Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01329-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY and EARTH ISLAND 

INSTITUTE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEAN GOULD, Sierra National 

Forest Supervisor; and UNITED 

STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 1:15-01329 WBS GSA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISSOLVE

THE INJUNCTION

SIERRA FOREST PRODUCTS,

DefendantIntervenor.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Earth 

Island Institute brought this action against defendants Dean 

Gould, the Sierra National Forest Supervisor, and the United 

States Forest Service (“Forest Service”), alleging that 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 62 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 7
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

defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act 

(“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in 

approving the French Fire Recovery and Reforestation Project

(“French Fire Project”). Sierra Forest Products intervened as a 

defendant. On December 11, 2015, this court partially granted 

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoined the Forest 

Service from resuming the logging of roadless areas in the French 

Fire Project unless and until it complied with the requirements 

of NEPA by providing a public opportunity to comment on the 

Wilderness Resource Impact Analysis (“Wilderness Analysis”) and 

responding to comments received. (Dec. 11, 2015 Order (Docket 

No. 47).) Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to 

dissolve the injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b)(5).1 (Docket No. 51.) 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In its December 11, 2015 Order, this court concluded 

that the Forest Service did not provide adequate pre-decisional 

opportunity for public comment on its Wilderness Analysis. (Dec. 

11, 2015 Order at 19.) Specifically, the court found that in 

publishing the Wilderness Analysis on the same day as the final 

Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and Decision Notice and Finding 

of No Significant Impact (“DN/FONSI”), the Forest Service failed 

to provide the public with the environmental information 

regarding potential wilderness designation of land within the 

French Fire Project that the public needed in order to weigh in 

and inform the agency decision-making process. (Id.) 

 

1 Defendant-Intervenor Sierra Forest Products joined in 

defendants’ motion to dissolve the injunction. (Docket No. 57.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 62 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 7
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

The court found that if the Forest Service had made the 

Wilderness Analysis available before issuing its final decision, 

it would have allowed more members of the public to comment on 

the French Fire Project’s potential impact on wilderness areas 

and enabled plaintiffs to submit a more complete comment. (Id.

at 18.) The court noted that plaintiffs were able to point to 

several concrete actions they would have taken had the Wilderness 

Analysis been available for public comment: plaintiffs would have 

challenged the Forest Service’s finding that specific areas 

lacked wilderness potential with pictures and videos of the area; 

had a GIS expert scrutinize the inventory maps relied on by the 

Forest Service; and attacked the criteria the Forest Service used 

for creating buffer zones, assessing powerline corridors, and 

assessing areas with signs of fire suppression actions. (Id. at 

19.) Lastly, the court noted that allowing additional time for 

public comment would not burden defendants because Sierra Forest 

Products had already suspended logging operations due to winter 

weather conditions and, assuming wet winter conditions, would not 

be able to resume until July 1, 2016 because the French Fire 

Project guidelines prohibit logging from March 1, 2016 through 

June 30, 2016. (Id. at 19 n.4.) 

In an effort to comply with this Court’s Order, the 

Forest Service issued notice of a public comment period for the 

Wilderness Analysis and the Burkindine Declaration on December 

20, 2015. (Defs.’ Mot. to Lift Injunction at 5 (“Defs.’ Mot.”) 

(Docket No. 51-1).) The Forest Service allowed thirty-five days 

for public comment, responded to the comments, and concluded that 

the comments did not raise any new, significant information that 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 62 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 7
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

required revision to the EA. (Id.)

II. Discussion

Under Rule 60(b)(5), the court may relieve a party 

“from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” if “the judgment 

has been satisfied, released or discharged” or if “applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). 

Applying the injunction prospectively is no longer equitable if 

“‘a significant change either in factual conditions or in law’ 

renders continued enforcement ‘detrimental to the public 

interest.’” Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (citation 

omitted).

The NEPA implementing regulations promulgated by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) provide that agencies 

must “[m]ake diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing 

and implementing their NEPA procedures” and “solicit appropriate

information from the public.” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(a), (e). The 

regulations also empower agencies to “reduce delay by . . . 

[e]stablishing appropriate time limits for the environmental 

impact statement process.” Id. § 1500.5. If a proposed project 

or activity is to be documented in an EA, the agency must accept 

comments on the proposed project for a minimum of thirty days 

beginning on the first day after the date of publication of the 

legal notice. 36 C.F.R. § 218.25. The responsible official 

shall “[d]etermine the most effective timing” for the comment 

period. Id. § 218.24. 

Although the Ninth Circuit has “not established a 

minimum level of public comment and participation required by the 

regulations governing the EA and FONSI process, [it] clearly 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 62 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 7
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

[has] held that the regulations at issue must mean something.” 

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 

961, 970 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Sierra Nev. Forest Prot. 

Campaign v. Weingardt, 376 F. Supp. 2d 984, 991 (E.D. Cal. 2005) 

(Levi, J.) (“The way in which the information is provided is less 

important than that a sufficient amount of environmental 

information--as much as practicable--be provided so that a member 

of the public can weigh in on the significant decisions that the 

agency will make.”). 

Plaintiffs argue that the injunction should not be 

dissolved because the Forest Service only accepted comments when 

the project area was inaccessible due to snow. When plaintiffs 

submitted a comment on January 19, 2016 objecting to the timing, 

the Forest Service offered to assist plaintiffs in accessing the 

French Fire Project with over-snow vehicles, special use permits, 

maps, and weather updates and to extend the comment period until 

May 1, 2016, provided that no further extensions would be sought. 

(Defs.’ Mot. Ex. 1, Suppl. Info. Report at 2 (Docket No. 51-2); 

Defs.’ Mot. Ex. 2, Review of Comments to the French Wilderness 

Analysis and Forest Service Responses at 1, 16-17 (Docket No. 51-

3).) Plaintiffs contend they refused the offered assistance 

because accessing the French Fire Project on over-snow vehicles 

was unsafe and, even if access was possible, they would not have 

been able to gather site evidence about the allegedly wild, 

roadless character of the area or take any informative 

photographs or video when the ground was covered in snow. (Pls.’ 

Opp’n at 7, 12-13 (Docket No. 55); Hanson Decl. ¶ 4 (Docket No. 

55-2).) The conditional extension, plaintiffs argue, was also 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 62 Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 7
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

inadequate because plaintiffs did not know in January whether the 

snow would have melted by May 1, 2016 and, as a result, could not 

promise not to seek additional extensions.

2 Plaintiffs therefore 

contend that the timing of the comment period deprived them of 

the ability to meaningfully participate in the decision-making 

process. (Pls.’ Opp’n at 7.) 

While it may be true that plaintiffs could not have 

documented the wilderness characteristics of the land during the 

winter, this court’s December 11, 2015 Order did not require that 

plaintiffs have an opportunity to do so as a matter of right. 

There is also no regulation requiring the Forest Service to 

ensure commenters have access to the project area during the 

comment period. The Forest Service made diligent efforts to 

involve the public by making the environmental information in the 

Wilderness Analysis available to the public, providing more than 

the required thirty days for comment, and carefully responding to 

the comments submitted. Though it was not accepted by 

plaintiffs, the Forest Service also exceeded its obligations by 

offering a conditional ninety-day extension until May 1, 2016. 

Accordingly, the court finds that defendants have 

complied with both this court’s Order and the requirements of 

NEPA by providing thirty-five days for public comment on the 

Wilderness Analysis and responding to the comments submitted. 

///

///

 

2 Plaintiffs successfully accessed the project area in 

early May 2016 and collected their desired data. (Pls.’ Opp’n at 

2 n.1, 8-9; Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 62 Filed 06/21/16 Page 6 of 7
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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to lift 

the injunction (Docket No. 51) be, and the same hereby is, 

GRANTED.

Dated: June 21, 2016

 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 62 Filed 06/21/16 Page 7 of 7