Sierra Club v. Martin
| Citation | 110 F.3d 1551 |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-8840,96-8840 |
| Parties | , 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,057, 97 FCDR 2802, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 852 SIERRA CLUB, The Wilderness Society, Georgia Forestwatch, Inc., The Armuchee Alliance, Rabun County Coalition to Save the Forest, Inc., Friends of Georgia, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George G. MARTIN, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests, Robert C. Joslin, Regional Forester of the United States Forest Service for Region Eight, United States Forest Service, Bert Thomas, Cook Brothers Lumber Company, Parton Lumber Co., Inc., Thrift Brothers Lumber Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Ashley Watson, Kilpatrick & Cody, Atlanta, GA, J. Michael Klise, Steven Quarles John A. Macleod, Ellen J. Durkee, Robert Klarquist, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Appellant Section, Environment Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellants.
John J. Rademacher, American Farm Bureau Federation, Park Ridge, IL, James C. Kilbourne, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae.
Donald Stack, Martin Shelton, Law Offices of Donald Stack, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Sierra Club.
Kathleen Rogers, Mary A. Minette, National Audobon Society, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae National Audobon Society.
William J. Snape, III, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Defenders of Wildlife.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
The United States Forest Service (Forest Service) and a group of timber contractors, including Bert Thomas, Cook Brothers Lumber Company, Inc., Parton Lumber Company, Inc., and Thrift Brothers Lumber Company, Inc. (collectively Timber Contractors), appeal the issuance of a preliminary injunction on May 8, 1996, ordering the Forest Service to stop all timber cutting and road building activities in seven timber projects in the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests in Georgia (collectively Chattahoochee). We reverse.
In 1991, pursuant to the Chattahoochee's land and resource management plan, the Forest Service proposed to sell the rights to cut timber on seven parcels of land. 1 The seven parcels--Dunaway Gap, Tibbs Trail, Upper Swallows Creek, Compartment 59, Compartment 05, Big Net, and South Corn Ridge--encompass approximately 2,103 acres out of the 846,000 acres that comprise the Chattahoochee. Each parcel was subject to a separate, formal environmental assessment in which an interdisciplinary team of Forest Service employees, aided by public comment, considered the proposed sale and possible alternatives. 2 By late 1995, after it was determined that the proposed projects would have no significant environmental impact, all seven projects were approved and opened for bids.
On April 17, 1996, a coalition of national and Georgia-based environmental organizations, including Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Georgia Forestwatch, Inc., The Armuchee Alliance, Rabun County Coalition to Save the Forest, Inc., and Friends of Georgia, Inc. (collectively Sierra Club), filed an action challenging the Forest Service's decision to proceed with the timber projects. 3 The complaint alleged that the decision of the Forest Service to allow timber cutting, logging, clearcutting, road building, and related activities in the seven parcels violated the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, 4 the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq., and their implementing regulations. Sierra Club sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. It also sought a declaratory judgment that the Forest Service was in violation of the CWA, MBTA, and the NFMA. On April 19, 1996, in lieu of the district court's granting a temporary restraining order, Sierra Club and the Forest Service stipulated to a 20-day cessation of all timber-cutting and road-building activities.
On May 8, 1996, the district court ordered the Forest Service to "cause the cessation of all timbercutting and roadbuilding activities," "not permit the commencement or continuation of those activities," and "not offer any of those projects that are unsold" through September 15, 1996. The district court premised the preliminary injunction on a finding that there was a substantial likelihood that Sierra Club would ultimately prevail on the merits of its claim that the Forest Service's actions violated the MBTA, and reserved ruling on Sierra Club's remaining claims. On June 17, 1996, the district court allowed Timber Contractors, who had existing contracts to purchase timber in four of the seven parcels, to intervene. Shortly thereafter, the Forest Service and Timber Contractors instituted the present appeal challenging the district court's order issuing the MBTA-based preliminary injunction. 5
The Chattahoochee is home to numerous species of neotropical migratory birds, which typically winter in Mexico or the Caribbean and spend the nesting season in the Chattahoochee. These birds include species designated for protection under the MBTA. Sierra Club asserted that the Forest Service's timber contracts violate the MBTA because they allowed timber cutting during the migratory bird nesting season and that tree cutting during nesting season would directly kill at least 2,000 to 9,000 neotropical migratory birds. 6 The Forest Service did not dispute that cutting down a tree with an active nest directly killed migratory birds. 7 The district court held that the Forest Service's actions violated the MBTA because "thousands of migratory birds will be killed directly by cutting down trees with nests and juvenile birds in them." Relying on Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979), the district court concluded that Sierra Club could obtain injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, for the Forest Service's violation of the MBTA, even though the MBTA does not create a private right of action. 8 The district court's preliminary injunction extended only through September 15, 1996, the date a Forest Service memorandum identified as the time after which timber cutting would have "no significant effect on the nesting success of migratory birds." 9
On appeal, the Forest Service asserts that the MBTA is a criminal statute which does not address formal agency action; therefore, notwithstanding the APA's provisions for judicial review, there is no statutory violation for which a remedy would be appropriate. Sierra Club counters that it states a claim under the APA, with the MBTA serving as the predicate law with which the Forest Service's actions are not in compliance. 10
We apply a mixed standard when reviewing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction:
We review the factfindings of the district court, to the extent they are properly presented on appeal, under the clearly erroneous standard. The district court's application of the law is subject to de novo review. We review the district court's grant of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion, meaning we must affirm unless we at least determine that the district has made a "clear error of judgment," or has applied an incorrect legal standard.
SunAmerica Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 77 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 79, 136 L.Ed.2d 37 (1996) (citations omitted).
Although the preliminary injunction at issue has already expired, this appeal is not moot to the extent that the injunction represents a continuing controversy capable of repetition, yet evading review. To satisfy the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness, the Supreme Court has required that (1) there be a reasonable expectation or a demonstrated probability that the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party, and (2) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482-83, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183-84, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982); National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n v. Alabama Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 924 F.2d 1001, 1003 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1206, 111 S.Ct. 2800, 115 L.Ed.2d 973 (1991).
The seasonal nature of migratory bird nesting makes it likely that the Forest Service will face another MBTA injunction at the start of the next nesting season. In spite of the expedited nature of the present appeal, the four-month term of the preliminary injunction was too short to allow for appellate review prior to its expiration. Any future MBTA-based injunction in this lengthy and complex litigation will also be too short to be fully litigated prior to its expiration. As a result, the expired MBTA-based preliminary injunction does not represent a moot controversy.
Sierra Club claims a right to judicial review of the Forest Service's formal actions under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702. 11 As a procedural statute, the APA does not expand the substantive duties of a federal agency, but merely provides the framework for judicial review of agency action. Accordingly, "[t]here is no right to sue for a violation of the APA in the absence of a 'relevant statute' whose violation 'forms the legal basis for [the] complaint.' " El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc. v. Executive Office of Immigration Review, 959 F.2d 742, 753 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 883, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3186, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990)); see also Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States, 86 F.3d 789,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. U.S. Forest Service
... ... Defense Project, James Bensman on behalf of Heartwood and Philip Coleman on behalf of the Sierra Club. (Admin. Record, Folder C-1). By letter dated April 2, 1997, the appellants were notified by ... 48) ... In a very recent case, Sierra Club v. Martin, 110 F.3d 1551 (11th Cir.1997), this precise issue was addressed. In Martin, environmental ... ...
- Sierra Club v. Martin
-
Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla.
... ... agencies, are specifically instructed not to 'take' endangered species[.]"); see also Sierra Club v. Martin, 110 F.3d 1551, 1555 (11th Cir.1997). Furthermore, contrary to Volusia County's and ... ...
-
Chattooga Conservancy v. Jacobs, CIV.A.1:01-CV1976ODE.
... ... Project, Forest Conservation Council, Georgia ForestWatch, Ouachita Watch League, Sierra Club, Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Wild Alabama, Wild South, and The Wilderness ... Schwartz, Attorney at Law, P.C., Atlanta, Eric Eugene Huber, Sierra Club, Boulder, CO, Martin J. Bergoffen, Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Asheville, NC, Ray Vaughan, WildLaw, ... ...
-
Chopping down the birds: logging and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
...Management Plan in Shawnee National Forest violated MBTA); Sierra Club v. Martin, 933 F. Supp. 1559, 1563 (N.D. Ga. 1996), rev'd, 110 F.3d 1551 (11th Cir. 1997) (seeking injunctive relief under APA for timber projects that violated MBTA); Newton County Wildlife Ass'n v. United States Forest......
-
Environmental law and national security: can existing exemptions in environmental laws preserve DoD training and operational prerogatives without new legislation?
...113 F.3d 110, 115 (8th Cir. 1997) (concluding that the Forest Service is not a "person" for purposes of the MBTA); Sierra Club v. Martin, 110 F.3d 1551 (11th Cir. 1997); Curry v. United States, 988 F. Supp. 541 (W.D. Penn. (78) 50 C.F.R. § 21. (79) See generally, AFI 32-7064, Integrated Nat......
-
Environmental Law - W. Scott Laseter and Julie v. Mayfield
...Law, 42 Mercer L. Rev. 1411 (1991)). 2. United States v. Olin Corp., 107 F.3d 1506 (11th Cir. 1997). 3. Sierra Club v. Martin, 110 F.3d 1551 (11th Cir. 1997). 4. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 105 F.3d 599 (11th Cir. 1997). 5. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601-9675 (1995 & Supp. 1998). 6. ......