Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00299/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00299-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS No. 2:05-cv-0299-MCE-PAN 

CENTER, ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION INFORMATION

CENTER, and KLAMATH FOREST 

ALLIANCE,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On July 14, 2006, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order

granting certain declaratory relief in favor of both parties in

this challenge, by Plaintiffs, to implementation of the so-called

Meteor Project proposed by Defendant United States Forest Service

(“Forest Service”). As outlined in that Order, the Court

identified six substantive issues addressed by the parties and

found in favor of Plaintiffs as to four of those issues and in

favor of the Forest Service on the remaining two issues. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 77 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

2

The Forest Service now moves for reconsideration and/or

clarification with respect to that Order pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(a). That Motion will be granted 1

in part and denied in part as set forth below.

First, with respect to supplementation of the administrative

record before the Court in deciding the cross-motions for summary

judgment and/or summary adjudication, the Court mistakenly

identified the Declaration of John R. (“Jack”) West as having

been proffered by Plaintiffs, when in fact it was offered on

behalf of the Forest Service. Rule 60(a) permits the Court to

rectify both clerical mistakes and errors arising from oversight

or omission in either an order or judgment. The Forest Service

has moved for clarification in that regard, and Plaintiffs do not

oppose that request, which the Court deems appropriate. The July

14, 2006 Order is consequently corrected to reflect the fact that

the West Declaration, which was admitted by the Court to

supplement the existing administrative record, was introduced by

the Forest Service.

The Forest Service has also correctly noted that one

reference cited by the Court with respect to the logging of large

diameter trees in fact refers to logging within riparian reserves

rather than within the Project as a whole. See July 14, 2006

Order, 11:25-26. That reference is also clarified pursuant to

Rule 60(a).

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 77 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

On a substantive basis, the Forest Service seeks

reconsideration as to two of the four issues decided against it. 

First, the Forest Service urges the court to reconsider its

finding that the Meteor Project FEIS does not adequately disclose

the extent to which large old growth trees are subject to logging

on the ground, and consequently does not properly analyze the

effects of logging such trees. Second, the Forest Service asks

the Court to revisit its determination that the FEIS’ failure to

disclose background levels of water turbidity violated NEPA.

Any relief with respect to these substantive requests cannot

be granted under Rule 60(a) because the Forest Service’s

contentions rest neither on clerical mistakes nor upon the

Court’s omission or oversight. Instead, the Forest Service

argues that the record simply does not support the Court’s

analysis and conclusions. Rule 60(a) cannot form the basis for

any such relief. Moreover, while the Forest Service also relies

on Rule 59(e), that section is limited to requests that a

judgment be altered or amended, and here no such judgment has

been entered (indeed, concurrently with the instant motion the

Court is considering the scope of injunctive relief which would

afford the basis for such judgment).

The Court will, however, consider the Forest Service’s

request as an application for reconsideration under Local Rule

78-230(k). That Rule requires the Forest Service to identify

what new or different facts or circumstances exist or were not

shown at the time of the original motion, or what other grounds

exist for the motion. The Forest Service has not established

good cause for reconsideration under Rule 78-230(k). 

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 77 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 2

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

4

Instead, examination of the Forest Service’s Motion shows that it

merely reargues its case in chief and disagrees with the Court’s

conclusions as to the two substantive issues in question. 

Reconsideration in that regard is inappropriate.

Given the foregoing, the Forest Service’s Motion for

Reconsideration is granted only 1) to clarify that the Forest

Service introduced the West Declaration; and 2) to clarify one of

the references cited by the Court in its July 14, 2006 Order. 

The Forest Service’s Motion is otherwise denied.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9-12-06

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 77 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 4