Landwatch v. Connaughton
905 F. Supp. 2d 1192
D. Or.2012Background
- Plaintiff Central Oregon Landwatch filed in 2012 alleging NFMA, NEPA, and CWA violations stemming from Forest Service approval of the Bridge Creek Water Supply Project for the City of Bend.
- Project entails cutting trees and filling wetlands, increasing water diversion, and potentially degrading Tumalo Creek’s aquatic habitat and water quality for at least 75 years.
- Tumalo Creek hosts native trout and may be suitable for bull trout reintroduction; temperatures currently exceed standards and a 303(d) listing exists for high temperatures.
- Court granted a TRO and scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing; parties sought an expedited ruling to pursue settlement options.
- Plaintiff argued the Forest Service failed a hard NEPA look, relied on a modified Heat Source model, and did not adequately calibrate or disclose underlying baseline data.
- Defendant Forest Service conceded some modeling/INFISH baseline issues but contended the project complied with applicable standards or did not significantly retard attainment of preferred temperature standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA hard look adequacy | Forest Service failed to disclose baseline data and properly calibrate the Heat Source model. | Modeling and analysis were sufficient to assess environmental impacts and comply with NEPA. | Serious questions exist; injunction warranted pending merits briefing. |
| INFISH/NFMA compliance | Project would violate INFISH temperature criteria and NFMA standards. | Project would not retard attainment of temperature objectives and complies with guidelines. | Serious questions about INFISH compliance; injunction granted. |
| Irreparable harm and public interest | Project irreparably harms aesthetics, recreation, and aquatic ecosystems; public interest supports protection. | Temporary impacts are mitigated and balanced with water needs of Bend. | Irreparable harm and public interest favor injunction. |
| Balance of equities | Hard look-Uproject harms outweighed by environmental protection interests. | Project benefits to water supply and regional needs outweigh potential harm. | Equities favor preservation of status quo; injunction appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (set the baseline preliminary injunction standard and sliding scale approach)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding scale for success and irreparable harm in environmental cases)
- Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (U.S. 2010) (NEPA case; no automatic presumption of harm without substantial evidence)
- Marble Mountain Audubon Soc. v. Rice, 914 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1990) (agency must provide reasoned explanation beyond mere insignificance)
- Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1988) (serious questions standard for injunctions in certain contexts)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 422 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (importance of baselines in NEPA analyses)
- American Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (need for current baseline data in environmental impact assessments)