Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03508/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03508-21/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA ex rel. BILL LOCKYER,

et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C05-03508 EDL consolidated with 

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE; MIKE JOHANNS,

Secretary of the Department of Agriculture,

et al.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, CALIFORNIA

WILDERNESS COALITION, et al.,

 No. C05-04038 EDL

Plaintiffs,

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency

of the United States Department of Agriculture;

DALE BOSWORTH, Chief of the United States

Forest Service, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Case 3:05-cv-03508-EDL Document 227 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

In its order of November 29, 2006, the Court requested a further submission by the parties on

two issues: the temporal scope of the portion of the injunction regarding oil and gas leases, and the

compliance of the Coal Creek-Big Creek Project with the exception to the Roadless Rule for road

realignment of classified roads. The Court has considered the further submission by the parties and now

rules as follows.

 Although the Court does not accept some of Defendants’ reasoning, the Court agrees that its

injunction only applies to oil and gas leases which completed any step of the leasing process anytime

after the unlawful repeal of the Roadless Rule by the State Petitions Rule in 2005, and hereby so limits

the injunction. The Court’s ruling invalidated actions taken in the wake of the unlawful repeal of the

Roadless Rule. To the extent that previous actions contrary to the Roadless Rule were undertaken

during a time when another court had in place an injunction against the operation of the Roadless Rule,

the remedy, if any, lies elsewhere. This issue is an equitable one, not a question of legal consequences.

As to the Coal Creek-Big Creek Project, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. It appears unlikely that

the Project as presently configured complies with the Roadless Rule as reinstated by this Court.

Therefore, it is enjoined at this time. Nothing in this Order prevents the agency, if it wishes, from

reexamining or reconfiguring the project to assure that it does comply with the Roadless Rule and, if

the agency believes that it does so, presenting further evidence to the Court in the future in support of

a request to modify the injunction on this point. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03508-EDL Document 227 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 2