Idaho Rivers United Inc et al v. Probert et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION granting 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Idaho Rivers United Inc, Friends of the Clearwater. On or before 5/23/2016, the partiesmust file with the Co urt a joint litigation plan. (Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 5/26/2016 03:00 PM in Boise - Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale.). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

IDAHO RIVERS UNITED and
FRIENDS OF THE CLEARWATER,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00102-CWD
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT.
14)

v.
NEZ PERCE CLEARWATER FOREST
SUPERVISOR CHERYL F. PROBERT;
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;
NOAA FISHERIES; and U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Idaho
Rivers United and Friends of the Clearwater (Dkt. 14). Plaintiffs filed their motion
against Nez Perce Clearwater Forest Supervisor Cheryl Probert, the United States Forest
Service, NOAA Fisheries, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 seeking to
enjoin the Johnson Bar Timber Salvage Project. Probert approved the Project on February
1

For ease in resolving this motion, the Court will refer to Defendants interchangeably as “Forest Service
Defendants” and “Forest Service” throughout this Memorandum Decision and Order.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 1

17, 2016, to, among other things, build roads and harvest timber within and adjacent to
the Lower Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater watersheds.
All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. 10.) The motion has been fully briefed on an expedited
schedule and the Court heard oral argument from the parties on April 26, 2016. After
review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments and relevant legal
authorities, the Court issues the following Memorandum Decision and Order granting
Plaintiffs’ motion in part.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The center of this litigation is the Johnson Bar Fire Salvage Project (“Project”), a
timber harvesting activity on federal land surrounding the Lower Selway and Middle
Fork Clearwater watersheds affected by the 2014 Johnson Bar wildfire. Before the Court
delves into the details and procedural history of the Project itself, the Court will provide a
review of the contextual environmental factors of the Johnson Bar wildfire, the logging
events which followed, and the 2015 wildfires that occurred near the Project area.
I. Johnson Bar Wildfire
On August 3, 2014, lightning struck at the Johnson Bar Campground located near
the Selway River, igniting the Johnson Bar wildfire. FS1270. The wildfire burned
primarily on steep slopes and affected approximately13,300 acres in the Middle Fork
Clearwater and Lower Selway watersheds, more specifically along Swiftwater, Elk City,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 2

Goddard, Lodge, Decker, and O’Hara creeks. 2 Id. Of the burned acres, 12,910 acres were
on National Forest System administered lands; 314 acres on State of Idaho lands; and 76
acres on private lands. Id. The sedimentation potential caused by the Johnson Bar
wildfire was estimated to be 945 cubic yards per square mile. 3 FS2034.
II. Post Harvesting (Timber Logging)
Following the wake of the Johnson Bar wildfire, state and private landowners
began harvesting the burned timber. First, beginning in the fall of 2014 through the fall of
2015, Harrington and Kennedy private land salvage projects harvested approximately 80
acres. FS1393. Next, beginning in the late summer of 2015 through the fall of 2015, the
Neil-Walter Private Salvage harvested approximately 121 acres, and the Idaho
Department of Lands (IDL) salvaged approximately 167 acres. 4 Id. There is no dispute
these harvesting activities began before Probert formally approved the Project in the final
Record of Decision (ROD) signed on February 17, 2016. FS1899.

2

These creeks flow through the following three sub watersheds: (1) Big Smith Creek Middle Fork
Clearwater River; (2) Goddard Creek-Selway River; and, (3) O’Hara Creek. FS1349. These sub
watersheds drain into the Middle Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers. Id. The Court will refer to this area
as the “river system.” For a visual of the area, see Appendix A, attached hereto.
3
This estimate was provided in the Johnson Bar Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) report.
FS2034. “BAER is ‘first aid’—immediate stabilization that often begins before a fire is fully contained.
BAER does not seek to replace what is damaged by fire, but to reduce further damage due to land being
temporarily exposed in a fragile condition.” NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER,
http://www.nifc.gov/BAER/Page/NIFC_BAER.html (Last visited May 10, 2016) (attached hereto as
Appendix B). At the time the sedimentation estimate was provided on August 24, 2014, only 8,498 acres
had burned and the fire was not fully contained. It does not appear this report accounts for the sediment
the Project’s timber harvesting events would deliver, as the report was generated before the Project was
proposed. The sedimentation estimates appear to refer only to the impact from the fire itself.
4
Though not in the record, the parties clarified the timeline at the hearing as to when these other post-fire
harvesting activities took place.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 3

III. 2015 Wildfires
Not quite one year after the Johnson Bar wildfire, in mid-summer to fall of 2015,
additional wildfires burned near the Project area—two of which are of particular concern
here. 5 FS4518. First, the Wash wildfire, approximately 12 air miles east of the Project
area, burned 36,555 acres. FS663. The Wash wildfire burned across numerous face
drainages on the south side of the Selway River from O’Hara Creek upriver to Meadow
Creek. Id. The Forest Service estimated the potential sedimentation caused the Wash
wildfire could range from 9,135 to 12,786 cubic yards per square mile. 6 FS2021. Second,
the Slide wildfire, located approximately 9 air miles northeast of the Project area, burned
10,200 acres. FS662. The Slide wildfire burned across numerous face drainages of the
Selway River, portions of which affect the analysis area of the Project. Id. Although the
Slide wildfire did not burn within the Project area, portions of the Slide wildfire fall
within the Project’s cumulative effects analysis area. Id. The Forest Service estimated the
potential sedimentation caused by the Slide wildfire could range from 1,773 to 7,974
cubic yards per square mile. 7 FS21690.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 7, 2014, after the Johnson Bar wildfire was contained, the Forest
Service published a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS)

5

Two additional fires occurred also—Baldy and Woodrat. See FS662-663. However, neither party
presently raises concerns regarding the effect of these two specific wildfires on the Project.
6
At the time of the publication of the BAER report, the Wash wildfire was 0% contained. FS2021.
7
At the time of the publication of the BAER report, the Slide wildfire was 30% contained. FS21690.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 4

for the Johnson Bar Fire Salvage Project. 8 FS2413. The Project seeks to utilize ground
based (tractor and skyline 9) and helicopter logging systems to harvest trees killed by the
Johnson Bar wildfire. FS2403. The Forest Service distributed a scoping memorandum to
the public to solicit comments and concerns regarding the Project and issues to address in
the EIS. FS2414-2417.
In March of 2015, the Forest Service released a draft EIS (DEIS). FS325. The
purpose of the Project is stated in the DEIS:
The purpose of the proposal would be to salvage timber before it loses its
economic value, which would assist in supporting the economic structure of
local communities and to provide for regional and national needs; reduce
potential sediment inputs into the aquatic ecosystem from decommissioning
approximately 20 miles of roads.
FS344. To accomplish the stated purpose, four action alternatives were identified, with
the three alternatives other than “Alternative 1-No Action,” evolving somewhat until the
final ROD. FS481.
After making the DEIS available for public comment, the Forest Service published
a final EIS (FEIS) and draft Record of Decision (ROD) on October 7, 2015, on the Forest
Service’s website. During the time between the release of the DEIS in March of 2015,
and the publication of the FEIS in October of 2015, the other post-Johnson Bar wildfire

8

A Notice of Intent advertising the scoping period was originally published in the Federal Register on
October 16, 2014. FS346. A corrected Notice of Intent was published on October 24, 2014. FS2428. The
public comment period ended on December 8, 2014. Id.
9
Skyline logging consists of “a system using cables to transport material from the woods to the landing.”
FOREST OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT LOG,
https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml (Last visited May 11, 2016)
(attached hereto as Appendix C).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 5

timber harvesting activities on state and private lands had occurred or were underway,
and additional wildfires had burned, while others continued to burn, near the Project area.
The FEIS includes references to the state and private post-Johnson Bar wildfire
harvesting activities. Specifically, qualitative analyses of the potential sedimentation
these activities add to the overall sediment delivery when combined with the Project are
included in the Hydrology and Fisheries sections of the FEIS. See FS778; FS805-06;
FS808. However, the FEIS does not include a quantitative analysis of the cumulative
effects of the landslides, mass erosion, and sedimentation delivery from the other state
and private post-fire harvesting activities. FS773-74.
The FEIS also references the visual cumulative impacts of the state and private
post-Johnson Bar wildfire harvesting activities when combined with the Project’s visual
impacts to the surrounding environment. FS902. The conclusion is made that these and
other past, present, and foreseeable activities:
[W]ould have no significant effect on the visual condition of the area of
interest because they do not create large enough man-made openings to
alter the inherent landscape character to the degree that it would become a
dominate visual element within the viewshed.
FS903.
Next, with regard to the 2015 wildfires, in a memorandum dated October 26,
2015, Probert considered whether the wildfires constituted “significant or changed
circumstances,” which would warrant the Forest Service’s duty under NEPA to issue a
supplemental FEIS. FS662. Probert ultimately concluded the 2015 wildfires did not
qualify as “significant changed circumstances.” FS668. Her memo states in relevant part:
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 6

I have carefully reexamined the Johnson Bar FEIS in light of the above
2015 wildfire impacts. I have incorporated current on ground reviews of the
fires and the BAER evaluations. The Wash Fire located in the O’Hara
watershed had minor impacts on some local wildlife habitats and the
equivalent clearcut acres, but both are well below wildlife and watershed
impact thresholds. The Slide and Wash Fires both combined to increase the
ECA in the Lower Selway River. None of these impacts would
cumulatively change the effects analysis of the Johnson Bar FEIS,
including the biological calls for threatened endangered species (TES), nor
is there a need to offset the fire impacts by deferring the Johnson Bar
proposed management activities. Based on my review, I find the wildfire
impacts do not significantly change the environmental effects of this
proposal nor do they change the basis or nature of considerations and
rationale for reaching a decision on this project. Therefore, reanalyzing the
FEIS is not necessary.
Id.
As part of the administrative appeals process, Plaintiffs (and others) timely filed
objections to the FEIS. While Plaintiffs made twenty-one objections in total, those most
pertinent to the present motion include: 10
•

Issue 1: Failure to address cumulative impacts of sediment delivery into the
Selway and Middle Fork Rivers.

•

Issue 2: The Project is not consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(WSRA) because no valid River Plan is in place.

•

Issue 4: There is no “upward trend” in the watersheds not meeting habitat
objectives and standards, as required in the Forest Plan.

•

Issue 9: The FEIS violates NEPA because it is not based on the best available
science regarding post-fire logging and fire ecology.

•

Issue 14: The FEIS analyses failed to consider significantly changed conditions as
a result of the 2015 Slide and Wash wildfires. The analyses failed also to consider
the cumulative effects as a result of the wildfires on non-Forest lands, and salvage
sales on state lands as a result of the 2015 wildfire season.

10

These issues are summarized from the Objection Resolution Officer’s final decision memorandum.
FS32984-32996.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 7

•

Issue 17: The FEIS’s primary emphasis on commercial timber harvest is not in
compliance with the WSRA, which requires the Forest Service to place “primary
emphasis” on “protecting [the river’s] esthetic, scenic, historic, archeological, and
scientific features.”

•

Issue 18: The FEIS relied upon a flawed and improper use of the NEZSED model
and failed to use the WEPP model to accurately calculate sediment delivery.

FS32984-32996.
Pursuant to applicable Forest Service Regulations, Plaintiffs participated in an
objection resolution meeting on January 4, 2016. The Objection Resolution Officer
issued a decision on January 7, 2016, addressing each issue Plaintiffs raised and
instructing the Forest Service to add information and analysis to the FEIS before
proceeding with the Project. FS32984. On January 15, 2016, following the instructions
from the Objection Resolution Officer, the Forest Service published an updated FEIS
(“post-objection FEIS”).
Forest Supervisor Probert signed the final ROD on February 17, 2016. The final
ROD selected a modification of Alternative 4 (“Alternative 4 Modified”), as described in
the post-objection FEIS. Alternative 4 Modified added two harvesting units within the
Wild and Scenic River corridor that were removed during a prior edification of the action
alternatives to address public safety concerns. FS1903. The final action alternatives are
articulated in the final ROD as follows:
Alternative 1—No Action
The No Action Alternative would defer all management
actions. Management actions currently taking place within the
project area would continue and environmental effects from
the Johnson Bar Fire would continue to occur. Choosing the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 8

No Action Alternative would not preclude future management
proposals.
Alternative 2—Proposed Action
Alternative 2 proposes to harvest 3,096 acres, as well as 16.9
miles of road reconstruction and utilization of new and
existing temporary roads (3.1 miles) and helicopter landings
(17).
Alternative 3—Reduced Ground Disturbance
Alternative 3 responds to comments regarding potential
sedimentation in the Selway and Middle Fork rivers by
removing all harvest activities hydrologically connected to
the Lower Selway watershed. Alternative 3 proposes
harvesting 2,710 acres, as well as 16.5 miles of road
reconstruction and utilization of existing temporary roads (0.3
mile) and helicopter landings (14), in order to reduce the
amount of disturbance in the Lower Selway watershed.
Alternative 4—Economic Feasibility
Alternative 4 responds to internal and external comments
regarding economic feasibility, harvesting within or seen
from the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, and landings that
would be located along Highway 12 and the Selway River
Road. Alternative 4 proposes harvesting 2,207 acres, as well
as 16.9 miles of road reconstruction and utilization of new
and existing temporary roads (3.4 miles) and helicopter
landings (14).
FS1906.
On March 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action, alleging seven
causes of action against the Forest Service Defendants:
1. Violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 1274(d) and the APA for
failing to update the 1969 River Plan;
2. Violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Sections 1281(a) and 1283(a) and
the APA for failing to place a primary emphasis on the Selway and Middle Fork
Clearwater Rivers’ scenic and esthetic values;
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 9

3. Violation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the APA for
harvesting timber within the Wild and Scenic corridor;
4. Violation of NEPA and the APA for failing to issue a supplemental FEIS
following the 2015 wildfires and objection resolution decision;
5. Violation of NEPA and the APA for failing to consider important aspects of the
Project in the FEIS;
6. Violation of the National Forest Management Act because the Project is not
consistent with the Forest Plan; and
7. Violation of the Endangered Species Act for failing to base its ESA consultation
on the best available science.
The Forest Service moved forward with the timber sales contracts. On-the-ground
operations of the Project are set to begin as early as May 16, 2016. 11 The duration of the
Project is estimated to take up to five years to complete. FS1328-1329. Plaintiffs filed
their motion for preliminary injunction on April 6, 2016.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
I. Standard of Review under the APA
“Challenges to final agency actions are reviewed under the deferential standard of
the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’).” Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Larson, 641 F.
Supp. 2d 1120, 1129 (D. Idaho 2009), aff'd, 403 F. App'x 275 (9th Cir. 2010), and aff'd
sub nom. Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended
(Jan. 25, 2011) (citing Tucson Herpetological Soc. v. Salazar, 566 F.3d 870, 875 (9th Cir.

11

Immediately after the hearing, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 42), adding an eighth
claim for relief—challenging the Forest Service’s alleged unlawful failure to act or unreasonable delay in
acting to update the 1969 River Plan as required by Section 1274(d) of the WSRA. During the hearing,
Plaintiffs informed the Court the amended complaint was forthcoming, but that it should not affect the
Court’s consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 10

2009). The APA standard dictates that the reviewing court set aside the agency’s decision
if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “The party challenging an agency's action as arbitrary and
capricious bears the burden of proof.” W. Watersheds Project v. Ashe, 948 F. Supp. 2d
1166, 1174 (D. Idaho 2013) (citing WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 741 F.Supp.2d 89,
97 (D.D.C. 2010)).
The Court may reverse the agency’s decision as arbitrary and capricious “only if
the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, entirely failed to
consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation that runs counter
to the evidence before the agency or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a
difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of
Indian Affairs, 801 F.3d 1105, 1110 (9th Cir. 2015). While the standard under the APA is
narrow, the reviewing court must still conduct a “substantial inquiry” and “a thorough,
probing, in-depth review,” to determine whether “the agency present[ed] a rational
connection between the facts found and the conclusions made.” Siskiyou Reg'l Educ.
Project v. U.S. Forest Serv., 565 F.3d 545, 554 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations
omitted).
II. Standard for Preliminary Injunction
To be entitled to injunctive relief, the plaintiff must show each of the following:
(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm is likely, not just
possible, if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor;
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 11

and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). The Ninth Circuit considers all of the elements, except for
irreparable injury, using a sliding scale approach where “the elements of the preliminary
injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a
weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,
1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Irreparable injury is not, however, subject to such balancing. To
satisfy the irreparable injury element, the moving party must “demonstrate that
irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
(emphasis in original).
A preliminary injunction is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits, but a
device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before
judgment. Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A.BMH Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2001)
(citing Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.
1984)). While courts are given considerable discretion in deciding whether a preliminary
injunction should enter, injunctive relief is not obtained as a matter of right and it is
considered to be an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the movant,
by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S.
61 (1974); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 363
U.S. 528 (1960); and Stanley v. Univ. of S. California, 13 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1994).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 12

DISCUSSION
I. Preliminary Consideration
The Forest Service Defendants argue in a footnote the Court should not consider
Plaintiffs’ declarations in determining the likelihood of success on the merits of
Plaintiffs’ claims, contending the Court’s consideration of the Forest Service Defendants’
actions should be limited to review of the administrative record. (Dkt. 29 at 9, n. 5.)
Plaintiffs explained in their reply and during the hearing the declarations were submitted
to demonstrate Article III standing and irreparable harm. (Dkt. 40 at 13, n. 3.) And, the
Forest Service Defendants submitted declarations on the same matters. The Court will
therefore consider both Plaintiffs’ and the Forest Service Defendants’ declarations in its
determination of irreparable harm, given the Forest Service Defendants have not
challenged standing.
II. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Plaintiffs assert a likelihood of success on the merits of all seven claims for relief
alleged in their Complaint. Because the Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success
on the merits on their second WSRA and both NEPA claims (claims two, four and five) 12
the Court will defer full assessment and determination of the ESA and NFMA claims
(claims three, six, and seven) 13 to a more appropriate time when all issues have been fully

12

13

See supra pp. 9-10.
See supra pp. 9-10.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 13

briefed and presented to the Court by the parties. 14 See Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v.
Veneman, 142 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1247 n. 29 (D. Idaho 2001). However, the Court will
address both WSRA claims (claims one and two) and the two NEPA claims (claims four
and five) separately below.
A. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Claims
In 1968, the United States Congress designated the Middle Fork Clearwater and
Selway Rivers as protected areas under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 15 The WSRA
establishes a system where “certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their
immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in
free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected
for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.” 16 U.S.C. § 1271.
The WSRA imposes procedural and substantive requirements on the agencies responsible
for administering the Wild and Scenic areas (here, the Forest Service, as an agency of the

14

Plaintiffs indicated during the hearing that the amended complaint would add a claim under the WSRA
and also that they intended to expand their argument as to the best available science at the summary
judgment stage.
15
Specifically, this area includes:
The Middle Fork from the town of Kooskia upstream to the town of Lowell; the Lochsa
River from its junction with the Selway at Lowell forming the Middle Fork, upstream to
the Powell Ranger Station; and the Selway River from Lowell upstream to its origin; to
be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.
16 U.S.C. § 1274(a)(1) (These were the first Rivers to be included for protection in the Wild and Scenic
River System).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 14

United States Department of Agriculture) to ensure the very values integral to selection
and designation under the Act are protected.
Relevant here, one of the procedural protections in the Act requires the agency to
prepare a comprehensive management plan for the designated river segment. 16 U.S.C.
1274(d)(1). In 1986, Congress amended this requirement to include specific
considerations that an agency must address in a river plan. Specifically, Section
1274(d)(1) states: “[t]he plan shall address resource protection, development of lands and
facilities, user capacities, and other management practices necessary or desirable to
achieve the purposes of this chapter.” 16 U.S.C. § 1274(d)(1). For rivers designated
before the 1986 amendment, like the Middle Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers,
Congress mandated existing river plans be reviewed to conform to the amended
requirements by January 1, 1996. 16 U.S.C. § 1274(d)(2).
Substantively, the WSRA requirements provide the agency with substantial
discretion in its management of a Wild and Scenic River. The WSRA requires the agency
“to protect and enhance” Wild and Scenic values, and specifically requires that “[i]n such
administration primary emphasis shall be given to its esthetic, scenic, historic, and
scientific features.” 16 U.S.C. §1281(a). The Forest Service ,“having jurisdiction over
any lands which include, border upon, or are adjacent to, any river within the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System…shall take such action respecting management policies,
regulations, contracts, plans, affecting such lands…as may be necessary to protect such
rivers in accordance with the purpose of this [Act].” 16 U.S.C. § 1283(a).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 15

Plaintiffs assert two claims in their Complaint and upon which they filed their
motion for preliminary injunction under the WSRA. First, they assert the Forest Service
violated the procedural requirements in Section 1274(d)(2) by approving and moving
forward with the Project without first ensuring the 1969 River Plan was updated and
consistent with the 1986 amendments. Second, they contend the Forest Service violated
the substantive provisions under Sections 1281(a) and 1283(a) by not considering or
placing a primary emphasis on the Wild and Scenic values within the Selway and Middle
Fork Clearwater Wild and Scenic corridor and the adjacent area before approving the
Project. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden of
demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits of their second WSRA claim.
1. Claim One: Failure to Update the 1969 River Plan
Plaintiffs contend the Forest Service violated their procedural duty under the
WSRA by failing to update the 1969 River Plan prior to approval of the Project. Plaintiffs
criticize the Forest Service for approving the Project while, at the same time,
acknowledging in its 2014 Nez Perce Forest Plan Assessment the current River Plan
created in 1969 does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 1274(d)(1). FS32417.
In response, the Forest Service argues Plaintiffs’ claim is legally unsound as nothing in
the WSRA authorizes the Court to impose procedural requirements—i.e., to order the
agency to amend the outdated 1969 River Plan—before the Forest Service can proceed

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 16

with land management activities. In support of their argument, the Forest Service cites
Wilderness Soc. v. Tyrrel, 918 F.2d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1990). 16
It is undisputed the Forest Service is two decades past the statutory deadline to
review the 1969 River Plan to ensure its conformity with the 1986 amendments to
Section 1274(d)(1). However, Plaintiffs acknowledged during the hearing they may not
have adequately requested in their Complaint the appropriate relief for the Forest
Service’s failure to fulfill its procedural duty to update the plan, claiming they intended to
make the more appropriate request in an amended complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs did
not originally request in their Complaint relief under 5 U.S.C. §706(1) of the APA, which
authorizes the Court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed,” i.e., review of the 1969 River Plan. In other words, the parties disagree
regarding their interpretations of Tyrell and whether the case precludes Plaintiffs from
bringing this type of claim under Section 1274(d) of the WSRA.
Almost immediately after the hearing, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint, asking in claim eight for relief under Section 1274(d) for failure to update the
River Plan. (Dkt. 42.) Because claim one in the Complaint is so intertwined with the new
claim and request for relief, and because the Court finds other grounds to enjoin the
16

In Wilderness Soc. v. Tyrrel, 918 F.2d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1990), the Ninth Circuit considered a
similar issue whether to enjoin the Forest Service from implementing a proposal to harvest timber
adjacent to designated Wild and Scenic rivers on the basis of the Forest Service’s failure to fulfill its
procedural duty to prepare a comprehensive river management plan under Section 1274(d)(1). The Ninth
Circuit carefully considered the language of Section 1274(d)(2) and found that because it “did not
expressly require a federal agency to prepare a management plan for a river designated by the Secretary
of the Interior before January 1, 1986, in order to conduct land management activities on federal land
adjacent to or within the protected river area, we cannot properly read such a requirement into the
statute.” Id. at 818. The application of Tyrrel to the present case is not so black and white, however, as
there are significant factual differences between Tyrrel and this case.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 17

Project until the issues regarding the outdated 1969 River Plan are more fully presented
to the Court, the Court will defer further consideration of Plaintiffs’ procedural WSRA
claim at this time.
2. Claim Two: Failure to Consider Wild and Scenic Values
Plaintiffs contend the Forest Service Defendants violated substantive Sections
1281(a) and 1283(a) of the WSRA by failing to place a primary emphasis on the Wild
and Scenic values within the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers corridor and
adjacent area in the post-objection FEIS and ROD. Plaintiffs argue the Forest Service
allowed economic factors to drive their decision making process without giving due
consideration to the scenic and esthetic integrity of the Wild and Scenic corridor and
adjacent area. The Forest Service does not deny the economic advantages of the Project,
but contends it thoroughly analyzed the Project’s impact on visual and scenic values prior
to approving the Project, and, did not violate the substantive requirements of the WSRA.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addressed a
similar issue in Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1256 (E.D. Cal. 1999).
There, the court explained an agency’s “persistent and protracted failure to develop a
comprehensive management plan” in compliance with Section 1274(d) of the WSRA is
an important factor in determining whether the agency acted in an arbitrary and
capricious manner in the planning and execution of land management activities in Wild
and Scenic areas. Id. at 1257.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 18

In Babbitt, no river management plan had been adopted. Id. at 1250. The National
Parks Service (NPS) planned and executed aspects of the El Portal Road Project—which
affected portions of a river corridor within the Wild and Scenic System. Id. at 1207.
Plaintiffs alleged the NPS failed to consider Wild and Scenic values in its approval of
that road project. Id. NPS argued it did take Wild and Scenic values into consideration
and urged the court to defer to its judgment since “agencies have substantial discretion to
manage protected rivers,” and “can manage a river with ‘varying degrees of intensity for
its protection and development at[sic] allow for uses that do not substantially interfere
with public enjoyment of [the river’s] values.’” Id. at 1255 (quoting 16 U.S.C. §1281(a)).
Despite the NPS’s assertions that the intrusion of its road project into the river
corridor would be “de minimus or are justified by the overall good accomplished or that,
on the balance, the project enhances the river’s ORVs [outstanding remarkable values],”
the court found the NPS violated Section 1281(a), because no comprehensive river
management plan had been adopted. Id. at 1256.
The court explained: “absent some objective, pre-determined criteria for
describing and assessing such impacts, [NPS’s] assertions [are] merely a post hoc
justification for project outcomes.” Id. Thus, without reference to a qualifying river plan
that took into consideration how to protect the river’s ORVs and the other Section
1274(d) requirements prescribed by Congress in the 1986 amendment to preserve the
Wild and Scenic values of the river, the court explained NPS could not make adequate
informed decisions about whether the road project and its construction activities “were an
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 19

allowable degradation of values” for which the river was included in the Wild and Scenic
River system. 17 Id. at 1257.
Here, the administrative record indicates some of the Project’s timber harvesting
units can be seen from the Wild and Scenic corridor, including from U.S. Highway 12
which runs parallel to the Selway River. FS1284. The post-objection FEIS indicates the
Forest Service considered the Project’s impact on the visual and scenic values within and
adjacent to the Wild and Scenic area protected by the WSRA and identifies the Middle
Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers’ ORVs were considered in its analysis. 18 However,
despite references in the post-objection FEIS that the Project is “consistent” with the
1969 River Plan, the Forest Service acknowledged in the 2014 Nez Perce Forest Plan
Assessment that the 1969 River Plan is inadequate:
17

Pursuant to the decision in Babbitt, the NPS published a river management plan in August of
2000. A new case was filed challenging the Plan’s compliance with the WSRA requirements of Section
1274(d). Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1071 (E.D. Cal. 2002), aff'd in part,
rev'd in part, 348 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2003), opinion clarified, 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth
Circuit concluded the Plan insufficiently addressed user capacities—a requirement of river management
plans—and directed the NPS to prepare a new or revised Plan which adequately addressed the Wild and
Scenic requirements. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004). In Plaintiffs’
reply brief, they cite Norton for the proposition an injunction may be proper on the basis of an invalid
river plan. Defendants disagree with this interpretation and argue Norton does not say the Forest Service
is precluded from performing site specific activities (such as the Johnson Bar Project) without a plan;
rather, the Forest Service cannot use an invalid plan as a basis for its analysis of a proposed project.
18
The Forest Service Defendants assessed and analyzed the Projects’ impacts on critical
viewpoints (major roads, trail access corridors, campgrounds, and concentrated use areas). FS888-889;
FS890; FS894. After visual analysis, the Forest Service reduced or eliminated Project activities where the
visual quality objective was high. Specifically, they eliminated four harvest areas within the U.S.
Highway 12 viewshed and one harvest area in the Selway River viewshed. FS898-902. They included
design criteria that would reduce the visual effects on the harvested areas. These design criteria include:
maintaining the vertical structure and “feathered edge” to emulate natural openings that would remain
after a mixed severity wildfire; designing harvesting units to emulate the natural edge patterns by
minimizing geometric lines; locating skyline corridors and skid trails to minimize visual effects; and,
protecting vegetation that provides foreground screening along Swiftwater Road. FS725-726; FS19151916. Further, the Forest Service indicates in the ROD that visibility of the harvested units from Highway
12 is limited due to the speed at which people travel the on the highway. FS1907.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 20

The existing river management plan is aged and does not meet the criteria
established in Section 3 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as amended in
1986. The plan lacks sufficient detail in several areas including monitoring,
user capacities, and development plans.
FS1515; FS32417.
Further, when questioned by the Court during the hearing regarding what part of
the administrative record includes support for a conclusion that the Project is consistent
with the values outlined by the 1986 amendments to the WSRA, the Forest Service
Defendants stated: the Scenic Quality Report (the first visual analysis that the Forest
Service conducted). FS18251. Upon the Court’s review of this report, however, the Court
finds the report took into account only whether the Project meets the 1987 Forest Plan’s
visual quality objectives (VQOs). This is problematic, as the Court cannot discern from
the report, or otherwise, whether VQOs to be protected pursuant to the Forest Plan are the
same objectives that should be included in an updated River Plan consistent with the
1986 amendments to the WSRA. 19
The Forest Service cannot effectively analyze, nor can the public and Court crosscheck, the Forest Service’s analysis, without a River Plan that delineates objective
standards, or predetermined criteria, for describing, assessing, and protecting the Wild
and Scenic values of the Rivers. Without objective, predetermined criteria, the public is
left to trust the Forest Service’s “word” that it considered all relevant factors necessary to
19

Defendants’ counsel stated during the hearing the River Plan was updated vis-a-vis the publication of
the 1987 Nez Perce Forest Plan. However, this argument carries little support that Wild and Scenic values
were adequately considered in preparation of the Project, as the Forest Service acknowledged, as
explained above, the 1969 River Plan “does not meet the criteria established in Section 2 of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act.” FS32417.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 21

protecting the Middle Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers’ Wild and Scenic values and
that the Project will not affect or have minimal impact upon the Wild and Scenic values.
Stating generally that the Project is “consistent” with the 1969 River plan—which the
Forest Service admits fails to consider the requirements set forth in Section 1274(d)—is
likely legally insufficient, arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs
are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim under the WSRA.
B. NEPA Claims
Plaintiffs assert two claims in their Complaint and upon which they filed their
motion for preliminary injunction that allege the Forest Service Defendants failed to meet
their statutory duties under NEPA. First, Plaintiffs contend the Forest Service violated
NEPA by approving the Project based on an inadequate and scientifically inaccurate
environmental impact statement (EIS). Second, Plaintiffs assert the Forest Service
violated NEPA when Probert approved the Project in the final Record of Decision
(ROD), without first issuing a supplemental EIS for public comment following the 2015
wildfires and objection resolution decision. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds
Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of these two claims.
1. Claim Five: Inadequate and Scientifically Inaccurate FEIS
Plaintiffs’ claim that the FEIS is inadequate and scientifically inaccurate is
supported by two arguments. First, Plaintiffs contend the Forest Service failed to
adequately analyze the cumulative effects of the state and private post-fire harvesting
activities on sediment delivery to the river system and on the overall visual impact to the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 22

Wild and Scenic corridor and adjacent area. Second, they contend the Forest Service
failed to accurately estimate or measure the sedimentation and sediment delivery to the
river system in light of the science used. The Court will address each argument below.
a. Cumulative Effects
Plaintiffs contend the post-objection FEIS lacks an accurate and candid analysis of
the cumulative or incremental impacts that could have been expected or that actually took
place from the nearby state and private post-fire timber harvesting projects that occurred
after the 2014 and 2015 wildfires, and also the foreseeable future logging activities.
Plaintiffs contend these harvesting projects (which include construction of new roads,
reconstruction of existing roads, and construction of helicopter landings to facilitate
access to and removal of the harvested timber) generate mass erosion in the watersheds
and cause sediment to deposit in the river system. Plaintiffs contend also the cumulative
impacts of these activities impair the scenic, esthetic, and other values of the Wild and
Scenic corridor and adjacent area. The Forest Service Defendants respond by arguing the
post-objection FEIS does account for the cumulative effects of mass sedimentation from
the state and private post-fire harvesting activities, as well as the cumulative visual
impacts on the Wild and Scenic corridor and adjacent area.
NEPA regulations require an EIS to include an analysis of the cumulative effects
of any proposed federal project, which analysis addresses the cumulative impact of the
proposed action on the environment “when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 23

undertakes such other actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7; see Lands Council v. Powell, 395
F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 2005). “A proper consideration of the cumulative impacts of a
project requires some quantified or detailed information; ... [g]eneral statements about
possible effects and some risk do not constitute a hard look absent a justification
regarding why more definitive information could not be provided.” Klamath-Siskiyou
Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotations omitted).
Cumulative impacts of multiple projects, such as various timber harvests in close
proximity to one another, can be significant to the environment in various ways. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
illustrated the potential impact as follows:
The most obvious way is that the greater total magnitude of the
environmental effects—such as the total number of acres affected or the
total amount of sediment to be added to streams within a watershed—may
demonstrate by itself that the environmental impact will be significant.
Sometimes the total impact from a set of actions may be greater than the
sum of the parts. For example, the addition of a small amount of sediment
to a creek may have only a limited impact on salmon survival, or perhaps
no impact at all. But the addition of a small amount here, a small amount
there, and still more at another point could add up to something with a
much greater impact, until there comes a point where even a marginal
increase will mean that no salmon survive.
Id. at 994.
Here, the post-objection FEIS contains a lengthy “Affected Environment and
Environmental Effects” chapter, which includes detailed cumulative effects subsections

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 24

of various components of the project. 20 FS1314-1538. Upon close review of these
subsections, however, the references to and analyses of the erosion and sediment delivery
into the river system from post-fire harvesting activities on the state and private land
neighboring the Project area is scant or lacking almost entirely.
At the beginning of the chapter, the FEIS includes a general overview of the
Project’s cumulative effects. Specifically, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8 is cited which, as quoted
directly above, acknowledges a cumulative effects analysis must take into consideration
actions on federal, state, and private land. FS1314. Immediately after this reference, in a
table labeled: “Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects within the
Middle Fork and Selway Drainages,” two private timber harvests and one state timber
harvest are listed. FS1315. There is no question the Forest Service was aware of these
state and private harvesting activities. 21
The Forest Service Defendants quantified the estimated baseline sediment delivery
from the Project to the river system using the WEPP model. However, the quantified
baseline estimate does not include, and was not updated to include, the cumulative
sediment impacts from the neighboring state and private post-fire harvesting activities.
The cumulative effects of erosion and sediment delivery resulting from the state and
private post-fire harvesting activities are briefly discussed within the Hydrology and
20

The various components considered include: Cultural, Economics, Fire and Fuels, Hydrology,
Fisheries, Native American Tribes, Rare Plants, Recreation and Trails, Soils, Vegetation, Visuals, Weeds,
Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife, and Wilderness/Unroaded Areas. FS1314-1538.
21
On May 19, 2015, a complaint was filed in this Court challenging the allowance of a state logging
project that included hauling on a private road and through private property. See Idaho Rivers United v.
Hudson, Case No. 3:15-cv-00169-BLW (Dkt. 1.) The state harvesting project was well underway during
the planning of this Project.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 25

Fisheries sections of the post-objection FEIS. 22 However, the quantitative and qualitative
analyses (or lack thereof) in the Hydrology section raise considerable concern that the
cumulative effects of the state and private post-fire harvesting activities with respect to
sediment delivery were not adequately or fully addressed.
The Hydrology section explains a quantitative analysis of the sediment delivery to
the river system from the state and private post-fire harvesting activities was not
conducted, despite indicating: “[p]ast harvest and associated road construction have
likely had the most affect[sic] to water and sediment yields.” FS1347. The justification
stated in the FEIS for forgoing a quantitative analysis follows:
[T]he project activities in total were predicted to result in net reductions in
erosion, sediment delivery to streams, and improvement to the general
watershed condition, a quantitative evaluation of past, existing and
foreseeable effects was not done—these effects are discussed qualitatively
in this section.
FS1361.
General statements, like these, referencing the potential environmental effects and
risks of other activities, likely do not constitute a “hard look” absent further justification
regarding why a more definitive analysis regarding the state and private harvesting
activities could not or should not be provided. Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456
F.3d 955, 973 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding vague and conclusory statements, without
supporting data, did not constitute a “hard look” under NEPA). One of the stated
purposes of the Project is to “reduce potential sediment inputs into the aquatic
22

Although the post-objection FEIS briefly mentions the state and private post-fire harvesting activities in
the Soils section, it does not provide a detailed discussion.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 26

ecosystem.” FS1267. Because cumulative sediment inputs from the lower watersheds add
to the overall sediment delivery into the river system, Plaintiffs are, therefore, likely to
succeed on their claim that the failure to quantify this data (despite its ability to do so), or
offering a more through explanation why it was not necessary to do so, was arbitrary and
capricious.
Relevant also to the quantitative assessment of the cumulative effects from the
state and private post-fire harvesting activities, Plaintiffs allege the mitigation efforts
proposed by decommissioning roads to reduce erosion and sedimentation otherwise
caused by the Project activities and other state and private post-fire harvesting activities
is significantly flawed. The post-objection FEIS indicates 21.3 miles of roads will be
decommissioned to offset the negative effects of sediment delivery into the river system.
FS1358. However, the administrative record indicates the majority of the roads to be
decommissioned are not sediment sources to the river system presently as they are not
open to public access and are overgrown with trees, and thus, inaccessible. 23 FS17382.
And, the post-objection FEIS indicates “sediment delivery from these road segments was
not quantified.” FS1358.

23

Plaintiffs allege the Forest Service plans to use “natural recovery”—i.e., do nothing—to claim
watershed improvements from decommissioning roads. (Dkt. 40 at 3.) Plaintiffs suggested also at the
hearing that the total Project area was overdrawn to compensate for and include these decommissioned
roads, as many of the decommissioned roads are a considerable distance from the harvesting units. (Dkt.
40-2 at 2.) Further, Defendants disclosed during the hearing that the majority of roads to be
decommissioned are not funded by the proceeds of the Project. Rather, they are separately funded.
Defendants further acknowledged, despite the separate funding, the roads will not be decommissioned if
the Project is enjoined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 27

There is little support or explanation in the administrative record that
decommissioning these roads will in fact reduce erosion, sedimentation, and sediment
delivery to the river system. This lack of explanation or inconsistency between the facts
and the conclusion—that decommissioning roads will result in reduced sediment
delivery—lends further support to the likelihood the Forest Service did not adequately or
fully consider an important aspect of the problem, i.e. sediment delivery into the river
system.
Turning to the qualitative analysis within the Hydrology section of the FEIS, it
discusses the possible qualitative cumulative impacts of the state and private post-fire
harvesting activities upon the overall sediment delivery into the river system.
Specifically:
Cumulative effects arise from the incremental effect of an action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Based on the analysis, the Johnson Bar Fire Salvage Project was not
predicted to incrementally add to cumulative effects to water resources in
the analysis area, because net effects to each management indicator were
predicted to be neutral or positive. Management indicators of sediment
delivery from roads and from treatment units and road density all showed
short and long-term improvements as a result of project activities.
FS1360-61. These qualitative findings of “neutral or positive” effects in the Hydrology
section, however, are inconsistent with the qualitative findings in the Fisheries section
with regard to sediment delivery to the river system.
The Fisheries section of the post-objection FEIS includes a qualitative
consideration of the cumulative effects of the state and two private post-fire harvesting
activities. FS1393-94. For each harvest activity, the FEIS indicates in Table 3-24, that
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 28

there will be measureable negative and positive cumulative effects, in part due to the
additional sediment delivery to the streams, creeks, drainages and Rivers resulting from
these state and private harvest activities. Id.
In an email dated September 9, 2015, Forest Service Fish Biologist Allison
Johnson, who drafted and analyzed the state and private harvesting activities’ effects on
Fisheries (albeit, for ESA purposes), and who appears to have created the Fisheries
cumulative effects table cited immediately above, indicated her concerns that a similar
analysis was not performed under NEPA regarding the same state and private harvesting
activities. Specifically, she states:
I have analyzed these actions in my cumulative effects, they are proposed
within the project area and there are effects to ESA listed species i.e. as
noted in my analysis measureable indirect effects (short and long term
negative) caused by these harvest and road improvements activities
unrelated to the action under consultation. These were considered in
formulating my LAA [Likely to Adversely Affect] determination for this
project so, I don’t believe you can have a separate NEPA decision within
the project area with a No Effect?
***
It is almost like you have two completely different calls for the same action
thus, I could see some issues with this.
FS2366 (emphasis added). The Court could not locate any response to Johnson’s email.
Nevertheless, there is no explanation in the post-objection FEIS addressing these
inconsistent qualitative findings regarding erosion and sedimentation effects from the
state and private post-fire harvesting activities in relation to (or in addition to) the
anticipated effects from the Project activities. This inconsistency between the Hydrology
and Fisheries sections, without any explanation, strengthens the likelihood Plaintiffs will
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 29

be successful in proving their claim that the Forest Service failed to conduct an accurate
and candid cumulative effects analysis regarding sedimentation as required by NEPA.
Plaintiffs also claim the Forest Service failed to sufficiently consider the
cumulative effects to the scenic, esthetic, and other Wild and Scenic values from the
neighboring state and private post-fire harvesting activities. Defendants did not respond
to this argument in their brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, but responded to the
Court’s questioning regarding this issue during the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion. The
Forest Service Defendants explained, as set forth in the FEIS, a visual analysis of the
Project area before the other state and private post-fire harvesting activities began or were
barely underway was conducted, along with a visual projection of how the harvesting
units in the Project would appear post-harvesting. 24 They also stated an “after-the-fact”
visual analysis was conducted after harvesting activities occurred on the state and private
lands near the Project area. However, this after-the-fact analysis was neither documented
nor included in the post-objection FEIS or otherwise in the administrative record.
The Forest Service Defendants argued during the hearing that their failure to
disclose the after-the-fact analysis was harmless error, as the design criteria in the Project

24

The FEIS specifically concludes:
Other past, present and future activities including …private land activities would have no
significant effect on the visual condition of the area of interest because they do not create
large enough man-made openings to alter the inherent landscape character to the degree it
would become a dominate visual element within the viewshed.

FS1499. As discussed in more detail in the WSRA section above, generalized conclusions and findings
like this one, without objective criteria delineating the allowed degradation of the Wild and Scenic values,
leave the public and the Court to trust the Forest Service’s “word” that it considered all relevant factors to
protecting the Wild and Scenic corridor and areas adjacent thereto.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 30

minimizes the Project’s visual impact. At this point, the Court is unable, given the lack of
documentation of the purported after-the-fact visual analysis by the Forest Service, to
conclude whether the error was indeed harmless. No explanation was offered or provided
in the administrative record as to when specifically, or why, this after-the-fact visual
analysis was conducted, and of most significant concern, the results of the analysis
appear nowhere in the record. 25
Omission of the after-the-fact analysis (both the fact that is was conducted and the
results) from the post-objection FEIS, without explanation, supports Plaintiffs’ claim that
the Forest Service failed to sufficiently conduct a cumulative effects analysis under
NEPA regarding the Wild and Scenic values. As such, it is likely Plaintiffs will succeed
on the merits of this claim.
b. Use of Available Science
Plaintiffs assert neither the FEIS nor ROD accurately addresses the sedimentation
risks posed by the Project in light of the available science as used by the Forest Service. 26
“NEPA requires that the Environmental Impact Statement contain high-quality
information and accurate scientific analysis.” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019,
1031 (9th Cir. 2005);40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). If there is incomplete or unavailable relevant
25

An inference could be drawn that the results from the after-the-fact visual analysis were not disclosed
because the results were not beneficial to the Forest Service Defendants and with proceeding with the
Project.
26
Plaintiffs initially argued in their motion for preliminary injunction the WEPP and NEZSED models
used by the Forest Service were not the best models to predict landslide and mass erosion risks and
argued the Forest Service should have used the GRAIP model instead. Plaintiffs clarified in their reply
brief and during the hearing they are not asking the Court to decide in connection with this motion which
model was more appropriate, at least at this stage in the litigation. (Dkt. 40 at 8-9.) Rather, they
encouraged the Court to focus its inquiry as to whether the FEIS or ROD fully addressed the
sedimentation risks of the Project in light of the best available science. Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 31

data, the environmental impact statement must disclose this fact. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22.
When this aspect of the FEIS is called into question, “NEPA does not require the
reviewing Court to decide whether an [EIS] is based on the best scientific methodology
available;” rather, the Court must consider whether “the FEIS adequately disclosed the
model’s potential weaknesses.” Oregon Nat. Res. Council Fund v. Goodman, 505 F.3d
884, 897 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiffs have carried their burden of proving the likelihood of success on the
merits of this claim because the sediment delivery estimates, irrespective of the model
used, do not appear to accurately represent the Project’s overall sedimentation delivery to
the river system. As confirmed during the hearing, the post-objection FEIS did not
include a quantitative measurement of the additional erosion risks and related sediment
delivery caused by the state and private harvesting activities. And, as discussed above,
the Forest Service used the WEPP model to estimate the baseline sedimentation risks
caused by the Project, but provided no explanation or reason in the post-objection FEIS
for not considering and measuring these after-the-fact activities, known to the Forest
Service, before the DEIS was updated, the FEIS prepared, and the Project approved.
Without considering the sum of all the parts—i.e., the estimated landslide, mass erosion,
and sedimentation risks from the Project activities in addition to the effects from, or
expected from, the other state and private post-fire harvesting activities—the
sedimentation estimate is likely incomplete. Because the Court, and the public for NEPA
purposes, are not adequately informed of the Project’s overall impact and environmental
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 32

consequences, the Court finds Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this NEPA
claim, in part. 27
2. Claim Four: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Plaintiffs contend the Forest Service Defendants violated NEPA when they
approved the Project final ROD based upon the post-objection FEIS without first issuing
a supplemental EIS for public comment following the 2015 wildfires and the objection
resolution decision.
“An agency that has prepared an EIS cannot simply rest on the original
document.” Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir. 2000).
But, an “agency need not supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light
after the EIS is finalized. To require otherwise would render agency decisionmaking
intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information
outdated by the time a decision is made.” Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S.
360, 374(1989). The general rule under NEPA is that an EIS “shall” be supplemented
whenever there are “significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. §
1502.9(c)(1)(ii).

27

In their reply, Plaintiffs raise other issues which they contend contribute to the misrepresentation or
alleged inaccuracy of the Project’s sedimentation impact as reflected in the FEIS and ROD. Specifically,
Plaintiffs assert climate change effects were not, but should have been, considered in detail; and, they
contend the Forest Service Defendants did not adequately discuss contrary science (i.e. the 1995/2004
Beschta reports) as presented by the Plaintiffs during the objection period. The Court finds that while
these arguments may be integral to the final adjudication on the merits of Plaintiffs’ NEPA claim,
Defendants have not had a full opportunity to respond to these arguments. These issues will be deferred
for full consideration by the Court during further proceedings.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 33

“When new information emerges after the circulation and public comment period
of the DEIS, it may be validly included in the FEIS without recirculation.” Westlands
Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of interior, 376 F.3d 853, 873 (9th Cir. 2004). “[I]t is not
uncommon for changes to be made in a FEIS after receipt of comments on a DEIS and
further concurrent study.” Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1118 (9th
Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d
1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2011). “When an agency takes the requisite ‘hard look’ and
‘determines that the new impacts will not be significant (or not significantly different
from those already considered), then the agency is in full compliance with NEPA.’”
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 496 F. App'x 712,
715-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. Dept. of Transp.,
545 F.3d 1147, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2008). Such determinations will only be set aside if
they are “arbitrary and capricious.” Id.
To illustrate, in Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 874
(9th Cir. 2004), the Ninth Circuit addressed whether an event occurring after the
publication of a DEIS and public comment period constituted a “significant new
circumstance” mandating the publication of a supplemental EIS rather than an FEIS.
There, the U.S. Department of the Interior circulated a DEIS which included a
“significant discussion of the effects of different alternatives on the power supply in
California.” Id. at 875. In the DEIS, there was no consideration of the California energy
crisis as the crisis had not yet occurred at the time of the publication of the DEIS. Id.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 34

“Neither the EIS nor the ROD fully discussed the energy crisis in their additional reviews
of the alternatives’ impacts on the power resources.” Id.
The Interior determined the impact of the selected alternative on California’s
power reliability was insignificant, because the power generation losses resulting from
the selected alternative constituted but a fraction of California’s overall power generation.
Id. This information led the Interior to conclude the California energy crisis did not
present a significant new circumstance. Id. The Ninth Circuit found the Interior’s
conclusion was supported by the record, and therefore, the decision not to prepare and
release a supplemental EIS for more discussion on the potential consequences of the
selected alternative on California’s power generation was not arbitrary or capricious. Id.
Plaintiffs contend the 2015 wildfires constituted “significant new circumstances or
information,” which triggered the Forest Service’s statutory duty under NEPA to prepare
a supplemental EIS. The post-objection FEIS included twenty-five new pages of
information, which Plaintiffs’ contend included: “substantive discussions of the impacts
and changes resulting from the 2015 wildfires and subsequent salvage logging on nonForest lands, as well as changes to the selected alternative.” 28 Compl., ¶ 114. (Dkt. 1 at
28.) As a result, Plaintiffs assert they and the public were denied the opportunity to
comment on the newly added information and analysis disclosed late in the NEPA
process.

28

Though Plaintiffs contend the post-objection FEIS included “substantive discussions” of the post-fire
harvesting activities, it is likely, as explained above, that these discussions were not adequate, or did not
fully disclose all information and analysis necessary, for NEPA purposes.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 35

The Forest Service Defendants respond by arguing they fully considered whether
the 2015 wildfires presented new information and potentially changed circumstances
requiring supplementation of the FEIS. In support of their argument, Defendants point to
the memorandum dated October 26, 2015, written by Probert after publication of the
FEIS, which addresses the potential impact of the 2015 wildfires on the Project. In her
memo, Probert concludes:
I have carefully reexamined the Johnson Bar FEIS in light of the above
2015 wildfire impacts. I have incorporated current on ground reviews of the
fires and the BAER evaluations. The Wash Fire located in the O’Hara
watershed had minor impacts on some local wildlife habitats and the
equivalent clearcut acres, but both are well below wildlife and watershed
impact thresholds. The Slide and Wash Fires both combined to
increased[sic] the ECA in the Lower Selway River. None of these impacts
would cumulatively change the effects analysis of the Johnson Bar FEIS,
including the biological calls for TES species, nor is there a need to offset
the fire impacts by deferring the Johnson Bar proposed management
activities. Based on my review, I find the wildfire impacts do not
significantly change the environmental effects of this proposal nor do they
change the basis or nature of considerations and rationale for reaching a
decision on this project. Therefore, reanalyzing the FEIS is not necessary.
FS662 (emphasis added). The Forest Service claims this generalized response to new
information and changed circumstances brought upon by the 2015 wildfires is sufficient
to demonstrate the Forest Service gave a “hard look” to these 2015 wildfires in its
determination that the wildfires did not constitute significant changes, as required by
NEPA.
However, Probert in her memorandum generally asserts: “none of these impacts
would cumulatively change the effects analysis of the Johnson Bar FEIS,” without
providing evidentiary support for the assertion. Id. There is no linear explanation
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 36

provided to determine how Probert reached this overall conclusion despite finding in the
very same conclusion that “ECA [equivalent clear-cut area] will increase within drainage
due to Wash and Slide Fires.” 29 FS665. Because the general and conclusory statement
does not support the conclusion the Forest Service took a “hard look” in its determination
of whether the 2015 wildfires constituted a “significant change,” as required by NEPA,
Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.
III. Irreparable Harm
A party may not obtain a preliminary injunction unless they can show irreparable
harm is likely to result in the absence of the injunction. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). While “[e]nvironmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be
adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long
duration, i.e., irreparable,” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 545
(1987), “this does not mean that any potential environmental injury warrants an
injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir.
2011) (internal quotations omitted). “But actual and irreparable injury…satisfies the
likelihood of irreparable injury requirement articulated in Winter.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted).
Irreparable harm is likely here. Without due consideration under NEPA of the
cumulative effects of the state and private land harvesting (and related) activities and the
additional sedimentation risks those activities add to the river system, irreparable harm is
29

Probert’s memorandum includes a chart, which analyzes how the 2015 wildfires impacted the baseline
condition of the existing Project and other action alternatives. FS663. However, Probert does not
articulate how she quantified these results.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 37

likely to result. See High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 642 (9th Cir.
2004) (“In the NEPA content, irreparable injury flows from the failure to evaluate the
environmental impact of a major federal action.”).
Furthermore, irreparable harm to the Middle Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers’
Wild and Scenic values is likely if the Project is not enjoined. If timber harvesting begins
with construction and reconstruction of roads and helicopter landings, coupled with the
actual harvesting, it may take years to restore the precious Wild and Scenic values—the
scenic and esthetic values which are the essence of the Rivers’ inclusion in the Wild and
Scenic System. Despite the Forest Service Defendants’ argument that the project will
incorporate design criteria to protect these values, a striking illustration of what could
result if the Project is not enjoined is contained in the photographs of the nearby state and
private harvest timber salvages, commonly referred to as “clearcutting.” 30 (Dkt. 14-8.)
IV. Balance of the Equities and Public Interest
With regard to balancing of the hardships, there will be delay in the timber salvage
operation that will cause at least temporary harm to the Forest Service and local

30

Defendants stated during the hearing the term “clearcutting” was being used loosely in the FEIS and by
the Plaintiffs. Defendants clarified that “clearcutting” in this Project is different than the type of
clearcutting performed in the state and private areas. In state and private clearcutting, typically all timber
is removed. In contrast, it is the Forest Service’s standard that, when clearcutting, certain design criteria is
incorporated including feathering and leaving a certain amount of trees (dead or alive) in a harvesting
unit, to lessen the visual impact. Although clearcutting may be different according to private versus Forest
Service standards, there are no objective criteria to guide the public and the Court to determine whether
the type of clearcutting sought to be performed by the Forest Service in this Project is consistent with
Wild and Scenic values.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 38

community. 31 The Forest Service Defendants assert the timber must be salvaged
immediately before it loses economic value; but, the record indicates also the Project is
predicted to span up to a five year period. The Plaintiffs and the Court are committed to
move this case forward in an expedited fashion. Therefore, the Court finds that the
potential harm to the Wild and Scenic corridor and adjacent area, as well as the potential
harm to the river system from the erosion and increased sedimentation, outweighs the
hardships caused by the delay to timber harvesting.
Considering the public interest, the Court recognizes that violations by federal
agencies of NEPA’s protections, as established by Congress, harm the public and the
environment. Lands Council v. Cottrell, 731 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1092 (D. Idaho 2010).
Additionally, in a case such as this, where several acres of timber are sought to be
harvested within and next to land protected by the WSRA, the public’s use and
enjoyment of these lands and their Wild and Scenic values may be irreparably harmed.
On the other hand, the public and local communities also have an economic interest in the
timber and related work produced by the Project. In this case, the Court finds the balance
clearly tips in favor of the public interest in preserving the environment and maintaining
the status quo, given the potential for environmental harm versus the short term economic
benefits to the community.

31

The Forest Service indicated in the post-objection FEIS that current market conditions in the Clearwater
Basin remain high. FS 1329. They indicate also that other sold or foreseeable local timber sales will
contribute to the long-term timber flow of the local community. Id.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 39

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that they are entitled to injunctive
relief on the basis of the likelihood of success on the merits on claims two, four, and five
of their Complaint. Plaintiffs also have established the likelihood of irreparable harm if
the Project is allowed to proceed. Finally, Plaintiffs have established the balance of
hardships weighs in their favor. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for
preliminary injunction.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff’s motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. The Forest
Service and any and all persons or entities operating on its behalf are hereby
enjoined from proceeding with the on-the-ground operations or other activities
associated with the Johnson Bar Fire Salvage Project;
2. A telephonic scheduling conference is set for May 26, 2016, at 3:00 P.M.
mountain time. Plaintiffs shall initiate the conference by placing it to (208) 3349954 and must have all appropriate parties on the line; and
3. Prior to the telephonic scheduling conference, the parties shall meet and confer to
prepare an expedited schedule for adjudication on the merits of all claims in
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. On or before May 23, 2016, the parties
must file with the Court a joint litigation plan.

May 12, 2016

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION- 40

Appendix A
Figure 5– Johnson Bar Fire Salvage project Area Subwatersheds

BAER

Appendix B

-Wildland Fire Management
Directives

-Wildland Fire Management
Directives

-ES & BAR

While many wildfires cause little damage to the
land and pose few threats to fish, wildlife and
people downstream, some fires create situations
that require special efforts to prevent further
catastrophic damage after the fire. Loss of
vegetation exposes soil to erosion; runoff may
increase and cause flash flooding; sediments may move
downstream and damage houses or fill reservoirs; and put
endangered species and community water supplies may be at
risk.

-Wildland Fire Management
Directives
-ES & BAR

-Wildland Fire Management
Directives
-ES & BAR

The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) program
-Burned Area Emergency Response
addresses these situations with the goal of protecting life,
property, water quality, and deteriorated ecosystems from further
damage after the fire is out. Concern for possible post-fire effects
on fish, wildlife, archeological sites and endangered species is
often a primary consideration in the development of a BAER plan. 

BAER objectives are to:
1. Determine if an emergency condition exists after the fire.
2. Alleviate emergency conditions to help stabilize soil; control
water, sediment and debris movement; prevent impairment
of ecosystems; mitigate significant threats to health, safety,
life property and downstream values at risk.
3. Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of emergency
treatments.
BAER is “first aid” – immediate stabilization that often begins
before a fire is fully contained. BAER does not seek to replace 

http://www.nifc.gov/BAER/Page/NIFC_BAER.html[5/12/2016 1:28:15 PM]

BAER

what is damaged by fire, but to reduce further damage due to the
land being temporarily exposed in a fragile condition. 

NIFC

| Reference Materials | Department of Interior BAER Website | USFS BAER Catalog 

http://www.nifc.gov/BAER/Page/NIFC_BAER.html[5/12/2016 1:28:15 PM]

Appendix C

About Forests & Rangelands
Home: V: Catalog: Equipment: Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog

Search

Go

Cable Logging Operations
Forests & Rangelands Home

Description
Cable yarding consists of a system that uses cables to transport material from

Wildland Fire

the woods to the landing. Material may be fully or partially suspended for all

Wildland Fire Leadership Council
Cohesive Strategy »
Quadrennial Fire Review (QFR) »
Wildland Fire Information and »
Technology (WFIT)
Success Stories
Resources »
Related Links

or a portion of the yarding distance. The cables are strung in corridors
through the stand. No yarding equipment other than the cables and a
carriage are operated within the stand itself. There are number of different
rigging configurations that can be used in cable logging.

Rigging Configurations
There are many different rigging configurations, but they are typically broken
down into four distinct types, highlead, standing, running, and live. The
highlead system is not a skyline system. The standing, running, and live
systems are skyline systems, meaning that they all have a skyline cable.

Forest Management
Forest Operations Catalog »
Stewardship Contracting
Tools
Woody Biomass Utilization »

Rangeland Management
Rangeland Fire Prevention, »
Management, and Restoration

Standing Skyline
There are many different ways to rig a standing skyline. The main feature of a
standing configuration is the fact that the skyline remains fixed, its length
does not change during operation. The type of carriage used and whether a
haulback is required determines the number of lines used in a standing
skyline. It is capable of operating with a manual, mechanical or motorized
slack pulling carriage. Without special rigging, this system is not capable of
using a non slackpulling carriage.

Figure 1. - Standing Skyline Configuration.

When operating with a manual or motorized slackpulling carriage, this system
requires a two-drum yarder. It will have a skyline and a mainline. When
operating with a mechanical slackpulling carriage, this system requires a
three-drum yarder. It will have a skyline, a mainline, and a slackpulling line.
When yarding downhill or on a line slope of less than 20% a haulback line is

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

More Information
RitchieWiki - Everything about
Equipment

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

necessary and the number of drums for each carriage configuration needs to
be increased by one.

Running Skyline
In a running skyline system, the skyline runs through a block at the tailspar
and back to the carriage, so that it effectively acts as both the skyline and
the haulback line. Two lines with this setup support the carriage. It has a
separate mainline that runs from the yarder to the carriage. In addition to
the slackpulling carriages, this system can operate with non-slackpulling
carriages since the skyline can be raised and lowered by varying the tension
between the skyline and the mainline. This system typically uses interlocking
yarding drums. This system is not used with a manual slackpulling carriage.

When operating with a mechanical slackpulling carriage, three drums are
required, a mainline, skyline, and slackpulling line. With other carriages
there are only two drums required, a mainline and skyline. This system does
not require a haulback since the skyline acts in that capacity.
Running skylines cannot be operated with intermediate supports.

Figure 2. - Running Skyline Configuration.

Live Skyline
A live skyline is a system in which the skyline itself is raised and lowered to
position the carriage. This is similar to the running skyline except the skyline
is not also used as the haulback and the carriage is supported by only one
cable. This system is operated with non-slackpulling carriages. This system
only requires a two-drum yarder when operating uphill. A third drum for a
haulback is required for downhill yarding and slopes less than 20%.

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

Figure 3. - Live Skyline Configuration.

Highlead
A highlead system is not a skyline and consists of a mainline and a haulback
cable. It requires a minimum of two drums on the yarder. The only carriage a
highlead system is capable of operating with is a grapple, otherwise it usually
is configured with a butt rigging and chokers. It is a ground lead system
except that lift is provided to the turn of logs by the height of the tower as
the logs approach the landing. This system is limited to operating in clearcuts
due to the nature of its setup. It may be operated in either an uphill or
downhill yarding configuration.

Figure 4. - Haulback System.

Jammer or Tong Thrower
This is not a skyline system and consists of only one line, a mainline. The line
either is pulled into the stand manually or is thrown by the yarder. It can
operate with either chokers or a grapple. Yarding distances are usually
limited to 300 feet or less. The prescription is either a clearcut or a heavy
thinning. This is a ground lead system.

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

Figure 5. - Tong Thrower.

Mechanical Configurations
Cable yarding consists of many components that affect the planning and
design of an operation. The basic components are the yarder and the
carriage. The type of yarder and carriage available will determine the type of
cable system that can be used.

Yarders
A rudimentary appreciation of
yarder operation is of assistance
in understanding the problems a
yarding engineer has in running a
yarder to operate the various
cable yarding systems. This is of
special concern when a skyline
payload is marginal. There may
be a difference between
theoretical maximum payload
and the actual maximum pay
load as governed by yarder and
logging system limitations. Some
yarding systems are very
demanding and require a very
skilled yarding engineer to
operate them effectively.
Yarders come with either a
swinging boom or a fixed boom.
Most swinging booms have a
limited height of 30 feet to 60
feet. Fixed boom yarders can
have towers as tall as 100 feet.
Swinging booms permit a wider
skyline corridor and thereby

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Figure 6. - Tower (Fixed Boom) Yarder.

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

reduce the number of yarder
moves. This is a big advantage
when grapple yarding.
A swing boom yarder will provide
more deflection for uphill
yarding than is available to a
fixed tower of the same height if
the fixed tower has to set a log

Figure 7. - Swing Boom Yarder.

length back of the fill slope. On the other hand, fixed towers are usually
taller than the booms on swing boom yarders.

Figure 8. - Swing Machine Based Swing Yarder.

The carrier is the chassis of the yarder. Its function is to support the yarder
equipment and allow transportation. The carrier can be categorized in four
ways:
1. What it moves on:
a. Tracked
b. Wheeled
c. Skid – this type either is mounted on skids, or has a flat bottom, that
allows the yarder to slide along the ground. This type often moves
through the woods by winching themselves through the stand. This is
the modern equivalent of the donkey engine.
2. How it moves:
a. Self-propelled – this is called a mobile yarder.
b. Towed – this is a yarder mounted on a trailer that is pulled by another
vehicle.
c. Carried – this is typical of a skid mounted yarder that must be placed
on a trailer for transport over long distances.
3. Mounting for power-train- some yarders are run from the power take off

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

of a separate tractor, while others have their own power source mounted
on the chassis.
4. The ability to swing – a swing yarder is capable of rotating on its base
allowing it to swing the load out of the way on the landing or to place
the load onto a log deck.

Figure 9. - Skidder Mounted Yarder.

Tower
The functions of the tower are to keep the cable off the ground and provide
lift to the stems, especially near the landing. Towers can be categorized by
the following
1. Tower Mounting
a. Integrated – This is the typical tower mounted directly to the chassis of
the yarder.
b. Independent - Independent spars are typically trees that had been
topped and rigged. These are most often used as tailspars or
intermediate spars.
2. Size
a. Small (<30ft)
b. Medium (~60ft)
c. Large (>90ft)
3. Tower Structure
a. Wooden spar
b. Steel (tubular) tower – this is by far the most common.
c. Lattice tower –Lattice towers are lighter but can be more easily
damaged.
4. Tower Assembly
a. One-piece
b. Folding
c. Telescoping - for on-road transportation, larger towers are either
folding or telescoping.
Towers are designed for a given cable size which should not be exceeded.
Smaller cables can be used but they aren't as well supported in the fairlead

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

sheave grooves and will experience wear.
Truck road alignment may limit movement of large yarder-towers because of
yarder length and tower overhang.
Guyline drums are considered part of the tower and the guylines and raising
or hoisting lines are generally provided with the tower.

Undercarriages
Undercarriages for steel towers are designed for efficiency in yarding but they
also have to be designed to meet highway load limits and to traverse steep,
narrow, winding logging roads. The larger the yarder and tower the more
complicated the design. Some of the largest machines have to be equipped
with jeeps and pups, or must be disassembled to meet highway load limits
and to traverse winding roads. A loader or crane is needed to disassemble a
large yarder tower.
Trailer Mounted Undercarriage (TRLM)
These undercarriages are relatively inexpensive but require a log truck or
highway tractor to move them any distance. They can be moved short
distances by a crawler tractor if they are properly equipped.
Self Propelled Crawler Mounted Undercarriage (SPCM)
These machines are a little less expensive than SPRM but more than TRLM
undercarriages. However, a lowboy is needed to make long moves. They are
designed to facilitate short moves.
Self Propelled Rubber Mounted Undercarriage (SPRM)
These undercarriages speed up moves to new landings, units or sales. They
eliminate the need for a log truck or highway tractor to make the move.
However, they cost more than TRLM or SPCM undercarriages.

On long highway moves SPRM yarders can be pulled by a highway tractor to
speed up the move.

Grade ability in the SPRM carriers is normally considered to be 25 percent
and the minimum turning radius is approximately 50 feet. They have been
moved on slopes up to 35 percent on occasion. A smooth grade with very
little side slope is needed when moving a SPRM yarder tower off regular truck
roads

Winches/Drums
The function of the winch sets on a yarder is to transfers the power from the
power-train to the cables to do the work. A yarder can have 1 - 12 working
winches. The more winches on the yarder the more versatile it is. The drum
on the winch set stores the cable. While older yarders typically used
mechanical drives to power the winches, modern yarders are all hydraulic for
smoother and more continuous transfer of power. In many instances a cable
needs to be held, or if gravity is pulling a cable off the drum then it needs to
be slowed, hence the need for good brakes. When slowing a drum, the brake
must dissipate a large amount of energy as heat. The older brakes were
typically air cooled, but most modern yarders have water cooled brakes.

Interlocked drums are drums which act together to maintain the tension
between two or more lines. They are used in running skylines to maintain the
tension when moving the carriage.

Cab/Controls
The function of the cab and controls is to safely ‘house’ the operator and
control the operation of the yarder. For older and/or smaller yarders, the
operator may be standing next to the yarder during operation. On modern
mobile yarders the cab is mounted high on the chassis to provide the best
possible visibility for the operator.

Cable/Wire Rope

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

The cable used will determine the load capacity of the system and the
maintenance schedule. Cable, or wire rope, is made up of wires that are
wound into strands. The strands are then wound into the finished wire rope.
There are many different configurations of wire rope. The direction in which
the wires are wound into strands, the number of wires in each strand, the
direction the strands are wound, the number of strands in the rope, and the
material the rope is made of classify wire rope.
A wire is a single metallic wire that is either round or shaped.
A strand is a group of wires helically laid around a center in one or more
layers.
The core is an axial member around which strands are laid to form a wire
rope. It may be either steel, natural fibers, polypropylene, or even a
small-diameter wire rope.
A rope is a group of strands helically laid around a core.
The number of strands and the number of wires per strand classify wire rope.
For example, a 6x19 IWRC rope that has six strands, each of which is made
up of 19 wires. It also has an independent wire rope core, IWRC. The number
of wires per strand directly affects the flexibility and resistance to abrasion,
the more wires per strand the more flexible and the higher abrasion
resistance.

Figure 10. - Cross Sections of Wire Rope, Courtesy of Integrated Publishing.

The direction in which the strands are laid is the lay. A regular lay aligns the
wires along the length of the rope for improved abrasion resistance. A lang
lay aligns the wires at an angle to the length of the rope.
Much of the wire rope used today is swaged. Swaging compresses the wire
rope axially which improves the life of the rope and increases the load
capacity. The advantages of swaged rope are:
increased strength
increased drum capacity
improved resilience to crushing and abrasion
improved resistance to rotation on sheaves
smoother surface improves spooling on drums with less vibration
Manufacturers provide tables with breaking strengths for their ropes. The safe
working load, SWL, is a fraction of the breaking strength, usually one third.
This is referred to as having a factor of safety of 3. As an example, a wire

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

rope with a breaking strength of 103400 lbs has a SWL of 34500 lbs when the
factor of safety is 3.
Damage to wire ropes can occur from:
rubbing over rocks
rubbing against each other
crushing on the drum
rubbing at the top of the tower
overloading
lack of lubrication
It is important to have good ropes and maintain those ropes to provide for the
safety of the crew and prevent damage to equipment.

Carriage
A skyline carriage is a wheeled device that rides back and forth on the skyline
for yarding. Carriages are described as either slackpulling or non slackpulling.
Slackpulling refers to the ability to pull slack in the skidding line or have the
skidding line pulled through the carriage, by hand or mechanically. A nonslackpulling carriage has no means of allowing the skidding line to be
contained in or pass through it. Without special rigging, this prevents lateral
yarding. A slackpulling carriage either permits the mainline to be used as a
skid line and pulled through the carriage, or it has its own drum with a skid
line that can be pulled out of the carriage to permit lateral yarding.

Figure 11. - Chart to Characterize Carriages.

Non-Slackpulling
This type of carriage has no means of allowing a skidding line to be contained
in or pass through it. It may be moved laterally with a Dutchman line or by
sideblocking. The chokers usually are shackled directly to the carriage or to a
short line attached to the carriage.
Non-slackpulling carriages, because of their inability to laterally yard without
damaging leave trees, should only be used on clearcuts. Attempts to use
these carriages in partial cuts in the past have had dismal results.
Fall block systems do yard laterally, however, the carriage isn't held in
position on the skyline. As a result, fall block systems may damage leave
trees in a partial cut when the turn is laterally yarded to the skyline.

Grapple Carriage
A unique option for a carriage type is the grapple – shown in the chart as
being a non-slack-pulling carriage. Using a grapple carriage eliminates the
need for a choker setter and can save a lot of time. However there are quite
a few limitations associated with the grapple – you can only pick up

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

trees/logs directly under the skyline, and in most cases you are limited to
picking up one tree/log at a time.
The design of a grapple carriage is similar to some of the mechanical
slackpulling carriages in that they must provide a means to open or close the
grapple. This can be done with a line from the yarder or by using an engine
or power device in the carriage. The grapple carriage cannot yard laterally
unless it is sideblocked.

Slackpulling
This type of carriage can have a self-contained skidding line or a mechanism
to permit the skidding line to be pulled through it by hand or mechanically.
The carriage may be further classified as to how the slack is actually pulled.
Slackpulled by Hand
This type of carriage uses a two drum yarder. The mainline passes through the
carriage and becomes the skidding line. The carriage, after it is clamped to
the skyline, acts as a block through which the mainline is pulled by the
choker setter. A slack kicker may be used on the yarder to assist the choker
setter in pulling slack.
This type of carriage is generally limited to uphill yarding (using a gravity
outhaul) so that the choker setter can pull slack downhill with the assistance
of gravity.
Slackpulled by Yarder
This type of carriage is designed so that a slackpulling line from the yarder
pulls the skidding line out of the carriage. The skiddingline may be contained
on a drum in the carriage, or it may be attached to the mainline from the
yarder. The carriage may have a radio controlled clamp or be held in position
by the haulback.
Slackpulled by Carriage
This type of carriage uses some type of power device in the carriage for
pulling slack. The power may be in the form of mechanical springs, hydraulic
motors, or diesel or propane-fueled engines. The carriage will clamp to the
skyline and is remotely controlled by radio or by mechanical springs.
If mechanical springs or a propane engine is used, yarding is limited to level
or uphill, due to the difficulty in pulling the mainline uphill.

Line Nomenclature
There are many names for the lines used in the different cable configurations.
The basic terms are mainline, skyline, haulback, slackpulling, and dropline or
skidding line. The skyline is the cable on which the carriage rides. All skyline
systems contain a skyline. The mainline is the line that runs from the tower
to the carriage. This cable pulls the carriage back to the landing. The
haulback is used in downhill operations and where the line slope is less than
20% and the carriage requires assistance to get into the unit. A slackpulling
line is used with mechanical slackpulling carriages that require a separate
line to raise and lower the dropline. The dropline, or skidding line, is the line
to which the grapple or chokers are attached. It may be attached to the
mainline, as in a mechanical slackpulling carriage, or it may be mounted on a
drum in the carriage.
The haywire or strawline is used when rigging a cable road, which is a small,
light cable that can be more easily pulled into the unit. It is then attached to
the larger operating lines to pull them into position.
Guylines are used to support the tower and any tail trees, tail spars, or
intermediate supports. Yarders are equipped with drums holding the guylines
necessary to support the tower.
The number of lines used in the system will dictate the number of drums

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

required on the yarder. The most basic setup requires just a mainline and
one drum on the yarder. The most drums used are four and will contain a
skyline, mainline, haulback, and slackpulling line.

Cable Operation Crew
There are many crew positions in cable yarding operations. Typical titles and
descriptions are included here.
Side Rod – the supervisor of the logging operation.
Hooktender – the person responsible for cable road changes and helps with
supervision.
Rigging Slinger – The person that supervises the choker setting operation,
selecting logs to be choked and sending radio signals to the yarder
operator.
Choker Setters – Attaches the choker cables to the logs.
Chaser – Unhooks the choker cables from the logs at the landing.
Yarder operator – runs the yarder.
Loader Operator – runs the loader.

Operational Considerations
Physical Limitations
Cable yarding systems are typically used where steep slopes do not allow
ground based extraction equipment to operate safely or where ground
conditions do not permit travel by ground based extraction equipment.
Deflection
Skyline configurations require adequate deflection in order to carry a load.
Deflection refers to the amount of sag in the skyline. Tension is required to
suspend the skyline over its length. The more tension required to achieve
suspension over obstacles, the lower the payload that can be carried by the
line. Higher tensions also require stronger anchors. Deflection is affected by
the lay of the ground under the skyline and slope over which the skyline is
run. A convex slope will limit the amount of deflection that can be achieved
and will often require intermediate supports.
Anchors
Cable operations, other than tong throwers, are limited by the availability of
suitable anchors. Anchors are necessary to support the yarder, intermediate
supports, and tailholds. Standing trees or stumps are often used as anchors.
Suitable trees are determined by tree size, soil holding capacity, and their
locations in respect to the equipment being anchored. Where suitable stump
or tree anchors are not present, deadman anchors or equipment may be
used. Deadman anchors are logs buried in the ground to provide an anchor.
Equipment, such as a heavy crawler tractor, may be used as a mobile anchor
where available and necessary.

Treatment Options
Highlead cable operations are used in clearcut treatments due to the rigging
requirements. Skyline configurations can be used in either clearcutting or
thinning operations. Corridors, normally 8 to 12 feet wide, must be cut in the
stand to allow free passage of the logs. In visually sensitive areas, parallel
corridors should be used. Radial parallels result in clearcut areas where the
corridors converge at the landing.

Safety Concerns
There are a number of safety issues when working around cable operations.
Anchor failure can be mitigated using solid anchors and proper anchor
building techniques. Cable failures can result from inadequate deflection,

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

poorly maintained cables, trying to haul loads larger than the safe working
load of the cables, and numerous other factors.

Workers should never work in the bight of the line. Systems must be designed
and laid out to avoid this possibility.

Downhill yarding landings should be designed with adequate runout space to
prevent logs and debris from rolling downhill into the landing area where
people and equipment are working.

System Interactions
Manual felling is often used with cable extraction due to the inability to
operate mechanical equipment in the stand. In some cases, mechanical
felling and processing may be used where soil conditions and terrain permit.
Mechanized felling equipment may not have the same restrictions as
extraction equipment since ground disturbance can be minimized using slash
mats and fewer passes over the same ground. Mechanized equipment has the
advantage of locating turns of logs in one place, decreasing the amount of
time required to choke a turn. Mechanized felling does increase the number
of corridors required to yard the stand.

Research
The following is a selection of representative research studies and reports
done on harvest systems that include cable extraction. These reports may be
used to get an idea of productivity and impacts of different systems and uses
of cable extraction as well as some of their limitations. When reading these
reports, keep in mind that they describe specific systems and stand
treatments. Trying to apply the lessons learned from these reports to systems
and treatments outside of the studies’ scope may have unintended or
unforeseen consequences.
This is not a complete listing of research on the use of cable systems.
Additional information can be found at the USDA Forest Service Treesearch
website. This site provides reports on research performed by Forest Service
Research and Development scientists and their collaborators.
Title: Yarding cost for the Koller K300 cable yarder: results from field
trials and simulations
Authors: Huyler, Neil K.; LeDoux, Chris B.
Date: 1997
Source: The Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(1): 5-9.
Station ID: JRNL-NRS-14
Description: This paper describes results from field studies and simulation
that can be used to estimate the yarding cost for the Koller K300 cable
yarder. Yarding costs can be estimated for clearcuts and light and heavy
thinnings in eastern hardwoods. Yarding costs can be estimated with a
handheld calculator, or the data can be incorporated into stump-to-mill
desktop PC and mainframe computer programs. The results can be a
valuable tool for loggers, managers, and planners considering the use of
small- to medium-size cable yarders to extract timber from eastern
hardwood stands.
Title: Environmentally Sound Timber Extracting Techniques for Small Tree
Harvesting
Author: Wang, Lihai
Date: 1999
Source: 199 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Paper No. 995053,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 18-21, 1999
Description: Due to large area disturbed and great deal of energy cost
during-its operations, introducing or applying the appropriate timber
extracting techniques could significantly reduce the impact of timber
extraction operations to forest environment while pursuing the reasonable
operation costs. Four environmentally sound timber extraction techniques

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Forest Operations Equipment Catalog: Cable Logging

for small tree harvesting, particularly for thinning operations, were
presented and introduced in this paper. These techniques included animal
skidding and animal-machine, single circulating cable yarding system,
small farming tractor, and mini forwarder. The results of evaluation, test
or practices indicated that these timber extracting techniques are
feasible, applicable and reasonable in small tree harvesting with a
relatively low impact to environment and a moderate operation cost.
Title: Economics of hardwood silviculture using skyline and conventional
logging
Authors: Baumgras, John E.; Miller, Gary W.; LeDoux, Chris B.
Date: 1995
Source: In: Lowery, G.; Meyer, D., eds. Proceedings of the 23rd annual
hardwood symposium, advances in hardwood utilization: following
profitability from the woods through rough dimension; 1995 May 17-20;
Cashiers, NC. Memphis, TN: National Hardwood Lumber Association: 5-17.
Description: Managing Appalachian hardwood forests to satisfy the growing
and diverse demands on this resource will require alternatives to
traditional silvicultural methods and harvesting systems. Determining the
relative economic efficiency of these alternative methods and systems
with respect to harvest cash flows is essential. The effects of silvicultural
methods and roundwood prices on harvesting revenue are presented for
skyline and conventional skidder logging. Silvicultural methods evaluated
include single-tree selection, group selection, even-age management,
two-age management, diameter-limit cutting, and commercial thinning.
Results indicate that harvesting systems had less impact on harvesting
revenue than silvicultural methods or roundwood prices, and that
hardwood markets can significantly affect economic trade-offs associated
with forest management alternatives.

Accessibility | Contacts | Disclaimers | PDF Format | Privacy Policy | Site Map

https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/cable.shtml[5/12/2016 1:29:10 PM]

Last modified: Tuesday, 07-Jul-2015 16:24:47 CDT