Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01633-2/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 This amended memorandum and order makes minor

modifications to the order filed on August 31, 2005. That order

is hereby VACATED and the instant order supercedes it in all

respects.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES

TO TOXICS, a non-profit

corporation; WILDERNESS WATCH,

a non-profit corporation,

LAUREL AMES, an individual and

ANN MCCAMPBELL, an individual,

NO. CIV. S-05-1633 FCD KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER1

JACK TROYER, in his official

capacity; USDA FOREST SERVICE;

GARY SCHIFF, in his official

capacity,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for a

preliminary injunction enjoining defendants “from allowing to be

conducted or conducting any component of the Silver King Creek

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 11
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 The goal of the Project is to rid the waters, some

eleven miles of creek and a nearby lake, of non-native rainbow

trout, which have interbred with PCT and compete with it for

food. Once the rainbow trout are eliminated, part of the area

would be restocked with genetically pure PCT. 

3 The court previously granted plaintiffs, on August 23,

a temporary restraining order on the same terms. The matter was

set for a preliminary injunction hearing on an expedited schedule

in light of time constraints and logistical issues regarding

implementation of the Project.

4 The underlying facts of this case are exhaustively

discussed by the parties in their briefs, and they accordingly

are not discussed herein.

2

Paiute Cutthroat Trout [“PCT”] Recovery Project [the “Project”],2

including specifically any application of rotenone formulations

and potassium permanganate to Silver King Creek, its tributaries

and backwaters, and Tamarack Lake, in the Carson-Iceberg

Wilderness in California.” ([Proposed] Order Granting Pls.’ P.I.

Mot., filed Aug. 26, 2005.)3 The court heard oral argument on

the motion on August 30, 2005 and announced from the bench its

decision to grant the motion. By this order, the court

memorializes its reasons for the decision, previously stated on

the record at the hearing.4

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must show

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, 839-40 (9th Cir. 2001). “These two

formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the

required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability

of success decreases.” Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1402 (9th

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 11
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 According to plaintiffs’ experts data from past

projects in other reaches of Silver King Creek show that even

years after the poisoning, entire taxa were still missing from

the stream (on average, between 30 to 40% of all

macroinvertebrate taxa were still missing three years after the

project). (Erman Decl., ¶s 13-15, 24-28, 31.) To the contrary,

defendants’ experts maintain the macroinvertebrate populations

will recover quickly and to an “excellent” level as they have in

past, similar projects. (Moyle Decl., ¶s 10-16; Behke Decl., ¶s

11-15.)

3

Cir. 1998). Under either formulation of the test, a plaintiff

must still demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable

injury. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 762

F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Here, plaintiffs made a strong showing of irreparable harm

if the Project is not enjoined and that the balance of interests

tips decisively in their favor. As such, to prevail on the

motion, plaintiffs were only required to raise “serious

questions” as to the merits of their NEPA claims (namely, that

the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (the

“Service”) violated NEPA in failing to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (“EIS”) and/or that the Service’s Environmental

Assessment (“EA”) was inadequate), which the court found they

did. The court will address in turn below the bases for each of

these findings.

1. Irreparable Harm

There is no dispute that poisoning the waters with rotenone,

a highly toxic chemical lethal to acquatic organisms that obtain

oxygen from water, will kill macroinvertebrates and certain

species may never return to the impacted area. (Erman Decl., ¶s

3, 29.) While the parties dispute the relative ability of 

macroinvertebrates to repopulate,5 the lethal consequences are

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 11
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

certain. 

Additionally, plaintiffs present evidence that the poisoning

may harm certain “rare and endemic” macroinvertebrates present in

the area. According to plaintiffs’ macroinvertebrate expert,

Nancy Erman, it is “highly probable” that such species exist in

the area. While defendants’ experts dispute this conclusion,

there has not been any studies to confirm either parties’

position. Nevertheless, equity favors plaintiffs because once

the poisoning takes place, the eradication of such species, if

present, is, again, swift and certain.

Finally, it is undisputed that the subject area is an

unimpaired reference in that it has never been previously

poisoned. Were the court to allow the poisoning to proceed

immediately, that reference would be permanently eliminated. In

that regard, as in others, the execution of the Project means the

stark finality to life in an eleven mile stream in the treasured

Sierra Nevada Mountains.

For these reasons, plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong

likelihood of irreparable harm if the court does not enjoin the

Project.

2. Balancing of Interests

In plaintiffs’ favor is evidence that macroinvertebrates,

and possibly rare and endemic macroinvertebrates, will be killed

by the poisoning and may never repopulate; additionally, the

poisoning will eliminate the unimpaired reference. In

defendants’ favor, the PCT is a listed “threatened species” under

the Endangered Species Act. According to the Service, in the

absence of immediate implementation of the Project, the long term

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 4 of 11
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 Defendants are incorrect that the Recovery Plan stated

that the PCT is “highly vulnerable” to extinction. Rather, the

Plan stated that the PCT would be “highly vulnerable” if the

pure, self-sustaining runs of PCT did not already exist in at

least six other creek watersheds (which it does).

7 From the EA, it also appears that PCT currently exists

in the Corral Valley Creek and Coyote Valley Creek within the

Silver King Creek Basin, and plaintiffs assert in waters outside

the Basin.

8 Indeed, it is worth noting that defendants have made in

a series of choices which have delayed implementation of the

Project. First, they choose in 2002 to not conduct a full NEPA

analysis; that decision resulted in litigation against the

Service; ultimately, the Service settled the suit, promising to

perform the requisite analysis. However, two years passed until

completion of the EA at issue here. Upon seeking the necessary

permits from state agencies, defendants again further delayed the

matter; rather than provide information in response to the

Lahonton Regional Board’s inquiries, defendants cancelled

implementation of the Project for 2004. Instead, they appealed

to the State Water Board asking it to review the Lahonton Board’s

actions and grant the permit; the State Board did not do so until

July 6, 2005.

5

survival of the PCT will be in some doubt. (Somer Decl., ¶ 6,

12.) 

However, the PCT Recovery Plan itself explicitly finds that

the PCT has only a “moderate degree of threat.”6 (Ex. FF at

iii.) Likewise, defendants did not produce any convincing

evidence that absent implementation of the Project this year or

even in the next few years, the PCT would be at risk of

extinction. Rather, there is undisputed evidence that the pure

strain of PCT has existed in the Silver King Creek above 

Llewellyn Falls for at least eleven years without any negative

impacts, thus providing additional protection for the survival of

the species.7 Also, significantly, defendants did not argue in

their joint petition to the California State Water Board that

there was any urgency to act in 2005.8 

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 5 of 11
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 To prevail on the motion, plaintiffs need only show a

likelihood of success on the merits/serious questions as to one

of their claims for relief. Accordingly, the court does not

consider herein all of plaintiffs’ claims nor all of the grounds

for plaintiffs’ claims (for example, plaintiffs base their NEPA

claim for failure to prepare an EIS on five criteria for finding

“significance” sufficient to trigger the obligation to prepare an

EIS but the court only discusses two such criteria in this

order). The court considers these two criteria because they

raise some overlapping issues.

6

Defendants’ reliance on the possibility of some catastrophic

event, such as a forest fire or flood, which could destroy the

existing PCT in its present habitats is unconvincing. Such

possibilities always exist and are too speculative to serve as a

sufficient basis to permit a project of this nature to go

forward. Moreover, it is not certain this Project would insure

against the consequences of such a catastrophe. Lastly,

defendants raise the specter of future state and federal

budgetary constraints which may affect the Project. Such

speculation has no place in balancing the environmental injuries

in this case.

In sum, considering all the relevant interests, the court

finds that the balance of interests tips sharply in favor of

plaintiffs. 

3. Merits of NEPA Claims

Because plaintiffs made a strong showing of irreparable harm

and that the balance of interests tips decisively in plaintiffs’

favor, plaintiffs must only demonstrate “serious questions” as to

the merits of their NEPA claims. Plaintiffs have done so on at

least two grounds.9

NEPA mandates that federal agencies prepare a detailed EIS

for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 6 of 11
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

quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c). 

An EIS must be prepared if "substantial questions are raised as

to whether a project . . . will have a significant impact on the

environment.” Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood,

161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998). NEPA regulations provide

various factors for evaluating significance. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1508.27. Pertinent to this order are the following factors,

either one of which can lead to a finding of “significance” (see

Public Citizen v. Dept. of Transportation, 316 F.3d 1002, 1023

(9th Cir. 2003)): 

(1) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the

human environment are likely to be highly

controversial. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4).

(2) The degree to which the possible effects on the human

environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or

unknown risks. Id. at § 1508.27(b)(5).

Plaintiffs need not show that the “significant effects will in

fact occur,” because raising “substantial questions whether a

project may have a significant effect [on the environment] is

sufficient.” Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146,

1150 (9th Cir. 1998). 

As to the first factor, a “controversy” means that there is

a substantial (scientific) dispute about the size, nature, or

effect of the major federal action, rather than merely opposition

to it. Anderson v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 489 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, plaintiffs have raised substantial questions as to whether

such a controversy existed sufficient to trigger an EIS. 

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 7 of 11
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

For example, plaintiffs have raised a serious question as to

whether plaintiffs’ experts’ comments and objections on the EA,

especially those of Nancy Erman and Dr. David Herbst, were

adequately addressed by the Service, particularly in light of Ms.

Erman’s and Dr. Herbst’s notable and well recognized expertise in

the precise area of Sierra Nevada mountain invertebrate ecology. 

In light of that notable expertise, their opinions and concerns

deserved close and extensive attention; the Service should have

carefully and publicly weighed their opinions against other

comparable expert opinions. While the Service’s conclusions are

clear in the EA and FONSI, how and why the Service reached those

conclusions is not at all clear. That process of assessing and

balancing the environmental impacts deserves far more transparent

and careful analysis. Thus, at this juncture, the court finds

that substantial questions remain. See e.g., Sierra Club v.

United States Forest Service, 843 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1988)

(holding that the Sierra Club’s “affidavits and testimony of

conservationists, biologists, and other experts who were highly

critical of the EAs and disputed the Forest Service’s conclusion

that there would be no significant effects from logging because

the sequoias could be protected and their regeneration enhanced,”

was “precisely the type of ‘controversial’ action for which an

EIS must be prepared.”) (Emphasis added.) 

Secondly, plaintiffs have raised a serious question as to

whether the possible effects on the human environment are so

“highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks” that an EIS

should have been prepared. 

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 8 of 11
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

The very purpose of NEPA’s requirement that an EIS 

be prepared for all actions that may significantly 

affect the environment is to obviate the need for

[s]peculation by insuring that available data is 

gathered and analyzed prior to implementation of the

proposed action.

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep v. United States Dept.

Of Agriculture, 681 F.2d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1982). Here,

plaintiffs raise substantial questions regarding the presence of

potential rare and endemic macroinvertebrates in the subject

area. There have been no studies and thus there is a complete

lack of data regarding this issue. The parties dispute whether

such studies are mandated by industry standards, but nevertheless

the issue has been a central concern since the Project’s

inception. Plaintiffs have continued to raise these same

questions at every stage, as well as the failure of the Service

to adequately address these issues. At this point, it appears to

the court that the solid scientific data regarding Ms. Erman’s

declaration that there is a high probability that rare and

endemic species live in the Project area, is “precisely the

[type] of information . . . that is required before a decision

that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment is

made.” National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d

722, 733 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis in original and added). As

the Ninth Circuit said in Babbitt, “[p]reparation of an EIS is

mandated where uncertainty may be resolved by further collection

of data, . . . or where the collection of data may prevent

speculation on potential . . . effects.” Id. at 732 (internal

quotations and citation omitted.) 

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 9 of 11
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

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS

plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants United States Forest

Service, and each of them, and their respective agents, partners,

employees, contractors, assignees, successors, representatives,

permittees and all persons acting under authority from, in

concert with, or for them in any capacity, including in a

volunteer capacity, are enjoined from allowing to be conducted or

conducting any component of the Silver King Creek Paiute

Cutthroat Trout Recovery Project, including specifically any

application of rotenone formulations and potassium permanganate

to Silver King Creek, its tributaries and backwaters, and

Tamarack Lake, in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness in California.

In the court’s discretion and in light of the nature of the

case, the court relieves plaintiffs of the obligation to file a

bond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c); See People ex rel. Van de Kamp v.

Tahoe Regional Plan, 766 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1985) (bond not

required because of the “chilling effect” on public interest

litigants seeking to protect the environment).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: September 1, 2005

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 10 of 11
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

Case 2:05-cv-01633-FCD-KJM Document 86 Filed 09/01/05 Page 11 of 11