N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SODA M OUNTAIN W ILDER NESS C OUNC IL; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. B UREAU OF LAND M ANAGEM ENT, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , M URPHY C OM PANY,

Inte rve nor-De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35844 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-01171-C L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon O we n M . Panne r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

8, 2013 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, M U R GUIA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
JUL 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Soda

M o unta in W ilde rne ss C ounc i l, Ore gon W ild, Kla m ath Siskiy ou W ildla nds C e nte r, C e nte r for B iologic a l Dive rsity , a nd C a sc a dia

W ildla nds (Soda M ounta in) a

ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of the ir m otion for pre lim ina ry injunc tion se e king to e njoin a tim be r sa le a pprove d by

the B ure a

u of La nd M an a g e m e nt (B LM ). Soda M ounta in a

rgue s tha t it ra ise d se rious que stions on the
m e rits of thre e c la im s re lating to: (1) whethe r B LM ’ s tim be r sa le will c ontributeto the n e e d to list the

Pa c ific fishe r unde r the Enda nge re d Spe c ie s Ac t

in viola tion of the Fe de ra l La

nd Polic y and M ana ge m e nt Ac t; (2) whe the r B LM viola te d the Nationa l Environm e nta l Prote c tion Ac t (NEPA) by fa iling to ta

ke a “ ha rd look” at logging tre e s infe c te d with mistle toe ; a nd, (3) whe the r B LM viola te d NEPA by fa iling to c onside r an a lte rnative tha t a voids c onstruc tion of ne w roa d s . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1292(a)(1). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing Soda

M o unta in’ s m otion for a

pre lim ina

ry injunc tion, in pa

rt, a nd re ve rse in pa rt. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a pre l im ina ry injunc tion unde r an
a buse o f disc re tion sta

nda rd. Am. Truc k

ing Ass’ns, Inc . v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th C ir. 2009). “ W e will not re ve rse the distric t c ourt whe re it got thela w right, e ve n if we would ha ve arrive d at a diffe re nt re s ult, so long a s the distric t c o urt did not c le arly e rr in its fa c tua l de t e rm inations.” Allianc e for the W ild 2Roc k

ie s v . C ottre ll , 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d). To pre va il on its mo tion for a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion in the

distric t c ourt, Soda M ounta in ha d to e sta

blish tha t it is like ly

to suc c e e d on them e rits; tha t the ba la nc e of ha rdships tips in its fa

vor; tha t it is like l y to suffe r irre pa ra ble ha rm in the a bse nc e of pre lim ina

ry re lie f; a nd tha t a n injunc tion is in the

public inte re st. W inte r v . N atural Re s. De f . C ounc il, Inc
. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). As a n a lte rnative to sa tisfy i ng the first two W

inte r e l e m e nts, Soda M ounta i n c ould ha ve shown tha

t its c o m pla int ra ise d “ s e rious que stions going to the m e rits” and tha

t the ba la nc e of ha rdships “ tips sha

rply ” in its fa

vor. C o t tre ll , 632 F.3d a

t 1131–32. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

ruling tha

t Soda M ounta in did not ra ise se rious que stions on the m e rits of its c la im

tha t the tim be r sa le would
c ontributeto the ne e d to list the Pa c ific fishe r a s a

thre ate n e d or e nda

nge re d spe c ie s. 1 The B LM e va luate d the im pa c t of the propose d proje c t on thePa c ific fishe r and de te rm i ne d tha t it would not c ontributeto the ne e d to list the fishe r a s a thre ate ne d or e nda

nge re d spe c ie s. The B L M ’ s de te rm ination is owe d de fe re nc e . C ity of Sausalito v

. O’N e ill , 386 F.3d 1186, 1206 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ Wh e re a c ourt

1 W e a g re e with theB LM ’ s obse rvation tha t Soda M ounta in wa ive d se ve ra l of its a

rgum e nts a

bout thePa c ific fishe r by

not ra ising the m

be fore the distric t c o urt. Se e Bac c e i v . Unite d State s , 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ Abse nt e xc e p t iona l c i rc um s ta nc e s, we ge ne ra lly

will not c o nside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l . . . .” ). 3re vie ws a

n a g e nc y a c tion involving prim

arily issue s of fa c t, a

nd whe re ana ly sis of the re le va nt doc um e nts re quire s a

high le ve l of te c hn ic a l e xpe rtise , we m ust de fe r to the inform e d disc re tion of there sponsiblefe de ra l a g e n c ie s .” (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d)). Nor did the distric t c ourt e rr by ruling tha

t Soda M ounta in fa i le d to ra ise
se rious que stions a s to the m e rits of its a rgum e nt tha

t the B LM fa ile d to ta

ke the
re quire d “ ha

rd look” at logging tre e s infe c te d with mi stle toe . The distric t c ourt found tha t the a ge nc y

unde rtook a

re a sona bly thorough discussion of the signific ant a spe c ts of theproba ble e nvironm e nta l c onse que nc e s of its propose d
a c tion, suc h tha

t the e nvironm e nta l a sse ssm e nt “ foste r[s] both inform e d de c isionm aking a nd inform e d public pa

rtic ipation.” C

tr. for Biological Div e rsity v . N at’l Highw ay Traffic Safe t y Admin. , 538 F.3d 1172, 1194 (9th C ir. 2008) (a lte ration in origina l). He re , m istle toe infe c te d tre e s a ppe ar to pre se nt both e nvironm e nta l be ne fits (be c a

use the fishe r use s m istle toe for re sting), a s we ll a s e nvironm e nta l
c osts (be c a

use m istle toe ha

rm s the tre e s it infe c ts). R e m ova l of a ll m i stle toe infe c te d tre e s wa s not a dvoc ate d by e ithe r party . The re c o rd de m onstra t e s tha t the B LM did not ignore

the im pa c t of the proje c t on m istle toe , e ve n if it did not pre c ise ly qua ntify the am ount of mistle toe to be re m ove d. The distric t c o urt
c orre c tly rule d tha t this is suffic ie nt unde r our c a s e la w . Se eN ativ e Ec osy

ste ms 4C

ounc il v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 428 F.3d 1233, 1242 (9th C ir. 2005) (fa ilure to spe c ify pe rc e nta g e s of c anopy

c losure re s ulting from

proje c t not fa

ta l whe re
a ge nc y a sse sse d im

p a c t of c ha

nge s to c anopy ). Soda M o unta in’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the B LM arbitra

rily and c a

p ric iously
re m ove d from

furthe r c onside ration thepropose d “ no-ne w-roa d s a lte rnat ive ” ha s
m e rit, howe ve r. The e nvironm e nta l a sse ssm e nt pre pa re d by the B LM re

je c te d Soda M ounta in’ s re que st to e xam ine in de t a il a proje c t a lte rnative tha

t would not have re quire d the building of new roa ds to a c c e ss thre e units in the proje c t a re a . The B LM e xpla i ne d tha

t he l ic opte r y arding of thethre e units would be ne c e ssa ry if
roa d s we re not built, tha

t he lic o pte r y arding would be c ost prohibitive , a

nd tha t
re m oving thethre e units from the proje c t “ w o uld not ha ve be e n c onsiste nt with [the re giona l m ana ge m e nt pla n] dire c tion for m ana g ing units for susta ine d tim be r produc tion.” 2 Howe v e r, the fina l De c ision Re c ord for the proje c t did re m ove one of the thre e roa d-re quiring units a s we ll a s se ve ra l othe r units tha t we re pa rt of the origina l proposa l. B e c a

use the B LM ne ve r e xpla ine d why e l im inating two of the thre e ne w-roa d -re quiring units from the proje c t would ha

ve be e n inc onsiste nt with the p roje c t obje c tive s, but e lim inat ing se ve ra l othe r units from the proposa l wa s not

2 The e nvironm e nta l a sse ssm e nt sta te d tha t e nsuring susta

ina ble fore st produc tion involve s m ana g i ng fore sts to im prove c onife r fore st vigor a nd growth, and re duc e the risk of sta

nd loss from

fire s, a nim a l s, inse c ts, a

nd dise a se . 5inc o nsiste nt with proje c t obje c tive s, we “ are le ft in doubt a s to there a son for the

c ha nge in dire c tion.” Lands C o unc il v . Martin , 529 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Morale

s-Izquie rdo v . Gonzale

s , 486 F.3d 484, 493 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ) (a s a m e nde d)). Our re vie w is de fe re ntia l , but “ the a ge nc y m ust
none the l e ss a

rtic ulate a rat iona l c onne c tion be twe e n the fa c ts found a nd the
c onc lusion m a de .” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). B e c a u se we do not find in the re c ord a

ny e xpla nation tha t a llows us to re c onc ile the de c ision to re je c t the

“ no-ne w-roa ds” a l te rnative with thede c ision to re duc e the siz e of the proje c t by
m ore tha n thre e units, wec o nc l ude the distric t c o urt e rre d by

fa iling to find a like lihood of suc c e ss on them e rits of this pa rt of Soda M ounta in’ s NEPA c la im
. W e now turn to the othe r fa c tors tha t gove rn m otions for pre lim i na ry injunc tion. “ In the NEPA c onte xt, irre pa ra b le injury flows from

the fa ilure to
e va luate the e nvironm e nta l im pa c t of a m a jor fe de ra l a c tion.” High Sie rra Hik e rs Ass’n v
. Blac k

w e ll , 390 F.3d 630, 642 (9th C ir. 2004). Additiona l ly ,

“ [e ] nvironm e nta l injury , by its na ture , c an se ldom

be a de quate ly

re m e die d by
m one y dam a ge s a

nd is ofte n pe rm a

ne nt or a t le a st of long dura

tion, i .e . , irre pa ra ble .” Amoc o Prod. C

o. v . Vill. of Gambe ll , 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987). B y de m onstra

ting tha t the no-ne w-roa ds a lte rnative wa s im prope rly re je c te d a s to units 20-1 a nd 20-2, Soda

M ounta in ha s de m o nstra te d a n irre pa ra b le injury
. 6M ore ove r, be c a use the public ha s an inte re st in ha ving its environm e nta l proposa l s a de quate ly

c onside re d, the public inte re st we i ghs in fa vor of gra nting a n injunc tion. The pa

rtie s a gre e d in ora l a

rgum e nt tha

t should the no-ne w-roa ds
a lte rnative be the only

a p pe l late issue with m e rit, a ny re sulting pre lim ina

ry injunc tion should not a

ffe c t the proje c t a

re a s se rvic e d by

e xisting roa ds, but the pre l im ina ry injunc tion should inste a d be na rrowly ta ilore d to e njoin only

the
c onstruc tion of ne w roa ds. Se e Pit Riv e r Tribe v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv ., 615 F.3d 1069, 1080–81 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ R e lie f for a NEPA viola

tion is subje c t to e quity princ iple s.” ). Although the brie fing on this issue

wa s im pre c ise , we unde rsta

nd that the only units within the

tim be r sa le are a

im pa c te d by the fa ilure to c o n side r the n o-ne w-roa ds a lte rnative are units 20-1 a nd 20-2, whic h would bea c c e sse d by the c onstruc tion of 1.15 m ile s of ne w roa d. 3 The ba la nc e of e quitie s tips in Soda M ounta in’ s favor be c a

use ne ithe r the B LM nor M urphy

C om p any have artic ulate d a

strong e xpla

nation for how gra

nting
a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion, le t

a lone a na rrowly ta ilore d one tha

t a l lows the

3 In its ope ning brie f, Soda M ounta in de s c ribe d

its original propose d a lte rnative a s a

“ proposa l to drop thre e units tha t c o nta ine d roa d c onstruc t ion” of whic h only

two units — units 20-1 a nd 20-2 —

re m a in in thetim

be r sa le . To the e xte nt tha t Soda M o unta in a lso se e ks a

n injunc tion ba se d on theB L M ’ s fa ilure to c onside r an a lte rnative that a voide d the c onstruc tion of 0.6 m ile s of te m

pora ry roa d s in othe r units of thetim be r sa le are a , tha

t a rgum e nt wa s not in the

brie fing and is the re fore wa i ve d. 7re m a inde r of the proje c t to go forwa rd, will hurt the ir inte re sts. Murphy re ports that its workforc e is fully

e m p loy e d a nd working overtim e . In light of the se fa c ts, the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion by

fa i ling to issue a lim ite d pre lim ina

ry injunc tion e njoining the

building of 1.15 m

ile s of ne w roa d s until the

B LM e ithe r c onside rs Soda M ounta in’ s no-ne w-roa ds a lte rnative for units 20-1 a

nd 20-2, or spe c ifie s why tha t a lte rnative wa s re

je c te d in a

m anne r that is c onsiste nt with the

proje c t obje c tive s a

n d c onsiste nt with the re vise d tim be r sa le . W e a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s ruling tha t Soda M ounta in did not me e t its burde n for pre l im ina

rily e njoining the re m a i nde r of the tim b e r sa l e . AFFIRM E D in pa

rt, RE V E RSE D in pa

rt a nd RE M ANDE D for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this m e m orandum

disposition. Ea

c h pa rty to be ar the ir
own c osts on a

ppe a l
.

8