## Facts

- In 1999, the Megram, Fawn, and Onion fires (the “Big Bar Complex Fires”) burned significant acreage, including about 59,220 acres within the Six Rivers National Forest.
- The Forest Service concluded the fires left extensive dead and dying vegetation that could increase future fire fuels.
- The Forest Service proposed a “Fuels Reduction for Community Protection” project on the Six Rivers National Forest, including post-fire commercial logging, fuel-break construction, and related road work.
- The Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Phase 1 of the project.
- Environmental organizations sued, alleging the FEIS violated NEPA’s “hard look” requirement and that the project was inconsistent with the Six Rivers National Forest Plan under NFMA, including soil and wildlife-related standards.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the FEIS satisfied NEPA by adequately disclosing and analyzing scientific dispute over whether post-fire logging and fuel breaks reduce future wildfire intensity.
2. Whether the FEIS adequately analyzed cumulative impacts and similar actions, including effects on management indicator species, fuel-break maintenance, and firefighting tactics.
3. Whether the project complied with NFMA by demonstrating consistency with specific forest-plan requirements, including the soil porosity standard.
4. Whether injunctive relief was warranted if statutory violations were found.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ summary judgment motions.
- The court held the FEIS violated NEPA by failing to adequately disclose and analyze opposing scientific views regarding the project’s asserted wildfire-intensity reduction benefits.
- The court held the FEIS violated NEPA by failing to adequately disclose or analyze cumulative impacts on management indicator species, fuel-break maintenance, and firefighting tactics, and by insufficiently considering cumulative and similar actions.
- The court held the project was not an improperly connected action with other post-fire logging projects, but still required adequate cumulative/similar-action analysis.
- The court held the project violated NFMA by failing to demonstrate compliance with the forest plan’s soil porosity standard, while complying with NFMA in other challenged respects.
- The court enjoined further implementation of the project pending preparation of an adequate supplemental EIS and correction of the identified defects.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires an agency to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences, including disclosure and reasoned treatment of responsible opposing scientific views when scientific dispute bears on key project effects or benefits.
- NEPA requires a meaningful analysis of cumulative impacts; even where actions are not “connected,” the agency must still address cumulative and similar actions and their combined environmental effects.
- NFMA requires site-specific projects to be consistent with the governing forest plan, and the administrative record must demonstrate compliance with specific, enforceable plan standards (including measurable soil requirements such as soil porosity).
- When NEPA and NFMA violations are shown and environmental harm may result from proceeding under an inadequate analysis, a court may enjoin implementation until compliance is achieved through further NEPA documentation and plan-consistency support.

## Conclusion

The court found Phase 1 of the Six Rivers post-fire fuels reduction project was approved under an FEIS that inadequately addressed scientific dispute and certain cumulative impacts under NEPA and failed to demonstrate compliance with a forest-plan soil porosity requirement under NFMA, and it halted project implementation until the Forest Service completed a supplemental EIS and cured the compliance deficiencies.


Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 199 F. Supp. 2d 971 (N.D. Cal. 2002)