Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01144/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01144-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-1144 PJH

v.

U.S. DEPT OF AGRICULTURE,

Defendants,

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSN.,

et al.,

Defendants/Intervenors.

___________________________________/

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, SIERRA

CLUB, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, and 

VERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES 

COUNCIL,

Plaintiffs, No. C 04-4512 PJH

 v.

MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary, United States 

Department of Agriculture, in his official 

capacity; DALE BOSWORTH, Chief, United ORDER REQUIRING

States Forest Service, in his official capacity; SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

and UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendants,

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASS’N and

AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL,

Defendants-Intervenors. /

The parties’ cross motions, having been heard on November 1, 2006, are now

pending before the court. In reviewing the voluminous briefs filed by the parties, the court

finds the contentions regarding NEPA and ESA requirements for environmental analysis

and consultation the most problematic. Plaintiffs have argued that the 2005 Rule differs in

both substantive and procedural respects from prior NFMA rules and regulations. 

Case 4:05-cv-01144-PJH Document 73 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiffs specifically argue that the 2005 Rule harms their interests in the national forests

by eliminating or relaxing substantive environmental protections for wildlife, habitats, and

other natural resources. While defendants argue that the 2005 Rule simply establishes

procedures for Forest Service personnel to follow in preparing future forest plans. Although

NEPA and ESA have been applied to rules, regulations, and agency actions having a

nation-wide impact, the parties have not cited a case which provides a clear and dispositive

answer to the questions raised in this litigation. Thus, the court is attempting to compare

the 2005 Rule with those regulations and actions implicated in the various cases cited by

the parties. This comparison is made difficult by the fact that plaintiffs have not specifically

delineated which substantive provisions of the 2005 Rule they claim differ from the

preceding rules and regulations. The briefs are sprinkled with “examples” of provisions,

some of which appear to the court to be purely procedural or programmatic. The court

cannot determine whether a particular provision has a direct or indirect impact on the

environment or whether any such impact can be assessed before a groundbreaking or sitespecific decision is made, without a clear understanding of the provision(s) at issue. 

Nor have plaintiffs made it clear to the court with which of the preceding rules or

regulations they are comparing the 2005 Rule. Plaintiffs’ compare the 2005 Rule with the

1979, 1982, and 2000 Rules with no explanation as why the court should compare the

2005 Rule with the 2000 Rule, which plaintiffs also argue, should not be considered

because it never took effect.

Accordingly, the court orders supplemental briefing in which plaintiffs shall set forth

the specific provisions of the 2005 Rule, which they claim differ substantively from the

specifically identified preceding rules and regulations. A chart format would be particularly

helpful to the court, but given the volume of paper already submitted on the motions, the

supplemental submissions shall not exceed 25 pages. Plaintiffs submission shall be filed

by Tuesday, December 5, 2006. The government shall file a response no later than

Tuesday, December 19, 2006. 

Case 4:05-cv-01144-PJH Document 73 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

There will be no reply. As with the motions for summary judgment, the original 

parties’ and intervenors’ papers must be consolidated. 

Dated: November 21, 2006

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01144-PJH Document 73 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3