Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
63 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sierra Club v. Marsh, 714 F. Supp. 539 (D. Me. 1989)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1090 Balancing environmental harm against injunction risks12 citing casesinjunction against timbering would lead to damage of timber by insects, rendering it worthless2 citing courts put it this way · 9 listed here
  • Sierra Club v. Marsh, 714 F. Supp. 539 (D. Me. 1989).published
    Absent a showing that environmental harm is likely if an injunction does issue, see American Motorcyclist Association v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962, 966-67 (9th Cir.1983); Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.…
  • Alaska ex rel. Yukon Flats Sch. Dist. v. Native Vill. of Venetie, 856 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1988).published 2 cites
    In Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 565 F.2d 549, 551 (9th Cir.1977), this court treated factors two and three above as a single factor (citing Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.1975)), and f…
  • Big Hole Ranchers Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 686 F. Supp. 256 (D. Mont. 1988).published
    Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 1985); citing, Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.1975).
  • Oklahoma Wildlife Fed'n v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 681 F. Supp. 1470 (N.D. Okla. 1988).published
    Realty Income Trust v. Eckerd, 564 F.2d 447 (D.C.Cir.1977); see, e.g., American Motorcyclist Ass’n v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962 (9th Cir.1983); Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. Schlapfer, 518 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.1975).
  • Vill. of Gambell v. Hodel, 774 F.2d 1414 (9th Cir. 1985).published 2 cites
    (the policies underlying an environmental protection statute (NEPA) "weight the scale in favor of those seeking the suspension of all action until the Act's requirements are met)
  • Sierra Club v. John O. Marsh, Jr., 769 F.2d 868 (1st Cir. 1985).published
    See Scientists’ Institute for Public Information v. AEC, 481 F.2d 1079, 1087 (D.C.Cir.1973) (EIS required for overall project where individual parts of project are related logically or geographically); City of Rochester v. U.S. Postal Serv…
  • Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1985).published 4 cites
    (injunction against timbering would lead to damage of timber by insects, rendering it worthless)
  • Save Our Ecosystems, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. William P. Clark, Sec'y of the Interior, Defendant-Cross-Appellee, Paul E. Merrell, Cross-Appellants v. John R. Block, Sec'y of Agric., Cross-Appellees, 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984).published
    The "rare circumstance" arose in American Motorcyclist Association v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962 (9th Cir.1983) (AMA), where the court found more harm would result to the environment from granting the injunction than by refusing to grant it. 16 Se…
  • Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984).published
    The “rare circumstance” arose in American Motorcyclist Association v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962 (9th Cir.1983) (AMA), where the court found more harm would result to the environment from granting the injunction than by refusing to grant it. 16 Se…
court refused to enjoin grant of access to permit logging of infested trees because of risk that timber would be worthless and risk that adjacent forestland would be infestedno pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
q1 “weight the scales in favor of those seeking the suspension of all action until the act's requirements are met....”1 citing case1 citing court quotes it
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ALPINE LAKES PROTECTION SOCIETY, a Washington Corporation
v.
T. A. SCHLAPFER, Regional Forester of Region Six of the United States Forest Service, individually and in his official capacity, and Pack River Company, a Washington Corporation
No. 75-1651.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 1, 1975.
Published opinion
518 F.2d 1089
Malachy R. Murphy, Deputy Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., Robert E. Ordal, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants., Edward J. Parry, Robert M. Sweeney, Asst. U.S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., Wallace H. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Carl Strass, Glen R. Goodsell, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Dler, Hufste, Koelsch.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

Before KOELSCH and HUFSTE-DLER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Appellants’ motion for injunction pending appeal is denied.

Although the important congressional policy expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., has been said to weight the scale in favor of those seeking the suspension of all action until the Act’s requirements are met (see, e. g., Lathan v. Volpe (9th Cir. 1971) 455 F.2d 1111, 1116-17), the unusual circumstances in this case call for an individual weighing of the equities according to the traditional three-factor test: (1) Are the moving parties likely to prevail on the merits? (2) does the balance of irreparable damage favor the issuance of the injunction? and (3) does the public interest support granting the injunction? (Schwartz v. Covington (9th Cir. 1965) 341 F.2d 537, 538.)

Although we do not reach the merits of appellants’ claim that the- Forest Service’s failure to prepare a full-scale environmental impact statement (EIS) before granting the challenged easement was contrary to the requirements of NEPA, we observe that the procedures employed by the Forest Service raise a substantial issue on appeal.

Characterizing any piecemeal development of a project as “insignificant” merits close scrutiny to prevent the policies of NEPA from being nibbled away by multiple increments, no one of which may' in and of itself be important enough to compel preparation of a full EIS. (See, eg., Named Individual Members of San Antonio Conservation Soc’y v. Texas Highway Dep’t (5th Cir. 1971) 446 F.2d 1013.) Appellants have also raised a question concerning the adequacy of notice provided by the 1972 EIS, now claimed to represent a broad consideration of the management strategy to be employed in the Coulter Planing Unit. NEPA is essentially a procedural statute (Daly v. Volpe (9th Cir. 1975) 514 F.2d 1106), and we have recognized that careful compliance with its provisions is necessary to fulfill the statute’s fundamental goals:

“[The EIS’s] form, content, and preparation [must] substantially (1) provide decision-makers with an environmental disclosure sufficiently detailed to aid in the substantive decision whether to proceed with the project in the light of its environmental consequences, and (2) make available to the public, information of the proposed project’s environmental impact and encourage public participation in the development of that information.” Trout Unlimited v. Morton (9th Cir. 1974) 509 F.2d 1276.

The record before us does not show that the balance of irreparable damage favors the issuance of the injunction pending appeal. Appellants allege that irreparable harm will occur to their interests as the continued logging permitted by the use of the nearly completed access road further reduces the area’s wilderness characteristics and effectively removes it from consideration for inclusion in the wilderness preservation system. Appellees contend that they face a much more tangible and immediate harm: many of the trees on the company’s property are insect infested and, absent prompt removal, the timber will be worthless.

Finally, the public interest will not be served by granting the injunction, because access is necessary to remove the diseased timber and to prevent the insect infestation from spreading throughout the adjacent national forest lands.

The balance of the equities do not favor the granting of an injunction.