Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01316-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Butte Environmental Council
Plaintiff
City of Redding
Amicus
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Defendant
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:08-cv-01316-GEB-CMK

)

v. ) ORDER

)

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF )

ENGINEERS; and UNITED STATES FISH )

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On June 11, 2008, Plaintiff Butte Environmental Council

filed a complaint against Defendants United States Army Corps of

Engineers (“Corps”) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(“Service”). On June 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Motion for

a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), seeking to “stay[] the Corps’

issuance of the Section 404 permit and the [Service’s] Biological

Opinion/Incidental Take Statement for the Stillwater Business Park.” 

(Mot. at 16:20-21.) On June 17, 2008, Defendants filed an Opposition

to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. On June 19,

Case 2:08-cv-01316-GEB-CMK Document 28 Filed 06/20/08 Page 1 of 6
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

2008, the City of Redding sought and received permission to file an

Amicus Curiae Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. The City

filed its Brief that same day. On June 20, 2008, oral arguments were

heard on Plaintiff’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

The City of Redding (“the City”) is developing a business

park (“the Stillwater Business Park” or “the Project”) in the

Stillwater Plains area southeast of downtown Redding, California. 

(Decl. of Donald B. Mooney in Supp. of TRO (“Mooney Decl.”), Ex. B,

Dep’t of the Army Permit Evaluation and Decision Doc. (“Decision

Doc.”) at 1.) The Project’s stated purpose is to enhance the City’s

economic stability by attracting business and industry, thereby

improving the quality of life of unemployed and low-paid residents. 

(Decision Doc. at 13.) The Project will include road construction,

two bridges, utility lines, culvert drains, parking lots, two

electrical substations and buildings. (Id. at 2.) The Project will

directly and indirectly affect critical habitats for the vernal pool

fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp and slender Orcutt grass. 

(Mooney Decl., Ex. A, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Formal Endangered

Species Consultation on the Proposed Stillwater Business Park Project

(“Biological Op.”) at 10-11.) Vernal pool tadpole shrimp are listed

as endangered and the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the slender Orcutt

grass are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act

(“ESA”). (Id. at 13, 14, 17.)

Phase IA of the Project, which is under construction at this

time, consists of constructing a bridge over Stillwater Creek, a

three-lane road and all necessary utility infrastructure. (Decl. of

Richard Duvernay in Support of Amicus Curiae Brief (“Duvernay Decl.”)

Case 2:08-cv-01316-GEB-CMK Document 28 Filed 06/20/08 Page 2 of 6
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

¶¶ 5, 14.) The bridge is not being constructed within designated

critical habitat areas for the threatened and endangered species, only

two small portions of the road cross a critical habitat area and no

portions cross a vernal pool. (Id. ¶ 15.)

On April 18, 2006, the City approved a joint EIS/EIR for the

Project. (Id. ¶ 10, Ex. C.) On December 27, 2006, the Service issued

a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement under section 7 of

the ESA for the Project. The Service concluded that the Project would

not jeopardize the continued existence of, or adversely modify or

destroy the critical habitat for, the vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal

pool tadpole shrimp and slender Orcutt grass. (Biological Op. at 29.) 

The Service imposed several terms and conditions to the Incidental

Take Statement requiring the City to implement various mitigation

measures to compensate for critical habitat loss. On August 9, 2007,

the Corps issued an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact under the National Environmental Policy Act

(“NEPA”) and section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). (Decision

Doc.) On August 21, 2007, the Corps issued a permit to the City under

section 404 of the CWA. On February 27, 2008, Plaintiff sent

Defendants a 60-day notice letter regarding their alleged violations

and of the Plaintiff’s intention to file suit. (Compl. ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff argues that the section 404 permit issued by the

Corps violates the CWA because the Corps failed to properly evaluate

alternative sites and because the Project will have significant

adverse impacts on endangered species and their critical habitats and

it will cause a significant degradation of the waters of the United

States. (Mot. at 10-12.) Plaintiff also argues that the Biological

Opinion and Incidental Take Statement issued by the Service violates

Case 2:08-cv-01316-GEB-CMK Document 28 Filed 06/20/08 Page 3 of 6
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 ESA because the Service improperly concluded that the Project will

not result in the adverse modification or destruction of critical

habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp

or slender Orcutt grass. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff argues that a TRO

should issue because Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of

its claims, its interest in the protection of wetlands and endangered

species will be irreparably harmed should the Project proceed, and the

balance of harms and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of an

injunction. (Mot. at 10-16.

TRO STANDARDS

“To prevail on a motion for temporary restraining order, as

with a preliminary injunction, the moving party bears the burden of

demonstrating either 1) a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or 2) the existence

of serious questions as to success on the merits and irreparable

injury along with a sharp tipping of the balance of hardships in the

moving party’s favor.” Sherman v. City of Davis, 2008 WL 1899926, *2

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2008) (citing Sammartano v. First Judicial

District Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2003)).

This traditional test for [TROs and] preliminary

injunctions, however, is not the test for

injunctions under the Endangered Species Act. In

cases involving the ESA, Congress removed from the

courts their traditional equitable discretion in

injunction proceedings of balancing the parties’

competing interests. The ‘language, history, and

structure’ of the ESA demonstrates Congress’

determination that the balance of hardships and

the public interest tips heavily in favor of

protected species. Nevertheless, . . . courts 

. . . must look at the likelihood of future harm

before deciding whether to grant an injunction

under the ESA.

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Burlington N. R.R., Inc., 23 F.3d 1508, 1510-

11 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).

Case 2:08-cv-01316-GEB-CMK Document 28 Filed 06/20/08 Page 4 of 6
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 justify the requested TRO, Plaintiff must establish that

Defendants’ actions pose a “likelihood of irreparable future injury”

before a hearing on a preliminary injunction. See Id. at 1512; Cf.

Patriot Contract Servs., LLC, v. United States, 2005 WL 954546, *1

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2005) (“[B]ecause [the allegedly harmful]

transition process will have only just begun when the Court is

scheduled to hear Plaintiff[‘s] preliminary injunction motion,

Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm if a TRO does not issue in

the meantime.”); Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250,

1260 (10th Cir. 2003) (“If the plaintiffs alleged that the eagles

would be harmed only by the use of the completed project, and not by

its construction, this would be insufficient to justify a preliminary

injunction in advance of the trial court’s decision on the merits.”).

ANALYSIS

I. Irreparable Harm

Plaintiff argues, “In the present case, absent an

injunction, the vernal pools and critical habitat that are the subject

of this case will be destroyed before a hearing on the merits of this

case.” (Mot. at 15:12-13.) The City counters that “current

construction work involves development of ‘Phase 1’ of a roadway

which, in two small locations, slightly crosses over into the border

of an area that has been designated as ‘critical habitat area’ for

these species – but the road does not actually involve any filling or

other impacts to any identified vernal pool area.” (Amicus Brief at

2:7-11.)

 The City’s position is unrebutted. Plaintiff has not shown

irreparable harm to the threatened and endangered species will occur

Case 2:08-cv-01316-GEB-CMK Document 28 Filed 06/20/08 Page 5 of 6
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

before a preliminary injunction hearing can be held. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s request for a TRO is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 20, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-01316-GEB-CMK Document 28 Filed 06/20/08 Page 6 of 6