American River Trees, et al. v. Central Valley Protection Board, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in a challenge to federal and state approval and implementation of portions of the American River Common Features 2016 Flood Risk Management Project. The court found serious questions concerning whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adequately considered bioengineering and other alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act, and it addressed irreparable environmental harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest. The injunction sought to prevent ground- or vegetation-disturbing activities, including tree removal, in the Contract 3B area.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs demonstrated serious questions as to whether the Army Corps considered a reasonable range of alternatives required by NEPA and whether its adoption of the record of decision and 2025 Final SEIS/SEIR was arbitrary or capricious under the APA. The agency's failure to discuss bioengineering as a reasonable alternative or as an alternative eliminated from detailed study, despite its prior representations that bioengineering would be analyzed, was sufficient at the preliminary-injunction stage.
2. Plaintiffs demonstrated that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction because the planned removal of mature and heritage trees would cause environmental injury and impair their members' specific recreational, aesthetic, and other interests in the affected area.
3. The balance of equities tipped sharply in plaintiffs' favor and the injunction was in the public interest because the likely environmental harm from clearing mature trees outweighed the asserted economic and flood-risk harms from temporarily delaying only Contract 3B vegetation-clearing activities.
4. The court exercised its discretion to require only a nominal $1,000 bond rather than the $256,815 bond requested by federal defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated serious questions on the merits of their NEPA and APA claims based on the Army Corps' failure to analyze or explain the elimination of a bioengineering alternative for Contract 3B.
2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable environmental and recreational injury absent preliminary relief.
3. Whether the balance of equities and public interest favored enjoining vegetation-clearing activities pending a decision on the merits.
4. Whether the court should require plaintiffs to post security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), and if so, in what amount.

Disposition

other