Kempthorne

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The lengthy procedural history of this case has been previously set forth, most recently in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 19, 2006, in which this court found the 2005 Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“2005 Revised Plan”) to be invalid. The ease now proceeds on Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief in which they ask the court to do the following:

Oral argument was heard on October 16, 2006.

LEGAL STANDARD

In Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531, 542 , 107 S.Ct. 1396 , 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987), the Supreme Court summarized its holding in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-313 , 102 S.Ct. 1798 , 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982) as follows:

The Ninth Circuit subsequent provided this further discussion of injunctive relief in the case of environmental litigation.

High Sierra Hiker’s Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 641-42 (9th Cir.2004). Similarly, in regard to WSRA, this court has held in a predecessor to the present case,

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1251…