968 F.3d 985
9th Cir.2020Background
- The 2018 Ranch Fire burned ~410,000 acres, including ~288,000 acres in Mendocino National Forest; the Forest Service adopted the Ranch Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Project to remove fire-damaged trees near roads.
- The Project authorizes contractors to fell "merchantable" trees (≥14" DBH) within 1.5 tree-heights of roads (up to 200 ft from centerline), covering ~4,700 acres and millions of board feet of timber.
- Instead of preparing an EA or EIS, the Forest Service invoked a categorical exclusion (CE) for road repair and maintenance, 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(d)(4).
- Plaintiff EPIC sued, seeking a preliminary injunction, arguing the Project exceeds the road-maintenance CE (and that the salvage CE is limited to ≤250 acres). The district court denied the injunction.
- The Ninth Circuit majority reversed, holding the Project does not qualify for the road-maintenance CE and remanded for further proceedings; Judge Lee dissented, arguing for deference to the agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Project fits the road repair/maintenance CE (36 C.F.R. §220.6(d)(4)) | Project exceeds ordinary "repair and maintenance" scope: large-scale commercial salvage, trees far from roads, broad acreage | CE covers felling hazardous trees near roads to protect safety; criteria (1.5× height, 200 ft) reasonably identify hazards | Majority: No — Project's scale, commercial timber removal, and distance exceed the CE; EA or EIS required |
| Whether the salvage CE (36 C.F.R. §220.6(e)(13)) controls and precludes EA/EIS | Salvage CE limited to ≤250 acres, so Project cannot use a CE for >250 acres | Forest Service: CEs can overlap; salvage CE not exclusive | Majority: Did not decide the broader overlap question; avoided resolving whether salvage CE could apply to large multi-road projects |
| Whether EPIC showed irreparable environmental harm to justify preliminary injunction | Logging would cause ongoing, often irreversible environmental harm and degrade recreational enjoyment | Harm is limited (1.6% of burn area); public safety and funding concerns counsel against injunction | Majority: EPIC showed likely irreparable harm and injunction factors favor EPIC; preliminary injunction warranted. Dissent: factors closer; district court not abusive of discretion |
| Proper standard of review for CE invocation and injunction | N/A (EPIC focuses on legal adequacy) | Agency CE determinations get APA arbitrary-and-capricious review; injunction reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court applied de novo review to legal interpretation and abuse-of-discretion to injunction; concluded legal error and reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 706 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2013) (NEPA requires environmental analysis for major federal actions)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard and balancing test)
- Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 472 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) (environmental injury can be irreparable for injunctions)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) (environmental harms often cannot be remedied by money damages)
- Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. USFS, 189 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1999) (agency CE determinations reviewed under arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for preliminary injunction review)
- Edge v. City of Everett, 929 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2019) (likelihood of success on the merits is threshold in injunction analysis)