Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00299/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00299-6/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----

By Memorandum and Order filed July 14, 2006, this Court

granted declaratory relief in favor of both Plaintiffs and

Defendant United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) as to

certain issues. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 78 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

2

Specifically, Plaintiffs were found entitled to summary

adjudication as to the following issues: 1) that the FEIS fails

to properly analyze the field designation of significant numbers

of larger trees for logging; 2) that snag/green tree retention

requirements do not adequately address cavity-nesting bird

habitat; 3) that background turbidity levels are not disclosed,

as they must, in the FEIS; 4) that in the absence of a sitespecific analysis of gopher baiting, the FEIS fails to meet NEPA

standards; and 5) that all issues before the Court are adequately

exhausted. The Forest Service prevailed with respect to 1)

issues pertaining to geology and landslide potential; and 2)

consideration of reasonable project alternatives. In its July

14, 2006 Order, the Court requested further briefing as to the

proper scope of any injunctive remedy in light of the above

findings. That briefing has now been submitted and considered by

the Court.

The Forest Service does not contest the issuance of a

permanent injunction precluding any further implementation of the

so-called Meteor Project (located along the North and South Forks

of the Salmon River Watershed near Yreka, California) as

currently proposed and decided, for the duration of the time the

matter is remanded to the Forest Service for preparation of

supplemental NEPA documents and a new ROD addressing the NEPA

defects identified by the Court in its July 14, 2006 decision as

outlined above. (See Opp., 2:16-18). Plaintiffs object to that

proposal on grounds that the Court should direct the Forest

Service to prepare an entirely new FEIS rather than permit

supplemental findings responsive to the Court’s concerns.

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 78 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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

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

3

In the Court’s view it would be improper to require the

Forest Service to prepare any particular type of NEPA documents,

since the Forest Service must initially be afforded the latitude

to prepare the documents it deems appropriate to demonstrate NEPA

compliance in accordance with the Court’s directives. The Court

would infringe on the Forest Service’s independent management of

its own affairs were it to direct that compliance take place

through specified means rather than through steps developed and

decided upon by the Forest Service. The Forest Service itself

should consider how best to cure the NEPA deficiencies the Court

has found. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729,

744 (1985) (if the record does not support the agency’s action or

the agency has not considered all relevant factors, then “the

proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the

agency for additional investigation or explanation.”). 

Consequently the Court declines to set aside the entire FEIS, or

vacate the ROD adopted in accordance with that FEIS, at this

time. 

Good cause appearing therefor, the Forest Service is hereby

permanently enjoined from any further implementation of the

Meteor Project until such time as it has conducted further

investigation and analysis consistent with the directives of

NEPA. 

1

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 78 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

4

The matter is remanded to the Forest Service for the

consideration it deems sufficient to cure NEPA violations

identified by the Court with respect to 1) analysis of larger

trees earmarked for logging; 2) whether snag/green tree retention

requirements adequately address cavity-nesting bird habitat; 3)

disclosure of background turbidity levels; and 4) a site-specific

analysis of gopher baiting as proposed in the Project. Judgment

shall be entered accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 78 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 4