Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00205-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 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

The Court is advised that on March 1, 2007, Plaintiff 1

Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign changed its name to

Sierra Forest Legacy.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIERRA NEVADA FOREST PROTECTION No. 2:05-cv-0205-MCE-GGH 

CAMPAIGN, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 1

DIVERSITY, NATURAL RESOURCES 

DEFENSE COUNCIL, SIERRA CLUB, 

and THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

non-profit organizations,

 

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

MARK REY, in his official

capacity as Under Secretary of

Agriculture, DALE BOSWORTH, in

his official capacity as Chief

of the United States Forest

Service, JACK BLACKWELL, in his

official capacity as Regional

Forester, Region 5, United

States Forest Service, and

JAMES M. PEÑA, in his official

capacity as Forest Supervisor,

Plumas National Forest, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 173 Filed 06/11/07 Page 1 of 5
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

The Freeman Project covers some 14,967 acres in the Lake 2

Davis Recreation Area north of Portola, while the Basin Project

encompasses 38,393 acres south and west of Bucks Lake and north

of the Middle Fork of the Feather River near Quincy.

2

On June 8, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion

for Preliminary Injunction collectively brought by the Plaintiffs

in this matter. Plaintiffs were represented by Michael Sherwood

and Gregory Loarie. Clay Samford appeared on behalf of the

Federal Defendants. Several intervening parties also appeared,

including Michael Jackson for the Quincy Library Group, Thomas

Lundquist on behalf of TuCare, et al., and Brian Kelley for the

California Ski Industry Association. Deputy Attorney General

Janill Richards (for the State of California) and Brian Gaffney

(for Pacific Rivers Council), who are involved in cases related

to this one, also made an appearance.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin implementation of the Freeman

Project, which the Forest Service approved on September 13, 2006

to implement, within the Plumas National Forest near Portola,

California, certain management standards and guidelines invoked

by the 2004 Framework for administration of national forests

within the Sierra Nevada region. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, however,

contains a site-specific challenge only to the Basin Project,

another forest management project within the Plumas National

Forest that targets specific lands near the town of Quincy.2

Plaintiffs contend that the Basin Plan, and the 2004 Framework

upon which it is based, runs counter to the provisions of the

National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) and the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”).

///

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 173 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Because neither NEPA nor NFMA contains provisions allowing a

private right of action (see Lujan v. National Wildlife

Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 882 (1990) and Ecology Center Inc. v.

United States, 192 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir. 1999) for this

proposition under NEPA and NFMA, respectively), a party can

obtain judicial review of alleged violations of NEPA only under

the waiver of sovereign immunity contained within the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Earth

Island Institute v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th

Cir. 2005).

Under the APA, the court must determine whether, based on a

review of the agency’s administrative record, agency action was

“arbitrary and capricious,” outside the scope of the agency’s

statutory authority, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 

Salmon River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356

(9th Cir. 1994). The APA specifically directs that review be

based upon the complete administrative record that existed before

the agency at the time of its decision. Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S.

138, 142 (1973); Southwest Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. U.S.

Forest Serv., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996).

Although Plaintiffs contend that their Complaint contains

sweeping language which can be read as encompassing all projects

promulgated under the allegedly defective 2004 Framework, it is

undisputed that the specific issues of the Freeman Project are

not directly before the Court. It is equally undisputed that the

complete administrative record for the Freeman Project, which

generated a Final Environmental Impact Statement of some 600

pages alone, has not been tendered to the Court.

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 173 Filed 06/11/07 Page 3 of 5
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

In their reply papers, Plaintiffs cite cases which they

allege support the proposition that site-specific projects like

Freeman may be enjoined even if not individually challenged

within a particular lawsuit. Plaintiffs conceded at oral

argument, however, that those cases, including Northwest

Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 2006 WL 44361 (W.D. Wash. 2006), and

People ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 468 F. Supp.

2d 1140 N.D. Cal. 2006), were decided in a remedy context after a

successful liability challenge had already been mounted. Here,

on the other hand, there has been no substantive finding

whatsoever invalidating the 2004 Framework pursuant to which the

Basin and Freeman Projects were developed. Plaintiffs could

point to no authority authorizing the Court to grant preliminary

injunctive relief involving a project, not specifically within

the scope of litigation, whose underpinnings have not been

successfully challenged on a substantive basis.

Under these circumstances, the Court believes it would be

improper to grant a preliminary injunction to a project not

squarely before the Court, either through the pleadings or

through submission of a complete administrative record. Such a

ruling could, in essence, bar any project falling within the

penumbra of the 2004 Framework regardless the particular

project’s merit or the care with which it was implemented, as

demonstrated by the administrative record. The implication of a

decision in that regard could amount to a de facto rejection 

the entire 2004 Framework, which the Court declines to do at this

time. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 173 Filed 06/11/07 Page 4 of 5
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

The Court accordingly DENIES, without prejudice, Plaintiffs’

Motion for Preliminary Injunction on procedural grounds. In

making that ruling, the Court recognizes that no logging pursuant

to the Freeman Project is scheduled to commence until June 18,

2007. That intervening period will permit Plaintiffs to bring

the propriety of the Freeman Project properly before the Court,

should they choose to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH Document 173 Filed 06/11/07 Page 5 of 5