntary stay until June 27.

See Docket # 26 (05-2220 SI). 

Currently before the Court are plaintiffs’motionsforpreliminaryinjunction, whichrequest thatthe Court

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

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

prohibit any logging and related activitiesin the area specified by the Sims Project, until the Court can resolve

the matter on the merits. Plaintiffs also request that the Court prohibit defendant pendente lite from entering

into any contracts for the sale of timber in the Sims Project area. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has the authority to grant a preliminary injunction in the exercise of its equitable powers.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. As the Court is acting in equity, the decision to enter a preliminary injunctionis largely left

to its discretion. See Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board ofEduc. of Anchorage School Dist., 868 F.2d 1085,

1087 (9th Cir. 1989). Traditionally, this rule has been interpreted to require the trial court to consider the

likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits and the possible harm to the parties from granting or denying

the injunctive relief. See Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987); Sierra

On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984). 

At the extremes, the party seeking injunctive relief must show either (1) a combination of probable

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving party's favor. Miss World (UK) Ltd. v. Mrs. America

Pageants, Inc., 856 F.2d 1445, 1448 (9th Cir. 1988); Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh, 812 F.2d

1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 1987). "These are not two distinct tests, but rather the opposite ends of a single

'continuum in which the required showing of harm varies inversely with the required showing of

meritoriousness.'" Miss World, 856 F.2d at 1448 (quoting Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1217). However,

in any situation, the Court must find that there is some threat of an immediate irreparable injury, even if that

injury is not of great magnitude. Big Country, 868 F.2d at 1088 (citing cases); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publishing Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing cases).

DISCUSSION

Defendant claims thatit must begin logging operations under the Sims Project immediately in order to

capture the economic value ofthe timber. Because of this, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction has been

forced into an abbreviated schedule. Defendant’s oppositions were filed the evening of June 20, and chambers

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

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

copies were notreceived for defendant’s opposition to EPIC’s motion until June 21. Plaintiffs were unable to

file reply briefs, because the hearing was held on June 22. In their motions and at the hearing, plaintiffs have

raised a number of arguments that certainly give the Court pause when determining their likelihood ofsuccess

on the merits. Defendant has informed the Court that it will begin logging operations on June 27, 2005, unless

the Court grants plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. 

It is possible that, once the Court receives full briefing and has an opportunity to consider these issues

over an appropriate length of time, defendant will prevail on the merits. However, plaintiffs have presented

arguments that the Court believes are strong, or that at least make determining who willsucceed on the merits

unclear. Additionally, the Court finds that the balance of hardships tips strongly in favor of plaintiffs, given the

irreversible nature of environmentalharmand that defendant only claims economic harm. Therefore, the Court

finds that the prudent course of action at this time is to grant plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

However, the Court understands that defendant has an asset declining in value and is willing to make every

effort to resolve this matter through cross-motions for summary judgment in a timely manner. 

1. Likelihood of success on the merits

A. NEPA

Plaintiffs argue that defendant violated NEPA by failing to disclose and analyze the impact of the Sims

Project and failing to develop an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. NEPA

requires that allfederal agencies must prepare an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS)if a proposed federal

action will significantly affect the quality of the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). An agency can prepare

an Environmental Assessment (EA) to decide whether the environmental impact of a proposed action is

significant enough to warrant preparation of an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. 

However, agencies can identify certain categories of actions that are categorically excluded from

NEPA’s requirements. These categories include actions which “do not individually or cumulatively have a

significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures

adopted by a FederalAgency.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. One exemption category adopted by the Forest Service

is Category 13, which exempts “salvage ofdead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

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

than 1⁄2 mile of temporary road construction.” AR 1329.

However, NEPA recognizes that there may be “extraordinary circumstances” which would make it

inappropriate to use the short-cuts embodied in the categorical exemptions. Agencies are required to identify

such “extraordinary circumstances.” The Forest Service defines extraordinary circumstances precluding

categorical exemptions as “conditions associated with a normally excluded action that are identified during

scoping as potentially having effectswhichmay significantly affectthe environment.” Forest Service Handbook

1905.15, 30.5. One of the factors to consider in determining whether extraordinary circumstances warrant

further environmental analysis is whether the proposed federal action will affect a “federally listed threatened

or endangered species or designated critical habitat.” AR 1320. 

In this case, defendant found that the Sims Project was exempt from environmentalreview because it

qualified for the Category 13 exemption as a salvage of dead trees not exceeding 250 acres. Defendant also

found that the project did not involve “extraordinary circumstances” because it “was determined that this

decisionwill have ‘no effect’ on federally listed terrestrialwildlife and botanicalspecies or their criticalhabitats.”

A.R. 4. The Decision’s finding that there was no impact on the habitat ofthe northern spotted owl was based

on its determination that the Sims Fire made the forest “unsuitable” as spotted owl habitat. 

All that plaintiffs must show to be successful on their NEPA claim is thatthere is substantial evidence

in the record thatthe exceptions to the categoricalexclusionmay apply. California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162,

1177 (9th Cir. 2002). Essentially, defendant argues that the northern spotted owl’s use of burned forest is

insufficient to give rise to an extraordinary circumstance because it is not recognized as a habitat by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. However, the record contains some evidence contradicting this position. The

Timbered Rock Studypresented evidence thatthe northern spotted owl has locations in areas with high severity

burns. See AR 341-369. Additionally, there was evidence presented by Jerry Franklin, Professor of

Ecosystem Analysis at the University of Washington, that “[r]etention of large snags and logs are specifically

relevant to Northern Spotted Owl since these structures provide the habitat that sustain most of the owl’s

forest-based prey species.” AR 409. Iftrue, this informationsuggeststhat the northern spotted owl’s habitat

could be harmed by the Sims Project, and that the Decision’s assertion that the project would have “no effect”

on listed species or critical habitat was erroneous.

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

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

6

The administrative record reflects that the Forest Service considered the Timbered Rock Study

“informative,” AR 449, but it relied instead, and apparently exclusively, on the suitable habitats designated by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which did not include severely-burned forest. Id. Indeed, by the time

defendant received the Timbered Rock Study on April 15, 2005, AR 340, the biological assessment for the

northern spotted owl had already been prepared for almost a month. AR 594. In that assessment, defendant

stated that “given the effects of the Sims Fire, there is no suitable habitat within Critical Habitat Unit CA-30

associated with any proposed unit.” AR 600. Thus, defendant held the view that severely burned forest could

not serve as a suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl before receiving the Timbered Rock Study. After

receiving the study, there is no evidence in the record that defendant considered whether this evidence, along

with Franklin’ssubmission, created even the possibility that extraordinary circumstances existed precluding the

categoricalexemption forthis project. Instead, defendant simply stuck to its assertion that the northern spotted

owl did not benefit from severely burned forest.

Defendant submits the Youngblood declaration to explain why the Timbered Rock Study was found

to merely be “informative.” However, even if the Court does consider the declaration, there is still evidence

in the record that exceptions to the categoricalexemption may apply, which is all that is required to prevent the

use ofthe categoricalexemption. It appears to the Court, at this early stage, that plaintiffs’ likelihood of success

on the merits ofthe NEPA claim is less than it is for their NFMA claim, discussed below. However, plaintiffs

could succeed on this claim because there is no evidence in the record that defendant ever considered whether

the northern spotted owl benefits from a severely burned forest habitat. 

 

B. NFMA

Plaintiff EPIC argues that the Forest Service has violated the NFMA because it failed to ensure that

the Sims Project complied with the Six Rivers Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and the

Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Specifically, plaintiff contends that these Plans require the Forest Service to

show that all snags to be logged within the LSR are unlikely to persist. Defendant argues that the Plans do not

require retention of all snags that are likely to persist, but only of some of them.

The operative language of the Plans is vague, which leads to the dispute between the parties. Both

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

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

Plans state that the Forest Service should “focus on retaining snags that are likely to persist until late

successionalforest conditions have developed and a new stand is again producing large snags.” LRMP at 4-

39; NFP at C-14. 

This language alone raises a possibility that plaintiffs could succeed on the merits. One district court

has already ruled in favor ofplaintiffs’ argument that the NFP requires the retention of all snags that will persist

untilthe next forest develops. Oregon NaturalResources Council v. Brong, 2004 WL2554575 (D.Or. 2004).

In Brong, the Court found that the language in the NFP requiring the government to “focus on retaining snags

that are likely to persist until late successional forest conditions have developed and a new stand is again

producing large snags” was sufficient to find that allsuch snags must be retained. Id. at *7. Defendant in this

action distinguishes Brong only by stating that it disagrees with the court’s ruling and has appealed the matter

to the Ninth Circuit. 

Inthis case, however, there is something more: the Six Rivers Late Successional Reserves Assessment

(LSRA) specifically requires – or at least appears to specifically require – that allsuch snags be retained. The

LSRA states that “where available, snags will be left to meet: [a]ll snags with the potential to persist until the

new stand is again producing large snags.” LSRA at 6-34. Defendant claims that the requirement that allsuch

snags be retained is a typographical error, and notes that elsewhere the LSRA provides for numerical

requirements for large snags, which suggests that some snags can be removed. See Opp’n to EPIC Mot. at

19, LSRA at 4-8.

In addition, the Snag Analysis by Quentin Youngblood, the Forest Wildlife & Botany Program

Manager for the Six Rivers NationalForest, states that “[t]he snag retention guidelines proposed for the Sims

Fire Salvage Project are less than desirable on a unit-by-unit basis.” AR 556. On the next page, defendant

also states that “[b]y averaging the snags per acre across this larger scale according to series, seralstage, and

fire severity the recommended snag levels have been met even though unit-by-unit levels are less than

desirable.” AR 557. At oral argument, defense counsel contended that these statements, too, were

typographical errors, the result of drafting the document from a template. 

At this early stage, the Court finds that 1) Youngblood’s statements in the Snag Analysis, 2) the

statement in the LSRA that “all snags” that can persist should remain, 3) the ambiguous language of the NFP

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

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

8

and LRMP that the defendant should “focus on retaining snags that are likely to persist” and 4) the holding of

Brong create a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The Court refuses to brush these arguments

aside in a conclusory manner simply because defendant wishes to begin logging immediately. 

C. FSDARA

Under the FSDARA, the Forest Service must “establish a notice and comment process for proposed

actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing land and resource management

plans” and provide an opportunity for citizens to administratively appeal these projects. 16 U.S.C. § 1612.

Plaintiffs claim that the Sims Project is a project implementing the Six Rivers Land and Resource Management

Plan, and that the USFS should therefore have provided an opportunity to appealits Decision on the project.

Defendant argues that it has properly excluded from the FSDARA all projects that qualify as for NEPA

categorical exemptions. Defendant asserts that plaintiffs’ theory is too broad and would require appeals for

all applications of the LRMP, including repair and maintenance to administrative sites. 

The Court findsthat it is unnecessary to determine plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of this

issue, as it has already found that plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient likelihood for the two previous issues.

Therefore, the Court will withhold making a determination on this issue until summary judgment.

2. Irreparable harm

Plaintiffs claim that they will suffer irreparable injury if the Court does not grant their motion for a

preliminary injunction because the Forest Service is scheduled to allow logging under the Sims Project

immediately. Defendant argues that plaintiffs will not be harmed because they have presented no credible

evidence to support their claim that the removal of snags will harm the northern spotted owl. 

Defendant also asserts that it and the public will be harmed ifthe Court grants plaintiffs’ motion because

the value of the burned timber will decrease as time passes. Currently, defendant has a high bid of $661,791

for the Sims Project. See Bergstrom Declaration. However, the value of the contract will be reduced as the

timber is damaged by the elements. Thus, defendant argues that the logging must occur during this harvest

season in order for the timber to have commercial value. Additionally, defendant claims that the helicopters

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

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

9

needed for the project will be unavailable later in the summer because theywill be needed to fight forest fires.

Therefore, defendant states that the project will not be implemented if it is not started by June 30, 2005. 

The Supreme Court has noted that “[e]nvironmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately

remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration, i.e., irreparable.” Amoco

Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987). Additionally, any possible financial hardship

suffered by defendant is “outweighed by the fact the old growth forests plaintiffs seek to protect would, if cut,

take hundreds ofyears to reproduce.” Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Alexander, 222 F.3d 562, 569 (9th

Cir. 2000). Additionally, courts “have recognized that timber cutting causes irreparable damage and have

enjoined cutting when it occurs without proper observance of NEPA procedures and other environmental

laws.” Portland Audubon Society v. Babbitt, 795 F.Supp. 1489, 1509 (D.Or. 1992).

Plaintiffs presented evidence that conducting salvage programs in fire-damaged late successional

reserves is “inappropriate” because it “would interfere with the natural recovery processes.” AR 413. This

is because large snags and logs are the “most important surviving structural elements or biological legacies of

a forest disturbance, excepting only large live trees.” Id. Plaintiffs also present evidence that dead trees can

persist after a fire for decades, as standing snags or logs on the forest floor. These trees provide “a substrate

for insects on which woodpeckers feed, a source ofnutrientsfor the new tree seedlings, and homes for small

mammals and birds.” Ferrell Decl. at ¶ 5. 

Additionally, the Court finds it difficult to reconcile the timeline of the Sims Project with defendant’s

claim of harm. Specifically, defendant argues that “helicopter use to fly the felled logs from the stands to the

landings must be substantially completed by approximately August 15.” Bergstrom Decl. at ¶ 6. Defendant

chose the August 15 date because “by mid-August, the likelihood that wildfires will divert logging helicopter

use from the Sims Fire Salvage Project will be almost 100%.” Id. However, under the Decision issued by

the Forest Supervisor, the project will not even begin in two ofthe eight units until after August 31. AR 2. The

project cannot begin in Units 100 and 400 until September 1 because of the “potential for noise disturbance

to the northern spotted owl, fisher and the northern goshawk during the breeding season.” Id. Units 100 and

400 both must be logged by helicopter and consist of 26 acres. Id. If the logging must occur by August 15,

then it is impossible for Units 100 and 400 to be logged. However, defendant has not asserted that this is the

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

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

case.

On balance, the Court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm if the Court does not

grant the motion for a preliminary injunction, based on the environmental value of the trees subject to logging

and the irreversible nature of logging. Additionally, defendant’s only harm is economic, which has been found

to be ofsignificantly lessimportance than environmentalharmwhen courts determine irreparable harm. Finally,

the Court is skeptical that logging must begin immediately, as claimed by defendant, when the Sims Project

Decision requires two of the eight units to begin logging operations after August 31. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion

for preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that defendant, its agents, officers and employees

are preliminarily enjoined from awarding the contract for the Sims Fire Salvage Project, harvesting any trees

pursuant to the May 17, 2005 Decision Memo or undertaking any further action until this case can be heard

and decided on the merits. The Court finds that plaintiffs do not need to post a bond in this case.

The Court will schedule dispositive motions at the earliest convenient date suggested by the parties, so

as to assure a prompt decision on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2005 S/Susan Illston 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02220-SI Document 27 Filed 06/27/05 Page 10 of 10