Goodman

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree that the appellants have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their action for injunctive relief based on the Northwest Forest Plan *702 and the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirement that opposing scientific viewpoints be addressed. But I believe that the appellants have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits based on the soil standard requirements of the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirement that an agency consider the cumulative impacts of past actions. Because I believe that this court should enjoin further harvesting of timber in the Biscuit Fire region that will harm the environment, I respectfully dissent.

I.

Pursuant to the National Forest Management Act, the Forest Service developed a Land Management Resource Plan for the Siskiyou National Forest known as the Siskiyou National Forest Plan. As the majority sets forth, soil standard 7-2 of the Plan states: “The total area of detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15 percent of the total acreage within the activity area, including roads and landings.”

“An ‘activity area’ is…

MEMORANDUM ***

The appellants seek reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the appellees. They also seek to enjoin the appellees’ plan for forest recovery in the aftermath of the Biscuit Fire, in particular, the appellees’ proposed salvage of dead wood that burned as a result of the fire. The appellants claim that the recovery project violates the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq. Also at issue is the Forest Service’s Northwest Forest Plan (“NWFP”), which the Forest Service has incorporated into its management plans for the Siskiyou Forest. Despite the expedited briefing schedule in this case, the parties have done a good job in providing us with a full record to appreciate the issues and the interests at stake. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we reference the facts here only as they are necessary to explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Because the district court is in no better position than this court to review the administrative record,” this court…