Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00397/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00397-5/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIERRA CLUB, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DALE BOSWORTH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-00397 CRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GRANTING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Currently pending before the Court is a motion by several plaintiff environmental

groups for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs seek an order preventing the United States

Forest Service (“Forest Service” or “Service”) from allowing intervenor Sierra Forest

Products to execute a 1999 contract authorizing timber cutting in the Sequoia National

Forest. Plaintiffs contend that the Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act

(“NEPA”) by failing to conduct the required analysis of newly available information

regarding the project’s effect on the pacific fisher, a mink-like animal that faces extirpation

within the southern Sierra Nevada. After carefully reviewing the record in this action and

having had the benefit of live testimony on this motion, the Court hereby GRANTS the

motion for a preliminary injunction.

BACKGROUND

On June 30, 1999, the Forest Service approved a commercial logging project called

the Saddle Fuels Reduction Project (the “Saddle project” or “the project”), which involves

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 1Other guidelines include cutting shorter trees to maintain a canopy and leaving some

wood on the forest floor.

2

the logging of about 31,000 trees over 2,000 acres of pacific fisher habitat in the southern

Sierra Nevada mountains. This approval came after the Service prepared an Environmental

Assessment (“EA”), which received comments from the plaintiffs in this action. The

Environmental Assessment concluded that the project would cause no significant impacts to

the human environment, and therefore the more thorough review involved in preparing an

Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) was unnecessary. The finding of no significant

impact (“FONSI”) was premised on, among other things, the determination that the project

“would maintain suitable habitat and habitat elements necessary for . . . [the] fisher . . . to be

well dispersed over the landscape.” FONSI VII.9. The finding was also based on the

conclusion that guidelines set up in 1993 to protect the California spotted owl would protect

wildlife impacted by the project. See EA, p. 30. These mitigation measures, known as the

CASPO guidelines, were designed to conserve features of the habitat--for example that no

trees greater than 30 inches in diameter be cut1--that are necessary for the survival and

sustainability of the spotted owl. Those features were also thought to be important for the

fisher. 

Three documents associated with the initial EA represent the Service’s findings

regarding the impact that the project would have on the fisher: the EA itself, the Wildlife

Biological Evaluation (“BE”) and the FONSI. The primary document analyzing the project’s

impact on the fisher, and the one on which the other two rely, is the Wildlife Biological

Evaluation.

The BE, prepared by Service biologists, opens with the admission that “[c]urrently no

viability analysis regarding appropriate population levels for marten or fisher has been

conducted at the State or Regional level.” BE at 5. The BE also acknowledges that the data

available at the time indicated that “fisher distribution is shrinking” and “fisher are now

absent or exist in low density” in some parts of California. Id. The report further states that

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

In a later portion of the report, it states that these projects are estimated to result in 1.5

MMBF in reductions. See BE at 15.

3

“[w]hether this gap in distribution is effectively isolating the southern Sierra Nevada

population remains inconclusive.” Id. 

The report based its findings on the surveys which had revealed that the fisher

occupies stands with dense, but not necessarily uniform, overhead canopy of more than 40%

cover. BE at 6. Such stands are structurally complex, containing a combination of trees and

shrubs, a high density of snags, fallen trees, and limbs close to the ground. Id. The report

also found that fishers tend to live in conifers with a diameter in a range between 39" and

41.4" and their natal dens are found in trees with diameters of 34" and 45". Id. Fishers were

also said to live in areas of tree densities from 160 sq. ft. basal area per acre to 385 sq. ft. per

acre with a mean of 272 sq. ft. per acre. Id. Logging was seen as a potential threat to the

fisher because “[e]xcessive fragmentation of usable habitat from harvest clear cutting may

create sufficient openings to lower overall suitability.” Id. Based on these findings, the

report concluded that of the 28,800 acre analysis area, 4,400 acres was considered “highly

suitable” for fisher resting, foraging and denning activity with an additional 120 acres

considered suitable for travel and foraging. The remaining 14,495 acres were found to be of

only “limited value” to fisher. 

The BE also considered the cumulative effects of the project when analyzed together

with other ecosystem threatening activities. See BE at 14-15. The report notes that between

1976 and the reporting period 88 MMBF (million board feet) of wood had been removed

through logging. BE at 14. It also anticipated an additional 1 MMBF2 would be removed

over the two years following the reporting period due to the Roadside Hazard and Safety

Hazard Removal Projects. Id.

Pursuant to these findings, the BE concludes that use of CASPO guidelines and other

mitigation measures would protect the fisher such that the project was “not anticipated to

result in a substantial shift in habitat quality or quantity from what currently exists for fisher

and marten throughout the analysis area.” BE at 12. In addition to the CASPO guidelines,

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 3 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

the report requires that a minimum of 175 sq. ft. basal area per acre be maintained for some

areas and a minimum average of 160 sq. ft. per acre in others. Id. Post-project overhead

canopy density was anticipated to be 40% and was expected to exceed 50% approximately 10

years after the project. Id. 

Based on all of these findings, the report’s ultimate determination is that the project, if

implemented using CASPO guidelines and other specified standards and mitigations,

‘may affect individuals’ but would maintain a suitable habitat and

habitat elements necessary for [marten, fisher, northern goshawk,

and the California spotted owl] well dispersed over the

landscape. Risk of largescale disturbances which would severely

impact the species would be reduced. Therefore, the project

action ‘would not lead to a trend toward federal listing.’

BE at 16; see also EA at 33. 

On November 2, 1999, the Saddle contract was awarded to intervenors. On April 15,

2000, President Clinton issued a Presidential Proclamation establishing the Giant Sequoia

National Monument, which made commercial logging in a portion of the Sequoia National

Forest illegal. The Proclamation provided an exception for preexisting timber contracts, that

is “[t]imber sales under contract as of [April 15, 2000] and timber sales with a decision

notice signed . . . prior to December 19, 1999.”

Although the Saddle contract was initially slated to be completed by March 31, 2004,

its termination date was extended twice because of the low price of timber. After receiving a

press release stating that the Saddle project would finally commence on July 25, 2005,

plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) on August 8. The Court

entered a TRO on August 10 and scheduled a hearing on the motion for a preliminary

injunction on August 16. By stipulation, the parties agreed to delay the hearing until

September 7 and extend the TRO until the Court ruled on the preliminary injunction motion. 

Ultimately, the Court held the hearing on September 6.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 4 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Injunction Standard

The traditional criteria for granting preliminary relief are: 1) a likelihood of success on

the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable injury, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the

plaintiff, and 4) that the preliminary relief be in the public interest. Barahona-Gomez v.

Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999). This test has evolved into the modern standard that the

plaintiff must “demonstrate either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and

the possibility of irreparable injury if relief is not granted, or (2) the existence of serious

questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” First

Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1987). While this test is

phrased in the disjunctive, many courts view it as essentially a single test. Viewed as a single

test, the greater the showing of likely success the lighter the burden in terms of the relative

hardship, and vice versa. See Regents of Univ. of Calif. v. ABC, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515

(9th Cir. 1984). 

II. Likelihood of Success On the Merits

Plaintiffs’ central contention is that new information that has become available since

the 1999 EA was prepared substantially alters the analysis performed at that time, therefore

requiring further environmental review. They cite newly available academic studies of the

fisher and three new commercial logging projects in the vicinity of the Saddle project area. 

According to plaintiffs, this new information requires the Service to engage in a

supplemental environmental analysis of the Saddle project.

Under NEPA, an agency cannot rest on the conclusions made by an EIS or EA but

instead maintains a continuing obligation to take a “hard look at the environmental effects of

its planned action, even after a proposal has received initial approval.” Marsh v. Oregon

Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989). The Supreme Court has held that “an

agency need not supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS

is finalized.” Instead, a supplemental EIS should be prepared if: (1) “there remains ‘major

Federal actio[n]’ to occur” and (2) “if the new information is sufficient to show that the

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 5 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

remaining action will ‘affec[t] the quality of the human environment’ in a significant manner

or to a significant extent not already considered.” Id. 

At issue here is not only the Forest Service’s failure to prepare an SEIS, but also

whether it properly considered new information as it came to the Service’s attention. “[T]he

Forest Service’s failure to evaluate in a timely manner the need to supplement the original

EIS in light of . . . new information violate[s] NEPA.” Friends of the Clearwater v.

Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 2000). However, even where the agency has failed to

satisfy NEPA in this regard, it can rectify the violation after the onset of litigation by

conducting an appropriate analysis while the case is still pending. See id. at 560-61. Where

this analysis amounts to a “hard look,” injunctive relief is inappropriate. See id. (“[I]t would

serve no useful purpose . . . to order the Forest Service to prepare studies that the Forest

Service has already completed and that cannot be successfully challenged.”). 

This Court reviews the Forest Service’s decision to forego an SEIS under an arbitrary

or capricious standard of review. Friends of the Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 556. Under this

standard, the Court “must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the

relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Id. (quoting Marsh,

490 U.S. at 378). “Review under this standard is to be searching and careful, but remains

narrow, and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Id. (quoting Mt.

Graham Red Squirrel v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1568, 1571 (9th Cir. 1993). 

A. Newly available academic studies

Plaintiffs first point to several post-1999 academic studies which they claim

substantially alter the assumptions made in the 1999 EA. According to plaintiffs, the new

studies reveal two important types of information about the fisher. First, the studies

illuminate the threat of extirpation to fisher in the Southern Sierra due to dwindling

population numbers and isolation from other fisher populations. Second, the reports

challenge the assumptions of the 1999 BE that fisher population can be sustained in areas

with canopy cover as low as 40%.

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 6 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Regarding the fisher’s sensitive status, Lamberson in 2000 published a study

containing demographic data indicating the fisher “may face imminent extinction.” 

See Barrett Dec. ¶ 6. Professor Reginald Barrett stated at the hearing that, although this

study was based on still-limited data, it represents the “best science” on the subject. That is,

it appears to be the most serious population viability analysis to date. Further underscoring

the seriousness of extinction of the fisher population in the southern Sierra Nevada, other

studies published in 2003 concluded that the fisher population in the southern Sierra Nevada

constitutes a biologically “distinct population segment.” See id. ¶ 7 (citing Drew et al.

(2003) and Aubry & Lewis (2003)). 

The Fish and Wildlife Service came to a similar conclusion in April 2004, when it

found that the fisher meets the criteria for placement on the endangered species list, but could

not be listed at that time because of the need to consider other petitions for listing. See

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the

West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher,” 69 Fed. Reg. 18770 (April 8, 2004). 

In that finding, Fish and Wildlife’s review of the literature led to the conclusion that the

fisher population in the southern Sierra Nevada had become isolated from other populations. 

See id. at 18771 (citing Truex et al. (1998), Lamberson (2000) and Zielinski et al. (1995)). 

Fish and Wildlife noted that there still had not been any “good population estimates” for the

fisher in the western United States, including California. Id. However, the report does note

that of the “few estimates” of fisher population density that were available for the southern

Sierra Nevada, Zielinski et al. (2003) found 8 females per 100 km2, while Lamberson et al.

(2000) estimated that there were between 100 and 500 individuals in the entire region. Id. at

18772. At the hearing, Dr. Barrett estimated that, based on his own analysis, there may be as

few as 50 individual fishers in the region. 

The Fish and Wildlife report also makes important conclusions regarding the

biological significance of the fisher population in California:

The extinction of fishers in their west coast range would . . .

result in the loss of a significant genetic entity, since they have

been described as being genetically distinct from fishers in the

remainder of North America. More specifically, native fishers in

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 7 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

California have reduced genetic diversity compared to other

populations (Drew et al. 2003). Additionally, the extant native

populations in California share one haplotype that is not found in

any other populations (Drew et al. 2003).

Id. at 18,777.

This information, which appears to be grounded heavily in post-1999 studies, appears

to have significantly altered the picture considered by the original BE. That document had

admitted that “[c]urrently no viability analysis regarding appropriate population levels for

marten or fisher has been conducted at the State or Regional level,” and that whether

dwindling fisher numbers “is effectively isolating the southern Sierra Nevada population

remains inconclusive.” BE at 5. The data cited in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s review of

the literature appears to confirm what was at most a suspicion on the part of the drafters of

the BE: that there is a real threat of extinction to the southern Sierra fisher population. 

Indeed, new population analyses finding a small and shrinking number of individual fishers

in the southern Sierra challenge the assumption that even though the project “may affect

individuals” such effects could be dismissed given the mitigation measures designed to

preserve necessary habitat conditions. See BE at 16; EA at 33. 

Furthermore, the original BE did not consider the biological importance of the

southern Sierra fisher, which post-1999 studies found to be genetically distinct. This view is

underscored by the Fish and Wildlife’s determination that the species could be listed. This is

precisely the type of change in the “biological status” of a threatened animal that creates a

duty to timely evaluate the necessity of a supplemental environmental review. See Friends of

the Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 559 & n.5; cf. Swanson v. United States Forest Service, 87 F.3d

339, 344 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that no SEIS was required where change in status of the

chinook from “sensitive” to “threatened” “changed the legal status of the salmon, but [not]

the biological status”). The new data appears to have substantially altered the basic

assumptions of the BE in a “significant manner or to a significant extent not already

considered.” Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374. As such, the Forest Service had an obligation to take a

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 8 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

“hard look” at the information to determine whether a supplemental EA or EIS should be

prepared.

Plaintiffs also claim that the studies contain new significant information regarding

canopy cover requirements for fisher habitat. For example, Mazzoni (2002) found that the

suitable canopy closure for fishers consisted of multi-story canopies creating a range of 60-

100% cover. Zielinski (2004b) supported this view, finding that the average canopy closure

for fisher rest sites was greater than 90 percent and that “resting fishers place a premium on

continuous overhead cover.” Indeed, the Forest Service’s own 2001 Framework states that

quality fisher habitat consists of greater than 60% canopy closure. 

This data contrasts with the BE’s finding that fisher-occupied stand “contained denser,

but not necessarily uniform, overhead canopy (>40%).” BE at 6 (citing Ruggerio et al.

1994). This findings was clearly important to the ultimate conclusions of the BE and EA,

which both relied heavily on mitigation measures to protect the fisher. The BE states that

these measures “would maintain overhead canopy in excess of 40% immediately post harvest

and are expected to exceed to 50% in approximately 10 years.” BE at 12. The finding that

this level of cover adequately protects the fisher is seriously called into question by the new

data since these mitigation measures allow canopy cover to drop to levels at the bottom of the

range found acceptable from the BE’s review of literature on the subject--a level significantly

below that which was found important by more recent studies. The 40% limit also demands

further inquiry since the BE assumes that the fisher population is robust enough to sustain

itself for the ten-year period during which canopy levels are replenishing to a level that may

also, in light of the new information, be insufficient. The questions surrounding this

assumption are even more serious in light of the new population figures and genetic data,

since it would appear that environmental changes that might otherwise be insignificant may

have a greater impact on a fisher population that may be smaller and more biologically

importance than was initially thought.

That some or all of this information was new and substantial has essentially been

admitted by the Forest Service. See Second Anderson Decl. ¶ 7 (“I do not disagree . . . that

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 9 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

new information on fisher exists which warrants reevaluation of the Saddle Project.”) but see

id. (stating that this information has already been considered and dismissed as not substantial

enough to trigger an SEIS). The Forest Service was required by NEPA to take a “hard look”

at it to determine whether the original EA should have been supplemented. See Friends of

the Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 559. It is here that the Service mounts its main defense, arguing

that it has evaluated the new information in a manner that amounts to a “hard look.” 

The Forest Service states that prior to this litigation it revisited the findings of the EA

twice, in memos issued in April of 2001 and in May of 2002. However, neither of these

documents deal with any of the new information identified above. Instead, the 2001 memo

simply reiterates the findings of the EA and states that “[n]o significant new information was

brought forward in this review that would require project modification or supplement.” The

2002 memo does not even mention the fisher or any other endangered species, but instead

only discusses the removal of dead and dying trees from along roads within the Saddle

project area. Most importantly, both memoranda preceded the Truex study and the Fish and

Wildlife determination, which both provided apparently new data regarding the biological

importance of the fisher. Therefore, the Court finds that these documents do not satisfy the

“hard look” requirement.

After plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO was filed, the Forest Service also prepared a

Supplemental Information Report (“SIR”) that “formally document[s] the ongoing review of”

the project to determine if it was necessary to prepare an SEIS. The SIR considers the impact

of newly published academic studies, the 2002 McNally Fire (which burned 150,700 acres

and came within five miles of the project area), and the removal of dead trees in the area. It

concludes that none of this information alters the findings of the original BE. With respect to

the population studies of fisher cited above, the SIR notes that an unpublished draft of the

Truex study “was available” and that the Ruggerio article cited in the EA “noted the isolation

of the western fisher population and its vulnerability.” SIR at 4. The SIR also notes that

analysis preliminary to the 1999 EA took account of the studies that were the basis for the

2004 studies published by Zielinski et al. Id. The SIR continues with the statement that the

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 10 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3While this test was articulated under the “reasonableness” standard that was overruled

by Marsh in favor of an “arbitrary and capricious” standard, the Court finds that the analysis

articulated in Warm Springs is still applicable. See Marsh, 490 U.S. at 375 n. 23 (noting that

“the difference between the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and ‘reasonableness’ standards is not of

great pragmatic consequence.” (citation omitted)).

11

sensitive status of the fisher had been considered prior to 1999 when Gaffrey determined that

managing the fisher population over the entire landscape was preferred to the designation of

wildlife reserves. 

Supplemental Information Reports are not mentioned by NEPA or by its

implementing regulations. See Idaho Sporting Congress Inc. v. Alexander, 222 F.3d 562,

565-66 (9th Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, courts have upheld agency use of SIRs and other nonNEPA evaluation procedures for the purpose of determining whether a supplemental EA or

EIS should be prepared. Id. The Supreme Court has found an SIR to satisfy an agency’s

NEPA obligations where the SIR demonstrated that the agency had “determined based on

careful scientific analysis that the new information was of exaggerated importance” and

therefore the agency had “conducted a reasoned evaluation of the relevant information. . . .” 

Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378. More generally, the Ninth Circuit has held that, in analyzing an

agency’s decision not to conduct a supplemental environmental review, a court must examine

“such factors as the environmental significance of the new information, the probable

accuracy of the information, the degree of care with which the agency considered the

information and evaluated its impact, and the degree to which the agency supported its

decision not to supplement with as statement of explanation or additional data.” Warm

Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017, 1024 (9th Cir. 1980).3

Here, all of the statements in the SIR apparently attempt to attack the notion that the

studies discussed above are new, post-1999, information. However, this contradicts the

statements in the 1999 BE which admit a significant lack of knowledge regarding the size

and viability of the fisher population. The SIR does not acknowledge these inconsistencies

or even attempt to address why the newly-identified biological importance of the fisher does

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 11 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s August 31, 2005 letter, submitted in

support of defendant’s opposition, states that another fuels reduction project had been approved

but only thins trees less than 11 inches in diameter such that canopy cover will not be

substantially reduced below 50-60%. Apparently, this limitation was seen as an appropriate

balance of fire prevention and habitat protection.

12

not justify the consideration of a more conservative approach.4 Since the new studies were

not previously considered, the Service was under an obligation to take a “hard look” at them. 

The SIR contains no reasoned analysis of these subjects and thus does not satisfy this duty.

The SIR’s treatment of new data regarding canopy cover is similar in that it appears to

make the argument that the findings in the new studies were known at the time the EA was

prepared. The SIR states that at the time the EA was prepared, “[t]he Forest identified that

stands with greater than 60% canopy closure and dominant trees greater than 24 inches dbh

were of importance to the fisher.” SIR at 5. In apparent contradiction, the SIR goes on to

discuss, as the BE did, the fact that the post-project canopy cover could dip as low as 40%. 

Most importantly, the SIR contains no discussion of the several findings cited above that

high levels of canopy cover, far above 40%, is important to the fisher. Accordingly, the SIR

does not contain the required “hard look.”

At the hearing, defendants provided the testimony of Steven Anderson, who stated

that he and other Forest Service officials had on a regular basis monitored the fisher

population and closely considered new data that had emerged about the animal. Anderson

essentially argues that the Saddle project favors the fisher because it reduces the risk of stand

replacing wildfire--a risk thought to be greater for the fisher than the risk posed by thinning

of certain stands of trees. Anderson also notes that the Saddle project thins only a small

number of trees in areas that are not often used by the fisher. While this analysis may have

constituted the required “hard look,” the fact that these findings were never set forth in

writing until the failed effort made in the SIR undermines such a view. Defendants have

cited no precedent which would support the conclusion that an agency may demonstrate that

a “hard look” analysis has been made solely through testimony provided at a hearing or

through a declaration. When produced in this form, information is presented for the specific

purpose of refuting the views of the plaintiffs and is therefore lacks the objectivity that

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 12 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

13

makes scientific analysis valid and reliable. While this Court may review a non-NEPA

document such as an SIR in determining whether an SEIS should have been prepared, it is

doubtful that an analysis that was never documented could satisfy the Forest Service’s

burden. As such, the Court rejects the notion that Mr. Anderson’s testimony and declaration-

-as well reasoned as they may be--demonstrate a “hard look.”

Finally, the Forest Service requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service provide an

independent review of the effects of the Saddle project on the fisher population. According

to the letter, the request was made on August 23 and the analysis, which included a field

visit, was completed by August 31. In a letter setting forth their findings, the Fish and

Wildlife Service concludes that the Saddle project involves only a small proportion of highquality fisher habitat and therefore will not adversely impact the fisher. The letter also states

that the project reduces the risk of catastrophic fire, therefore favoring fisher sustainability. 

Finally, although the letter states that the project is unlikely to harm fisher populations, it

recommends that several additional conservation measures are taken to protect the fisher.

An agency may comply with its NEPA obligation to take a “hard look” by relying on

the expertise of other agencies. See Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 42 F.3d

517, 529 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, however, the Fish and Wildlife letter suffers from

deficiencies that are similar to the Forest Service’s SIR. While the letter deals with

important issues raised after 1999, and may be useful as a portion of a “hard look” analysis, it

was prepared on a rushed basis and lacks the careful reasoning and scientific analysis that has

been found to constitute a “hard look” in other cases. See Warm Springs 621 F.2d 15 1024

(in this context, the court examines “the degree of care with which the agency considered the

information and evaluated its impact”); Laguna Greenbelt, 42 F.3d at 529 (agency had relied

on reports prepared by private consultants and two other agencies, including a “Biological

Opinion” prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service). The Fish and Wildlife analysis does

not seriously address the biological importance of the southern Sierra fisher given the

agency’s own prior finding of genetic distinctiveness. Given this and the other findings that

the fisher is isolated and suffers from low population numbers, the letter does not

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 13 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

14

appropriately analyze the importance of individual fishers. By relying mainly on the fact that

only a small portion of high-quality fisher habitat will be thinned, the letter appears to adopt

the same assumptions as the original EA: that the loss of individual fishers is acceptable

since enough important habitat remains, or that the current fisher population can be sustained

with 8% less high-quality habitat. Yet, this seems to contradict the finding made in the

earlier, more thorough, analysis that listing is warranted. It also is unsupported by a reasoned

analysis of how much high-quality habitat may be lost or how many individual fishers may

be lost before the trend towards extinction becomes irreversible. 

The letter’s reliance on protecting fishers from fire also fails to conduct the proper

analysis. There can be little dispute that fire poses a threat to the fisher and must be

considered in an environmental analysis. However, the proper question given all the

available science is not only whether a project protects the Forest from catastrophic fire, but

also whether it does so in a manner that has the least impact on sensitive species. For

example, a reasoned analysis likely would revisit the original canopy cover and tree diameter

restrictions to determine--in light of all the new information--whether restrictions set at other

levels would still protect the forest from fire while better protecting important habitat

features.

Finally, it is doubtful that the Fish and Wildlife letter by itself can satisfy the Forest

Service’s “hard look” obligations since the Service has not examined whether the further

“Conservation Recommendations” made by Fish and Wildlife should be implemented. A

proper “hard look” would likely contain an evaluation of whether these measures are

necessary to offset whatever impacts the Saddle project may have.

In summary, the Court finds that serious questions remain regarding whether the

Forest Service has engaged in, and properly documented, the appropriate hard-look analysis. 

The Court does not here find that the reasons given by the Forest Service for dismissing the

new information are arbitrary or capricious. Instead, the Court finds that the Forest Service

has not yet provided a thorough, detailed and reasoned analysis of how the specific

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 14 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

15

information identified by plaintiffs changes or does not change the Forest Service’s finding

in 1999 that the Saddle project will have no substantial impact on the pacific fisher.

B. Cumulative Effects

In addition to the new biological data that has emerged regarding the fisher, plaintiffs

also cite three new logging projects in the vicinity of the Saddle project that were not

considered in the original BE or EA. The three contracts, called the Ice Helicopter Sale,

White River Timber Sale and Frog Timber Sale, are approved but have not yet begun. Under

NEPA, the Forest Service must not only consider the impact of an individual project on the

environment, but must also consider the cumulative impact the project would have when

viewed along with other projects. See Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 720

(9th Cir. 1988). 

The 1999 BE contained no analysis of how these projects would impact the fisher. 

While the BE did take up the issue of cumulative effects, it stated that “[o]ther foreseeable

timber harvest actions likely in the next 1-2 years include a portion of the Roadside Hazard

and Safety Hazard Removal Projects.” BE at 14; EA at 33. The report noted that these

projects would only result in the removal of 1.5 MMBF, and would be confined to areas

other than prime habitat locations. Id. 

Intervenor contends that the Sierra Club cannot now raise the Ice sale as new

information because information regarding that project was available in 1999, when plaintiffs

had the opportunity to challenge the initial environmental review of the Saddle project. 

However, “[c]ompliance with NEPA is a primary duty of every federal agency; fulfillment of

this vital responsibility should not depend on the vigilance and limited resources of

environmental plaintiffs.” Friends of Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 559 (9th Cir.

2000) (quoting City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 1975)). Whatever the

status of the Ice sale in 1999, it was not mentioned or contemplated by the BE, and therefore

constitutes new information that the Service was required to analyze in determining whether

a SEIS was necessary. See Friends of Clearwater, 222 F.3d at 559. 

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 15 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

16

Intervenor also contends that the Sawmill project has no impact because it is 10-15

miles from the Saddle project area. However, this argument misses the point for several

reasons. First, there is substantial evidence that fishers occupy large home ranges over their

life spans and that the fisher population stretches in a thin band, from north to south, along

the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The Sawmill project, when considered together with

the other three projects, appears to narrow that band and thus perhaps runs the risk of further

fragmenting or isolating the fisher. Second, and more importantly, the Forest Service has not

taken a “hard look” in light of all of the new information at what the proper analysis area

should be. 

Intervenor also contends that the EA or EIR that will be prepared for the Sawmill

project will satisfy NEPA’s requirement that the Forest Service consider cumulative impacts. 

While it is legally correct that the Sawmill project’s environmental review could extinguish

the Service’s obligation to take account of cumulative impacts for the Saddle project, see

Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 1998), no EIR or EA has

yet been prepared. The Ninth Circuit has held, reasonably, that a cumulative effects analysis

“need be done in only one of the studies.” Here, it has not yet been done in any study. See

id. (finding that because the later timber sale’s EA made a finding of no significant impacts

in conjunction with the earlier sale, no supplemental EA or EIS was needed). 

Finally, defendants rely again on the August 2005 Fish and Wildlife letter, which

states that it has taken account of cumulative effects. The Court once again notes, however,

that the letter was prepared in a rushed fashion and therefore the value of its scientific

analysis is called into question. Further, while it is true that the Court should defer to an

agency’s determination regarding the scope of a cumulative impacts analysis, see Selkirk

Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 958 (9th Cir. 2003), Anderson admitted at

the hearing that the geographic scope of Fish and Wildlife’s cumulative impacts analysis was

chosen based solely on his direction, and that he chose the range to be considered based

solely on the projects plaintiffs had raised in their earlier briefs. That the scope of

cumulative impacts was determined in this manner challenges defendants’ claim that it was

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 16 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

17

based on the agency’s expertise. The proper scope should be the result of reasoned analysis

based on science, not on an attempt to refute an argument in litigation. Using science, the

Forest Service may determine that the proper scope is much smaller or much larger than that

considered by the Fish and Wildlife letter. Assuming that the agency’s expertise governs that

determination, the Court would defer to that judgment.

In summary, serious questions remain regarding cumulative impacts. 

II. Balance of Hardships

Timber cutting that has an environmental impact always has a strong potential of

causing irreparable harm justifying preliminary relief. See Amoco Production Co. v. Village

of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 544 (1987) (stating that, although there is no presumption of

irreparable harm from environmental degradation, such injuries are often not compensable by

money damages and can be irreparable). The Ninth Circuit has reviewed several injunction

motions regarding timber cutting and has often found that it fulfills the irreparable injury

requirement. Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest Service, 351 F.3d 1291, 1299 (9th

Cir. 2003). The court has stated that the question ultimately turns on the likelihood of the

purported injury occurring. See id. (finding that district court applied the wrong legal

standard where it looked for “actual harm” or a “concrete probability of irreparable harm”

and did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments that there was some likelihood of harm). Here,

plaintiffs have presented evidence from Dr. Barrett that the fisher is on a trend towards

extinction and that losses of individual fishers could have devastating consequences. In

addition, all parties agree that the fisher is a highly habitat specific animal that could be

impacted by alterations to its environment.

Defendants claim that plaintiffs delay in bringing this motion undercuts, if not

disposes, of their assertions of irreparable harm. However, plaintiffs state that they only

became aware of the plan to initiate the Saddle contract weeks before their motion was filed. 

Further, defendants have at other stages of this litigation insisted that plaintiffs would have to

wait until the specific go-ahead to begin cutting occurred before there was the final agency

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 17 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

18

action that is a prerequisite to a NEPA claim. Nor does plaintiffs’ delay in any way minimize

the environmental damage that plaintiffs contend could occur. 

Intervenors argue for a $250,000 bond in order to make up for the 50 jobs they say

will be lost if an injunction is ordered. In so arguing, they appear to be assuming that the

Court will enjoin all of their current timber contracts. However, only the Saddle contract is

before the Court and only the losses due to an injunction on that sale should be considered. 

Assuming the Court enters a temporary injunction that is not upheld on summary judgment,

then the harm to intervenors will be that they will have to wait until the Court rules on a

summary judgment motion before they can begin timber cutting. At worst, this may force

them to wait until next year, after the fisher’s mating season. However, intervenors’ claims

that delay will cause losses is undermined by the fact that they have waited five years to

execute this contract because of unfavorable timber prices. Therefore, depending on the

price of timber, a wait of one year may even benefit the intervenors. At bottom, while

intervenors may be correct that delay in initiation of the Saddle contract might cause them

temporary losses, they have not demonstrated that such losses will not later be recovered if

and when the project finally commences.

Considering the various interests involved, the Court concludes that a bond of the size

desired by intervenors is not justified. However, the Court finds that the $5,000 bond already

posted by the plaintiffs after the TRO was initially entered should remain posted.

CONCLUSION

Balancing the serious environmental harms which could occur absent preliminary

relief with the serious questions that remain as to the merits, the Court finds that a

preliminary injunction is warranted. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’

motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants and intervenors to this action, and their

contractors, are hereby enjoined from taking any further action to implement the Saddle

Fuels Reduction Project within the Giant Sequoia National Monument and Sequoia National

Forest, including permitting, commencing or continuing any timbering activities such as the

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 18 of 19
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0397\order 1a preliminj.wpd 19

cutting, logging, or removal of trees or logs from any part of the project area. This injunction

shall remain in effect until it is altered or discharged by a further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00397-CRB Document 93 Filed 09/09/05 Page 19 of 19