Earth Island Institute v. Carlton
626 F.3d 462
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Moonlight-Wheeler post-fire logging project in Plumas National Forest to remove hazard trees, salvage value, and reforest with conifers after 2007 Moonlight and Wheeler fires.
- Snag forest habitat and the Black-backed Woodpecker (MIS) are central to evaluating habitat impacts; woodpecker relies on post-fire snag habitat for up to about a decade.
- Earth Island challenged the project's NEPA and NFMA compliance, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt logging; district court denied.
- Forest Service analyzed MIS habitat at the project level and concluded logging would leave sufficient habitat and that the project complied with the forest plan and NFMA.
- Forest Plan amendments (2004, 2007) allegedly imposed viability requirements; the district court found no project-level viability obligation, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the injunction for lack of likelihood of success on NFMA claims.
- Dissent argues the Forest Service violated NFMA viability requirements by not ensuring woodpecker viability at the project level and considers RHT Guidelines enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NFMA viability at project level applies? | Earth Island argues viability requirements bind project-level actions. | Forest Service need not prove viability at project level; MIS habitat assessment suffices. | Earth Island not likely to succeed; project-level viability not required beyond MIS analysis. |
| Adequacy of Forest Service responses to NEPA comments? | Service failed to address specific Earth Island comments. | Service responded in detail to key comments; broad disagreement does not imply NEPA failure. | District court did not abuse discretion; response was adequate. |
| Binding nature of Roadside Hazard Tree (RHT) Guidelines? | RHT Guidelines are binding enforceable rules. | Guidelines are internal guidance, not substantive rules enforceable by law. | Guidelines are not enforceable rules; district court did not err in so ruling. |
| Was the district court required to tailor the injunction narrowly or consider broader harms? | Earth Island sought a narrowly tailored injunction to address only imminent hazards. | Court weighed broader public safety and economic interests in its balance. | Court properly balanced interests; no injunction issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (establishes four-part preliminary injunction test; irreparable harm requires likelihood)
- Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2009) (NFMA obligations and agency deference in viability analysis)
- McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (flexible, deferential review of viability analyses; project-level viability requirements)
- Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir. 1998) (irreparable harm and environmental injury considerations in injunctions)
- Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (NFMA planning unity and interdependence with site-specific actions)
- McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc; guidelines for evaluating viability analyses; deference to agency evidence)