Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01608/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01608-0/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 

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, a No. CIV-S-05-1608 MCE/PAN 

California non-profit, and 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY, a non-profit

corporation

 

Plaintiffs, 

v. ORDER

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, 

DALE BOSWORTH, in his official 

capacity as Chief of the United

State Forest Service, and JOHN

BERRY, in his capacity as Forest 

Supervisor for El Dorado National 

Forest, 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

This matter came on for a noticed hearing based upon a

request by Plaintiffs for the issuance of a temporary restraining

order pending the Court’s determination of whether a preliminary

injunction should issue. Plaintiffs appeared by and through

their attorney of record, Rachel M. Fazio, and Defendants

appeared telephonically by and through their attorney of record,

Jeffrey S. Dillen. 

Case 2:05-cv-01608-MCE-GGH Document 30 Filed 08/18/05 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

This case arises out of two projects being implemented by

the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) known as the

“Power Restoration Project” and “Fred’s Fire Restoration Project”

(“Projects”). The Projects are in response to two major forest

fires which occurred in the El Dorado National Forest during

October of 2004. 

The Forest Service authorized the Projects to conduct

commercial timber harvests of dead and dying trees which would

help to reduce fuels for future fires, reduce soil erosion and,

at the same time, make improvements to roads in the affected

areas. The Forest Service claims that time is of the essence for

the Projects due to continuing degradation of the quality of the

timber and future winter weather conditions. Plaintiffs brought

this action against the Forest Service based in part upon what

they consider to be an inadequate review of the potential impact

of the Projects on several species which rely on “exceedingly

rare snag forest habitat” which only occurs after forest fires. 

 Plaintiffs also claim that in authorizing the Projects, the

Forest Service failed to adequately take into consideration

protected activity centers for the California Spotted Owl. 

Finally, plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service has

violated the Sierra Nevada Framework and the El Dorado National

Forest Plan by failing to conduct population inventories for

Management Indicator Species. More specifically, Plaintiffs

allege that the Forest Service has failed to collect required

population trend data and has relied instead on an incorrect

habitat analysis. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-01608-MCE-GGH Document 30 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

In Plaintiffs view, unless a temporary restraining order

(and ultimately a preliminary injunction) is issued, the timber

harvests proposed by the Forest Service Projects will cause an

irreparable environmental injury for which monetary damages will

be inadequate. The Forest Service takes a contrary view that

injunctive relief will not be required in either case because the

Projects have taken into consideration all environmental factors

and are in full compliance with all applicable regulations. 

The standard for granting a temporary restraining order is

essentially the same as that used for granting a preliminary

injunction. Specifically, a Plaintiff must prove either 1) a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility

of irreparable injury, or 2) that serious questions are raised

and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. 

Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. V. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d.

832, 839 (9 Cir. 2001). th

Inasmuch as this case involves logging of timber in a

National Forest after a severe forest fire, the Court finds that

the issues presented are directly related to various public

interests. These interests include, but are not limited to,

future fire suppression, erosion, and protection of private

property. The Court must therefore determine whether the balance

of hardships versus the public interests support the issuance of

injunctive relief. Caribbean Marine Services v. Baldridge, 844

F.2d 668. 674 (9 Cir. 1988). th

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01608-MCE-GGH Document 30 Filed 08/18/05 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

After reviewing the moving papers, the papers in opposition

and after hearing oral argument, it is clear to the court that

there are many questions that require a more thorough analysis.

Plaintiffs and defendants have submitted experts to the court who

are diametrically opposed in their viewpoints on what is best for

the land and/or whether all applicable Federal regulations have

been followed. (At the present time, two Projects are underway

with a third to begin at any time. The time frame for the

completion of the Projects is the end of October 2005.)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that serious

questions have been raised by plaintiffs as to whether all

applicable regulations have been followed by defendants and the

balance tips sharply in favor of the public interest involved.

The simple fact is, once the timber is harvested, there can be no

“do-over” if it is ultimately determined that proper procedures

were not followed when the Projects were authorized. The Court

must get this right the first time and a short delay is a

relatively small price to pay when compared to the potential for

irreparable injury. 

1. A temporary restraining order shall issue forthwith

enjoining defendants from commencing or continuing any and all

cutting of timber associated with the Power Restoration Project

and/or the Fred’s Fire Restoration Project. As this case

involves the public interest, no bond shall be required by

Plaintiff. This temporary restraining order shall remain in

effect until the hearing on a preliminary injunction which is set

for August 25, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-01608-MCE-GGH Document 30 Filed 08/18/05 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

2. The Court will permit the parties, if they so desire, to

file supplemental briefs on the issues raised during oral

argument provided that the briefs do not to exceed twenty (20)

pages in length, including all attachments and/or exhibits. 

Briefs exceeding twenty (20) pages may not be considered by the

Court. Plaintiffs shall electronically file any supplemental

brief not later than 4:00 p.m. on August 19, 2005. Defendants

shall electronically file any supplemental brief not later than

4:00 p.m. on August 22, 2005.

3. Any timber which has been harvested prior to the

issuance of this temporary restraining order may continue to be

removed from the Project areas. 

4. Any work currently underway and/or necessary to repair

roads in the Project areas to reduce erosion and/or improve 

watershed conditions may continue or begin as required.

5. Defendants may continue with the bidding process 

for future timber harvests in the Project area provided that no

timber is actually harvested pending further order of this court. 

This temporary restraining order is effective as of 11:30

a.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: August 18, 2005 

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01608-MCE-GGH Document 30 Filed 08/18/05 Page 5 of 5