Plan requires that, “[f|or each timber harvest unit, soil porosity [be] maintained to at least 90 percent of its natural condition over at least 85 percent of the project area.” AR 6532. Plaintiffs assert that the Forest Service fails to disclose or demonstrate compliance with this standard, as the “EIS does not disclose the existing conditions of soil porosity for each timber sale unit, or discuss the potential impacts of the proposed project to soil porosity.” {See PI. Reply at 30.) The Court agrees. To demonstrate compliance with the Forest Plan’s requirements, the Forest Service would have to show that, after the Phase 1 project was complete, soil porosity would be maintained in compliance with the Forest Plan’s specifications. See Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain, 137 F.3d at 1377-78 (<HOLDING>). The Forest Service has failed to do so. In
holding that strict compliance is not required holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that state failed to assume even partial jurisdiction in compliance with public law 280 holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding eis inadequate where eis failed to demonstrate compliance with forest plan