Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01922/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01922-12/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSERVATION CONGRESS, a 

nonprofit organization,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-CMK

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to a motion for a temporary restraining order 

and/or preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Conservation Congress (“Plaintiff’”). (ECF No. 

50.) Defendants United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) and United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (“FWS”) oppose the motion. (ECF No. 56.)

The instant case involves a forestry project, the Bagley Hazard Tree Abatement Project 

(“Bagley Project”) following a large fire in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. In the underlying 

complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully approved the Bagley Project in violation 

of several federal environmental laws. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, ECF No. 1.) Felling operations 

associated with a small subset of the Bagley Project began on October 19, 2016. Plaintiff seeks a 

temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to halt some of the felling. (Pl.’s Mot. 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 14
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

for TRO and/or Prelim. Inj. (“Mot.”) 1–2, ECF No. 50-2.) The Court has carefully considered the 

arguments the parties set forth in their briefing. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s 

motion (ECF No. 50) is DENIED. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In August 2012, lightning strikes ignited a forest fire in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest

that came to be known as the “Bagley Fire” (hereinafter “Bagley Fire”). (Environmental 

Assessment: Bagley Hazard Tree Abatement Project (“EA”), FS-BAR-30, ECF No. 32.)1 The 

Bagley Fire eventually burned over 46,000 acres of public and private land in Shasta County, 

roughly 70% of which is located in the Shasta Lake and McCloud Ranger Districts of the 

National Forest. (EA, FS-BAR-30, ECF No. 32.) The remaining 30% of the fire area is private 

land. (EA, FS-BAR-30, ECF No. 32.) Private land in the fire area is interspersed throughout the 

public lands, and the fire area resembles a checkerboard of public and private ownership. (See 

EA, FS-BAR-32, ECF No. 32.) The fire burned more severely in some places than others and it 

left behind a patchwork arrangement of burn severities—a “mosaic of fire-killed and defective 

trees” spread across the landscape. (EA, FS-BAR-30, ECF No. 32; Hamilton Decl. ¶5, ECF No. 

57.)

Ninety-five miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads, open to the public, crisscross

the fire area. (EA, FS-BAR-30, ECF No. 32.) The NFS roads within the fire area are classified 

as Operation Maintenance Level 2 and Level 3, which means the Forest Service maintains the 

roads for access by high-clearance vehicles and standard passenger cars, respectively. (EA, FSBAR-24, ECF No. 32; Malone Decl. Ex. 7, at 19–39, ECF No. 52-7.) Like the rest of the fire 

area, the areas around the NFS roads burned at varying levels of severity. (EA, FS-BAR-30, ECF 

No. 32.) These roadside areas now have a mosaic of fire-killed and defective trees comparable to 

the fire area at large. (EA, FS-BAR-30, ECF No. 32.) In some places, the roadside damage is

limited to intermittent fire-killed trees. In others, high-severity fire damage and dead trees sprawl

across acre after acre. (EA, FS-BAR-30, ECF No. 32.) Some of these burned roadside trees have 

 

1 The Court cites the Forest Service Bagley Administrative Record (ECF No. 32) as FS-BAR-[Bates page 

number] and the FWS Bagley Administrative Record (ECF No. 38) as FWS-BAR-[Bates page number].

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 14
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

become hazard trees. (EA, FS-BAR-24, ECF No. 32.) According to the Hazard Tree Guidelines 

for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region, hazard trees are:

dead or dying trees, dead parts of live trees, or unstable live trees 

(due to structural defects or other factors) that are within striking 

distance of people or property (a target). Hazard trees have the

potential to cause property damage, personal injury or fatality in the 

event of a failure.

(EA, FS-BAR-228, ECF No. 32.)

In the name of public safety, the Forest Service closed almost all of the NFS roads in the 

fire area immediately after the Bagley Fire.

2

The closure order is still in place, and has been 

continuously since the fire. Id. (See also Hamilton Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 57.) Nevertheless, the 

affected NFS roads are traveled with some frequency. Many state and federal employees—Forest 

Service personnel, firefighters, and the like—must use the roads to perform their jobs. (Hamilton 

Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 57.) In addition, the NFS roads are burdened by easements allowing private 

landowners to access their inholdings within the fire area. (Hamilton Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 57.) 

These users are all exempted from the closure order, see FS Bagley Closure Order, supra, and 

must all rely on the roads in spite of the ongoing presence of hazard trees.

The Bagley Project was designed to mitigate the risks associated with those hazard trees.

As originally planned, the Bagley Project would do three things:

• Along 95 miles of open NFS roads, identify and fell hazard trees 

that have lost their structural integrity and are likely to fall 

uncontrolled, jeopardizing public safety and the transportation 

system (5,430 acres). 

• Salvage higher concentrations of felled trees along 19 segmented 

miles of NFS roads (776 acres). 

• Treat activity-created fuels in excess of 10 tons per acre (woody 

material less than or equal to 9-inches in diameter).

(EA, FS-BAR-38, ECF No. 32 (footnotes omitted).) According to the Forest Service, the Bagley 

Project would serve three purposes. First, the project would remove hazard trees and retain open, 

safe NFS roads for management and recreational uses. (Decision Notice and Finding of No 

 

2

FS Closure Order 14-12-02, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Bagley Fire Emergency Closure (U.S.D.A. 

2012), http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/stnf/alerts-notices/?cid=stelprdb5443633&width=full (“FS Bagley Closure 

Order”).

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 14
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

Significant Impact: Bagley Hazard Tree Abatement Project (“DN/FONSI”), FS-BAR-3, ECF No. 

32.) Second, the project would allow the Forest Service to meet its legal and contractual 

obligations to share NFS road maintenance and repair costs with private users.3 (DN/FONSI, FSBAR-03, ECF No. 32.) Third, the project would allow the Forest Service to recover the monetary 

value of the wood through salvage and sale, offsetting the cost to the public. (DN/FONSI, FSBAR-04, ECF No. 32.)

In the spring of 2013, the Forest Service began the regulatory approval process for the 

Bagley Project, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 

4321 et seq., and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. The Forest 

Service prepared a preliminary Environmental Assessment to comply with NEPA, and also went 

through informal consultation with FWS to analyze the effect the Bagley Project would have on 

species protected by the ESA. (DN/FONSI, FS-BAR-5–6, ECF No. 32.) On August 29, 2013, 

the Forest Service issued a final Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant 

Impact, concluding the approval process. (EA, FS-BAR-20–253, ECF No. 32; DN/FONSI, FSBAR-2–19, ECF No. 32.) The Bagley Project was approved the same day. (DN/FONSI, FSBAR-4, ECF No. 32.) 

But the Bagley Project was not implemented after it was approved. The Forest Service 

initially attempted to find contractors who would bid for the right to harvest the salvage timber 

from the hazard trees. (Hamilton Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 57.) Despite several rounds of advertising, 

the Forest Service received no bids, and no timber felling or salvage logging occurred. (Hamilton 

Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 57.) In fact, it appears highly unlikely that salvage logging will ever occur. 

“Because the quality of fire-killed trees depreciates rapidly following a fire, it is no longer 

possible to obtain commercial value from any of the fire-killed hazard trees.” (Hamilton Decl. ¶ 

10, ECF No. 57.)

In the summer of 2016, the Forest Service, still concerned about the hazard trees and 

attendant road closures, decided to try again. The Forest Service solicited bids to pay a contractor 

 

3

Pursuant to agreements it entered under the Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964, 15 U.S.C. §§ 532 et seq., 

the Forest Service shares with private landowners the maintenance and repair costs for over 40 miles of roads in the 

fire area. (EA, FS-BAR-37–38, ECF No. 32.)

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 14
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

to fell the hazard trees in place along 22 miles of a “priority loop” that receives more traffic than 

the other affected NFS roads. (Wood Decl. Ex. A. at 22, ECF No. 60-1.) Most of the work under 

that contract was focused on 6.4 segmented miles of road that received high burn severity and 

consequently had lots of hazard trees. (Wood Decl. Ex. A. at 22, ECF No. 60-1.) On September 

22, 2016, a portion of that contract was awarded to Pacific Ridgeline Forestry, LLC (“Pacific 

Ridgeline”). (Wood Decl. Ex. A. at 5, ECF No. 60-1.) Pacific Ridgeline will fell hazard trees 

along roughly 4.8 miles of the priority loop. (Wood Decl. Ex. A. at 5, ECF No. 60-1.) The trees 

will not be salvage logged; they will simply be felled away from the road and left in place. 

(Wood Decl. Ex. A. at 27, ECF No. 60-1.)

Plaintiff brought this lawsuit in September 2013, shortly after the Bagley Project was first 

approved. (Compl., ECF No. 1) Plaintiff alleges that the Bagley Project was approved in 

violation of NEPA, the ESA, the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 1601 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. (Compl. 

¶¶ 67–111, ECF No. 1.) When Plaintiff learned that Pacific Ridgeline would begin limited felling 

operations in the fire area, it brought this motion seeking a temporary restraining order and/or 

preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local 

Rule 231. (Notice of Mot. 1, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff requests an injunction to halt logging along 

all Maintenance Level 2 roads in the fire area, except those roads for which the Forest Service has 

a maintenance cost-share obligation. (Mot. 2, ECF No. 50-2; Pl.’s Reply (“Reply”) 2–3, ECF No.

63.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The same legal standard applies to both preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining 

orders. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001), 

overruled on other grounds, Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). 

Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citing Mazurek v. 

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). 

Plaintiff must show four things to receive a preliminary injunction or temporary 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 5 of 14
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

restraining order. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. First, Plaintiff must show that it is likely to suffer 

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Id. Second, Plaintiff must show that it is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Id. Third, Plaintiff must show that the balance of equities tips in 

its favor. Id. Finally, Plaintiff must show that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. Plaintiff

must “make a showing on all four prongs” of Winter to obtain a preliminary injunction. Alliance 

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In the Ninth Circuit, courts 

apply a sliding-scale approach. Id. Under this approach, a preliminary injunction may issue 

where the plaintiff has raised “serious questions on the merits”—rather than a more complete

showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—so long as the balance of hardships tips sharply 

in the plaintiff’s favor and the plaintiff satisfies the other two Winter prongs. Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

At the outset, the Court must clarify a basic point about the basis for the instant Order. 

According to Plaintiff, the now-circumscribed nature of the ongoing hazard tree felling operations 

is not relevant to the Court’s decision on this motion. (Reply 1–2, ECF No. 63.) That argument 

misunderstands the nature of a preliminary injunction. True, it is a fundamental rule of 

administrative law that a reviewing court weighs the propriety of an agency action solely on the 

grounds invoked by the agency. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87–88 

(1943). Thus, the merits questions in this case—whether Defendants violated NEPA and the 

ESA—must be resolved solely by reference to the original project documents from 2013. See

Chenery, 318 U.S. at 87–88. See also Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743–44 

(1985) (“The task of the reviewing court is to apply the appropriate APA standard of 

review . . . to the agency decision based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing 

court.”). But the relief Plaintiff now seeks is a temporary restraining order or preliminary 

injunction. That “extraordinary remedy” will only issue if irreparable injury is likely to occur 

absent an injunction. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. The Court “must balance the competing claims of 

injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested 

relief.” Id. at 24 (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)). 

Those equitable considerations necessarily require the Court to account for the situation that is 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 6 of 14
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

actually occurring—namely, limited felling operations along a segment of the priority loop rather 

than full-scale implementation of the Bagley Project as it was originally approved.

With that consideration in mind, the Court now turns to Plaintiff’s motion. Because the 

Court concludes that a preliminary injunction would not be warranted even if Plaintiff had shown 

a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court does not address that factor. See Winter, 555 U.S. 

at 23–24 (not reaching the merits because the irreparable injury, balance of equities, and public 

interest factors all weighed against an injunction). 

A. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

Plaintiff may not obtain a preliminary injunction unless it can show that irreparable harm 

is likely to result if the injunction does not issue. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. Plaintiff identifies four harms that it claims are irreparable. (Mot. 6–

8, ECF No. 50-2.) The Court concludes that none of Plaintiff’s identified irreparable harms are 

likely to occur in the absence of a preliminary injunction.

First, Plaintiff argues that the logging of old growth trees is an irreparable injury. (Mot. 6, 

ECF No. 50-2 (citing Lands Council v. Martin, 479 F.3d 636, 643 (2007).) As Plaintiff points 

out, the Bagley Project does not impose an upward diameter on the trees and snags to be salvage 

logged, so it is possible that old growth trees would be felled and removed. (Mot. 6, ECF No. 50-

2.) For example, when the Environmental Assessment describes the conifer trees that will be 

salvage logged under the Project, it identifies those trees that are “generally greater than or equal 

to 16-inches diameter at breast height (dbh),” but does not impose an upward limitation. (EA, 

FS-BAR-45, ECF No. 32.) But for now there is no indication that old growth trees will be logged 

in the absence of an injunction. Logging and felling are terms of art in forestry. Logging means 

“[t]he felling, skidding, on-site processing, and loading of trees or logs on to trucks” and is 

synonymous with harvesting. Logging, THE SOC’Y OF AM. FORESTERS, THE DICTIONARY OF 

FORESTRY (John A. Helms ed. 1998) (original emphasis omitted). Felling, on the other hand, is 

simply the “cutting down of trees” irrespective of whether the trees are ultimately removed. 

Felling, THE SOC’Y OF AM. FORESTERS, THE DICTIONARY OF FORESTRY (John A. Helms ed. 

1998). Logging would have occurred under the original Bagley Project, but the ongoing hazard 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 7 of 14
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

tree abatement calls only for felling. (Wood Decl. Ex. A at 22, ECF No. 60-1 (“It is the intent of 

this contract to secure services for chainsaw felling of roadside hazard trees that were fire-killed 

in the 2012 Bagley Complex.”).) Lands Council is thus distinguishable because it involved a 

post-fire timber sale and actual logging, rather than roadside felling. Lands Council, 479 F.3d at 

638–39. In any event, Lands Council is distinguishable for another reason: that case involved a 

proposed post-fire timber sale that would log dying but not yet dead trees even though the 

applicable NFMA Forest Plan prohibited the logging of “live trees [greater than or equal to] 

21[inches] dbh.” Id. at 641. In the instant case, “virtually all of the hazard trees [to be felled] are 

entirely fire killed.” (Hamilton Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 57 (emphasis added).) The contract for the 

ongoing felling operations indicates that there are roughly 75 hazard trees per acre, approximately 

25 of which are greater than or equal to 16 inches dbh. (Wood Decl. Ex. A at 22, ECF No. 60-1.) 

Plaintiff must show that an irreparable injury is likely in the absence of a preliminary injunction. 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that live, old-growth trees of the kind at 

issue in Lands Council will be affected by the ongoing felling.

Second, Plaintiff argues that its members will be irreparably harmed by the Bagley Project 

because they will be unable to view the project area in a natural post-fire state. (Mot. 7, ECF No. 

50-2 (citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135).) But the project area is currently 

subject to a closure order and violators may face fines or imprisonment. See FS Bagley Closure 

Order, supra. Defendants represent that the closure order will remain in place until the hazard 

trees are felled. (Opp’n 12:5, ECF No. 56.) Legally speaking, Plaintiff’s members already find 

themselves in the position of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies plaintiffs—unable to “view 

experience and utilize” the project area in any state because of the closure order. Alliance for the 

Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. The ongoing felling operations aim to restore safety and obviate 

the need for the closure order, which would allow Plaintiff’s members to return to the area—most 

of it unaffected—lawfully.4

Third, Plaintiff argues that the Bagley Project will intrude upon three special land 

 

4 Alliance for the Wild Rockies can be read to suggest a de minimus exception to the type of irreparable harm 

that Plaintiff alleges its members are suffering, 632 F.3d at 1135, but the Court does not rely on that concept in 

concluding that Plaintiff will not be irreparably harmed by the ongoing felling operations.

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 8 of 14
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

management designations that provide support and refuge for the northern spotted owl. (Mot. 8, 

ECF No. 50-2.) According to Plaintiff, the northern spotted owl will not use a stand of trees once 

it has been burned and logged. (Mot. 8, ECF No. 50-2.) As discussed above, there is no risk of 

any imminent logging because the ongoing hazard tree abatement work only involves felling. 

(Wood Decl. Ex. A at 22, ECF No. 60-1.) Moreover, the relationship between the northern 

spotted owl and tree stands that have been very severely burned is more nuanced than Plaintiff 

suggests. According to the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, “spotted owls 

can make use of some post-fire landscapes, [but] fire also reduces the function of some habitat 

and likely removes some from immediate usability, particularly in areas of high-severity fire.” 

(Recovery Plan, FS-BAR-4268, ECF No. 32.) The ongoing felling operations are essentially 

confined to high-severity burn areas. (Wood Decl. Ex. A at 22, ECF No. 60-1.) Felling is also 

subject to limited operating periods (LOPs) that account for the northern spotted owl. (Wood 

Decl. Ex. A at 28, ECF No. 60-1.) Even the original Bagley Project imposed restrictions to leave 

the northern spotted owl undisturbed: 

The LOPs included in the Integrated Design Features minimize 

direct effects to the spotted owl by avoiding disturbances during 

critical periods of the breeding season or when young owls are not 

mobile enough to readily move from a disturbance. 

The Bagley Project would not create any new openings as 

temporary storage of logs will be restricted to existing landings and 

the road prism.

(EA, FS-BAR-78, ECF No. 32.) In short, Plaintiff alleges that the Bagley Project will cause 

northern spotted owls to leave the area and never return. At this juncture, that risk appears highly 

speculative and, at a minimum, it does not appear likely to occur in the absence of a preliminary 

injunction. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that it is currently suffering irreparable harm because the Forest 

Service did not properly comply with NEPA. (Mot. 8, ECF No. 50-2.) Plaintiff relies on High 

Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2004), for the proposition that 

“irreparable injury flows from the failure to evaluate the environmental impact of a major federal 

action.” (Mot. 8, ECF No. 50-2 (quoting High Sierra Hikers, 390 F.3d at 642).) That 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 9 of 14
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

presumption was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court in two recent NEPA cases: Winter 

and Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010). In Winter, the Supreme Court 

made clear that, even in NEPA cases, “plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief [must] demonstrate 

that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (emphasis 

in original). In Monsanto, the Supreme Court faced a question about a permanent rather than a 

preliminary injunction in the context of NEPA. There, the Supreme Court again reinforced that 

an injunction should issue only if the traditional four-factor test is satisfied. Monsanto, 561 U.S. 

at 157. Nothing in NEPA allows a court considering an injunction to put a “thumb on the scales.”

Id. See also Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075, 1089 

(9th Cir. 2015) (recognizing Winter and Monsanto as overruling the more lenient standard for an 

injunction in NEPA cases). A NEPA violation, without more, does not establish the requisite 

likelihood of irreparable harm.

B. Balance of Hardships

Even if Plaintiff had raised serious questions on the merits, the Court finds that the 

balance of equities and the public interest both weigh against an injunction here. The Court must 

consider the “effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco 

Prod., 480 U.S. at 542. Although cases presenting a likelihood of environmental injury often 

involve a hardship balance that tips in favor of an injunction, the Court may not abandon the 

balance of harms analysis just because a potential exists for environmental injury. “Injunctive 

relief is an equitable remedy, requiring the court to engage in the traditional balance of harms 

analysis, even in the context of environmental litigation.” Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995) abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc. 

v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011). 

In the instant case, the balancing act comes down to environmental injury versus safety 

concerns.

5

 The Court finds that the safety risks posed by hazard trees along the NFS roads 

 

5

In its opposition, the Forest Service argued that the ongoing felling operations are necessary to fulfill road 

maintenance obligations that the Forest Service shares with private landowners. (Opp’n 16:17–23, ECF No. 56.) In 

response, Plaintiff modified its proposed injunction to exclude any roads for which the Forest Service has a costshare obligation, effectively mooting the argument. (Reply 4–6, ECF No. 63.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 10 of 14
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

outweigh the potential for environmental harm, particularly because the ongoing felling 

operations are so circumscribed in scope compared to the original Bagley Project. There are 

currently thousands of hazard trees along the priority loop NFS roads. (Hamilton Decl. ¶ 15, ECF 

No. 57.) By their very definition, these hazard trees pose a risk of falling and striking the road, 

ultimately causing property damage or personal injury. (Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest 

Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region, EA Appendix H, FS-BAR-228, 

ECF No. 32.) In spite of that risk, and the closure order, many public and private workers must 

use the roads. (Hamilton Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 57.) 

Plaintiff tries to sidestep the safety issue in two ways. First, Plaintiff argues that any trees 

that once posed a threat of falling have either fallen already or no longer pose a threat because the 

Bagley Fire occurred four years ago. (Mot. 10, ECF No. 50-2.) Plaintiff submits declarations 

from Denise Boggs, the executive director of Conservation Congress, in which Ms. Boggs avers 

that “there certainly is not an emergency in my opinion” and “[i]n my opinion, the trees marked 

for cut meeting this criteria were not hazard trees that would fall on the road.” (Boggs Decl. ¶ 16,

ECF No. 51; Boggs Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 55.) Whatever weight Ms. Boggs’ opinions may have, 

they are undermined by the following empirical data: as of July 29, 2016, approximately 166 trees 

had fallen across the priority loop alone, and two new trees fell between the first and second 

weeks of October 2016. (Hamilton Decl. Ex. C, ECF No. 57-3; Hamilton Decl. ¶¶ 15–16, ECF 

No. 57.)

Second, Plaintiff argues that any safety concerns are obviated by the narrow nature of the 

injunction Plaintiff requests. (Mot. 10, ECF No. 50-2.) Plaintiff seeks a “narrowly tailored” 

injunction that will halt any felling or cutting along all Maintenance Level 2 roads, except those 

roads for which the Forest Service has a cost-share obligation. (Mot 2, ECF No. 50-2; Reply 5–6, 

ECF No. 63.) Although this request appears narrowly tailored at first blush, its narrowness is 

ultimately illusory. The vast majority of the NFS roads in the project area are Maintenance Level 

2, and the entire priority loop is Maintenance Level 2. (EA, FS-BAR-174, ECF No. 32; 

Hamilton Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff initially sought to enjoin all felling along 

Maintenance Level 2 roads, which would have the practical effect of halting all ongoing hazard 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 11 of 14
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

12

tree abatement. (Mot. 2, ECF No. 50-2.) In its reply brief, Plaintiff further narrowed its request

for injunctive relief to exclude from its proposed injunction the 40 miles of roads for which the 

Forest Service has cost-share obligations. (Reply 5–6, ECF No. 63.) But the parties did not 

provide the Court with any information about whether the cost-share roads and the priority loop 

roads are in fact the same roads. If they are the same roads, the proposed injunction will do 

nothing because it will not apply to the only places where felling is actually occurring. If they are 

not the same roads, Plaintiff’s narrower proposal offers an empty concession. In either case, the 

“narrowly tailored” nature of Plaintiff’s proposed injunction cannot alleviate the safety concerns 

posed by hazard trees along the priority loop roads. 

Weighing against those safety concerns is the potential for environmental injury. 

However, the threat of environmental injury is very limited in the instant case. Ongoing felling 

operations are limited to roughly 4.8 miles of the priority loop, and the felled trees will not be 

removed. (Wood Decl. Ex. A. at 5, 27, ECF No. 60-1.) Indeed, as discussed in § III.A, the Court 

concludes that Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of irreparable environmental harm in the 

absence of an injunction. Although many hazard trees will be felled, that without more is not a 

sufficient environmental injury to outweigh the safety risk those same hazard trees pose. See 

Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 475–76 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming the denial of a 

preliminary injunction based on the district court’s weighing of the dangers posed by hazard 

trees). To be clear, the Court holds that the safety risk posed by the hazard trees outweighs any 

environmental injury that is actually occurring as part of the ongoing felling operations. The 

Court expresses no opinion on how this analysis would change if the Forest Service sought to go 

forward with the Bagley Project as it was originally conceived.

C. Public Interest

Finally, Plaintiff must also show that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 

U.S. at 20. The Court finds that a preliminary injunction here would not be in the public interest, 

and may actually harm the public interest. The NFS roads in the fire area are currently closed 

because of the risk posed by the hazard trees. See FS Bagley Closure Order, supra. Nevertheless, 

the public faces some of the same safety threats that other road users face. As Ms. Boggs’ 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 12 of 14
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

declaration illustrates, at least some members of the public travel through the fire area despite the 

closure order, even if unwittingly. (Boggs Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9, ECF No. 51.) Ms. Boggs avers that she 

has never seen signs or barriers indicating that the fire area was closed to recreational users. 

(Boggs Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 64.) Other members of the public, many of whom will invariably 

have less experience with Forest Service road closures, may also find themselves in the closed 

area—unaware that the area is closed because of the risks posed by hazard trees. Their safety 

also weighs against a preliminary injunction. See Earth Island Inst., 626 F.3d at 475–76. In 

addition, many would-be users of public lands in the fire area, who are aware that the area is 

closed, are currently unable to visit or recreate in the fire area. 

Plaintiff, relying on Seattle Audubon Soc’y. v. Evans, 771 F. Supp. 1081 (W.D. Wash. 

1991), argues that the “public’s interest in ensuring that federal agencies manage public lands in 

compliance with environmental laws ‘invokes a public interest of the highest order: the interest in 

having government officials act in accordance with the law.’” (Mot. 11, ECF No. 50-2 (quoting 

Seattle Audubon Soc’y, 771 F. Supp. At 1096).) The Court agrees that the public has a strong 

interest in ensuring that government officials act in accordance with the law. But the Court 

concludes that the public’s interest in holding government officials accountable does not justify a 

preliminary injunction in the instant case for three reasons. First, Winter belies the argument that 

a statutory violation by the federal government, by its nature, creates an overriding public interest 

justifying a preliminary injunction. Each factor of the four-factor test must be satisfied before a 

preliminary injunction will issue. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Second, Plaintiff’s reliance on Seattle 

Audubon Soc’y is unpersuasive in the instant case. Seattle Audubon Soc’y involved a sweeping

abdication of responsibility by high-level government officials. Seattle Audubon Soc’y, 771 F. 

Supp. at 1090 (“More is involved here than a simple failure by an agency to comply with its 

governing statute. The most recent violation of NFMA exemplifies a deliberate and systematic 

refusal by the Forest Service and the FWS to comply with the laws protecting wildlife. This is not 

the doing of the scientists, foresters, rangers, and others at the working levels of these agencies.”). 

Morever, Seattle Audubon Soc’y concerned a permanent injunction after the court had granted 

summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on their NFMA claims, not, as here, a request for a 

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 13 of 14
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

preliminary injunction where the resolution of the merits remains uncertain. Seattle Audubon 

Soc’y, 771 F. Supp. at 1082–83. Finally, the Court finds that the public interest in returning safe, 

lawful access to public lands simply outweighs any other interest alleged in the instant case and 

supports the argument against a preliminary injunction.

IV. CONCLUSION

The narrow nature of the ongoing felling operations along the priority loop is fatal to 

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In the face of a project so focused on alleviating 

the worst safety risks posed by hazard trees along the most frequented NFS roads, Plaintiff has 

not shown that it is entitled to the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction. Winter,

555 U.S. at 22. The Court makes clear that this Order depends on the narrow scope of the hazard 

tree felling that is actually occurring in the Bagley fire area. For the reasons discussed above, 

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is hereby

DENIED. 

Dated: November 2, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-01922-TLN-DMC Document 66 Filed 11/03/16 Page 14 of 14