Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00211/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00211-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF No. 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-GGH

CALIFORNIA, ex rel. EDMUND G.

BROWN, Attorney General,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DENYING STATE OF

CALIFORNIA’S MOTION FOR

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

AGRICULTURE; MIKE JOHANNS, AND GRANTING PARTIAL STAY 

Secretary of the Department OF REMEDY ORDER

of Agriculture; MARK REY, 

Under Secretary of the

Department of Agriculture;

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;

DALE BOSWORTH, Chief, United

States Forest Service; and

BERNARD WEINGARDT, Regional

Forester, Pacific Southwest 

Region, United States Forest 

Service, 

Federal Defendants.

and

TUOLUMNE COUNTY ALLIANCE FOR 

RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT, et al.; 

CALIFORNIA SKI INDUSTRY ASS'N;

QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP, et al.;

and CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S ASS'N,

Defendant-Intervenors. 

_________________________________/

----oo0oo----

Case 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-KJN Document 231 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 See Sierra Nevada Forest Prot. Campaign (“SNFPC”) v. Rey, 1

573 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (E.D. Cal. 2008) [Dkt. No. 255]; California

(“California”) v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 05-211, 2008 WL

3863479 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19 and Sept. 3, 2008) [Dkt. No. 172];

Pacific Rivers Council (“PRC”) v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 05-953,

2008 WL 4291209 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2008) [Dkt. No. 153];

California Forestry Ass'n (“CFA”) v. Bosworth, No. 05-905, 2008

WL 4370074 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2008) [Dkt. No. 131]. 

The parties did not request oral argument and, because the 2

Court concluded that such argument was not of material

assistance, it ordered the matter submitted on the briefs. E.D.

Local Rule 230(g).

This Court has resolved the liability issues raised in four

related cases challenging the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment (also referred to as the “2004 Framework” or the

“SNFPA”). Moreover, in separate proceedings, the Court has

crafted an appropriate remedy. Plaintiff, the State of 1

California, has appealed this Court's rulings and now seeks an

injunction requiring that Forest Service timber harvesting

projects comply with the 2001 Framework pending completion of the

appellate process. California also asks the Court to stay its

order requiring the Forest Service to prepare a Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”) by May 1, 2010.

For the reasons set forth below, the State's motion to

enjoin projects inconsistent with the 2001 Framework pending

resolution of their appeal is DENIED. As also explained below,

the State's motion to stay the agency's obligation to complete a

SEIS by May 1, 2010, which is not opposed by Federal Defendants,

will be GRANTED.2

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-KJN Document 231 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. CALIFORNIA’S MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

In its motion for an injunction pending appeal, California

asserts that it “joins in the Motion for Injunction Pending

Appeal and Partial Stay of Remedy Order filed by plaintiffs in

related case Sierra Forest Legacy et al v. Sherman, et al.

(02:05-cv-0205).” Mot. for Inj. Pending Appeal [Dkt. No. 255]

at 1.

For the reasons set forth in this Court's Order denying an

injunction pending appeal in Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman,

05-cv-0205, California's motion for injunctive relief is also

denied. 

II. CALIFORNIA’S REQUEST TO STAY THE AGENCY’S OBLIGATION TO

PREPARE A SEIS BY MAY 1, 2010 

This Court's Remedy Order directs the Forest Service to

complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”)

addressing the limited procedural defects the Court found in the

existing Framework NEPA analysis. Memorandum and Order,

05-cv-0205 [Dkt. No. 304] at 14. California asks that this Court

stay the Forest Service’s obligation to prepare a SEIS pending

resolution of the State’s appeal.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-KJN Document 231 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Federal Defendants have indicated they do not oppose this

request and acknowledge that the outcome of California’s appeal

could alter the scope of the supplemental NEPA analysis to be

prepared by the agency. The Court concurs that it makes sense to

postpone the expenditure of time and resources on the NEPA

process until after the resolution of this matter on appeal, when

the full parameters of the necessary NEPA analysis are known and

can be addressed in a single document. 

Federal Defendants have requested that, should the Court

stay the obligation to prepare a SEIS, it clarify its order to

make clear that the SEIS process be completed at least six-months

after the stay is lifted. Otherwise, the agency faces the risk

that the stay is lifted shortly before or after the May 1

deadline, leaving the agency unable to comply with the Court’s

order. The Court finds this modification appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Given the foregoing, the Court makes the following orders:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal is

DENIED, and

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the requirement that the

Forest Service complete an SEIS by May 1, 2010, is GRANTED, and 

3. The Forest Service is directed to complete the SEIS

process six months after this Court’s stay is lifted, and

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-KJN Document 231 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Should the resolution of the appeal process or other

intervening circumstances make compliance with the deadline for

completion of the SEIS impracticable, the Forest Service shall

notify the Court and seek appropriate relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00211-MCE-KJN Document 231 Filed 02/25/10 Page 5 of 5