Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center et al v. United States Forest Service et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/25/12. The court directs counsel to be prepared to address the following questions during oral argument on the cross-motions to be held on Tuesday, 11/6/12 at 2:30 p.m. The parties may appear telephonically. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCE CENTER, et al.,

11
Plaintiffs,

Civ. No. S-10-2172 KJM-GGH

12
vs.
13
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al.,
14
Defendants,
and

15
16

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF 4 WHEEL
DRIVE CLUBS, et al.,

17
18

Defendant-Intervenors.
______________________________________/

ORDER

The parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are pending. (ECF 27, 32,

19
20

36.) The court hereby directs counsel to be prepared to address the following questions during

21

oral argument on the cross-motions to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. The

22

parties may appear telephonically.

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

A.

For plaintiffs:

2

1.

3

was reasonable?

4

2.

Do plaintiffs dispute that the Statement of Purpose and Need in the EIS

In its analysis of alternatives, the Forest Service considered an alternative

5

(the "Resources Alternative") that would have closed more NFTS roads than the proposed

6

action. How would including yet a second alternative that closed more roads have enhanced the

7

Forest Service's analysis?

8

3.

9

enforceable by private parties, would this lead to a different outcome than if the court concluded

10
11

If the court were to determine that the Executive Orders create a right of action

that only the Travel Management Rule create an enforceable right of action?
B.

12

For defendants:
1.

In the Forest Service's response to summarized comments published in the

13

EIS (Appendix J), several comments and responses refer to cumulative effects. Does this

14

indicate that the Forest Service had sufficient notice of plaintiffs' objections for plaintiffs to have

15

exhausted their administrative remedies?

16
17
18

2.

Are the comments regarding cumulative effects referenced in the EIS from

3.

Can the Forest Service point to specific pages of the administrative record

plaintiffs?

19

that explain how the agency applied the minimization criteria? If not, is the analysis in the EIS

20

required by NEPA sufficient to meet the Forest Service's obligations under the Travel

21

Management Rule?

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 25, 2012.

24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
2